J A_for_Sole_Source_LRE_16-0007_W911XK-16-R-0009.pdf

Control No: LRE-JA-16-0007

Justification Review Document for Other than Full and Open Competition

Project: Gate Automation Compensating Works, W911XK-16-R-0009

Product: Electrical Equipment (Motor Control Centers)

Authority: FAR 6.302-1(c) - The use of brand-name descriptions in the acquisition or portion of an acquisition is essential to the Government’s requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company

Source: Rockwell Automation

Value: $48,000

Prepared by:

Name: Eric L. Leuffgen Telephone: 313-226-2431 Mechanical Engineer

Signature:

Date Reviewed:

Contracting Officer:

Name: Robert W. Austin Telephone: 313-226-6819 Contracting Officer

Signature:

Technical Representative:

Name: Andrei E. Sawruk Telephone: 906-203-8971 Electrical Engineer

Signature:

Requirements Representative:

Name: Mollie H. Mahoney Telephone: 313-226-2033 Operations Project Manager

Reviews: I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support other than full and open competition.

Program Manager

Name: James D. Tapp Telephone: 313-226-2384 Chief, Technical Services Branch

Signature:

District Office of Counsel

Name: Telephone:

Office of Counsel, Detroit District

Signature:

Small Business Representative

Name: Bonita M. Carroll Telephone: 312-846-5565 Deputy for Small Business

Signature:

Field Competition Advocate

Name: Michael K. Allis Telephone: 313-226-6572 Acting Deputy Commander, Detroit

District

Signature:

Branch Contracting Chief

Name: Robert W. Austin Telephone: 313-226-6819 Contracting Officer

Signature:

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text Joseph L. Falvey, Jr.

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text 313-226-6822

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text 20160518

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

H7OC9JLF

Typewritten Text

1. Contracting Activity:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Detroit District - Contracting Branch 477 Michigan Avenue, Room 700 Detroit, Michigan 48226

2. Description of Action:

This justification is prepared in support of a brand-name specification for electrical equipment that is part of a new firm-fixed-price contract for construction services.

The project involves automation of the currently manually controlled Compensating Works gates to decrease the rate of water level change and optimize water velocity in the downstream rapids for the purposes of increased fish spawning and habitat creation. The Compensating Works is part of the St. Mary's River Navigational Locks system that is managed by USACE at Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. This contract is funded with Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funds and is being performed under USACE’s Operations and Maintenance authority. It is to be solicited using an unrestricted Request for Proposal (FAR 15), and awarded on the basis of a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection process (FAR 15.101-2). The estimated value of the brand-name equipment is $48,000, which represents 0.8% of the $6.2 million estimated value of the overall construction contract.

3. Description of Supplies/Services:

The equipment that is to be identified by brand name is described as follows:

Quantity: One (1)

Items: Low-Voltage Electrical Motor Control Centers (MCCs)

Brand Name: Rockwell Automation

Technical: 600 volt class, 1,200 amp, arc-resistant/arc-containing systems with horizontal bus, motor starters, circuit breakers, circuit protection, and NEMA Type 12 enclosure system

The estimated value of this equipment is $48,000

4. Authority Cited:

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C.

2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1. Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1(c) Application for brand name descriptions,

(1) An acquisition or portion of an acquisition that uses a brand-name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand-name, product, or feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer—

(i) Does not provide for full and open competition, regardless of the number of sources solicited; and

(ii) Shall be justified and approved in accordance with FAR 6.303 and 6.304.

(A) If only a portion of the acquisition is for a brand-name product or item peculiar to one manufacturer, the justification and approval is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer. The justification should state it is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name or peculiar to one manufacturer, and the approval level requirements will then only apply to that portion;

(B) The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the acquisition or portion of an acquisition is essential to the Government’s requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company; and

(C) The justification shall be posted with the solicitation (see 5.102(a)(6)).

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

The use of the referenced brand-name product descriptions in the subject acquisition is essential to the Government’s Requirements.

Prior to the development of the proposed specification, USACE personnel conducted market research to determine the availability of open market sources for the procurement. Efforts included internet searches, catalog research, reviews of past projects, telephone interviews with potential sources, and meetings with vendors who represent control system manufacturers. As a result, it has been determined that only the referenced products can satisfy the agency requirements without potential failure of critical systems and infrastructure and substantial duplication of costs that cannot be recovered. This is due to the following considerations.

A. Integration to Existing Equipment

The facility has a substantial amount of electrical equipment (embedded controls, protective relays, and supervisory systems) to support the four navigational locks and two hydropower plants at the Sault Ste. Marie project site. Any equipment installed must be compatible with existing equipment. In particular, any new equipment must be able to perform its primary purpose and communicate with existing embedded controls equipment and protective relays.

The facility presently uses a Rockwell Automation supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system and infrastructure. There are several existing

MCCs on the site with the associated equipment already in operation. These MCCs use proprietary software and equipment and this results in the need to continue to use this brand of equipment for the reasons stated below.

The organization has manufacturer-specific software to support the operation and maintenance of existing equipment. The software tools for the existing embedded controls cost approximately $2,000.00 each and require recurring annual licensing costs. Adding additional devices from other manufacturers to the inventory would require the corresponding procurement and maintenance of additional manufacturer-specific support. This scenario will replicate for every new manufacturer brought onto the facility and, thus, continually add to the indirect overhead costs of maintaining the facility.

The organization has a substantial investment in training employees through manufacturer-specific courses. The level of sophistication of PLC-related devices requires employees servicing these devices to be manufacturer-trained.

Tuition costs per course range from $1,200.00 to $1,700.00 per employee. A one week course per employee easily exceeds $4,000.00 for tuition, airfare, per diem and lodging, and does not include labor costs. There are a minimum of 10 employees that work with MCCs and associated systems at this facility. The financial burden to support a trained workforce across multiple manufacturers of these devices becomes prohibitive and is clearly not cost effective or sustainable.

It is also not feasible to double the amount of time needed by each employee to service and train on such equipment.

B. Support and Maintenance

Existing MCCs at the St. Mary’s River Navigational Locks complex, which were installed within the last decade, require that the facility maintain a base level of essential tools, parts, and training to operate and maintain the systems. The introduction of a different parallel system would necessitate the purchase and maintenance of similar resources for the second system in addition to the components needed to convert/translate between the two systems. It would also necessitate the development of a separate storage and inventory system for the duplicative parts.

USACE has invested in equipment to support the maintenance of existing control systems. The value of the equipment used for development and maintenance support work exceeds $50,000.00. Adding additional devices from other manufacturers to the inventory of equipment serviced would require the corresponding procurement of additional manufacture-specific support equipment estimated to be another $25,000.00.

C. Interchangeability of Parts

It is essential that the Navigational Locks complex be in operation 24 hours a day without any unscheduled interruption of service. The use of common components allows that, in a worst-case system failure in which spare parts are not available from maintenance stock, elements of compatible systems can be combined to maintain limited service until such missing or damaged components can be obtained by emergency procurement.

D. Compliance with Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA)

Control systems at the St. Mary’s River Navigational Locks complex are required to be certified under the DoD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP). The specified equipment from Rockwell Automation has been reviewed as part of earlier projects and installations at the facility. Significant costs will be incurred if the Government were to use equipment from multiple manufactures. USACE has to support these systems at a very high technical level, for which the effort includes both hardware maintenance and installation of software patches and firmware upgrades in a timely manner per DoD requirements. Using multiple manufacturers would place a significant burden on USACE resources by increasing the potential for violating DoD mandates. This process is also very time consuming and labor intensive.

The inception of a second system that would need to be not only DIACAP certified but maintained as DIACAP certified would double the time and/or labor of the employees responsible.

Cost Analysis

The below table summarizes the cost analysis for this document. Market research has shown that acquisition of equipment of this type on a competitive basis can result in a cost reduction of up to 10% as compared to non-competitive purchases.

Research has also shown vendors to have comparable support and maintenance agreements and prices. It is therefore reasonable to infer the training, software, maintenance, and support costs to essentially double if a second system is introduced that would need to be maintained in parallel with the existing primary system. It should be noted these are annually recurring costs and the below table shows costs for the next 10 years.

Cost Element Sole-Source Price Competitive Price Benefit/Cost of Competition

Control and Monitoring Equipment $48,000 $43,200 10% ($4,800) Manufacturer-Specific Maintenance and Support Equipment $0 $25,000 Add $25,000

Controls Training Tuition, 10 Employees, $1,700 per System per

Person Annually for 10 Years $170,000 $340,000 Add $170,000

Controls Training Travel and Subsistence, 10 Employees, $750 per System per Person Annually for 10 Years

$75,000 $150,000 Add $75,000

Software License and Annual Renewal over 10 years

$20,000 $40,000 Add $20,000

Compliance with DIACAP, 200 man-hours per year per additional software program $0 $20,000 Add $20,000

Crisis Management of Spare Parts Variable Variable Unknown, Depends on Need for Interchangeability of Components

Potential Project Redesign for Physical Compatibility

$0 $0 to Unknown Additional Cost

Unknown

TOTAL $313,000 $618,200

Add $305,200 plus

Uncertainty

In summary, in accordance with the cited authority, sources of supplies have been deemed through market research, technical compatibility, and support requirements to be available only from the original source. The actual purchase cost between reputable manufacturers of MCCs is, in itself, comparable. However, the burden to support devices from multiple manufacturers becomes prohibitive.

For every different manufacturer tens of thousands of dollars in indirect costs for support equipment, software, training, test documents, and spare parts are required.

The existence of differences of data, patent rights, copyrights, and manufacture design and processes limit the ability to operate and maintain multiple manufacturers with one common set of support assets. Therefore, it is extremely likely that an award to any source other than Rockwell Automation would result in a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that would not be recovered through competition.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

In the period from February 2016 to the present, market research was conducted to determine if other sources were available for potential competition. Corps of Engineers personnel conducted internet searches, catalog research, reviews of past projects, telephone interviews with potential sources, and meetings with vendors who represent control system manufacturers. To date, no other sources have expressed an interest and ability to support the contract action as needed.

The Corps of Engineers also posted a Request for Information (RFI) to the FedBizOpps website to invite participation and comment on the subject brand-name procurement. The RFI was posted on 24 March 2016 with a suspense to respond by 08 April 2016. USACE has received two responses to this RFI. The responses have been technically reviewed and were determined to not be viable solutions for the reasons previously stated. The detailed technical analysis can be found in the attachments.

7. Actions to Increase Competition:

USACE will publicize the award of the construction contract in accordance with FAR Part 5. Any communications from interested providers shall be received and considered. USACE will also continue to stage regular industry days and construction conferences to invite comment and input from contractors on the means and methods by which our contract requirements are conceived and executed.

8. Market Research:

In the period from February 2016 to the present, and prior to the development of the proposed action, USACE personnel conducted market research to determine the availability of open market sources for the procurement. In addition, similar market research related to the procurement of MCCs for other Soo Facility construction projects has been conducted over the past two years. Efforts included the following:

A. Contacting knowledgeable individuals in Government and industry regarding market capabilities to meet requirements.

B. Reviewing the results of recent market research undertaken to meet similar or identical requirements.

C. Reviewing catalogs and other generally available product literature published by manufacturers, distributors, and dealers or available on-line.

9. Interested Sources:

The two interested sources that responded to the RFI were:

I. Siemens Industry, Inc.

7810 Shaffer Parkway Littleton, CO 80127

II. Eaton Corporation, Electrical Sector 1111 Superior Ave.

Cleveland, OH 44114

10. Other Facts:

None. All pertinent facts, are stated in the paragraphs above.

11. Technical Certification:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Andrei E. Sawruk Telephone: 906-203-8971 Electrical Engineer

Signature:

Date Reviewed:

12. Requirements Certification:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Mollie H. Mahoney Telephone: 313-226-2033 Operations Project Manager

Signature:

Date Reviewed:

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination:

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Name: Robert W. Austin Telephone: 313-226-6819 Contracting Officer

Signature:

Date Reviewed:

14. Contracting Officer Certification:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Robert W. Austin Telephone: 313-226-6819 Contracting Officer

Signature:

Justification Review Document for Other than Full and Open Competition

Gate Automation Compensating Works Brand Name Sole Source for Motor Control Centers

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of this brand name item on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c), FAR 6.302-1, subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name: Robert W. Austin Telephone: 313-226-6819 Chief of Contracting, Detroit Branch

Signature: