Final version Livermore PHA Brand Name JA Aug 2023_final_Redacted for Posting.pdf

CUI//SP-SSEL

Control Number: SPK-24-104

(Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104-4)

JUL 2023

Coordinated By:

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

Small Business Specialist:

Date: ______________________

Legal Counsel:

District Contracting Chief:

Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District

FAR 6.302-1(c) Application for Brand Name Descriptions

W9123824R0002

The Department of Veterans Affairs Northern California Health Care System Livermore Phase A, Construction of a Community Living Center, Stockton, CA

1. Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Sacramento District (CESPK), 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

2. Description of Action: USACE Sacramento District is requesting approval using several brand name items for a new contract in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Northern California Health Care System Livermore Phase A, Construction of a Community Living Center, Stockton, CA (hereafter referred to as the Livermore Phase A – CLC). This solicitation will result in a design-bid-build firm fixed price construction contract that will be funded by the DVA using Office of Construction and Facilities Management (CFM) funds.

3. Description of Supplies/Services:

a. Background Information. The DVA Northern California Health Care System’s Livermore project consists of six (6) phases over multiple years. Phase A is for constructing a Community Living Center (CLC), Stockton, CA; Phase B is for constructing a Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) and Central Utility Plant (CUP), Stockton, CA; Phase C is for constructing a CBOC in Fremont, CA; Phase D is for renovating a portion of Building 100 at the Palo Alto VA Medical Center; Phase E is for constructing an Engineering and Logistics Building (ELB), Stockton, CA; and the final Phase F is the divestiture of the current DVA Health Care Facilities at Livermore, CA. These individual structures will all have specific design criteria that will impact the other structures within a fully integrated and interdependent campus. It is paramount that each individual building utilizes the same systems to ensure safe and effective operation and maintenance across the overall facility network. This will allow VA facility personnel to maintain the individual VA buildings safely and successfully by utilizing the same life safety and security systems across all DVA Palo Alto Health Care System facilities.

b. Livermore Phase A – CLC. This is for construction of a new 150,000 square foot

CLC located on an approximate 52-acre site in French Camp, CA, which is located just south of Stockton, CA. The CLC is comprised of two primary components: (1) a “Community Center” for centralized administrative functions, larger social gatherings and common activities shared by all residents; and (2) a “residential/home environment.” Each of the three distinct “Residential Neighborhoods” includes four

(1) The Stockton CBOC, CUP, CLC, and ELB projects are extensions of the main VANCHCS facility. Given that the existing VANCHCS facility uses the Best door security key system, the Best door security key system was specified for the Stockton projects. Use of the BEST brand for door security key system is essential to the Government’s requirements for maintaining connectivity and system integration, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company. The BEST Brand, 1CP-7-WA-2-626 Best Access – 1CP Premium High Security Core, is an Underwriters Laboratory (UL) Listed Door Security Key System that allows for the master keying of all key lock operated doors for the facility in which it is installed, and also allows for remote monitoring, maintenance, and operations. The estimated cost of system is . This represents approximately of the total estimated contract value.

(2) The DVA Door Hardware specification (Section 08 71 00) requires that locksets are from the same manufacturer. Further, DVA Handbook 0730/4 (SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) requires the DVA facility to be responsible for the “development, refinement and maintenance of a lock key production, issuance, inventory, accountability, and rapid key change system” with an objective of “the elimination of hybrid key lock hardware and key inventory systems”. This will ensure that VANCHCS is utilizing a standardized door security key system in compliance with the DVA Specification and VA Handbook requirement. For Phase A, this is critical to providing a safe and secure facility for the residents staying at the CLC. If a new set of master key and lock core components from a different manufacturer are used, it would not be able to integrate with the existing main key system control center which would compromise the safety of CLC patients and staff, as well as the overall security and potential unauthorized access to the

CLC.

(3) Furthermore, the installation of another manufacturer’s keying system would increase cost by approximately which includes separate lock cores and keys. Additional expenses for training VANCHCS personnel to track and operate two separate door lock and key systems would be approximately per year.

(4) Therefore, the duplication of monitoring and interfacing two different master key lock core systems over the life cycle of the facility would increase facility costs, further increasing the cost of utilizing an alternative system. FAR 23.703(b)(5) requires agencies to realize life-cycle cost savings and use of compatible systems through these brand name systems would further that end. By installing the 1CP-7-WA-2-626 Best Access Series Lock Core, the Government would eliminate any future compatibility issues, reducing total life-cycle costs.

(b) Access Card Reader System and Software – HID pivClass Readers Model #RP40- H920PHRNEK00005 and Sielox Access Card Reader Systems

(1) Use of the HID and Sielox brands for Access Card Readers Systems is vital to the Government’s requirements for maintainable connectivity and system integration, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company. The HID pivClass Readers Model #RP40-H920PHRNEK00005 (HID) and Sielox Access Card Reader System (Sielox) are connected to the VA campus network system, and these card reader systems will enable the installation of a secure PIV Badge system, remote monitoring, and management. The estimated cost of the HID and Sielox is approximately

. This represents approximately of the total estimated contract value.

(2) The VANCHCS currently utilizes HID and Sielox Access Card Reader Systems throughout its existing campuses. It is the VANCHCS’ intention to operate and maintain the Access Card Reader Systems remotely by connecting the new Livermore Phase A – CLC system with the existing system at the VANCHCS main control center. Due to the proprietary nature of the HID and Sielox, no other manufacturer’s control products are capable of interfacing with the VANCHCS current system. If another manufacturer’s controls were to be installed, the estimated costs for personnel to train, track, and operate two separate systems and components would be approximately per year. It is reasonable to expect that a higher number of troubleshooting calls will result from interfacing two different systems. If and when troubleshooting calls result, the Government will have to find a technician who knows two different systems or a technician for each system to be able to resolve issues jointly. The complexity of monitoring and interfacing two different Card Reader Systems over the life cycle of the facility would increase facility costs that would overshadow any potential cost savings of utilizing an alternative system, violating the FAR 23.703(b)(5) requirement to reduce total life-cycle costs.

(3) In addition to increased facility monitoring costs, utilizing an alternative system would increase the cost of installation and maintenance, as no other manufacturer’s controls are capable of interfacing with HID and Sielox without additional software and hardware integration components (e.g., adaptors, converter boxes, etc.). The installation of an alternate system (other than HID and Sielox) would increase cost by approximately

, as well as another head-in device and the programming associated with making the two systems communicate, an estimated additional Furthermore, by installing the HID and Sielox, the Government would eliminate any future compatibility issues that could arise from mandatory and periodic software upgrades.

(c) Honeywell Brand Fire Alarm System

(1) Use of the Honeywell Fire Alarm System (HFAS) is essential to the Government’s requirements for maintaining sustainable connectivity and system integration, thereby precluding the consideration of a product manufactured by another company. The HFAS is a building UL Listed Fire Alarm System that allows for the central direct monitoring and functioning of a facilities fire alarm system. The HFAS will enable the installation of audio-visual and fire monitoring devices throughout the corridors and applicable rooms of the facility, along with the HVAC fire and smoke dampers providing safe and reliable fire alarm protection, all controlled by direct remote monitoring and management. The estimated cost of the HFAS is approximately . This represents approximately of the total estimated contract value.

(2) The HFAS is comprised of proprietary technology that cannot be substituted. The new Livermore Phase A – CLC will be approximately 150,000 square feet with 120 beds in three neighborhoods located around a Community Living Space, Canteen, Business Office, and associated support service spaces. The integration of the fire alarm system is critical to the operations, management, and safety of Veterans being treated by the VANCHCS, since the Livermore Phase A – CLC HFAS will be connected to the Main Control Center at the VANCHCS for remote monitoring, operations, and maintenance.

(3) The VANCHCS currently utilizes HFAS throughout its existing campuses. Due to the proprietary nature of the HFAS, no other manufacturer’s control products are capable of interfacing with the current system that exists on the campus. If another manufacturer’s controls were to be installed in the new Livermore Phase A – CLC, it would require additional software and hardware integration components that could potentially jeopardize the fire alarm system’s ability to safely monitor fire alarm devices in the new Livermore Phase A – CLC. The estimated costs for personnel to track and operate two separate systems and components would be approximately per year.

The duplicity of monitoring and interfacing two different fire alarm systems over the life cycle of the facility would increase facility costs which would outweigh the potential cost savings of utilizing an alternative system, violating the FAR 23.703(b)(5) requirement to reduce total life-cycle costs.

(4) In addition to increased facility monitoring costs, utilizing an alternative system would increase installation and maintenance cost since there are no other manufactures whose controls are capable of interfacing with HFAS without the additional integration of hardware and software components (e.g., adapters, converter boxes, etc.). The installation of an alternate system (other than HFAS) would increase cost by approximately

, which includes multiple gateways, another head-in device, and the programming associated with making the two systems communicate , and an entirely separate monitoring control area Furthermore, by installing the HFAS, the Government would eliminate any future compatibility issues that could arise from mandatory and periodic software upgrades.

(d). Siemens Apogee Facility Monitoring and Control System.

(1) Use of the Siemens Apogee Facility Monitoring and Control System (SAFM and CS) is essential to the Government’s requirements for maintainable connectivity and system integration, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company. The SAFM and CS is a building automation system that allows for the central direct control of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for the facility in which it is installed. The SAFM and CS will enable the installation of thermostats for each room providing reliable zone comfort and enhanced energy economy via remote monitoring and temperature set point management. The estimated cost of the Siemens Apogee exclusive of labor is . This represents approximately of the total estimated contract value.

(2) The SAFM and CS is comprised of proprietary technology that cannot be substituted.

The new Livermore Phase A – CLC will be approximately 150,000 square feet with 120 beds in three neighborhoods located around a Community Living Space, Canteen, Business Office, and associated support service spaces. The integration of the HVAC system is critical to the operations, management, comfort, and treatment of Veterans being treated by the VANCHCS.

(3) The VANCHCS currently utilizes the SAFM and CS throughout its existing campuses. Due to the proprietary nature of the Siemens Apogee, no other manufacturer’s control products are capable of interfacing with the current system that exists on the campus. If another manufacturer’s controls were to be installed in the new Livermore Phase A – CLC, it would require additional software and hardware integration components that could potentially jeopardize the HVAC system’s ability to distribute energy efficiently, in violation of FAR 23.703(b)(2)’s requirement for agencies to promote energy efficiency. The HVAC system’s inefficiency over the life cycle of the facility would increase utility cost that would outweigh any potential cost savings of utilizing an alternative system, violating the FAR 23.703(b)(5) requirement to reduce total life-cycle costs.

(4) In addition to increased utility costs, utilizing an alternative system would increase the cost of installation and maintenance, because no other manufacturer’s controls are capable of interfacing with SAFM and CS without the addition of integration components (e.g., adapters, converter boxes, etc.). The installation of an alternate system (other than SAFM and CS) would increase cost by approximately , which includes multiple gateways (due to size of this project), another head-in device and the programming associated with making the two systems communicate , as well as an entirely separate monitoring control area and additional yearly expense of the personnel to run and monitor the separate control area Moreover, by installing the SAFM and CS, the Government would eliminate any future compatibility issues that could arise from mandatory and periodic software upgrades.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: Adequate competition is highly anticipated for the acquisition of these brand name items. Market research indicates there are multiple companies that are licensed to sell each of the products. Market research was conducted to ensure there were no other products available and compatible. See paragraph 8 below for further description of the market research effort. Also, in an effort to increase subcontracting competition, the Contracting Officer will include FAR clause 52.219-9 in the Request for Proposal (RFP), Solicitation No.

products which may not function as desired. In order to alleviate the issue, the use of specific brand name products is highly recommended. Furthermore, market research indicates that competition for the brand name products will exist since they are readily available in the commercial marketplace and there are multiple companies that are licensed to sell the products.

9. Interested Sources: To date, no other sources have written to express an interest.

10. Other Facts: Reasonable efforts were made to retrieve other facts from computer records, contract files, and other sources to support the use of other than full and open competition, as follows:

A. Procurement history:

1) Contract numbers and dates of the last several contracts for these same requirements:

None known.

2) The competitive status of these actions: Not Applicable.

3) Authority previously cited if less than full and open competition was used:

Previously approved J&A, Control Number SPK19-0, utilized FAR 6.302-1(c)(1), Only one source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The requirement was previously delayed and not further prepared for solicitation until now.

(4) If a justification was prepared to support the procurement made before this one, a summary of the contents of paragraph 7 of the justification for that procurement and an explanation of the results: The previously approved justification outlines that a Sources Sought Notice for Brand Name Justification was published on Sam.gov in August of 2018 without any responses being received.

(5) If any prior contract for this requirement was accomplished using full and open competition, include a detailed explanation of the changed circumstances causing this action to now limit the sources: Not Applicable.

(6) An explanation of any unusual patterns that may be revealed by the history, e.g., several consecutive, urgent buys: Not Applicable.

(7) If a justification was prepared to support the procurement made before this one, briefly describe the circumstances justifying the procurement and whether there have been any significant changes: Previously, the requirement for the Community Living Center (CLC) was comprised of two primary components: (1) a “Community Center” and (2) a “residential/home environment/neighborhood”. The original requirement included two residential neighborhoods. The updated requirement includes three residential neighborhoods.

B. Other facts: Original J&A, Control Number SPK19-01 was approved by USACE Alternate Advocate for Competition on 7 November 2018. Subsequent J&A, Control Number SPK-FY22-51 was approved by USACE Alternate for Competition on 14 June 2022.

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.

Signature:

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.

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 based upon the pending USACE estimate. A fair and reasonable cost for this item will be obtained through competitive bidding between dealers handling these products. The costs for these brand name products will not have dedicated contract line numbers (CLINs), but they will be included in the construction CLIN’s on the Price Breakout Schedule. At the time of evaluating proposal price, the overall proposal price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness. I recommend this approach to the prompt attainment of products for the upcoming construction.

14. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Reviewed:

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve this brand name specification for those items mentioned above in support of the Department of Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System’s Livermore Project, Phase A – Construction of Community Living Center, Stockton, CA project on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1) and FAR 6.302-1 in the total estimated subject to the availability of funds and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.