J ARedacted.pdf

MICC Control No. 2015-86 BRAGG 2015-8

JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM: United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) ARFORGEN Synchronization Tool (AST) Support Services

Authority: This action is authorized under provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

Amount: $10M

Prepared by:

Name: Phone:

Title: Contract Specialist Date: 18 May 2015 Email:

Procuring Contracting Officer:

Name: Phone:

Title: Contracting Officer Date: 18 May 2015 Email:

Technical/Requirements Representative:

Name: Phone:

Title: Program Analyst Date: 18 May 2015 Email:

Management Representative:

Name: Phone:

Title: Chief, Program Office Date: 18 May 2015 Email:

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

Local Small Business Specialist Name:

Phone:

Signature: Date: See Digital Signature

Division Chief Name:

Phone:

Signature: Date: See Digital Signature

Director Name:

Phone:

Signature: Date: See Digital Signature

Legal Counsel Name:

Phone:

Signature: Date: See Digital Signature

JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Army Forces Generation (ARFORGEN) Synchronization Toolset (AST) Support Services for United Stated Army Forces Command (FORSCOM)

1. CONTRACTING AGENCY: The Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Bragg (MICC-FB)

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Approval is requested to award a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) sole source award to sustain the current AST contract which expires on 30 June 2015.

The estimated value of the proposed action is $10M. The proposed action will provide contract coverage up to 36 months. The initial effort will use Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Operation and Maintenance Army (OMA) funds.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: The objective of this action is to sustain the current AST software and platform support services while enhancing the areas of ARFORGEN automated capabilities to provide more integrated synchronization across all ARFORGEN functional areas. The functional areas the AST system supports are sourcing, training, manning, equipping, infrastructure, resourcing (money) and key process steps of performance deployment planning, performing pre-deployment buildup, executing deployment, performing in theater sustainment and executing redeployment/retrograde within the Department of Defense (DoD) end-to-end process of deploy-to-redeploy. The AST system operates on both classified (SIPR) and unclassified (NIPR) DoD networks in compliance with existing regulations and directives. The two primary AST objectives in the present acquisition include:

a. Objective #1: Software Sustainment- This sustainment encompasses those tasks required to maintain availability of the current version of AST.

b. Objective #2: Enhancement- This enhancement entails adapting existing software capabilities using agile methodologies to meet evolving ARFORGEN policies and procedures.

This requirement requires Defense Business System (DBS) approval pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2222. This approval was received on 7 April 2015.

4. AUTHORITY CITED: This action is authorized under provisions of 10 U.S.C.

2304(d)(1)(B) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED: Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1 (a) (iii) “services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in – (A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition, or (B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements. (see 10 U.S.C. 2304 (d)(1)(B).”

As demonstrated in the Market Research and in the information given below, awarding this requirement to anyone other than the incumbent will result in a substantial duplication of cost to the Government as the proprietary platform the current AST is built on, the ProModel Application Framework (PAF), would need to be maintained while a new AST is built on another platform.

Attempting to create a new PAF platform with a new contractor would also almost certainly result in unacceptably long delays, since a new system would have to be developed, tested and debugged before it could be used by the customer to include the addition of every update in the past ten years that has presently been developed by the incumbent contractor. This additional functionality would also have to be developed and integrated into any new system as well. This would negate any potential cost saving that could be gained though competition and would almost certainly negatively impact the FORSCOM’s mission.

a. Background:

1) This is a follow-on requirement to services that have been received from ProModel, Inc. (ProModel), a small business based in Orem, Utah since the initial contract for the development of the tool was awarded in 2006.

The initial contract was competed and ProModel’s proposed technical solution accepted by the Government included building the tool on the PAF, which is proprietary to ProModel. The Government owns the AST source code. It cannot be determined how the first contract for sustainment of the application was solicited, however, it was also awarded to ProModel. The second iteration of the sustainment work was added to contract W91QUZ-06-D-0019-1E01 to Booz Allen Hamilton as an in-scope modification, however, all AST sustainment services were subcontracted to ProModel due to the proprietary nature of the PAF.

2) When the requirement was migrated to Fort Bragg, two (2) sole source interim actions were completed in order to complete a competitive procurement. The competition of the current contract was to determine if there were other sources capable of rebuilding the AST on open source software. The evaluation approach consisted of a full trade off approach that invited not only a continuation of the current use of the PAF to run the

AST, but also invited Offerors to submit alternative solutions in keeping with the Department of Defense’s focus on using open sources and industry innovation for agile flexibility, enhanced competition, and technical superiority. Three (3) proposals were received as a result of this competition, though only one, ProModel’s, was determined to be the “best value” to the Government in accordance with FAR 15.3, as supplemented by the DFARS and AFARS as well as the evaluation factors given to the SSEB by the customer.

b. Alternatives: There are three (3) basic alternatives to the recommended sole source under the authority FAR 6.302-1 (a) (iii):

1) Cease Support. This tool is integral to FORSCOM’s mission and is foundational to the accomplishment of the Army Service Force Provider mission given to FORSCOM by the Secretary of the Army. This mission includes acquiring mission requirements and sourcing these requirements across the U.S. Army. Ceasing support of this tool would remove the only Service Force Provider system available to support this mission, which would result in mission failure.

2) Competitive Procurement. As demonstrated in the Market Research, to include the two (2) RFIs posted on 17 March 2014 and 4 December 2014, there were only five (5) Small Businesses that submitted capability statements, none of whom were deemed capable of performing the requirement, aside from the incumbent. None of the Vendors, aside from the incumbent, owns a license for the PAF, which is the framework the AST is built on. The current proprietary framework is listed on the General Services Administration (GSA) schedules at $2M. This being said it is not likely that ProModel will sell a license to the framework to a known competitor, and if so, they would not be bound by GSA pricing.

There are also no authorized resellers of this framework. Market Research also determined that any Contractor that wins any resultant award requiring use of the ProModel’s PAF would have to own the license themselves. Even if a Contractor could purchase the license at GSA pricing, the resultant price of their proposal would likely be at least $2M above any price submitted by ProModel.

A competition for this requirement resulting in an award to any firm but ProModel is unlikely due to the proprietary nature of the PAF. The estimate to rebuild the AST on open source framework would require two

(2) concurrent contracts, one building the new tool and a sole source to ProModel to maintain and upgrade the current AST. The estimate for these concurrent contracts would cost $18M for 24 months it would take to complete this rebuild. The cost for the sustainment only for 24 months would cost $7M (the historical $3.5M a year), and the rebuild would cost an estimated $11M. After this period, provided the rebuild is completed properly and on time, maintenance of the tool would drop back down to roughly the current price of $3.5M per year. This estimate illustrates the substantial duplication in cost to the Government to procure the AST competitively and why this option is not feasible.

3) Use of In-House Resources. FORSCOM does not have the necessary qualified personnel to provide these services.

c. Justification: In accordance with FAR 6.302-1(iii)(B), ProModel is the only source capable of satisfying the Government’s requirement without a substantial duplication in costs and without unacceptable delays in filling the Government’s requirement due to the proprietary nature of the framework that the AST is built on.

d. Impact: The current contract’s period of performance will end on 30 June 2015.

Without a viable contract in place at this time, there will be an abrupt break in AST support services, which will likely result in the failure of the entire AST Support and would remove the only Service Force Provider system available to support this mission, which would result in mission failure.

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION: Market Research was conducted, to include two Requests for Information (RFI) to determine if there were other potential sources to provide these services. The first RFI was posted on FedBizOpps on 17 March 2014 and the second was posted on 4 December 2014. The RFIs requested that Small businesses submit capability statements regarding the ability to perform this requirement. Vendors were asked to indicate if they owned a license to the PAF, if they intended to purchase one, and barring that, they were asked to provide an estimation of the length of time and the approximate costs to produce a comparable system. We provided industry the PWS, as well as the current capabilities of the AST to formulate their responses. A total of five vendors provided responses between both RFIs. Only two, aside from the incumbent provided an estimation for rebuilding the AST, neither of which indicated capability. All vendors, aside from the incumbent were found to be not capable based on the experience presented in their capability statements. The customer’s comments on the prospective vendors’ capability statements is summarized in the Market Research Report.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION: Market Research has indicated that a competitive solution for this requirement is not feasible without a substantial duplication in costs and a high likelihood of unacceptable delays in meeting the agency’s requirements. This requirement has been determined to be a Knowledge Based Service and any action for this requirement will be limited to a maximum of three (3) years in keeping with the DoD Better Buying Power Initiative. Also, market research will be performed at each option exercise in accordance with FAR Part 17 to ensure that the services are still the best value for the Government. Market Research will also be conducted to procure any follow on requirement. At present, the expectation is that unless the PAF becomes open source, any competitive action for this requirement will require a complete rebuild of the AST while concurrently sustaining the AST, which results in a substantial duplication of costs to the Government.

8. MARKET RESEARCH: Extensive Market Research was conducted for this requirement, and while there are small businesses who perform these types of services, none of them own, or would be likely to obtain a license to use the PAF, and that a complete rebuild of the application would substantially (estimated to be a 264% increase) duplicate costs to the Government.

9. INTERESTED SOURCES: Two (2) RFIs were posted to FedBizOpps, the first was posted on 17 March 2014 and the second was posted on 4 December 2014 to ascertain interest in this requirement. A total of five (5) vendors, including the incumbent expressed interest in this requirement. A technical review of the Vendors’ capabilities was completed by the requiring activity as well as the Contracting Officer to determine if the Vendors were capable of supporting this requirement. None, aside from the incumbent, were found to be capable.

10. OTHER FACTS:

a. Procurement history: As described above in detail, this requirement has been competed several times in the past, ProModel has always won and completed the work. Even when the requirement was added to an existing contract vehicle via in scope modification, ProModel was subcontracted to perform these services due to the proprietary nature of the PAF.

b. Acquisition data availability: The PAF is proprietary to ProModel, however the Government owns the AST source code.

c. Unusual and compelling urgency: N/A

d. Subcontracting Competition: N/A

e. ProModel is a small business, so an award to them will assist MICC in meeting their small business goals.

11. TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance included in this justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Date: See Digital Signature

Title: Program Analyst Signature:

12. FAIR AND REASONABLE COST DETERMINATION: I hereby determine that the anticipated price for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. The techniques identified under FAR 15.404-1(b), will be used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. The Contracting Officer will use a comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, as well as comparisons to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE). These services are commercial, therefore, certified Cost and Pricing Data will not be requested.

Name: Date: See Digital Signature

Title: Contracting Officer Signature:

13. PROCURING CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION: I certify that this Justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Date: See Digital Signature

Title: Contracting Officer Signature:

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of United States Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) ARFORGEN Synchronization Tool (AST) Support Services to ProModel (a Small Business) for an estimated $10M for three years on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(d)(1)(B) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements subject to the availability of funds, and provided that the services herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Signature: Date: See Digital Signature Joseph W. Myers Acting Advocate for Competition US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Ft. Sam Houston TX