J A_FFS_Redacted_712016.pdf

Control No: 2016-80 Contractor: California Department of Rehabilitation

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR PART 6 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL FOR OTHER THAN

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Supply/Service: The Army Sustainment Command (ASC), Logistic Readiness Center (LRC) at Fort Hunter Liggett, California (CA) has a requirement to provide Full Food Services (FFS) for dining facilities located at Brien Thomas Collins (BT Collins), Sacramento, CA and Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), Dublin, CA.

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR Part 6.302-1 -- Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

Amount: $1,100,000

Prepared by: DSN:

Contract Specialist Date: 8 May 2016 Email:

Contracting Officer: DSN:

Contracting Officer Date: 8 May 2016 Email:

Technical: TEL:

Contracting Officer Representative Date: 8 May 2016 Email: antolin.m.daga.civ@mail.mil

Requirements: TEL:

Insert Title: Chief, Plans&Ops Date: 8 May 2016 Email:

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

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

Local Small Business Specialist Name: DSN:

Signature: __ Date: See Digital Signature

Division Chief Name: DSN:

Signature: _ _ Date: See Digital Signature

Director, MICC-FSH Name: DSN:

Signature: __________________________ Date: See Digital Signature

MICC Office of Counsel Name: DSN:

Signature:

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

Department of Army FAR Part 6 Justification and Approval for Other than

Full and Open Competition

1. Contracting Activity: Mission and Installation Contracting Command – Fort Sam Houston (MICC – FSH), 2205 Infantry Post Rd., Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-1361

2. Description of Action: The Army Sustainment Command (ASC) Logistics Readiness Center (LRC) at Fort Hunter Liggett, CA requests a firm-fixed price contract with the California Department of Rehabilitation, 721 Capitol Mall, 6th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814-4702. The Government projects an award by 1July 2016 using funds of fiscal year 2016. Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) funds will be used. An acquisition plan is not required because this procurement does not meet the threshold at Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 207.103(d)(i)(B).

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The service outlined in this requirement encompasses dining facility management functions, food preparation, facility sanitation and janitorial duties. BT Collins, Sacramento, CA and Parks Reserve Forces Training Area (PRFTA), Dublin, CA requires Full Food Services (FFS) to be provided 7 days a week for students attending training. The Contractor is required to provide all supervision, labor, personnel, equipment, materials and supplies, with the exception of Government Furnished Property (GFP), required to perform activities that comprise the full operation of an Army Dining Facility. These include requisitioning, receiving, storing, preparing, and serving of food as well as performing related administrative, custodial, and sanitation functions. The period of performance for this action is as follows:

Period of Performance: 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 (six months) Total Value:

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), 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: It is imperative for these facilities to continue to operate while a new competitive contract vehicle is put in place. The existing FFS contractor, the California Department of Rehabilitation, has the ability and available resources to provide the required services within the time restraints required pending award of a competitive follow on contract. The dining facilities being supported under this action will provide an average of 15,000+ meals per month to Soldiers and civilians. Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1(a)(2), the incumbent is the only acceptable source for this extension.

Award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of costs that would not be recovered through competition as well as unacceptable delays in fulfilling this requirement that would negatively impact FHL’s ability to feed its Soldiers. Additional details for the authority cited are provided in the paragraphs that follow under this this section.

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

(a) As described at FAR 6.302-1(a)(2), when the supplies or services required by the agency are available only from one responsible source, or for DoD, NASA and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other types of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for.

(1) The California Department of Rehabilitation has been performing FFS at BT Collins and PRFTA for over 12 years which provides it with unique expertise and experience that is unmatched by any other contractor in the State of California.

Additionally, the contractor is the designated State Licensing Agency (SLA) contractor for the State of California, as authorized under the Randolph Sheppard Act. The economies of scale savings gained from serving multiple dining facilities across the State provides the SLA with significant competitive advantages that have historically dissuaded other contractors from challenging the incumbent.

Interest for this requirement from responsible sources has been almost non-existent under previously awarded competitive actions. Only one proposal from an entity other than the SLA has been received on the last two competitive awards issued for this requirement. Additional details on these previous competitive actions are as follows:

Table 1- History of Competitive Proposals Received

CONTRACT

NUMBER

TYPE OF

SET ASIDE

TOTAL NUMBER OF

PROPOSALS RECEIVED

W911SA-04-D-0004 HubZone Set Aside

W91LV2-11-D-0003 HubZone Set Aside

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

(2) Award of this bridge requirement to any other contractor other than the SLA would result in substantial duplication of costs that would not be recovered through competition. There would be considerable phase in costs associated with the transition of this requirement to another contractor for a six month period of performance. Transition cost may have to be paid twice, once for this six month bridge and again after this six months for the follow-on requirement. Based on previous history for service contracts requiring phase-in, the cost of a one month phase in has generally ranged between of the total price, including options. Since the total cost of 5 years of performance is estimated to be $

), the estimated phase in costs for a contract of this magnitude are estimated to be between . For the purpose of calculating total transition costs, a figure of one percent was used ($ ).

While the period of performance for this action is only six months, the steps necessary to accomplish the phase in would not be reduced by the shorter period of performance. Government personnel would also have to participate in the transition of GFP. The estimated Government labor for this effort is approximately 88 hours [(40 hours of labor at each location to inspect, inventory, and sign over equipment + 4 hours to review update property book as necessary) X 2 locations=88]. While the grade of these individuals may vary, for the purpose of this estimate, the labor was calculated at GS (San Jose) and multiplied by to capture the associated labor overhead, resulting in a total cost of

. The estimated cost for transition is depicted in the table that follows. Based on this estimate, the total cost of transitioning to another contractor for six months would be $ ($ ), which would represent a increase [( ) ] to the IGE. As such, consideration of any other proposals would not be practical or make economic sense for this six month contract. Transitioning to any other contractor would disrupt operations and result in significant phase in costs ( ).

Table 2 – Estimated Transition Costs

ACTION ESTIMATED

CONTRACTOR

COSTS

ESTIMATED

GOVERNMENT

COSTS

TOTAL COST

Bridge $

(3) There were significant delays in finalizing the Performance Work Statement for the follow-on requirement. ASC worked jointly with the U.S. Army Quartermaster School Joint Culinary Center of Excellence (JCCoE) to develop a FFS prototype to standardize these requirements. However, significant concerns were raised during the review of this document, as well as the prototype Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP). Because these were developed in conjunction with ASC higher headquarters, corrections to template language of the PWS required higher level coordination, which impaired the ability of the FHL LRC to make timely changes. Most of these issues have been addressed and ASC is now working directly with MICC-FSH to update the packet as well as the prototype.

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

(b) Alternatives: The Army considered several options before proceeding with this J&A.

The preference given to the SLA under the Randolph Sheppard Act (R-SA), the limited timeframe available, and the magnitude of the requirement have limited options to only one viable course of action. However, alternatives considered were as follows:

(1) Suspension of the food program services. The services procured by this contract are tied to mission accomplishment and cannot cease without major negative impact on the Army mission. BT Collins and Camp Parks provide training for Army Reserve troops assigned to California. The average number of meals that will be served at these dining facilities is estimated to be approximately 15,000 per month. Any interruption of food services for these military members and civilians would severely impact Mission Essential Task List (METL) specific training for deployable troops at BT Collins and PRFTA, which is unacceptable.

(2) Reduce the Government’s full food service requirement until the follow-on contract can be awarded: This alternative was thoroughly discussed as an option. At this time, this alternative seems highly unlikely due to the expertise necessary to conduct FFS and the requirement for qualified food service personnel. Budget and time constraints prevent Government direct employment of food service staff. In accordance with AR 30-22, The Army Food Program, paragraph 3-39, Page 22, permanent party Soldiers (military) are not allowed to perform dining facility functions on a regular detailed basis without prior approval of Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA). Since these facilities are used almost exclusively by Soldiers on meal cards, scaling back would not be an alternative. Using Soldiers to perform Kitchen Police (KP) duty would result in significant lost training time.

(3) Feed Soldiers Meals Ready to Eat (MRE) temporarily until a new contract is awarded: The LRC has the ability to acquire MREs through its supply channels.

However, AR 30-22, paragraph 4.2(4) states that the MRE as the sole ration will not exceed 21 days IAW the Surgeon General’s policy. The MRE is designed to sustain individuals engaged in contingency operations for a limited timeframe. As cited by the Defense Logistics Agency, the MRE provides only one-third of the Military Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamins and minerals determined essential by the Surgeon General of the United States.

The lack of quality meals will impact training. Soldiers receiving training at BT Collins and Camp Parks are required to conduct approximately one and a half hours of strenuous physical fitness training on a daily basis. The demand of such a grueling regimen, combined with the lack of essential nutrients provided by an MRE, will impact Soldier’s health, morale and welfare.

(4) Use Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) facilities to feed only Soldiers on meal cards: AR 30-22, paragraph 3-39 c. authorizes the use of MWR facilities to provide food service support to enlisted personnel when no other food service support is available. Authorization must be obtained through Installation Management Command (IMCOM). Unfortunately, BT Collins and Camp Parks

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015 to not have MWR facilities capable of providing the amount of meals necessary to feed the forecasted Soldier population.

(5) Use catered meals to feed Soldiers: AR 30-22, paragraph 3-41, authorizes commercially prepared catered meals only when food service personnel or equipment are not authorized or available and support cannot be obtained from another Reserve Component or Active Army unit with food service capability.

Requests to purchase catered meals must be approved by the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4. Approval from G-4 is highly unlikely by the expiration date of the current contract extension. When G-4 was contacted, one of their Senior Food Service Systems Employees stated, “There is no possible way we’ll approve that type of request while there are dining facilities on the ground.” Preliminary Market Research indicated that using catered meals on a temporary basis could increase costs by as much as 60%. Current timeline and budget constraints limit the use of this option. When researching this option, it was also discovered that Fort Irwin, California encountered serious problems with the use of this option due to violations of United States Code, Title 10, Section 2533a by caterers who failed to use domestically produced or home grown products. In accordance with the Berry Amendment, appropriated funds for DoD or otherwise available to DoD may not be used for the procurement of an item (such as food) if the item is not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States, unless the agency head waives the restriction by determining that domestic food items cannot be obtained in satisfactory and sufficient quantity at the United States market prices.

(6) Competing the requirement. There is not enough procurement lead time to compete this requirement and permit for appropriate competition to take place without a disruption in services. The services provided under this contract are so critical to the mission of BT Collins and PRFTA, that any lapse in services would not be feasible. Current DoD and MICC Policy requires that contracts for FFS operations be awarded using full and open competition unless there is an independent basis for direct negotiations (e.g., the only source available to provide services is an SLA or if another exception to the Competition in Contracting Act [CICA], other than the R-SA itself, is available). Therefore, this document has been drafted in compliance with those policies, to provide the sufficient acquisition time for award of a follow-on contract using competitive procedures.

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

(c) Additional Considerations.

(1) The period covered by this Justification and Approval (J&A) is the minimum time necessary to award a competitive follow on contract, based on the milestones developed. The negotiated milestones for the follow on contract have been condensed from 423 days to 261days, which represents a reduction of 162 days from the normal acquisition time for this type of requirement.

(2) There is insufficient acquisition lead time to award this six month bridge using competitive procedures which can take up to 90 days to award. As previously discussed, development of the package for the follow on was significantly delayed due to coordination required with ASC headquarters in order to make necessary corrections to the FFS prototype developed jointly by ASC and the Army Culinary School.

(3) Based on the significant costs associated with phase in/phase out, and the involvement of the SLA, which is afforded priority under the R-SA, it would be neither cost effective for another contractor to perform the required services during this six month period.

(4) Approval of this J&A will provide uninterrupted FFS at BT Collins and PRFTA.

Failure to approve this J&A will result in mission failure. A break in service would be detrimental to BT Collins’ and PRFTA’s mission and is unacceptable. The health, welfare and morale of the Soldiers will be adversely affected if this extension is not approved. Failure to obtain approval of this J&A will also result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling BT Collins’ and PRFTA’s ability to train Soldiers.

Personnel from numerous organizations are dependent on these services and would be adversely impacted by any disruption. The lack of food service will negatively affect soldier stamina, morale and concentration. This can directly impact Soldier health as well as the effectiveness of training. The FHL LRC does not have the personnel or resources to continue the BT Collins/FPRA FFS mission without the current contract. Without approval of this J&A, the mission would be adversely impacted because the requirement to provide food services support beginning 1 July 2016 and beyond continues to exist. Approval of this J&A is necessary to support the continuation of services, pending award of a competitive follow on contract.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

(a) A sources sought notice for this opportunity was posted on FedBizOpps (FBO) for two weeks from 18 April to 2 May 2016. Only three responses were received, including one from the incumbent and two small businesses

(d) Effective competition will be achieved by competing the follow on requirement full and open, which is supported based on the market research performed and the sources sought responses received.

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

(e) Subcontracting competition in the negotiated contract will be achieved by including Federal Acquisition Clause 52.244-5, Competition in Subcontracting, and a subcontracting plan will be required in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: A sources sought notice was posted on FBO.

Based on the responses received, and the lack of competitive proposals received on previous FFS acquisitions, the follow on requirement will be competed full and open in order to maximize competition. The requirements will be solicited concurrently with the direct award justified by this approval document alloing adequate time for proposal receipt, evaluation, and final award, and applicable transition prior to the end of coverage. The notices required by FAR 5.201 and any bids or proposals received shall be considered.

8. Market Research:

In accordance with FAR Part 10, market research for this acquisition was completed on 24 May 2016. The following individuals worked on the report:

The SLA has performed satisfactorily. The solicitation for FFS at Camp Parks and BT Collins is subject to exercise of the priority policy regarding qualified SLA for the Blind in accordance with the R-SA. An offer determined to be in the competitive range from a qualified SLA will receive priority in accordance with the R-SA and Army Regulation 210-

25. Once the Contracting Officer determines that the SLA/blind vendor’s proposal should be included in the competitive range, the award will be made to the SLA/blind vendor unless (1) under the SLA/blind vendor’s proposal it cannot provide food service at a comparable cost and of comparable high quality as available from other providers and

(2) the Department of Education concurs in the decision. If the SLA is determined to be in the competitive range, direct negotiations will be conducted with the SLA and discussions with other offerors in the competitive range may not occur.

A Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) for the follow-on requirement, targeting the small business community, was posted on the FBO.gov website on 18 April 2016. The SSS invited interested concerns to provide capability packages to MICC-FSH on or before 02 May 2016. Aside from the SLA, industry did not provide any comments or feedback on the questions in the SSS or comments on the PWS. A total of three firms, listed on the table below, responded:

Table 3 – Sources Sought Synopsis

Company DUNS Business Location

Socio- Economic Category

Capable

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

Catering was found not capable by the technical team. The owner listed his personal military experience (with operations smaller than the scope of this requirement) as part of the capabilities statement for Involved Foods. There was no previous experience provided that was commensurate to this requiremet.

Based on the information gathered concerning the history of this acquisition being awarded to the SLA, and the number of vendors who replied to the SSS, there is not an opportunity to expand competition among small business socioeconomic categories.

9. Interested Sources: See Paragraph 6 for the synopsis information. To date, no other sources have written to express interest in the acquisition.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History

Contract: W91LV2-11-D-0003 Contractor: California Department of Rehabilitation (SLA) Award Date: 29 Dec 2010 Competitive Status: Full and Open Number of Proposals Received: 1

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.

Date: _________________ _ _

Contracting Officer’s Representative

7 June 2016

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

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.

Date: _________________ _______________

Chief, Plans & Ops/Deputy Director

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost or price to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. Since the services requested have been determined to be commercial in nature, they are exempt from the requirement to submit Cost or Pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b)(3). Therefore, other than cost or pricing data will be requested for the purpose of establishing that the price is fair and reasonable. Additionally, the Independent Government Estimate will also be used as a basis for negotiating a fair and reasonable price.

Date: _________________ _______

Contracting Officer

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

Date: _________________ ________

Contracting Officer

7 June 2016

03 June 2016

Date: 2016.06.07 12:52:09 -07'00'

Supply/Service: Full Food Service

Version – November 2015

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of Full Food Services to the California Department of Rehabilitation at an estimated amount of $1,100,000 on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c)(1), subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services or supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Date: Signature:

Dean M.Carsello Special Advocate for Competition US Army Mission and Installation Contracting Command FSH TX

Date: 2016.06.16 12:16:30 -05'00'