W9127820R0093 JA Brand Name Spec - Overly Door.pdf

Control #20-0010

a. Experience in testing, designing, manufacturing and installing blast resistant door systems to remain operational under repeated blast (high shock and long-duration gas pressure) and fragment load scenarios. Manufacturer shall present example of door systems, including location, agency of authority (i.e. DoE, DoD), magnitude of blast loading and years of operation.

b. Submit any past completed projects with similar design criteria and blast performance.

c. Submit any past projects which have been reviewed/approved by Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB).

d. Manufacturer shall submit qualifications for blast engineer performing analysis of door system with demonstrable experience in design of blast and fragment resistant door systems to meet UFC 3-340-02 and DDESB Technical Paper 16.

e. Quality management system that is certified to ISO 9001 :2008 at manufacturing facilities.

f. Manufacturer shall present a list of references.

g. Manufacturer shall be available during transporting, installation, and testing of swing blast door, and proactively assist in responding to installation, testing, and maintenance questions.

h. Manufacturer shall provide a warranty period for the swing blast door and all components.

One company submitted their qualifications in response to the Beta.SAM.gov notice. Overly was determined to be the most qualified when compared against the criteria that was in the Special Notice. Overly provided solid responses and a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the requirement. Their relevant past work experience with a facility similar to the ADC-50 mission is considered to be a strength and further mitigates risk to the Government. In addition to meeting all of the criteria, Overly' s submission indicated that their blast engineer would be in house as opposed to being subcontracted. The Government found this to be a strength because an in-house blast engineer would be able to provide more timely support as well as be more responsive to the A/E firm and construction contractor. Overly's proposed cost for providing the design of the door was not the cheapest; however, when considering that Overly was the only company to demonstrate similar technical experience to that of the ADC-50 facility, the cost risk is lower because Overly's estimate is likely a more realistic representation of the work required.

Lastly, Overly provided the shortest engineering design schedule, which is a critical aspect for the Eglin AMTC Phase II mission. A detailed analysis on how Overly was determined to be the most qualified vendor is explained in paragraph 8.

b. Justification:

(1) FAR 6.302-l(c) permits use of the Only One Responsible Source authority when an acquisition or portion of an acquisition uses a brand-name description.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: The Contracting Officer published the notices required by FAR 5.201, as described below, and any bids or proposals received shall be considered.

a. As discussed in Section 5, because the Government is required to obtain DDESB and HNC approval of the door in order to obtain approval of the facility before award of the construction contract, the only other alternative to increase competition would be to pay multiple vendors to

c. Alternatives: See background discussion above.

d. Impact: See background discussion above.

design the door. This would add significant costs that would not be regained through competition of the door during construction. In addition, no other source that responded to the Government's Special Notice posted to Beta.SAM.gov was determined to meet the Government's requirement for the blast door, as discussed in Section 8.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: Because this is a DBB project and DDESB's approval of the ADC-50 facility is contingent upon approval of the explosive chamber door, little can be done to increase competition of future procurements with similar conditions. Increasing competition would likely require two-phased Design-Build procedures which would have allowed multiple offerors the ability to partner with various door manufacturers. However, a Design-Build procurement would not be able to satisfy the required DD ESB approval of the protective design of the door and facility prior to award and construction of the project. This would further create a conflict as it would cause the project to not meet the Air Force AFMAN 91-201 requirement to "expend only limited Air Force funds on the ESP project" prior to the approval of the an Explosives Site Plan (ESP). AFCEC will not allow award of the construction project without full design and approval by DDESB.

In addition, if the door manufacturers submitted their designs, the Government would incur the significant unknown schedule impact for a DDESB review of each proposed blast door, as DDESB provides no guarantee tum-around time for protective design review and approval. The other option for increasing competition involves changing the specifications of the door to the point where the facility's integrity is not so reliant on the door. However, in the case of the ADC- 50 facility this is not possible.

8. Market Research: A special notice was posted to Beta.SAM.gov on 29 June 2020 and requested responses by 14 July 2020. The special notice stated the intent was to use a brand name specification for the ADC-50 blast door and requested interested parties to submit their qualifications. Electric Power Company was the only response received to the special notice.

After review of the information provided by Electric Power Company, it was determined that the brand name specification for the ADC-50 blast door would remain as Overly Door Company. The information provided by Electric Power Company was mainly marketing material and did not meet the requirements identified by the Government in the special notice.

9. Interested Sources: This J&A will be posted with the issuance of the solicitation in accordance with FAR5.102(a)(6).

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: Blast door designs, similar to that required for ADC-50 intentional detonation blast door, is a one of a kind design and, due to the integral criticality to the blast chamber for intentional detonation, DDESB requires full design prior to final explosive site plan approval, which is required before Authority to Award is given by the Air Force.

b. Acquisition Data Availability: NA-Technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, or purchase descriptions are not available and cannot be developed to allow full and open competition under the circumstances specific to this procurement.

c. Unusual and Compelling Urgency: NA-FAR 6.302-2 is not the authority cited for this justification.

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of Overly Blast Doors for the estimated amount of $679,915 on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c)(l) Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services or property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Approved By:

Kyle M. Rodgers Contracting Officer