W9127826RA054_Consolidation DF_Redacted.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MOBILE DISTRICT

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION

W9127826RA054

INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ)

SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACT (SATOC)

FOR GENERAL REPAIR AND CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE MISSISSIPPI AREA

OFFICE AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY (AOR)

Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) 2.101 defines consolidation or consolidated requirement as a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a delivery order to satisfy— (i) Two or more requirements of the Federal agency for supplies or services that have been provided to or performed for the Federal agency under two or more separate contracts, each of which was lower in cost than the total cost of the contract for which offers are solicited; or (ii) Requirements of the Federal agency for construction projects to be performed at two or more discrete sites. RFO 7.107-1 requires that consolidation of requirements with an estimated total dollar value exceeding $2 million shall be supported by a written determination that consolidation is necessary and justified in accordance with 15 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 657q.

I have reviewed this requirement and associated market research and determined in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 657q and RFO 7.107-1 that consolidation is both necessary and justified. This approval is made in accordance with the approval thresholds set forth in Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5107.107-2(b)(i), “Consolidation.” My review resulted in the following findings:

1. Introduction: Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District, proposes to award a sole-source 8(a) IDIQ SATOC in the amount of to Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC, 7101 US Highway 90 Ste 102 Daphne, AL 36526. The SATOC will meet repair and construction mission requirements under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 for Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction. This contract will support the mission requirements of various Federal agencies within the Mississippi Area Office AOR. This procurement constitutes consolidation of requirements per 15 U.S.C. § 657q(a)(2)(B) in that it involves construction at two or more discrete sites in the Mississippi Area Office AOR. Mobile District has conducted analysis and market research that demonstrates consolidation of requirements in this procurement is both necessary and justified.

2. Description of Procurement Action:

a. Project Description:

substantial if they meet the dollar amounts set forth in RFO 7.107-2(c). If the quantifiable benefits do not meet these thresholds, the approving authority may determine that consolidation is necessary and justified if the expected benefits of the consolidated approach are critical to the agency’s mission success and the procurement strategy provides for maximum practicable participation by small business. For this procurement, the quantifiable benefits of consolidation do not meet the threshold set forth in RFO 7.107-2(c). See Section 5 analysis below for the benefits of this proposed consolidated acquisition. Although the quantitative benefits are not met, the qualitative benefits of the consolidated approach are critical to the success of the Mobile District.

(2) Utilizing an 8(a) SATOC in accordance with FAR 16.504 to consolidate the requirements for repair and construction within the Mississippi Area Office AOR is necessary to meet the mission objectives because it provides for a contracting vehicle that minimizes acquisition planning and contract execution costs, shortens contracting lead time, assures operational continuity, and improves post security by minimizing the number of contractors accessing the post at any given time period. Use of an IDIQ contract is appropriate in accordance with FAR 16.50l-2(a), when exact times and/or exact quantities of future deliveries are not known at the time of award. FAR 16.504(b) indicates that the Contracting Officer may use an indefinite-quantity contract when the Government cannot predetermine, above a specified minimum, the precise quantities of supplies and services that the Government will require during the contract period, and it is inadvisable for the Government to commit itself for more than a minimum quantity. The Contracting Officer should use an indefinite-quantity only when a recurring need is anticipated. It is anticipated that the SATOC will be used to fulfill customer requirements at within the Mississippi Area Office AOR, to include any tenant organizations.

(3) In accordance with RFO 7.107-2(e), when the benefits of consolidated requirements is not quantifiable as stated at RFO 7.107-2(c)(1), the consolidation must be determined to be necessary and justified based on the anticipated benefits of being critical to the agency’s mission success and that the procurement strategy provides the maximum practicable participation by small business. The work required under the proposed solicitation involves SRM and new construction at MS Area Office. The consolidated approach is critical to the success of not only the Mississippi Area Office AOR, but also the Mobile District. An IDIQ SATOC will provide a flexible and effective contract vehicle that can accommodate both the known and unknown repair and construction requirements of the Mississippi AOR. Further, in accordance with RFO 19.108-7, proposed 8(a) requirements that do not exceed the competitive thresholds at RFO Part 19. 108- 7(a)(2) or meet the exceptions detailed at RFO Part 19.108-7(b) may be awarded on a non-competitive basis. The independent statute allows this procurement to be awarded on a sole source basis and there is no harm to competition. Therefore, this procurement is not subject to competition and there is no competitive harm to the selected 8(a) as a result of the consolidation because this company is capable of fulfilling all requirements under the SATOC. Though it is feasible to fulfill the requirements by awarding multiple stand-alone 8(a) sole source “C” contracts, which could perhaps be awarded to multiple 8(a) contractors, the advantages of the SATOC tool fully support the intended approach.

3. Applicable Statutes/Regulations: 15 U.S.C. § 657q, RFO 7.107-2, and AFARS 5107.107-2.

4. Results of Market Research:

a. To support the District’s determinations on where to place projects, market research regarding 8(a) sole source contractors is performed throughout the year. The purpose of this market research is to provide the District with the necessary information regarding the capabilities and limitations of 8(a) contractors needed to perform the work required at the dollar levels anticipated.

To this end, the District reviews 8(a) contractor referrals from SBA district offices in Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Florida, as well as other SBA offices. Interested 8(a) firms are scheduled for marketing meetings with the District’s Small and Disadvantaged Business Office Chief who conducts interviews to determine the 8(a) company’s bonding and technical capabilities and its number of employees to determine if the 8(a) is a proper match for the prospective projects.

Companies possessing the requisite capabilities are scheduled for face-to-face marketing meetings with District technical personnel where they consider whether the contractor’s experience demonstrates the capability and bonding capacity to perform multiple projects simultaneously.

Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC was selected based on prior successful work history in Mobile District’s AOR and based upon customer satisfaction with previous and ongoing work performed within their installation boundary.

b. For the Mississippi Area Office, the following market research techniques were used to assess Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC’s capabilities:

(1) Individual marketing meetings held with Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC in the last 18 months.

(2) Review and analysis of Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC Capabilities and Surety Statements.

(3) Review and analysis of Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC’s past experience specified in the company’s portfolio that indicated experience relevant to the type of projects anticipated under this SATOC.

(4) Communication with SBA Business Development Specialist as to Cape Fox

Expeditionary, LLC’s status in 8(a) program.

(5) Review of Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC’s company profile found in the Dynamic Small Business Search engine.

c. Following market research, it was determined that an acquisition approach to utilize Cape

Fox Expeditionary, LLC under the 8(a) ANC program was appropriate. The requirement was offered to and accepted by the SBA. In its letter, the SBA also affirmed that the proposed procurement would have no adverse impact on small businesses. Cape Fox Expeditionary, LLC is fully capable of fulfilling all requirements that will be awarded under the SATOC and will not be negatively impacted by the consolidation.

5. Alternate Contracting Approaches Considered and Rationale for Rejection: In coming to the conclusion that an 8(a) Set-Aside SATOC was the best solution for satisfying the repair and construction requirements of Mississippi Area Office, the District also considered stand-alone “C-type” contracts. The intent of this analysis was to address all alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation, or no consolidation.

b. Alternative 1: Stand-Alone 8(a) Sole-Source “C” Type Contracts: The District considered the award of multiple stand-alone sole source contracts to 8(a) vendors to perform the work work within the Mississippi Area Office. While this approach could provide a lesser degree of consolidation, or no consolidation at all if individual contracts are awarded for single requirements, the benefits of the SATOC approach substantially exceed the disadvantages of consolidation for the reasons outlined below.

(1) Quality. The ability to work with a single contractor directly through a SATOC tool provides significant advantages in comparison to awarding multiple 8(a) sole-source contracts where various contractors may be utilized. It is the District’s experience that the iterative process of negotiating and executing repair and construction efforts with a single contractor generates greater understanding between contractor and Government, resulting in more thorough proposals and quality projects. While “C” contracts give the Government the opportunity to avail itself of a wider range of potential contractors for each project, the 8(a) vetting process discussed in paragraph 4, Market Research, achieves essentially the same result for task orders under the proposed SATOC – a high quality contractor that is suited for the requirements. Moreover, as also noted above, the iterative process of working with one contractor under a SATOC tends to generate a more thorough shared understanding between the contractor and Government for the Government's requirements, and the installation's and facilities' procedures. While the potential exists for the 8(a) SATOC holder to end up being a poor performer, due diligence by the Government at the outset makes this risk highly unlikely, resulting in a “good to great” contractor for every project. Too, in the unlikely event that the 8(a) SATOC contractor does not perform well, the Government can quickly pursue another 8(a) SATOC contractor or avail itself of other contract vehicles.

(2) Acquisition Cycle. A complicating element of the Mississippi Area Office’s SRM program is the difficulty in estimating future year annual funding levels. The program is subject to significant annual fluctuations in funding, and to impacts on funding priorities by the using agency, and installation-level issues and priorities. The District addresses this budgetary uncertainty with regular IDIQ acquisition actions to create capacity to accomplish a customer’s known requirements, and to respond to those that arrive on short-notice.

(a) In addition to building capacity, the use of task orders under a SATOC streamlines the procurement process under a regimen that is significantly more expeditious than a “C” contract scheme. Specifically, task orders under a SATOC do not require offer and acceptance to the SBA or voluminous solicitations and proposal submissions, as required for “C” contract procurements. As compared to awarding a stand-alone 8(a) contract, it is estimated that placing task orders under a SATOC reduces acquisition time from on average for each project, as shown in Table 2.

(b) Historically, repair and construction requirements of the type contemplated at the need to coordinate each project with the SBA as required by the 8(a) program, and will therefore reduce redundant and costly pre-award processes as required by C-type contracts. A SATOC will capture most administrative requirements as part of the base contract without reproduction in each task order. Also, at award, Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices are binding for the life of the contract with no further negotiation required, allowing for a streamlined process to execute work.

(3) Cost Savings. Per 15 U.S.C. § 657q(c)(2)(B), “savings in administrative or personnel costs alone do not constitute a sufficient justification for a consolidation of contract requirements” unless the total amount of the cost savings is expected to be substantial in relation to the total cost of the procurement.

(a) The sole-source 8(a) SATOC approach maximizes the opportunity to directly negotiate high quality repairs and construction at fair and reasonable prices. While minimizing acquisition time, and performance and schedule risks, cost risks are minimized through open and thorough discussions of the description of work for each task order, resulting in a stronger mutual understanding of requirements. Additionally, Tables 3 and 4 below reflect the estimated total pre-award/award costs required for one stand-alone "C" type contract in comparison to a SATOC. These costs are based on standard regional labor costs developed by Savannah District Contracting for all procurements, along with historical average procurement support costs for Cost Engineering Division, Engineering Division, Construction Division, and Programs and Project Management Division (PPMD).

(b) Additional hours/costs are required for “C” and “D” type contracts due to the selection of contract clauses and preparation of applicable Determinations and Findings. SATOC Task Orders do not require contract clauses or the same Pre-Award documents and can therefore be accomplished in fewer hours and at a lower cost.

Table 3 – Cost to Award a Stand-Alone “C” Contract restricting competition. All the acquisition approaches discussed above implicate CICA bundling, though in varying degrees.

d. Applicability of CICA Bundling Principle. Although this action constitutes CICA bundling by combining like and related construction and incidental design capabilities, it is consistent with industry practice and necessary to satisfy the customers’ needs. This procurement will allow the District to leverage economies of scale, streamline acquisition cycles, and eliminate duplication of efforts by establishing an 8(a) SATOC with a responsive and responsible contractor to perform individual task orders as the need arises. Additionally, the Government has independent statutory authority to proceed as proposed - to fulfil these requirements via a sole source procurement to an 8(a) small business concern.

7. Considerations, facts, and reasoning supporting the determination: All facts, considerations, and rationale have been covered previously in the findings.

8. Summary: Though this sole-source 8(a) SATOC constitutes consolidation in that it combines construction at two or more discrete sites in one contract, this approach provides the best combination of competitive procedures, timely acquisition, cost efficiency, quality, and capable prime contractors to execute repair and construction requirements for the Mississippi Area Office. This approach also accrues to the benefit of the District’s aggressive small business goals. Standalone “C” contracts were considered but rejected as they would result in significantly higher administrative costs and increased acquisition cycle time. Although cost savings do not amount to 10% of the contract value, a consolidated SATOC, as opposed to using a stand-alone contract or other procurement strategies provides qualitative benefits including a significant increase in quality and acquisition cycle. Consolidating these requirements also provides significant cost savings up to in administration costs and additional cost savings during task order negotiations, as previously discussed.

Because of the increased amount of time to award a project and the number of projects, if these benefits are not leveraged, the District will not be able to fully execute the SRM requirements of the Mississippi Area Office, particularly in the fourth quarter, which constitutes the largest portion of the District’s SRM construction program. Failure to award these SRM projects will result in the loss of critical District S&A income, which could negatively impact the District.

Additionally, the Mississippi Area Office will be drastically impacted with mission readiness, which will negatively affect the ability of the Army and other tenant organizations to accomplish their mission on a state and national level. Therefore, the consolidated approach is critical to the success of not only the Mississippi Area Office, but also the Mobile District. Additionally, it is significantly less burdensome for the District’s Contracting and Construction Divisions to administer one SATOC than numerous “C” contracts. Moreover, the planned approach meets the intent of the statute to protect small business, in that it is the Government’s intent to make an award using an 8(a) sole source. The findings of the market research and the documentation provided herein support the conclusion that consolidation of requirements is both necessary and justified, based on sound business judgment in view of the size, complexity, and number of efforts to be executed at the Mississippi Area Office, and the consolidated approach provide advantages that substantially exceed the benefits of an approach that provides a lesser degree of consolidation.

DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION

W9127826RA054

IDIQ SATOC FOR GENERAL REPAIRS AND CONSTRUCTION

WITHIN THE MISSSISSIPPI AREA OFFICE AOR

Upon the basis of the findings above and with the concurrence of the SBA, I hereby determine, pursuant to the authority of RFO 7.107-2, 15 U.S.C. § 657q, and Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 5107.107-2(b)(i) “Consolidation,” that the proposed consolidation of two or more discrete construction projects for the Department of Defense and other Federal Agencies within the Mississippi Area Office AOR is both necessary and justified.

Carl Wade Chief of Contracting Office, Contracting Division, Mobile District