DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, MOBILE DISTRICT

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS

REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION

W9127826RA065

FISCAL YEAR (FY) 26

CONSOLIDATED WATERFRONT REPAIRS TO PASCAGOULA PORT

PASCAGOULA, MS

Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) Part 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 FAR 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 FAR 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(a) and USACE Acquisition Instruction (UAI) 5107.107-2-100(b)(ii)(B). 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) stand-alone Firm Fixed Price (FFP) “C” type contact in the estimated amount of to Genesis 360 LLC, 8352 Bluebonnet Blvd, Baton Rouge, LA 70810. This award provides for waterfront repairs and separate waterfront electrical repairs, both located at the Pascagoula Port. This contract will meet requirements under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 237990 for Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction in support of United States Coast Guard (USCG) Station Pascagoula. 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 Pascagoula Port. 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: The base contract includes waterfront repairs to facilities at the Pascagoula Port and a waterfront electrical repair on a different site located within the same port, . The waterfront electrical repairs will resolve a USCG deficiency, enabling the port to support the incoming Fast Response Cutter (FRC). A new FRC is scheduled to arrive in Pascagoula by FY26. There is an urgent need to correct the electrical system to support both cutters on shore power at the same time. The waterfront repairs to facilities at USCG Station Pascagoula are located on the northern side of the property and include the Covered Moorings, Pier, Quaywall, Quaywall Extension Pier, Rip Rap, Boat Ramp, and Boat Ramp Piers.

b. Acquisition Strategy/Procurement Summary: The District intends to award a sole-source 8(a) stand-alone Firm Fixed Price (FFP) “C” type contact in the which is typical for operation and maintenance contracts of this scope and scale. This contract type shifts cost risks to the contractor once the contract has been awarded. This acquisition approach supports the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 8(a) Business Development Program for socio-economically disadvantaged concerns and aligns with market research conducted. Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District traditionally performs FFP procurements and has an excellent history of executing this type of contract. As such, the Contracting Officer has determined that the procurement will proceed on a FFP basis.

c. Applicability of Consolidation: As implemented in RFO FAR 2.101, consolidation or consolidated requirement means a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, a task order, or a deliver 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. The definition applies to this procurement as this procurement requires facility and electrical repairs at various locations within Pascagoula Port.

Additionally, the estimated total value of the contract exceeds $2M.

d. Requirements Being Consolidated: The procurement will support the waterfront repairs at the Pascagoula Port and a waterfront electrical repair on a different site located within the same port, . Diagram 1 below shows the location of the requirements to be consolidated under this contract. The requirements are identified as “waterfront repairs” and “waterfront electrical repairs”. The Diagram shows the proximity of the requirements to each other and the size of the Pascagoula Port demonstrating the benefit of consolidating the requirements into one contract to reduce the liability of two separate contractors working in proximity.

enhance performance or efficiency, reduction in acquisition cycle time, better terms or conditions, or any other supportable benefit. Benefits that are quantifiable are considered substantial if they meet the dollar amounts set forth in RFO FAR 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 FAR 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) In accordance with RFO FAR 7.107-2(e), when the benefits of consolidated requirements is not quantifiable as stated at RFO FAR 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 waterfront repairs at the Pascagoula Port and waterfront electrical repairs on a different site located within the same port. The consolidated approach is critical to the success of not only the Mobile District but also the USCG. Utilizing a stand-alone “C” type contract is necessary to meet the mission objectives because it provides for a single contract that minimizes risk associated with two separate contractors operating in close proximity within the same port. This approach also minimizes acquisition planning, contract execution costs, construction cost for mobilization, shortens contracting lead time, assures operational continuity, and improves post security by minimizing the number of contractors accessing the port at any given time. Further, in accordance with RFO FAR 19.108-7, proposed 8(a) requirements that do not exceed the competitive thresholds at RFO FAR 19. 108-7(a)(2) or meet the exceptions detailed at RFO Part 19.108-7(b) may be awarded on a noncompetitive 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 this contract.

3. Applicable Statutes/Regulations: 15 U.S.C. § 657q, RFO FAR 7.107-2, AFARS 5107.107-2, and UAI 5107.107-2-100.

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. Genesis 360 LLC was selected based on USCG’s satisfaction with previous and ongoing work performed within their installation boundary.

b. For the Port of Pascagoula, the following market research techniques were used to assess

Genesis 360 LLC’s capabilities:

(1) Individual marketing meetings held with Genesis 360 LLC in the last 18 months.

(2) Review and analysis of Genesis 360 LLC’s Capabilities and Surety Statements.

(3) Review and analysis of Genesis 360 LLC’s past experience specified in the company’s portfolio that indicated experience relevant to the type of requirements in this contract.

(4) Communication with SBA Business Development Specialist as to Genesis 360 LLC’s status in 8(a) program.

(5) Review of Genesis 360 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 Genesis 360 LLC under the 8(a) 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. Genesis 360 LLC is fully capable of fulfilling all requirements that will be awarded under this contract and will not be negatively impacted by the consolidation.

5. Alternate Contracting Approaches Considered and Rationale for Rejection: If consolidation were precluded in the performance of this requirement at the Pascagoula Port, the Mobile District would have to implement contractual mechanisms for each individual facility (discrete site).

Consequently, in the analysis of the possible acquisition strategy alternatives, the Mobile District considered a stand-alone “C” type contract for each facility. The analysis of this alternative approach is further detailed below:

a. Alternative 1: Stand-Alone 8(a) “C” Type Contract (each site): The Mobile District considered the award of two stand-alone sole source “C” type to 8(a) contractors to perform the work at each individual facility at the Port of Pascagoula. While there are applications for the use of stand-alone 8(a) sole source “C” type contracts for individual sites, there must also be resources, both monetary and labor, available to execute the acquisitions within the district.

While this approach would provide no consolidation, the benefits of a single consolidated stand-alone 8(a) sole source “C” type contract approach substantially exceeds the benefits of two separate stand-alone 8(a) soles source “C” type contracts for each discrete site. As shown in Diagram 1, the requirements are for two separate project sites located in close proximity to each other within the same operational port. Consolidating these requirements under a single contract is critical to mitigate significant safety risks and logistical challenges. The use of multiple contractors working independently in such a confined area would create numerous issues as described below.

(1) Safety and Site Management. Multiple contractors would lead to overlapping construction footprints, creating complex and potentially hazardous conditions. In the event of an incident in a shared area, determining which safety plan was deficient and which contractor was responsible could be complicated and contentious, delaying investigations and corrective actions. A single contractor eliminates the safety and liability risks of having two independent contractors operating with overlapping construction footprints in a confined port. This provides for a unified safety plan and a single point of accountability, which is essential for managing site logistics, preventing accidents, and avoiding disputes. They can control site access, and manage vehicle/equipment traffic holistically, significantly reducing the risk of accidents.

(2) Logistical Inefficiencies. The limited space at the port provides minimal area for equipment staging, material laydown, and personnel parking. Multiple contractors competing for this space would lead to logistical conflicts, project delays, and increased costs. A consolidated contract allows for a single, coordinated logistical plan that maximizes the efficient use of the available area. The result is a safer, more efficient project that improves the operational readiness of the facilities while avoiding the increased costs and risks associated with managing multiple contractors in a constrained environment.

(3) Reduced Administrative Burden and Enhanced Quality. A single point of contact for the Government and the end-user streamlines all coordination for security, utility outages, and daily operations. This simplified oversight ensures a consistent standard of quality and performance across both sites, preventing the inefficiencies and potential conflicts that would arise from managing multiple independent contractors. Ultimately, this approach minimizes disruption to the port's mission and enhances overall operational readiness while eliminating redundancies which could result in higher costs for the customer.

(4) Acquisition Cycle. A stand-alone 8(a) sole source “C” type contract is estimated to take to award from project identification. While pursuing two separate contracts would not necessarily double this timeline, as the actions could be processed concurrently, it would introduce significant administrative inefficiencies. Opting for two contracts would require the management of two distinct procurement actions, including separate SBA offer and acceptance letters, parallel negotiations, and the preparation of two separate contract award documents. This duplication of effort increases the administrative workload and introduces additional complexity and potential for delay. By consolidating this requirement into a single contract, the acquisition process can streamline into one efficient action, thereby leveraging the other benefits of consolidation, such as a more cohesive management approach and reduced contract administration burden over the life of the project.

(5) Terms and Conditions: Between the two alternatives, there is no appreciable difference in the contract terms and conditions.

(6) Cost Savings: In accordance with RFO FAR 7.107-2(d) and 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 single stand-alone 8(a) soles source “C” type contract approach creates a higher degree of consistency in the quality of performance, reduces acquisition timelines and manpower requirements, allows the contractor to establish stable relationships with their subcontractors, and maximizes competition creating the opportunity to directly negotiate high quality construction at fair and reasonable prices.

(b) A single contract will also minimize acquisition time and performance and schedule risks while simultaneously promoting potential for economies of scale. Table 1 below reflects the estimated total pre-award/award costs required for one stand-alone 8(a) sole source "C" type contract. The cost is developed per project, and includes development, review and approval of Independent Government Estimates and project plan and specifications processing.

Table 1 – Cost to Award a Stand-Alone “C” Contract

(c) Additional hours/costs are required for the issuance of two stand-alone “C” contracts due to the selection of contract clauses for each contract and preparate of pre-award documentation.

These activities will be consolidated if one contract is awarded. Table 1 above encompasses the costs the Government will incur for one “C” contract to be issued.

The estimated additional cost to the Government would be if these two construction sites are not consolidated under one contract. This quantifiable value does not exceed the financial benefits of $9.4 million as required in RFO FAR 7.107-2(c)(3) but still represents an objectively significant estimated additional cost to the Government, which further justifies the consolidation of these two requirements under one contract.

6. Bundling Analysis:

a. Definition of Bundling. RFO FAR 2.101 defines bundling as consolidating two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts, into a solicitation for a single contract that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern due to: (i) The diversity, size, or specialized nature of the elements of the performance specified; (ii) The aggregate dollar value of the anticipated award; (iii) The geographical dispersion of the contract performance sites: or (iv) Any combination of the factors described in paragraphs (i) through (iii) of this definition.

b. Applicability of FAR Bundling Definition. This acquisition does not meet the definition of bundling since the Government will be procuring this requirement via a sole source procurement to an 8(a) small business concern. In accordance with RFO FAR 19.108-7, proposed 8(a) requirements that do not exceed the $5.5M competitive threshold for non-manufacturing NAICS may be awarded on a non-competitive basis. The selected 8(a) is capable of fulfilling all requirements under this proposed requirement.

c. Definition of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) Bundling Principle. This principle, as developed by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) case law, focuses on whether the combined requirement (new, old, or otherwise) restricts competition, and whether the agency is consolidating or bundling a new requirement unnecessarily. In order to justify CICA Bundling the agency must show "a reasonable basis for why the bundling is necessary to meet the agency need." (Vantex Serv., Inc., B-29041 5, Aug. 8, 2002, and Outdoor Venture Corp., B-299675; B-299676, Jul. 19, 2007).

CICA requires solicitations to provide for full and open competition except where restrictions on competition are necessary to satisfy the procuring agency’s needs. In such a case, restrictions on competition are allowed. Bundled procurements combining separate requirements into one contract have the potential to restrict competition by excluding firms that can provide only a portion of the bundled requirement. However, combining like and related efforts to achieve economies of scale and eliminate duplication of effort, consistent with industry practice and market research is reasonable basis for bundling requirements, though it may have the effect of 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 waterfront repairs and waterfront electrical repair for USCG Station Pascagoula, it is necessary to satisfy the customer’s needs. This procurement will allow the Mobile District to streamline the acquisition cycle and eliminate duplications of efforts by establishing a single “C” contract approach, through consolidating requirements at both sites into one contract. This is low risk for overall mission failure and will satisfy USCG Station Pascagoula’s need for a timely and cost-effective approach to meeting mission requirements.

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) stand-alone “C” contract constitutes consolidation in that it combines construction at two or more discrete sites in one contract, this approach provides the optimal combination of a timely acquisition, logistical and safety efficiencies, enhanced quality control, and a capable prime contractor to execute repair and construction requirements for the Pascagoula Port. This approach also accrues to the benefit of the District’s aggressive small business goals. Two Standalone “C” contracts were considered but rejected as they would introduce administrative inefficiencies, unnecessary risks, and logistical challenges.

, a single consolidated contract provides significant qualitative benefits that are necessary and justified. These benefits substantially exceed the benefits of the alternative contracting approach. Therefore, consolidation for this requirement is both necessary and justified in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 657q and RFO FAR 7.107-1.

DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION

CONSOLIDATED WATERFRONT REPAIRS TO PASCAGOULA PORT

PASCAGOULA, MS

The following signatures indicate concurrence with the contents of this document.

DETERMINATION REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION

CONSOLIDATED WATERFRONT REPAIRS TO PASCAGOULA PORT

PASCAGOULA, MS

Upon the basis of the findings above and with the concurrence of the SBA, I hereby determine, pursuant to the authority of RFO FAR 7.107-2, 15 U.S.C. § 657q, AFARS 5107.107-2(a), and UAI 5107.107-2-100(b)(ii)(B) that the proposed consolidation of construction at two or more discrete sites for the consolidated waterfront repairs to the Pascagoula Port in Pascagoula, MS is both necessary and justified.