JUN 22

CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION FOR

GARIBALDI AND DEPOE BAY PIPELINE 2026

(As prescribed by FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.107-2)

RATIONALE

1. Consolidation may provide substantial benefits to the Government. However, because of the potential impact on small business participation, before conducting an acquisition that is a consolidation of requirements with an estimated total dollar value exceeding a written determination shall be made that the consolidation is necessary and justified in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 657q, after ensuring that--

(a) Market research has been conducted;

(b) Any alternative contracting approaches that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation have been identified;

(c) The determination is coordinated with the agency's Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Utilization or the Office of Small Business Programs;

(d) Any negative impact by the acquisition strategy on contracting with small business concerns has been identified; and

(e) Steps are taken to include small business concerns in the acquisition strategy.

2. Introduction: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Portland District (NWP) plans to solicit bids for a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Construction Contract for Garibaldi and Depoe Bay Pipeline Dredging 2026, for performance in Oregon. The dredging project includes mandatory work at two (2) locations. Locations include Tillamook and Lincoln County, Oregon. Current market research demonstrates that consolidation of these procurements is both necessary, justified, and will satisfy USACE requirements for construction projects performed at two (2) or more discrete sites. Market research associated with this procurement is attached. Furthermore, the Market Research Report indicates that, even with the consolidation of the two (2) discrete sites, it can be anticipated that there will be offers from two (2) or more small businesses.

FAR 2.102 defines consolidation as

(1) 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; or;

(2) separate contract as used in this definition, means a contract that has been interests was informed of the general scope and timeframe of the requirement. Three of the eight firms indicated their availability and interest in submitting bids for a potential solicitation containing pipeline dredging work at the sites in this consolidation if it was solicited (Duwamish Services, Dixon Marine Services, and Portable Hydraulic Dredging). Upon receiving three (3) favorable results indicating small business interest and intent to bid on this project, no further firms were contacted. In past jobs with NWP, these firms have made use of the same equipment that will be needed on the current consolidated job.

As a result of market research, the Government determined that there is a reasonable expectation of receiving at least two (2) bids from capable small businesses. Therefore, it was recommended that this consolidated requirement be set aside for small business as a Total Small Business Set-aside.

Table 2 Companies Contacted During Market Research

Company Business Size Owns Dredges Capable of Completing Work

Interested in Bidding

Portable Hydraulic Dredging

Small Yes Yes

Dixon Marine Services

Small Yes Yes

Duwamish Services Small Yes Yes

5. Alternative Contracting Approaches and Rationale for Rejection:

a. Alternative 1 – No Consolidation: Two (2) Standalone Contracts. An alternative contracting approach considered is to solicit two (2) standalone contracts, one for each project work area.

(i) Quality. There are no tangible advantages or disadvantages in terms of quality in selecting this alternative since contractors would be required to accomplish the work to the same level of quality.

(ii) Acquisition Cycle. The solicitation and award of two (2) pipeline dredging contracts by NWP rather than only one (1) contract under the proposed consolidation would require twice the number of total acquisition man hours to complete the work. According to the NWD PALT Master spreadsheet (current as of January 2025), the most likely time required to complete a complex IFB is 200 hours. Under this alternative, two (2) IFBs would require a total acquisition time of 400 hours to complete, which is significantly more than 200 hours for one consolidated contract.

(iii) Cost. Differences in cost between this alternative and the recommendation for consolidation are significant. Under this alternative, more resources would be required to award and administer two (2) contracts instead of only one contract. Instead of Contracting Division acquisition costs of as per the NWP Labor Budget Model for an IFB of the “most likely” complexity category, costs would be or two times the amount under the proposed consolidation. Contract support and administrative costs would also increase under this alternative. Under full consolidation, the costs for developing the requirements, including support from NVW-W and ENC-CV as well as administration of the construction are estimated by Navigation Division – Waterways Maintenance Section to Under this alternative of no consolidation these costs would rise as a result of administrating two (2) construction sites simultaneously to an estimated total of , a difference of .

Differences in mobilization and demobilization costs under this alternative compared to under consolidation are also substantial. The estimated difference in costs under this alternative as compared to under the recommended consolidation is an increase of approximately since two (2) separate contracts would be issued with multiple contractors having to mobilize and demobilize from the location of the contractor’s origin as opposed to from one site to the next. Based on the amount of funding currently available, this increase in cost would not allow award of two (2) separate contracts consolidated by geographic area.

The table below provides a summary of the cost savings discussed above and demonstrates that the quantifiable benefits in dollar amounts are substantial and exceed the standards set forth in FAR 7.107-2(d).

Table 4 Cost Savings Consolidation versus Alternative 1

Cost Cost Under Consolidation

Cost Under Alternative

Cost Savings

Cost Savings as a Percentage of Total Contract Value very likely that the alternative would exceed current project funding. Multiple contracts would offer the potential for additional opportunities to small business contractors, but this benefit is not a certainty. If the recommended consolidation is not approved, some projects requiring dredging will not be dredged, and mobilization and demobilization costs will be millions of dollars higher.

Mission objectives necessitate a consolidated contract and the benefits of this approach exceed the benefits of the other alternatives considered. Consolidating this contract will provide total savings to the Government in terms of procurement, support, and mobilization costs of compared to Alternative 1; and as such, the quantifiable benefits exceed the standards set forth in FAR 7.107-2(d).

7. Bundling:

a. Bundling in accordance with (IAW) FAR 2.101 and 7.107, and 15 U.S. Code 657q - When the procuring activity intends to proceed with a bundled or substantially bundled acquisition, it must document the acquisition strategy to include a determination that bundling is necessary and justified, when compared to the benefits that could be derived from meeting the agency’s requirements through separate smaller contracts.

b. Definition. FAR 2.101 defines “bundling” as a subset of consolidation that combines two or more requirements for supplies or services, previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts (see paragraph (2) of this definition), into a solicitation for a single contract, a multiple-award contract, or a task or delivery order that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern (even if it is suitable for award to a small business with a Small Business Teaming Arrangement) 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 (1)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this definition.

c. Applicability of FAR Bundling Definition. In reference to the definition of bundling in FAR 2.101, this contract does not meet the definition of “bundling” because these requirements are suitable for award to a Small Business concern even if they are combined into one contract.

8. Considerations, Facts, Reasoning Supporting the Determination: All facts, considerations and rationale have been addressed previously in this determination. The DD Form 2579 has been routed to the Contracting Officer for approval. It is anticipated that all concur that consolidation of this requirement is both necessary and justified.

9. Summary: Consolidation of Garibaldi and Depoe Bay Pipeline Dredging 2026 requirements into a single contract will provide the greatest benefit to the Government and ensure timely execution of necessary pipeline dredging work in Oregon. The quantifiable benefits of consolidation; compared to Alternative 1, in comparison to the estimated contract value, and therefore alternative exceeds the standard in FAR 7.107-2(d)(1)(i) and are further supplemented by the qualitative benefits. Therefore, consolidation of Garibaldi Depoe Bay Pipeline Dredging 2026 requirements into a single contract is necessary and justified.

Enclosures:

(1) Market Research Report with Small Business Search Results