JA_Multiple_Sites_-_W9128F-13-C-0027_P00020_FBO.pdf

Control No. CECT-NWO-18-20

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. CONTRACTING AGENCY:

The responsible contracting agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, 1616 Capitol Avenue, Omaha, NE 68102.

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:

This request is for addition of Feasibility Study (FS)/ Proposed Plan (PP)/ Record of Decision (ROD) for six East Side Munitions Response Sites (MRSs) TG507, OD508b, TG509a, TG511b, OD513b, and XU512b, contract modification to contract W9128F-13- C-0027.

Type of funds will be Air Force Defense Environmental Restoration (DERA).

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES OR NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION:

The contract W9128F-13-C-0027 was originally awarded to URS Group through full and open competition for Environmental Remediation Services (ERS) under NAICS Code 562910, Under the Utah Test Training Range (UTTR) Fence-to-Fence Performance Based Remediation (PBR).

URS Group recently completed Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) Remedial Investigations (RIs) at TG507, OD508b, TG509a, TG511b, OD513b, and XU512b. The next phases of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) process include the Feasibility Study (FS), Proposed Plan (PP), and Record of Decision (ROD). In order to complete these next three phases of the CERCLA process, it is proposed that the current contactor be tasked with the following Scope of Work required to complete the CERCLA process.

The contractor will complete a FS that presents remedial action objectives (RAOs) and general response actions, identifies and screens technologies, assembles selected technologies and process options into remedial alternatives, and evaluates those alternatives using the National Contingency Plan (NCP) criteria. Remedial alternative cost estimates shall be presented in the FS and developed specific to sites TG507, OD508b, TG509a, TG511b, OD513b, and XU512b. The alternatives will consider a range of response actions, remedial technologies, and process options, including no action (as required by the NCP), land use controls (LUCs), means to reduce or eliminate toxicity, mobility, or volume of contamination or waste, innovative technologies, monitored natural attenuation, and protection from explosives safety hazards. The FS must also recommend a preferred alternative.

The contractor will prepare a PP that provides a summary background, site conditions, FS results, rationale for selected remedy, and a description of the proposed remedial action (RA) goals and associated rationale. After gaining Government and Utah Department of

Environmental Quality (UDEQ) acceptance, submit the final PP for public comment and present it at a scheduled and advertised public meeting. Prepare meeting transcripts that include a Responsiveness Summary to address issues raised by the public for incorporation into the ROD.

The contractor will prepare and gain acceptance of a ROD to document the selected remedy. The ROD will include a description of land use and exposure scenarios, and will demonstrate how the selected RA will meet regulatory requirements.

This modification is considered to be outside the scope of the current contract because the original contracted objective for the listed sites was only to complete effort through the Remedial Investigation (RI) phase of the CERCLA process due to potential unknown results during the RI and it was not feasible to require offerors to propose the next stages on unknown information. The FS/PP/ROD is the next step in the process to obtain the final disposition of the sites TG507, OD508b, TG509a, TG511b, OD513b, and XU512b and complete the overall end objective of the CERCLA process, it was not included in or competed in the original solicitation due to unforeseen status of sites TG507, OD508b, TG509a, TG511b, OD513b, and XU512b at the time of original solicitation.

Air Force is the requiring agency. .

4. AUTHORITY CITED:

10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)

For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in--

(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition, or irements. (See 10 U.S.C.

2304(d)(1)(B))

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED:

Due to the remote and austere conditions under which remediation at the Utah Test and Training Range is to be conducted, the current contractor has put forth extraordinary efforts and invested substantial amounts of time and funding deploying to the remote location and obtaining the security clearances required for access to the training range.

The environment this requirement is to be performed in is harsh, remote desert location making it difficult to access without the proper equipment. Businesses that work in this environment must have sufficient infrastructure to be able to access and locate equipment onsite required to perform remediation. In addition to the location, there are strict scheduling timelines to be coordinated and met to allow for work to be completed around the operations of the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) activities.

The intent of the fence-to-fence PBR contract was to have one contractor from a continuity and efficiency stand point to complete the work as cost effectively as possible.

The current PBR Contractor completed all the RI work on sites TG507, OD508b, TG509a, TG511b, OD513b, and XU512b and the likely progression is to have them complete the FS and all the close out documentation to close out the site with the regulators. To bring another contractor in at the end of the CERCLA process that has not worked on the site yet would greatly increase the cost of the close out process and cause confusion with the regulators and the Air Force by bringing in multiple contractors and personalities that they have not been working with to date.

There is significant coordination required for this effort with Air Force, local, state and federal regulatory agencies as well as operators at the range to ensure that work can be completed while accommodating the schedule of the test and training range, and that reports and submittals are reviewed and approved in a timely manner to allow completion of the contract. URS has only been able to established clear and successful lines of coordination after devoting months of time to creating the coordination avenues. The work to be conducted and the time in which it must be completed does not allow for a new contractor to start from the beginning and reestablish the coordination avenues

6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B)).

Currently, URS is mobilized to the location, has established the required security clearances and accesses, and has established lines of communication among all stakeholders. To solicit and award this requirement to a separate contractor would require the new contractor to duplicate the above efforts leading to a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A)).

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION:

This requirement was initially solicited unrestricted with limited Small Business interest due to the complexity and business infrastructure requirements to fulfill this requirement.

Only a limited number of Large Business responded to the solicitation. The environmental remediation community of contractors able to fulfill this requirement is small and relatively unchanging. Industry capabilities have not changed significantly, as evidenced by market research conducted for other similar acquisitions from 2013 to current, to drive a decision for full and open competition.

Originally, market research for this requirement was conducted by issuing a sources sought on 20 March 2013 seeking contractor capabilities to execute Environmental Response actions and Military Munitions Response actions at multiple sites at Hill AFB, Utah.

As part of the sources sought, the Omaha District requested firms to submit answers to capability questions via Survey Monkey. In response to the request, the Omaha District received responses from 34 firms, both small business and large business firms. Of the firms which responded, 16 firms identified themselves as small business firms and 13 firms identified themselves as large business firms.

The survey also asked the firms to identify their annual revenues. Approximately 65% of the firms had less than $100 million in annual revenue which could be problematic in executing a PBR contract that may be valued up to $99 million. The actual awarded value of the contract was $39,985,842.00. With the expectation that there will be modification similar to the modification requested in their J&A, the dollar value of the contract will exceed the approximately $40M value and therefore, the analysis of the firms capabilities from the original market research holds true.

Approximately 49% had completed environmental type projects in Utah in the last 5 years although no specific project information was requested. Approximately 67% of the firms had experience on Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) projects and approximately 82% of the firms had experience on environmental response projects.

Interestingly, approximately 88% of the firms stated they had experience executing Performance Based Remediation (PBR) although the PBR concept has been used on a limited number of federal government projects to date.

While a significant majority of the respondents had capability to perform environmental response projects, the range being from 64% to 80% of the firms can perform various segments of the work. However, a much smaller portion of the firms indicated capability to perform MMRP segments of work. The range of capabilities to perform MMRP segments of work ranged from 32% to 64%.

Many of the small business firms which responded had revenues under $50 million and less than 100 employees. Of the small business firms that had revenues above $50 million or more than 100 employees, those firms may limited capabilities to perform the full range of requirements. A discussion of the larger small business firms in terms of revenues and employees is listed below:

Of all the small business firms responding to the sources sought, only one small business firm had revenues greater than $100 million and more than 100 employees but less than 500 employees.

Based upon analysis of the data, there are a limited number of small business firms which could execute this large scale contract. For most small business firms, this contract would double or more its yearly revenues with award of this single contract. And that

In addition, the wide range of environmental and MMRP services needed to execute this performance based remediation project may put too much capabilities. And since at least 50% of the work effort would need to be completed by the prime contractor it is highly probable that it is not feasible to put a small corporation in this position.

Based on information in paragraph 5, above, as well as paragraph 6, competition for this action was not feasible.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION:

Market research will be revisited on future requirements in order to identify all potential sources in relation to the specific requirement at that time. This specific modification has been researched through a Special Notice posted to FedBizOpps on 9 Aug 2018.

8. MARKET RESEARCH:

This specific require for the FS/PP/ROD is estimated at . Based on readily available historical information as a result of market research conducted within the district, there are a number of firms that may be able to fulfill the requirement simply based on the scope of work and technical requirements. What makes this requirement challenging (to include logistics and cost controls as well as duplication of costs) is the remote and austere environment that the Utah Test and Training Range is location in, the schedule that must be coordinated to coincide with UTTR operations, the mobilization to the location as well as the security requirements that would induce additional burdens of cost and time if a different contractor would be brought in to perform the FS/PP/ROD.

The current contractor is already performing these processes at many other sites within the UTTR Fence-to-Fence contract. Utilizing the current contractor would eliminate duplicative mobilization costs and time, eliminate transfer of knowledge and documentation of the site to a new contractor, and eliminate the necessity for a new contractor to coordinate access/clearances/lines of communication with Government entities already established by the current contractor.

The additional costs that would be incurred to bring in a new contractor would far outweigh any benefits/cost savings realized by soliciting this requirement rather than incorporation by modification.

9. INTERESTED SOURCES:

To date, no other sources have written to express an interest. A synopsis of this proposed action was posted to FBO in accordance with FAR 5.201. The notice was posted to FBO for the required 15 days in accordance with FAR 5.203(a). No interested parties replied in response to the notice.

10. OTHER FACTS: No other pertinent information is available at this time.

11. PREPARED BY:

NAME: DATE:

TITLE: Contract Specialist SIGNATURE:

12. 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.

NAME: DATE:

TITLE: Project Manager SIGNATURE:

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." The basis for this determination is based on the utilization of rates and level of effort that the contractor is currently using for identical work under the current contract. Additionally, the Independent Government Estimate will be utilized as a secondary method to determine fair and reasonable cost/price. Certified cost or pricing data will not be obtained as the cost of the modification will be below the $2,000,000 threshold to obtain certified cost or pricing data.

NAME: DATE:

TITLE: Contracting Officer SIGNATURE:

14. CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION:

"I certify that this J&A is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief."

NAME: DATE:

TITLE: Contracting Officer SIGNATURE:

16. OFFICE OF COUNSEL:

NAME: DATE:

TITLE: District Counsel SIGNATURE:

17. OFFICE OF SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAMS:

NAME: DATE:

TITLE: Deputy for Small Business SIGNATURE: