G2_5_SoleSource_Justification_OU_Curration_(LW_Rev)_-_Signed.pdf

Control No. ______15-14__________

Page 1 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09

SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION

(Simplified Acquisition Procedures under 100K or

If using FAR Part 13 Not Exceeding $550K)

1. Agency/Contracting Activity: USACE-CECT-SWT

2. Description of Action:

Nature: New Requirement Follow-on Requirement Mod to Existing Purchase Order/Contract Number

Pricing: Firm-Fixed Price Time & Materials Cost

Funds: OMA Other Funds:

Name of Proposed Contractor(s): University of Oklahoma Street Address: 10000 ASP RM 208 City, State, Zip: Norman, OK 73019-4039 Phone: (405) 325-1718

3. Description of Services or Supplies:

The total estimated value of the proposed action is $ 219,133.40

In layman’s terms, briefly describe the services or supplies to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate. Include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services.

Provide information for any options included. If the action is a modification to an existing purchase order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification

USACE, Tulsa District owns and manages archaeological collections recovered from civil works project lands recovered in accordance with several laws and regulations, including the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended). These archaeological materials must be curated to standards outlined in 36 CFR Part 79, Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archeological Collections. Additionally, human skeletal remains and associated funerary objects (NAGPRA items, as identified in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) within these archaeological collections required special care and must be identified, inventoried, and eventually repatriated to appropriate Native American groups if rightfully claimed. NAGPRA items must receive professional curatorial care according to 36 CFR Part 79 standards until their final disposition is determined.

Because the archaeological collections will be stored in special conditions, the institution must have the technical capability to provide specialized curation-related tasks on those collections without those materials being transported out of the facility. The curation-related services that will be provided consist of the following: (1) curate archaeological materials in a professional curation environment as required by 36 CFR Part 79, including required environmental, security, fire detection and suppression, and pest management controls; (2) provide appropriate curation equipment and/or supplies to meet federal and/or Corps standards or direction; (3) fumigate (in a CO2 bubble) collections to remove insects and other intrusive pests; (4) rebox and rebag collections into archival-quality curation materials; (5) identify and segregate NAGPRA items, including human skeletal remains and associated funerary objects; (6) conduct inventories of collections; (7) accession and catalog collections; (8) provide collections oversight and direction to

Page 2 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09 visiting researchers, Indian tribes, or other organizations or individuals; (9) analyze archaeological collections; (10) process associated documentation to modern archival standards; (11) perform background research on collections ownership and acquisition; (12) produce reports and/or popular publications associated with the curation and/or analysis of Corps collections; (13) assist other Corps organizations or contractors in tasks associated with repackaging or curating archaeological collections; (14) prepare exhibits for archaeological collections; and (15) manage archaeological collections and associated documentation according to modern museum standards.

4. Authority: 10 U.S.C.2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(2)(iii)(A) -- Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

Action using simplified acquisition procedures (select one):

FAR 13.106-1(b)(1): For purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), contracting officers may solicit from one source if the contracting officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g. urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand name, or industrial mobilization)

FAR 13.501(a)(1)(ii): Test Program for Commercial Items, Section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 as codified at 10 USC Sec. 2304(g)(1)(B), and amended by Section 807 of the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act of 2005.

5. Reasons for Authority Cited:

a. Explain why the intended contractor is the only reasonable source who can provide the required supplies or services. Explain factors/unique qualifications such as proprietary data or exclusive licensing rights, if applicable. If brand name, explain why an adequate purchase description or other information suitable to solicit by full and open competition has not been developed or are not available.

Procurement of this requirement requires the use of FAR 6.302-1(2)(iii)(A) (Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements) because to accomplish the aforementioned objectives, it is necessary that the contractor operate and maintain a professional museum environment, with facilities that meet the standards and guidelines outlined in 36 CFR Part 79. Additionally, the project requires personnel with appropriate experience and capability in archaeological collections management, proficiency in the identification and handling of human skeletal remains and other NAGPRA items, and personnel familiar with the archaeological materials that have been identified and recovered in Oklahoma.

Only one institution in Oklahoma, the University of Oklahoma (OU) at Norman, is capable of providing the complete suite of aforementioned services, including the appropriate personnel and the physical curation environment, as required by 36 CFR Part 79. Furthermore, OU has staff that is directly familiar with Tulsa District archaeological collections, an invaluable resource in rehabilitating and curating these materials.

b. For a follow-on contract action of highly specialized services, or the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, discuss how the sole source action

Page 3 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09 will avoid duplication of costs that is not expected to be recovered through competition, or discuss the unacceptable delays to the government. Provide an estimate of the costs that will be duplicated and explain how such estimate was derived.

Competition would likely create a duplication of costs, including:

1) The costs of stabilizing, inventorying, assessing, insuring, and shipping the collections with a reputable art shipper (also time-intensive and would cause excessive delays). Estimated cost: could run into hundreds of thousands if contracting out the stabilization, inventory, and assessment. That portion alone could take over one or two years and cost $500,000.00 or more (based on recent cost estimates for similar work). The shipping would be in the thousands (or more), especially when considering insuring collections that could be considered priceless.

2) The costs of removing and replacing the approximately $200,000.00 worth of compact mobile shelving units we have installed at OU to create additional space for our collections. Estimated costs would probably equal or exceed the cost of the shelving alone.

3) The costs of labor to build new relationships with a different institution and to work through policies, procedures, and other details already established with current facility. Estimated costs would be at least 80 hours at GS-12 rate, if not more. Travel costs may also be associated.

4) The costs of consulting with Federally recognized tribes regarding the movement of NAGPRA materials (human remains and associated funerary objects) currently in Federal control from one place to another. If moved, special requests for transport and packaging would likely be made and USACE would be expected to cover costs. Estimated costs would be in the thousands, depending on the number of tribes, need to travel for meetings, and number of meetings required to accomplish task.

5) Potential additional cost could include additional travel time to perform inspections as required by 36 CFR Part 79, meet with Tribes for consultations or repatriations, and other necessary actions.

Depending on location, this could require TDY and include per diem costs, as well. Estimated costs would be in the thousands of dollars.

The Tulsa District archaeological collections located at the University of Oklahoma are comprised of approximately 3000 cubic feet of materials and associated records, including human remains, associated funerary objects, and unassociated funerary objects subject to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (Pub. L. 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 104 Stat. 3048). A large portion of the collections have been located at OU since they were originally excavated in the state, with some collections dating back into the 1940s or earlier. Many of the collections are still in line to be archivally stabilized and moving them would likely cause damage or loss of collections.

Federal agencies are directed to manage and preserve archaeological collections in accordance with 36 CFR parts 79 – Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections. These regulations require that collections shall be placed in a repository with adequate long-term curatorial capabilities (outlined in 36 CFR 79.9), appropriate to the nature and content of the collections. Guidelines for selecting a repository state that the collection should be deposited in a repository that is in the state of origin, when possible. In addition, the guidelines state that the repository should be one that stores and maintains other collections from the same site or project location or that houses collections from a similar geographic region or cultural area. They further state that the collection should not be subdivided and stored at more than a single repository unless such subdivision is necessary to meet special storage, conservation or research needs, and that federally-owned material remains and associated records should be deposited in the same repository to maintain the integrity and research value of the collection.

Page 4 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09

Based on the size and needs of the collections, the University of Oklahoma is the only institution with a repository in the state and region that clearly meets all the requirements of 36CFR79. As a University, it also provides the benefit of easily meeting the requirements of 36CFR79.10, which requires the Federal Agency to ensure that the collection is available for scientific, educational and religious uses. If the collections were moved to a repository out of state, they would be removed from the immediate area where they would be most likely to be accessed for research, and meeting the requirement to make the collections available to qualified professionals for study would be extremely difficult. In addition to the obvious need to keep the collections within Oklahoma for research purposes, the use of the collections for religious uses by Native American Tribes would be severely limited if the collections were moved further away. That would not only impact the use of the collection, but also the relationship the Tulsa District has with the Native American Tribes in our District. Furthermore, moving NAGPRA collections is not something that should be considered because of the sensitive nature of the collections and the need for tribes to be able to easily travel to the repository for consultations and repatriation activities.

In summary, moving the collections to another repository would result in a substantial duplication of costs, lost time, damaged relationships, and potential non-compliance with 36 CFR Part 79.

c. For contract extensions or bridge contracts when a competitive follow-on is in the works, summarize history of current contract and explain the reasons for any delays in the acquisition.

Include discussion of the milestones for the follow-on action; they should be as tight as possible.

Discuss why it would be neither cost effective nor realistic to expect another contractor to perform during the brief interim period; include issues such as start-up costs, phase-in, transfer of GFP, recruitment and staffing, etc. If the action is because of a protest, provide a brief discussion of the protest including important dates and the basis of the protest. Establish that the action will provide the minimum quantity or performance period.

N/A This is not a contract extension.

d. If urgency is the basis for the justification, explain the chronological events leading up to the requirement and explain why time constraints cannot permit even a limited competition. Describe impact of required delivery/performance date. Describe the detrimental effects/serious injury to the mission of the requiring activity or to the government, financial or otherwise, that will result if this justification is not approved and the product or service cannot be provided by the intended sole source contractor.

N/A This requirement is not utilizing 6.302-2 Unusual and compelling urgency.

6. Actions to Increase Competition: Describe efforts made to compete the action, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by FAR Subpart 5.2 or which exception under FAR 5.202 applies. If notice was publicized, discuss the number of written responses to the synopsis and the results of the assessment of the written responses. Provide rationale if interested sources were rejected. If applicable, state that no other sources have expressed interest, but all offers received shall be considered. Describe what actions will be taken to increase competition before subsequent acquisition of the supplies or services is required. You may state that action is a one-time requirement, but if a similar requirement arises, every effort will be made to compete it to the maximum extent possible.

Page 5 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09

A notice will be publicized in accordance with FAR Subpart 5.2. Requiring state-level expertise, this contract action is considered unusual and site-specific. The University of Oklahoma, located in Norman, Oklahoma is the only institution in the state that has the capability to perform all the previously listed tasks associated with archaeological curation and NAGPRA compliance. It is the only institution with the capability to fumigate large quantities of materials simultaneously and curate the archaeological materials to federal standards. It is the only institution in the state with facilities that meet 36 CFR Part 79 standards for environmental controls, security systems, fire detection and suppression, disaster plans, and pest management. OU staff has demonstrated expertise in museum tasks and functions, which is characteristic of few other institutions in the region. Additionally, there is no staff of any other institutions in Oklahoma with greater familiarity of the Corps’ archaeological collections in the state, especially since the museum already curates approximately 3000 ft3 of Corps archaeological collections. These factors, coupled with its location in Oklahoma, establish OU as the sole source of archaeological curation services for the particular needs of the Tulsa District as outlined in this project. As the national level institution identification project (described in no. 7. below) indicates, a federal effort has already been conducted to identify competitors, and none in the state approach OU in these areas of expertise.

7. Market Research: Describe the extent of the market research conducted to identify all qualified sources and the results thereof. "Market Research" is defined as those attempts you made to ascertain whether other qualified sources exist, and can include contact with knowledgeable experts regarding similar or duplicate requirements, contact with industry, results of a sources sought synopsis, or draft solicitations. Research of the marketplace may consist of written, telephonic, or world wide web inquiries.

A market survey was not conducted, because of the unusual nature of the required work. However, as part of a national study from 1996-2000, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security (DUSD(ES)), the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Director of Civil Works tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mandatory Center of Expertise for the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections, located in the St.

Louis District, to identify institutions in each U.S. state with the capability and interest in curating federal archaeological collections to the standards and guidelines outlined in 36 CFR Part 79. The objectives of the study were to identify each appropriate institution, and to identify strengths and weaknesses, including deficiencies that would require funding and upgrades to achieve the regulation standards. While several institutions were identified, visited, and evaluated in the southern Plains region, OU was the only institution in the state of Oklahoma whose facilities met 36 CFR Part 79 standards, had appropriate curation staff and museum capability, and had financial stability. All other facilities were determined to be deficient at some important level, most requiring funding, including potential federal assistance, to upgrade facilities and improve staffing. This factor was a particularly important revelation of the study, as over 95% of the institutions visited for the project reported that additional space for collections was either minimal or nonexistent. In these institutions with minimal or nonexistent space, there was general consensus that federal funding would be required to create additional, 36 CFR 79 – compliant, new facilities or facility upgrades for the purpose of curating federal archaeological collections.

8. Procurement History:

Previous Purchase Order(s) or Contract(s): Yes No

Page 6 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09

If "Yes", for each purchase order or contract provide:

Purchase order or contract number: W912BV-10-P-0139

Was action competed? Yes No If action was not competed, state the cited authority, summarize rationale:

This action was not competed under authority FAR 6.302-1 (Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

9. Additional Information to support the justification.

Approval of this justification is applicable to FAR 6.304 (a)(1) and is approved in writing by the Contracting Officer. The total estimated amount is $219,133.40 and no other approval is necessary.

10. Technical / Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which is included in this abbreviated J&A is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Submitted By: Michelle Horn Position Title: Archeologist Email address: Michelle.c.horn@usace.army.mil Signature: ______________________ Date:

11. Fair and Reasonable Price Determination: As contracting officer, I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. Basis for the determination:

The proposed price is fair and reasonable in accordance with 13.106-3 (2)(vi) – Comparison to an independent Government Estimate.

12. Prepared By:

SIGNATURE: DATE:

NAME: Rudolfo J. Morales TITLE: Contract Specialist

See guidance under FAR 13.106-3(a)(2), if applicable. Also provide the basis for this determination, e.g., describe techniques to be used to determine fair and reasonable price (FAR 15.402), such as price analysis, cost analysis, cost realism.

Page 7 of 7 Revision 1, dated 13 Apr 09

13. Review (if value exceeds $100K): I have reviewed this justification and find it legally sufficient.

Legal Counsel

SIGNATURE: DATE:

NAME: Lauren M. Williams TITLE: Assistant District Counsel

14. Contracting Officer’s Approval: I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Based on the foregoing, I approve this sole source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

SIGNATURE: DATE:

NAME: Robert E. Reed TITLE: Contracting Officer

M5CT9RER

Typewritten Text 19 May 2015