B.04.21 Consolidation Determinations - Combined AFCS (SB and Unrestricted)_Redacted.pdf

Consolidation Determination

AFCS

COMBINED CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION

FOR ARCHITECT-ENGINEER (A-E) SERVICES

FOR

ARMY FACILITIES COMPONENTS SYSTEM (AFCS)

SINGLE AWARD TASK ORDER CONTRACTs (SATOCs) W912DQ24R4019 Small Business

W912DQ24R4012 Unrestricted (As prescribed by FAR 7.107-2 and AFARS 5107.107-2)

RATIONAL

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 $2 million, 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: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District (NWK) plans to solicit offers for two single award task order contracts (SATOCs), Indefinite Delivery Contracts (IDCs) for Architect-Engineer (A-E) Services in support of the Army Facilities Component System (AFCS) Design requirements. NWK has conducted market research that demonstrates consolidation of this procurement to be both necessary and justified. FAR 2.102 defines �consolidation or consolidated requirement� as �

(1) Means 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

AFCS

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.

(2) �Separate contract� as used in this definition, means a contract that has been performed by any business, including small and other than small business concerns.

3. Description of Procurement Action: Each SATOC will have a clearly defined scope to outline definitive requirements for each separate contract. The awarded SATOCs and resultant A-E IDCs support AFCS projects assigned to USACE at NWK in support of the AFCS Program Management Office at Engineering Research and Development Center Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (ERDC-CERL). Additional project support will be provided to other Defense agencies such as the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), otherwise known as AFCS Design Agents, in support of the AFCS Program.

a. Requirement defined:

The two proposed SATOCs will be solicited, one as a total small business set-aside and one unrestricted, to replace the current expiring total small business and unrestricted AFCS SATOCs as noted under Table 2 below.

Projects will be funded at the TO level using the appropriate funds for the requirement.

The AFCS Program receives both Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and Operations and Maintenance, Army (OMA) funds.

The Small Business SATOC covers requirements that focus on creating all new facilities, work in hard metric units, designing combatant command-specific vertical construction facilities and developing a complete list of locally procured parts and pieces used in construction of designs to include web-based cutsheets. The level of complexity involves designs that must focus on meeting customer needs through locally procured building materials of standard sizes and criteria, specific to the predetermined region (coordination is not required with Logistics Management). Naming and numbering schematics must be newly developed, generally based off existing standards set within the database. Designers must have a good understanding of contingency design and troop construction capabilities. Designs are limited to vertical building construction.

Designs must prioritize maximizing efficiencies through reuse of own design products.

AFCS

Designs are generally standalone, and coordination is desirable, but not required with all other designing agencies.

The unrestricted SATOC covers requirements that focus on design/updates to existing facilities within the database (designs include complex utilities and vertical construction facilities), work in hard imperial units, designs for worldwide use, understanding characteristics of existing construction materials within the database (utilizing existing materials to the greatest extent possible and requesting new materials be added to the database as required through coordination with Logistics Management), and participation in charrette activities/interaction with the SME, school house, and customer as needed to gain specific design-update information including new code/criteria. The level of complexity involves designs that must function successfully within highly complex constraints of the existing database. A vast knowledge of the differing numbering schematics must be well understood so as not to unintentionally replace or duplicate existing information. Planning must be done well in advance and thoughtfully laid out for all design updates to ensure clean sorting within the database. Designers must have a very clear understanding of contingency design and troop construction capabilities since any standards set will be widely reproduced throughout the database. Designs vary from contingency power generation plants to latrine and shower buildings, requiring a variety of engineering specialties. Designs must maintain a focus on maximizing efficiencies through reuse of relevant, applicable information within the database and designers must be able to tease out when such items are outdated and no longer of use. Coordination is required with all other designing agencies to ensure similar standards are being followed. Designs must consider database hierarchy and must cleanly plug into Base Camp designs, as applicable.

For both SATOCs, the AFCS project services involve designing facilities for a contingency environment to initial and temporary doctrinal standards. Services will include but are not limited to conducting facility review (vetting) sessions; conducting design charrettes; reviewing, revising, and developing design documents, construction activities, work elements, and bills of materials (BOM); provisioning of national stock numbers (NSN); preparing drawings, design analyses, and Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS); data modeling; and project coordination. This A-E requirement is not performance based, in accordance with FAR 37.102(a)(1)(i).

AFCS provides readily accessible, current, flexible, adaptable, and scalable standard facility designs that address the initial, temporary, and semi-permanent construction of contingency bases and enable maneuver commanders to plan and execute missions across the full spectrum of operations. The AFCS designs are based on general conditions and requirements anticipated in the Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) and are intended for construction by engineer troops with materials furnished through the Army supply system. Civilian contractors may be used to construct JOA facilities by supplementing the AFCS designs with Theater Oriented Guide Specifications (TOGS).

The AFCS designs allow for site adaptation and the substitution of locally available materials. AFCS designs incorporate the life, health, and safety standard accepted in the

AFCS

contingency UFCs. If a requirement is created that necessitates a new design, the AFCS user submits the requirement and funding to USACE for processing and development of a new design.

Requirements for the review and design update of facilities will include: coordination with the standard proponent to determine current requirements; review and correction of Life Safety Plans; update facility design packages to current doctrinal standards including Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 1-201-01 compliance; update drawings to be fully Computer Aided Design (CAD) compliant in accordance with A/E/C CAD Standard Manual Release 6.0; development or revision of architectural plans; development or revision of structural designs (foundations, walls, roof framing); review and revision of mechanical systems (Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), plumbing) and electrical systems (lighting, power, panel boxes, alarms). Requirements for the preparation of the design analysis will include development of narratives that describe each facility and its intended use; documentation of design criteria, design assumptions, and primary features, all by discipline; calculations; and cut sheets. Requirements for data modeling will include enter all facility design data into the program database (materials, labor hours, and equipment hours for all construction activities and supporting elements);

verify accuracy and completeness of designs; perform quantity takeoffs; perform quality control of data in the database; conduct reviews with stakeholders and incorporate changes as directed. Project-specific requirements will be described in each individual task order�s Statement of Work. Multiple task orders may be awarded with similar completion schedules and overlapping delivery dates.

Services shall be accomplished in the contractor�s office except for such field investigations and field surveys as required at the project site.

The use of an indefinite delivery contract is appropriate IAW FAR 16.501-2(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 quantity 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.

b. Consolidated Requirements:

The proposed contract action will result in the consolidation of AFCS A-E requirements for a five (5) year ordering period. Projects required are expected to increase throughout the ordering period as needs are identified, especially year-end work requirements. These SATOCs are needed to ensure a higher degree of consistency in the quality of work received. The AFCS requirements have a total projected value of $40M ($20M each).

AFCS

AFCS

The AFCS Design Revision Program is an Army-wide program that is managed by ERDC and anticipates that each facility will be evaluated and redesigned every five years in a rotating fashion. AFCS requirements were previously procured through task orders under unrestricted IDC W912DQ19D4010 and SB IDC W912DQ19D4011. Prior to the two five-year SATOCs, three USACE Districts (Kansas City, Fort Worth, and Mobile), and NAVFAC were working this program for ERDC in support of the general Army contingency efforts. USACE Districts were splitting the effort between in house engineering and design resources and placement of A-E task orders to two A-E firms � HDR Engineering (large business) for Kansas City and Mobile, and Etegra (small business) for Fort Worth.

Supporting the AFCS Program requires Government furnished computers, common access card (CAC) enabled database access, Joint Construction Management System (JCMS) interface tool and Design Management System (DMS) application training. It can take anywhere from several months to a year for a new firm to obtain the appropriate accesses and become proficient in supporting the AFCS Program. While many A-E firms are likely capable of supporting the design requirements of the program, the training and access requirements are such that it precludes the ability to issue task orders on broad scope IDCs. Additionally, the Government furnished computers and requisite training are not included in those contracts. Unless the firm already has an existing contract elsewhere supporting the AFCS Program, they cannot readily perform AFCS requirements.

The following firms have historically supported the AFCS Program as described below:

AFCS

Table 2 - Current NWK AFCS SATOCs

Contract Description Total Capacity

W912DQ19D4010 Unrestricted $20,000,000.00

W912DQ19D4011 SB $10,000,000.00

c. Discussion of how this consolidation aids the Government in meeting mission objectives. This strategy directly supports the AFCS Program mission and was developed to help eliminate redundancies, enhance sharing of best practices, reduce the overall cost of doing business for USACE, and allow for a coordinated effort. Supporting the AFCS Program requires Government furnished computers, CAC enabled database access and JCMS interface tool and DMS application training. It can take anywhere from several months to a year for a new firm to obtain the appropriate accesses and become proficient in supporting the AFCS Program. There are no negative implications since the requirements are specialized and not a capability to develop for other opportunities.

d. Effect on Small Business or set-aside concerns: The consolidation of these requirements will have minimal negative impact on the small business community. The current strategy will continue to give the maximum preference to small business firms without placing an undue burden on them by establishment of the small business SATOC.

If a large business is awarded the unrestricted contract, that contract will also support small business interests by implementation of the small business subcontracting plan.

Small Business Participation is a secondary factor in the established evaluation criteria.

Finally, small businesses are not excluded from submitting qualifications in response to the unrestricted SATOC and may be awarded the contract if they are determined to be the most highly qualified firm for that contract.

e. Proposed Requirement North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and size standard: The applicable NAICS Code for this procurement is 541330 � Engineering Services. The small business size standard is $25,500,000.00. If the respondent's average revenue for the last three fiscal years is over small business standards, the respondent is not considered a Small Business. The Product Service Code is C219 for Architecture and Engineering Services.

4. Results of Market Research: Market research results demonstrate consolidation is both necessary and justified. The market research conducted, and the completed analysis as documented in the Market Research Analysis Memorandum (Attachment C), indicates that consolidation is in the Government�s best interest. Market research techniques used to determine the number and capability of interested firms planning to compete for award and to aid in the development of the overall procurement strategy are documented in the market research memorandum and include the following a.) querying the Small Business Administration Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) database, b.) Sources Sought publication, c.) search of existing USACE NWK IDCs. Per FAR 19.201(a), the general policy of the Government is to provide maximum practicable opportunities to small business concerns. As summarized in the market research analysis, results indicated

AFCS

numerous small businesses can perform the required services to meet the SATOCs� requirements and concluded a set-aside to a particular socioeconomic group was not advantageous.

a. Dynamic Small Business Search: Initial research was conducted on 10 January 2024. The search parameters included firms located in the NWK District (Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska) areas that identified they perform work under NAICS 541330.

b. Sources Sought: A Sources Sought notice was posted to SAM.gov on 28 November 2023 with a close date of 13 December 2023 to conduct market research for an AFCS A-E services in support of the Kansas City District. The NAICS code for this project is 541330 � Engineering Services, with a small business size standard of $25.5M.

The Sources Sought notice produced seven contractors who submitted documentation that showed their firm's capacity and capability per the requested information from the Sources Sought. Of the seven responses, two were from large businesses. Of the five small business concerns, only one appears to be viable. The AFCS requirement is a niche capability and is generally not developed outside of the program. This is reflective of the current SATOCs where competed, submitted for both the unrestricted and the small business. The PDT also contacted all firms that were known to possibly have the capability to respond to the sources sought but interest was not shown. It was concluded there is not adequate socioeconomic concerns for a socioeconomic set aside, as one or more of these companies may not propose once the solicitation is released. Though some of the companies are not currently listed as small business under the Engineering NAICS, this does not mean that they cannot update their profile. These results show that there is enough interest to synopsize the requirements, one as unrestricted and one as small business.

AFCS

b. Approach B: Individual/Standalone (C-Type) Contracts (No Consolidation).

A second alternative contracting approach would be to procure the requirements on a stand-alone basis where each of the five Design Agents separately issue individual contracts each fiscal year for their respective requirements, resulting in up to 40 separate C-type contracts over the next five years.

AFCS

(iv) Terms and Conditions. It is not anticipated that the Government will secure better terms or conditions by selecting this alternative.

(v) Other Benefits. No other benefits of this alternative were identified.

(vi) Conclusion. This alternative is not in the best interest of the Government. For this requirement, using a MATOC is not beneficial in cost, consistency, or continuity. This method would result in higher administrative costs, increased workload, and longer timeframes for procurement and is the second most expensive approach resulting in $3,179.713.00 total cost. Approach C is $377,223.00, or roughly 13.5% more than the preferred SATOC approach. This alternative is the second longest in terms of acquisition cycle. This approach could also lead to not being in compliance with the USACE TO selection process as the demand could potentially not be enough to keep a minimum of three firms active and competitive.

d. Summary of Approaches:

Approach A Advantages Disadvantages

Consolidation (Recommended

Approach)

Two SATOCs

1. Lowest procurement cost

2. Lowest acquisition time

3. Streamlined acquisition process by utilizing programmatic ordering procedures

4. Reduced risk of disruption to systems by awarding contracts only to the two most highly qualified firms.

5. A single firm on each SATOC minimizes coordination requirements and the risk of disruptions during contract transitions for various phases of the requirement.

6. Provides the continuity of vetted firms with specialized experience.

7. Allows for efficiencies of scale and scope of overhead, personnel, etc. on multiple interdependent/concurrent tasks.

1. Limited to the awarded firms, limited source environment after award.

2. May decrease qualification-based competition slightly due to the low number of firms possessing the knowledge of working AFCS and/or similar contracts per the market research.

3. Highest level of consolidation of the approaches considered.

AFCS

would require additional $40- $80,000 of source selection process.

5. May decrease interest by the most highly qualified firms in small contracts with increased submission and opportunity costs of trying to capture each contract.

6. Increased onboarding costs.

7. Lack of efficiency leads to increased costs attributable to learning curve.

AFCS

Consolidation is critical to the mission�s success. Market research supports the establishment of two SATOCs. Consolidating the requirement is the most time and cost-efficient approach; it will balance the mission requirements, customer support and contract lifespan. Due to limited resources of personnel for source selection boards and oversight and the high number of actions in the next few years, time savings, limited burden of contract administration and improved contract performance will be critical to meet the mission and customer needs.

The recommended strategy benefits include building of Corps relationships with the contract holders by working with only one contractor (per SATOC), minimizing contract execution costs, and shortening contracting lead times, which will result in consistency and continuity of the project execution by improving quality and proficiency.

The SATOCs are critical for providing AFCS Program support enabling execution of critical year-end actions where requirements must be awarded on accelerated schedules.

Not using a SATOC for these requirements will compromise the AFCS Program.

Approach A is the recommended approach and consolidation is considered necessary and justified.

7. Bundling: This acquisition does not meet the definition of bundling because the requirements of this SATOC are suitable for small business concerns as discussed and are set-aside for small business participation. There is one SATOC set-aside for small business, and the unrestricted SATOC will be open to small businesses to compete for.

Consolidation is not driving the unrestricted SATOC out of reach for small business participation. 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.

Since bundling is not applicable, additional documentation consistent with bundling as required by FAR 7.107 is not required; therefore, no additional justification is necessary.

AFCS

8. Consideration, facts, and reasoning supporting the determination: The consolidation approach for these actions have been coordinated with the Office of Small Business Programs and both DD Form 2579 Small Business Coordination Records are final and loaded in the official contract file. Consolidation is necessary to meet NWK�s mission objectives to increase efficiency, streamline processes, decrease costs, provide continuity, and deliver quality performance.

9. Summary: This consolidation is determined necessary and justified as the benefits of the consolidated acquisitions substantially exceeds the benefits that would be derived from alternative contracting approaches that may involve less consolidation, as supported herein. This approach presents the best opportunity for small business participation and diminishes the potential for unnecessary risks to quality, performance, or efficiency of these requirements. Failure to consolidate will likely result in increased burden to the Government and negative impact to small business with any alternative approach.

Furthermore, award of the consolidated SATOCs under the proposed procurement method does not meet the definition of bundling, has minimal negative impact on small business, and assists the AFCS Program meeting its mission.

AFCS

DETERMINATION

CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS FOR

$20M Small Business A-E AFCS SATOC and

$20M Unrestricted A-E AFCS SATOC

Based on the foregoing rationale, I hereby determine, pursuant to the Federal Acquisition Regulation 7.107-2 and Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 5107.107, that the consolidation of the requirements for the $20M Small Business A-E SATOC and $20M Unrestricted A-E SATOC for new indefinite delivery contracts in support of the AFCS Program is both necessary and justified and will serve the best interests of the Government.