DCANG MTC JA_Redacted 15JUN21.pdf

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION (J&A)

J&A Log No. NAB-21-020

For Technical Assistance Services and Construction Phase (Title II) Services for the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) 113th Fighter Wing (FW) F-16 Mission Training

Center (MTC), located in Joint Base Andrews, Camp Springs, Maryland

1. CONTRACTING AGENCY: Per Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.303-2(b)(1), the Procuring Agency responsible for this action is the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Baltimore District (CENAB-CT) Large Contracts, Architect-Engineering (A-E) & Environmental Services Branch, in Baltimore Maryland.

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: In accordance with FAR 6.303-2(b)(2), USACE-CENAB requests approval to award a New Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Sole-Source Contract with A-E FSB Architects & Engineers (FSB) for Construction Phase (Title II) Services and Technical Assistance Services for the DCANG -113th FW F-16 MTC, located at Joint Base Andrews, Camp Springs, Maryland. The Government projects a September 2021 Award Date utilizing Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21), Military Construction (MILCON) funds.

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

DCANG has a Construction requirement for Technical Assistance Service and Construction (Title II) Phase Services to house the 113th FW F-16 – MTC, located at Joint Base Andrews, Camp Springs, Maryland. The pre-award Technical Assistance Services include, but are not limited to, reviewing and resolution of the design comments to document revisions and comments, attending resolution meetings, as well as responding to Requests for Information (RFI) during the solicitation period.

Post award Construction (Title II) Phase Services include, but are not limited to, reviewing shop drawings, conducting site visits attending meetings, such as the pre-work conference and design progress meetings with the Contractor, responding to RFIs on behalf of USACE- CENAB, revising special construction techniques, methods, and procedures will be required as an Option Item. In addition, additional post-award services will include annotating available documentation for recommendations on reviews, evaluations, construction time, and cost impacts for requested changes, as well as reviewing and providing comments and/or recommendations for approval/disapproval on the construction contractor’s Engineering Proposals, and assisting the Area/Resident Engineers with responding to RFIs. Title II services will also include coordinating Punch-Out inspection and Punch List Report with USACE, as well as reviewing the General Contractor prepared Operations and Maintenance Manual for Project Close-Out. The estimated value is with a Period of Performance (POP) of eighteen (18) months.

4. AUTHORITY CITED: The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 “Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements”.

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED:

Background

On 26 April 2019, the South Carolina (SC) ANG awarded Contract W9133l-16-D-0005;

Task Order W912QG19F0010 to FSB to perform work as the DOR for this project. Under this Task Order, FSB designed the F-16 MTC facility, as well as prepared the current Construction Documents comprised of architectural, civil, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing and specifications. The USACE-CENAB does not currently have a IDIQ with FSB. Per USACE regulation, Construction Documents require a new Engineer Review every six (6) months to ensure the documents are complaint to the latest Construction Model Codes and Reference Standards. This Contract will include Pre-Award Technical Assistance Services and Post Award Construction (Title II) Phase Services. SC ANG’s Task Order with FSB did not include Construction (Title II) Phase Services.

Justification:

In an effort to reduce substantial costs to the Government, design services are less costly and more efficient when performed by an A-E that is intimately familiar with the project to address highly specialized requirements that cannot be easily replicated by another A-E without undue costs and time. In accordance with FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B), as the DOR of the existing Construction Documents, FSB is the most uniquely qualified to successfully provide the necessary Technical Assistance Services and Construction (Title II) Phase Services on this highly visible and critical project. As the DOR, FSB possesses the unique, highly specialized expertise, familiarity with the project requirements, and successful working relationship with the project stakeholders, to complete the requirement quickly and efficiently. Using any vendor besides FSB would potentially lead to additional costs, potential schedule slips, and increased technical risks that could result in the project failing to meet critical milestones.

Impact:

The 113th FW flies the F-16 aircraft in support of tactical operations in the United States and overseas, fulfilling a wide range of operational missions in both peace and war situations.

The 113th FW’s have established projects to construct new 4 ship F-16 Mission Training.

Both installations require a facility to support a new 9,200 SF 4-ship F-16 MTC simulator capable of housing 4 simulator bays, training rooms, administrative support areas, storage, and latrine space, certified to ICD/ICS 705 standards. Each simulator bay must be large enough to accommodate an eight channel, 360-degree field of view display with sufficient space to facilitate installation, removal, operation, and servicing.

Alternative(s):

1) Compete Requirement in accordance with FAR 36.6 Brooks Act: This alternative would be costly and timely for both the Government and all offerors. The Government would be required to post the synopsis, allow 30 days for receipt of proposals, and convene an evaluation board. Offerors would be required to organize teams and personnel, prepare SF330 submittals, and participate in interviews.

2) Issue the Task Order to an new A-E under an existing A-E Indefinite-Quantity/Indefinite- Quality (IDIQ) Contract: Issuing this requirement to new A-E to perform Technical Assistance Services and Construction (Title II) Phase Services on this project would result in a higher technical, schedule, and cost risk. As part of the requirements, a new A- E would be required to adopt and interpret Construction Documents prepared by FSB, which may lead to complications pertaining to legal exposure for errors and omission incurred by the design team. Of significant concern to the Government is the potential for increased underwriting costs passed along by the new A-E in their fee for services.

Additionally, there would be a potential for harm in the form of construction delays and added costs resulting from misinterpretation of the original design. In addition, the time in which a new A-E would require to familiarize themselves with FSB’s Construction Documents and Project’s Scope of Work and requirements could result in longer lead time on RFIs responses. This could result in significant construction delays that may ultimately jeopardize the project meeting time sensitive critical milestones

A standard procurement process to issue the requirement to a new A-E under an existing A-E IDIQ Contract would result in additional cost to the Government, as well as unacceptable delays while the new A-E validates the scope of work outlined in the source documents. It is extremely unlikely a new A-E firm would assume technical responsibility for existing documentation prepared by the DOR A-E without a level of duplication related to the data collection and existing design and drawings.

Due to the significant liability risks to an A-E other than the DOR, it is highly improbable another A-E firm would assume the duties of submittal reviews and RFI resolution on a design created by another firm not under their direct supervision. As such awarding to any vendor other than FSB would result in result in increased costs risks due to substantial duplication of unrecoverable costs to the Government through competition. There is no other firm that can provide these expert services in the time frame required per the contract.

FSB is the only contractor that can leverage their existing knowledge of the project services in the time frame required.

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION: USACE’s technical experts involved with DCANG determined the only firm with the necessary qualifications and familiarity of the scope of work with the design was FSB. On 07 May 2021, in accordance with FAR 5.201, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was posted to beta.sam.gov (Government Point of Entry). The NOI requested any firm that believed they could perform the work for this requirement should submit a capability statement that would be independently reviewed by the Government. The NOI was posted for fifteen (15) days to 22 May 2021.No firms responded with capability statements.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION: Not Applicable. On 07 May 2021, the

Government posted a NOI to beta.sam.gov to locate additional firms that would be capable of performing the requirement. No firms responded. This contract will be for AE services in support of a unique construction contract and will not be re-procured.

8. MARKET RESEARCH: On 07 May 2021, the Government posted a NOI to present outside firms the opportunity to submit capability statements. The Government also reviewed qualifications of firms that have previously worked with the USACE.

9. INTERESTED SOURCES: No other sources have written to express an interest. This requirement was not synopsized pursuant to the exception in FAR 5.202(a)(2).

10. OTHER FACTS: Not Applicable.