J AREDACTED30Jun15.pdf

Control No: HNC-15-160460

Requirements Representative:

Name: Phone:

Title: Date Reviewed:

Justification and Approval For

Exception to Fair Opportunity

(EFO)

Requirement: Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity for the Replace Roof-top Air conditioning units and install DDC Controls at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, Maryland (Harford County).

Authority: FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C)

Amount: $160,316.00

Prepared By:

Name: Phone:

Title: Date Email:

Contracting Officer:

Name: Phone Email: Date

Technical Representative:

Name: Phone:

Title: Date Reviewed:

Reviews: I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support an exception to fair opportunity.

Project Manager:

Name: Signature:

Phone: Date:

Contracting Officer:

Name: Signature:

Phone: Date:

Office of Counsel:

Name: Signature:

Phone: Date:

Deputy for Small Business:

Name: Signature:

Phone: Date:

Programs Director:

Name: Signature:

Phone: Date:

Justification and Approval for Exception to Fair Opportunity

(EFO) Contract W912DY-11-D- 0021 ESS-V Task Order 0017

1. Contracting Activity: United States Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, Alabama (CEHNC).

2. Description of Action: This action contemplates award of a new firm fixed price (FFP) Modification under Contract W912DY-11-D-0021 as a logical follow-on to an already awarded Task Order 0017 with SEI Group, Incorporated. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, supervision, and equipment to install and integrate hot water coils into the 6 roof top units being replaced under the current task order on building 5014, Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, Maryland. See Attachment 4.0 of the PWS for additional description of the requirements. The North American Industry Classification Code (NAICS) for these services is 541512, Computer Systems Design Services. There is sufficient capacity available for this contract action. The ESS V Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) Small Business Restricted suite of contracts was awarded in January 2011 with a combined capacity of $250,000,000.00. Currently there is $100,580,711.84 remaining for use. As such, there is sufficient capacity for this modification.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: As part of the original PWS, the contractor was to replace six (6) rooftop air handling units and was not scheduled to replace or do any additional work on the ductwork with the exception of cleaning. Per the modification, the customer is requesting that the contractor install hot water coils in the supply air ductwork that feeds each of the six (6) rooftop air handling units being replaced. The hot water coils will need to be integrated into the existing Hot Water system in the building to supply a secondary source of building heat in the case of Natural Gas curtailment (Reference PWS, Rev 1, dated 10 Feb 2015). With the exception of cleaning, the contractor was not scheduled to replace or do any additional work on the ductwork. The hot water coils are not required for the AHU’s to function per the original scope. The anticipated total award amount of the modification is $160,316.00 bringing the total obligation amount for this task order to $625,848.00.

4. Authority Cited: Pursuant to the authority in 10 U.S.C. 2304c (b)(3), as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.”

5. Reason for Authority Cited: In accordance with the aforementioned FAR and DFAR (PGI) authority, the following threefold rationale meets the threshold for granting the exception, as follows:

“The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency ---” A follow-on sole source modification is the most economically viable option. Awarding this requirement to another contractor will require a contractor change on a project that is already in progress. The government’s cost of re-competition alone would be approximately $10,000.00 to $20,000.00 plus other costs. Any new contractor would be entitled to startup costs and other initial costs that have already been paid once to the current contractor. SEI Group, Inc., the current contractor for this project can expeditiously complete these new requirements without any initial setup costs and safety plan revisions because they are already on site and have been actively performing the requirements.

“It is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract” For this additional requirement, SEI Group, Inc is already prepared to execute and is best positioned to perform the installation of the additional network infrastructure without delay. Since SEI Group, Inc is still performing services under the current awarded task order and completion of that work is contingent on the award of the proposed Logical Follow-On work, it is ideally positioned to execute requirements and avoid multiple contractors responsible for elements of the same system. Adding a second contractor or introducing a replacement contractor will require dual lines of project management authority, will shift warranty accountability between two parties, and will cause the project responsibility to be spread between two competing vendors.

“All awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order” SEI Group, Inc, with five other vendors, in the ESS-V Restricted MATOC Contractor Pool were sent a Request for Proposal (RFP W912DY-14-G-T0976). The RFP was for replacement of roof-top air conditioning units and installation of DDC controls for building 5014 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland. Four contractors responded and submitted competitive proposals.

SEI Group Incorporated’s proposal was considered to be the “best value” and they were awarded Task Order 0017 to contract W912DY-11-D-0021 for the project. The MATOC contract task order award process assured fair opportunity by being awarded through a competitive selection process. The threshold for “fairness” was achieved by six separate MATOC contractors being offered the RFP opportunity and four of the contractors responding with proposals that were competitively assessed.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: Although the existing multiple award ESS-V was awarded using full and open competition, no efforts were made to obtain further competition on the subject task order given that SEI Group, Inc is capable of performing these efforts without significant cost/technical impacts. Moreover, offerors who proposed and subsequently received awards under these subject MATOC pools were informed via the solicitation, resultant contracts, and in the post-award debriefings that the Contracting Officer may award one or more contractors more work than the other awardees. Specifically, contractors were informed that each order for services exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold must be made on a competitive basis, unless the Contracting Officer waives the requirement on the basis of a written determination that one of the circumstances described at FAR 16.505(b) (2) (i) through (iv) applies to the order; or if a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: Our goal is always to increase competition within our MATOC pool. In this case, the requirements were competed and awarded. Conditions during this task order performance created a scenario in which awarding the requirements to SEI on a sole source basis is efficient and economically beneficial to the Government.

8. Market Research: HNC continuously performs strategic market research in order to identify additional sources of supply and services available within the marketplace. Market Research is done in compliance with FAR Part 10. This process ensures Contracting Officers have information that is current, accurate and relevant when making business decisions. This specific action is an exception to fair opportunity that contemplates a modification to an existing task order. At time of initial task order award, HNC used the current MATOC ESS- V Restricted contractor pool, and received competitive contract proposals. The government has determined that in the interest of economy and efficiency this action is a logical follow-on to the existing task order. As such, additional market research was not performed for this specific action.

Publicizing Contract Actions - Pursuant to FAR 5.202(a)(6), transmittal of a notice of this proposed contract action through the Government-wide Point of Entry (GPE) is not required for task orders.

9. Interested Sources: The proposed contract action is a modification under Subpart 15.505;

pursuant to FAR 5.202(a)(6), synopsis of this proposed contract action through the Government wide point of entry (GPE) is not required for task orders.

However, FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(D) requires public disclosure of justification documents for task or delivery orders greater than the simplified acquisition threshold and awarded without providing fair opportunity must be posted to FEDBIZOPPS within 14 days of award.

10. Other Facts:

1) Procurement History.

a) The base task order award is W912DY-11-D-0021, Task Order 0017 b) Original Award Date: 02 September 2014

c) Current Period of Performance: 02 September 2014 through 02 September 2015

d) Type of Award: Firm Fixed Priced

e) Current Contract Value: $465,532.00

f) Estimated Modification Value: $160,316.00

g) Final Contract Value: $625,848.00

2) Competitive status of this action.

3) Authority previously used for less than full and open competition. Not applicable (N/A).

4) If a justification was prepared to support the procurement made before this one, a summary of the contents of paragraph 7 of the justification for that procurement and an explanation of the results. Not applicable (N/A).

5) If any prior award was accomplished by full and open competition, a detailed explanation of the changed circumstances. Not applicable (N/A).

6) An explanation of any unusual patterns which may be revealed by the history, e.g., several consecutive, urgent buys. No unusual patterns observed.

7) If a justification was prepared to support the procurement made before this one, briefly describe the circumstances justifying the buy and whether there have been any significant changes. There were no significant changes.

a) Acquisition data availability. Technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, performance work statements or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition are available, see contract Performance Work statement, Rev 04 dated 25 July 2014.

b) Unusual and compelling urgency. Not applicable N/A).

c) Subcontracting competition. Not applicable (N/A).

11. Technical Certification: “I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, as included in the subject Exception to Fair Opportunity are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

Typed Name:

Title:

Date: Signature:

12. Requirements Certification: “I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, as included in the Exception to Fair Opportunity, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

Typed Name:

Title:

Date: Signature:

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: “I hereby determine that the anticipated cost for this action will be fair and reasonable. Cost reasonableness will be determined by technical and cost analysis and by comparison to historical data and the Independent Government Estimate. Per FAR 15.406-2, a Certificate of Current Cost and Pricing Data will be obtained.”

Typed Name:

Title:

Date: Signature:

14. Contracting Officer Certification: “I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.”

Typed Name:

Title:

Date: Signature:

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the subject acquisition, which contemplates the award of a modification to and existing firm fixed-price task order under Contract W912DY-11- D-0021 Task Order 0017, for Replace Roof-top Air conditioning units and install DDC Controls at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Aberdeen, Maryland pursuant to the authority in FAR) 16.505(b)(2)(i) “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.” subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name: Kenneth Bryant Title: Contracting Officer Huntsville Center Corps of Engineers

Signature: Date: