Leidos_-_Sole_Source_J A_Redacted.pdf

CONTROL NO. ATL_15_0250

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Agency: US Army Engineer District, Corps of Engineers, PO Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059

2. Description of Action: This is to be a new sole source procurement for: Completion of Remedial Investigations, Feasibility Studies, Proposed Plans, and Records of Decision for Multiple Areas of Concern (AOCs) at the Former Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant (RVAAP). The proposed contract vehicle is a stand-alone “C-type” contract. The estimated cost for this work is This action will be funded utilizing Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) Installation Restoration Program (IRP) funding as supplied via a Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request (MIPR) from Army Environmental Command (AEC).

3. Description of the Supplies/Service: The services will include revising Draft Remedial Investigation (RI) reports that have already been prepared by the Contractor (Leidos) under a previous contract. Leidos will incorporate format changes required by the Ohio EPA, will respond to Ohio EPA review comments, and will prepare final RI Reports. Leidos will use the RI findings and Draft Feasibility Studies (FS), previously prepared by Leidos, to prepare revised Draft FS documents, respond to Ohio EPA comments, and prepare final FS documents. Leidos will then use the finalized FS and Pre-Draft Proposed Plans (PP) and Pre-Draft Records of Decision (RODs),previously prepared by Leidos, to prepare draft, revised draft, and final PPs and RODs. The estimated cost for this work, including options, is , which was developed based upon the negotiated cost of the original task order line items that required de-scoping, in conjunction with necessary adjustments for current-year pricing.

4. Authority Cited: 10 USC 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii), Only One Responsible Source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A) states that "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 (B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements." Both clauses (A) and (B) apply to this contractual action.

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

(a) Background: Task Order 0001 on Contract W912QR-04-D-0028 with Science Applications International Corp. (now d.b.a. Leidos) was awarded in 2008 to prepare work plans and complete RIs, FSs, PPs, and RODs for 18 AOCs at RVAAP. Due to requirements imposed by the Ohio EPA, each of the 18 AOCs was required to have its own unique RI, FS, PP, and ROD documents. The RI task included fieldwork, laboratory analysis and report preparation. An option was also awarded to complete any remediation required at the 18 AOCs and prepare Remediation Completion Reports. The 10-year, IDIQ base contract expired on July 6, 2014; therefore, the Task Order could not be extended beyond July 6, 2015. The Task Order has expired and the unfinished tasks have been de-scoped.

Due to significant delays (approximately three years) caused by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Leidos was not able to complete the work under the task order that expired on July 6, 2015. The delays are explained in detail in section 10 below.

Only two of the 18 AOCs progressed to remediation, and Leidos prepared Remedial Action Completion Reports (RACRs) for those. Leidos was able to obtain regulatory approval of the two RACRs before the task order expired. The RIs and FSs for 14 of the 16 remaining AOCs are in Draft form. The RIs for the two other AOCs have been submitted as final documents to the Ohio EPA, and the Army is waiting on regulator comments or concurrence. The PPs and RODs for 16 AOCs are in Pre-Draft form.

(b) Justification: A sole source contract is needed to allow Leidos to provide the highly specialized services required to finalize the Draft and Pre-Draft documents that Leidos has previously prepared. The sole source acquisition will not include remediation services, which will be awarded through full and open competition after completion of the required documents.

The services required for Leidos to perform the needed scope are highly specialized for the following reasons:

1) Leidos prepared the original Remedial Investigation (RI) Work Plan for the 14 AOCs for which RI Reports must be prepared. Leidos achieved Ohio EPA approval of the Work Plan. Also, Leidos performed all of the field work and collected all of the environmental samples to support the RI. As such, Leidos is fully knowledgeable concerning the sampling rationale and is familiar with any exceptions to the Work Plan and why those exceptions occurred. This gives Leidos a unique ability to accurately explain the final sampling approach in the draft and final RI Reports to be prepared for the 14 AOCs.

2) Leidos hired the subcontract laboratory, shipped samples to the laboratory, and reviewed the laboratory results. As part of the original work, Leidos has already performed 100% data verification and 10% validation on all of the laboratory data generated for the 14 AOCs. This means that a Leidos chemist reviewed all of the laboratory QA/QC data and determined that the sample results are suitable for use in the RI reports. Leidos will be able to use this data to prepare revised draft and final RI reports for all 14 AOCs without having to perform additional data verification. This is significant, because the data is not considered accepted by the Ohio EPA until the applicable RI Report is finalized. Approximately has already been spent to collect and analyze data.

3) Leidos has performed all of the data screening needed for the risk assessment to support the RI Reports for the 14 AOCs. This data screening included the recent data collected by Leidos and historical data collected in previous phases of investigations. Leidos also developed criteria for determining which historical data should be used in the current RI and which data should be eliminated. Leidos is knowledgeable regarding how this data was filtered and compiled. As such, Leidos will be able to use this filtered data to prepare revised draft and final RI reports for all 14 AOCs without having to expend effort verifying that the data was properly screened.

4) Leidos used the analytical soil data to run computer models to estimate contaminant transport from the soil to the groundwater. Leidos developed the input parameters for the computer model. Leidos also used another computer model to predict the average contaminant concentrations at the water table and the transport of contaminants to downstream receptors. Leidos is also familiar with the methodologies for modeling these transport processes that are acceptable to the Ohio EPA regulators. As such, Leidos will be able to use the results of these computer models to prepare revised draft and final RI reports for all 14 AOCs without having to expend additional time verifying those results or documenting how they were obtained.

5) Leidos has worked through numerous iterations of Draft RI Reports for Load Line 10 and Atlas Scrap Yard and has become highly knowledgeable regarding concerns of the Ohio EPA and the current Project Coordinator.

Leidos has developed effective ways to present both discrete and incremental sampling data and historic and recent sampling data for the same site. Leidos has developed highly detailed and effective maps and has also determined how to group data into tables, figures and appendices in such a way that the Ohio EPA can understand what data was used and how it was evaluated. Leidos will be able to use these data presentation methods to prepare revised draft and final RI reports for all 14 AOCs without having to expend additional time verifying that the data in the maps and figures is accurate and appropriately placed. Leidos will also not have to spend effort developing a presentation format that will be acceptable to the Ohio EPA.

If the government acquires the required services competitively, substantial duplication of cost to the Government will be incurred that is not expected to be recovered through competition. The basic scope of services planned for award to Leidos is the completion of RI and FS documents for 14 AOCs with options for PPs and RODs. The scope includes using draft documents already prepared by Leidos and incorporating all Ohio EPA comments related to "general concerns" (see Section 10 below) and incorporating all Ohio EPA comments on the Load Line 10 and the Atlas Scrap Yard RI Reports, as applicable. The scope will include preparation of "pre-draft" documents for Army review, response to Army comments, resolution of Army comments, preparation of "draft" documents for Ohio EPA review, response to Ohio EPA comments after coordination with the Army, and preparation of "final" documents which incorporate changes approved by the Ohio EPA. The Leidos effort for this scope of work is essentially the minimum effort that the Government can expect any contractor to expend.

If any other contractor, other than Leidos, is selected competitively, the following costs will be incurred by the Government due to the other contractor having to duplicate efforts already performed by Leidos under Task Order 0001 on Contract W912QR-04-D-0028:

1) Even though electronic files of the current draft reports would be provided, another contractor would be expected to require at least of additional effort per RI report (14 total) to review the Work Plan and existing draft RI documents and gain a working understanding of the work that has been done to date (total of

2) Even though electronic files of the current draft reports would be provided, another contractor would be expected to require at least of additional effort per FS report (6 total anticipated) to review the existing draft documents and gain a working understanding of the work that has been done to date (total of ).

3) Since the laboratory data has only been published in draft form, it has not been accepted by the Ohio EPA.

Therefore, another contractor besides Leidos will not be able to rely on it for an RI Report without independently verifying it. Verification cost (100% verification and 10% validation) is expected to be per AOC (14 total) for a total of .

4) In order to rely on Leidos' findings, any other contractor besides Leidos would need to conduct some initial risk assessment screening of the data to validate the criteria used by Leidos and the results of Leidos' screening.

This preliminary screening is expected to require approximately effort per AOC or total.

5) Any contractor other than Leidos will not be able to simply accept Leidos' computer modeling for contaminant transport, since it has not been published or officially accepted by the Ohio EPA. Another contractor can be expected to expend at least per site to verify the input parameters and repeat at least a portion of the transport modeling already done by Leidos. This would be another total.

6) Another contractor besides Leidos will require additional effort to review and understand all of the following:

Ohio EPA "general concerns" regarding the RI Reports, the Ohio EPA comments on the Load Line 10 RI Report, the Ohio EPA comments on the Atlas Scrap Yard RI Report, and the Leidos/Army responses to all of those comments. To develop a full understanding of the impact of these comments, the contractor would likely have to meet with the Army and the Ohio EPA, whereas Leidos has already developed this understanding. Another contractor would be expected to require at least for the initial review and an additional per document above what it would cost Leidos to incorporate the changes, or a total of .

7) The total duplicative effort that another contractor would be expected to expend (represented by items 1 through 6 above) is estimated to be . This is effort that Leidos would not have to expend. This effort would not be offset by savings from competitively selecting the contractor. In fact, any contractor that would bid on these services would be provided copies of the Agreed Order between the Ohio EPA and the Army and copies of all of the Ohio EPA comments on the documents prepared under Task Order 0001 on Contract W912QR-04- D-0028, so that they could get a realistic understanding of the effort required. Qualified contractors would see that the Agreed Order gives the Ohio EPA the right to review and comment on all reports and that all Ohio EPA comments have to be resolved to obtain an approved final document. The contractors would also see that the

Ohio EPA comments require significant rewriting of the reports in order to satisfy the current Project Coordinator. Consequently, there is no expectation that competition would lower the baseline cost of revising and resubmitting the documents. The baseline cost estimate for Leidos to revise and resubmit 14 RI Reports and 6 FS Reports, including a Project Management Plan and all the required iterations of comments and responses, is

. The estimated worth of duplicative costs would be added on top of that baseline effort for other contractors, resulting in an estimate of for any contractor other than Leidos.

If any other contractor, other than Leidos, is selected competitively, the following unacceptable delays in filling the agency's requirements will occur due to the other contractor having to duplicate efforts already performed by Leidos:

1) A new contractor would require to prepare a project management plan.

2) A new contractor would require approximately to review the existing Work Plan and draft RI reports to develop a working understanding of the work performed to date. Assuming a three-person team, this represents .

3) A new contractor would require approximately to review the existing draft FS reports to develop a working understanding of the work performed to date. Assuming a three-person team, this represents

4) A new contractor would require approximately to verify the laboratory data for the 14 AOCs.

Assuming two chemists working full-time, this represents . Tasks #2 and #3 above could be done concurrently with this task, so the cumulative delay for tasks # 1 through 4 is about .

5) A new contractor would require an additional to conduct initial risk assessment screening and verify Leidos' approach. Assuming two risk assessors, this would require an additional for a cumulative delay of This effort would have to be complete before any computer modeling would be done.

6) A new contractor would require approximately to verify input parameters and complete partial transport modeling for all 14 AOCs. Assuming a three-person team, this represents approximately for a cumulative delay of

7) A new contractor would require approximately to review all of Ohio EPA's concerns and comments and all Army responses and develop an understanding of the changes required for all 14 RI reports.

Assuming a three-person team, this represents approximately for a cumulative delay of

8) Due to excessive delays caused by the Ohio EPA (documented in section 10 below), the Army cannot afford to lose another as a result of hiring a contractor that will have to perform worth of duplicative effort. A delay in excess of 6 months would make it more difficult to program future work and would likely result in the Army National Guard having to push remediation out for a whole additional fiscal year beyond the current schedule. Camp Ravenna is currently one of a few "finalist sites" under consideration by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for use as a new base. Any delays in the site remediation could negatively impact the installation's position when the MDA makes the final base selection. Additionally, delays in remediation inhibit the Ohio Army National Guard's use of Camp Ravenna and negatively impact the ability to train and prepare the Ohio Guardsmen to be fully ready to continue supporting the Global War on Terror and other contingency deployments as needed.

(c) Impact: If the work in question is not awarded to Leidos, the Government can expect to pay more than it would pay Leidos and experience an additional of delay due to another contractor having to perform duplicative services already performed by Leidos under Task Order 0001 of Contract W912QR-04-D- 0028. Additional details are provided in (b) above.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition: Most of the tasks in the proposed scope of work are professional services that will be performed by the proposed sole source prime contractor, so there will be few opportunities for additional competition. In the event that additional soil borings must be performed to complete the contracted services, the prime contractor would use subcontract drilling services. The SOW will require the proposed sole source prime contractor to solicit bids from at least three qualified drilling subcontractors and select the low bidder. The follow-on remediation services are not included in this sole-source acquisition, because the remediation contractor(s) will be selected through a competitive selection process.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: All future separable environmental services work at the former RVAAP will be competitively bid. The Corps of Engineers will also continue to stage regular industry days and construction conferences to invite comment and input from contractors on the means and methods by which our contract requirements are conceived and executed.

8. Market Research: The IGE was developed utilizing the previous task order pricing for the work that was de-scoped because the task order expired, which is a form of Market Research. As stated in Paragraph 6 above, the original task order was awarded via the competitive process.

9. Interested Sources: The Intent to Sole Source notice was issued on 07 August 2015 with responses due 24 August 2015. To date, no other sources have written to express an interest.

10. Other Facts: Summary of delays caused by the Ohio EPA to Leidos' work under Contract W912QR-04-D-0028 Task Order 0001.

The Ohio EPA took 6 months (October 25, 2011 to April 24, 2012) to review the Draft RI and FS Reports for the AOC known as RVAAP-43 Load Line 10. The review period was supposed to be 45 days or less (according to the Agreed Order), so this was a 4.5 month delay. One of the Ohio EPA comments stated that it was "incumbent upon the Army to finalize land use at Camp Ravenna as soon as possible, otherwise additional work and schedule slippage may result." This was an odd remark, since the Army had clearly stated, since the 2005 Facility-wide Risk Assessor's Manual, that the future Land Use of the former Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant is Military Training.

While the Load Line 10 RI/FS Reports were in review, the Ohio EPA approved RI and FS documents, prepared by Leidos, for two other AOCs (Building 1200 and Anchor Test Area) which were written in the same format as the Load Line 10 documents. Those are the two AOCs that have since progressed to "Remediation Complete."

On July 9, 2012, the Army team met with Ohio EPA to clarify the future Land Use and related risk assessment processes. The Army left the meeting believing that we had reached an understanding with the Ohio EPA.

On September 5, 2012, the Ohio EPA sent a letter to the Army regarding general concerns with all the remaining Draft RI/FS documents that had been prepared by Leidos and submitted to Ohio EPA for review under Contract W912QR-04-D-0028 Task Order 0001. The letter also stated that Ohio EPA was ceasing review of all documents (16 AOCs) that had been submitted until the Army provided revised documents that addressed all of their concerns. The Army evaluated the Ohio EPA's concerns and determined that they were not primarily attributable to the quality of the reports (i.e., not attributable to Leidos). In fact, many of the concerns were related to document format and future land use; items the Army thought were previously resolved. Circumstances indicate that this was a ploy by the Ohio EPA to cover for the fact that they were experiencing a massive schedule failure.

This represented an additional 4.5 months of delay (9 months total delay).

On September 25, 2012, the Army team, the Ohio EPA, and Leidos met to determine acceptable responses and an approach to modify reports to address the Ohio EPA's concerns. The Ohio EPA determined that the Load Line 10 RI Report would serve as the "model document" for the subsequent reports and that no other RI/FS documents for the 15 remaining AOCs would be reviewed until the Load Line 10 RI was accepted. Later, the Ohio EPA agreed to also treat the RI/FS for Atlas Scrap Yard as a "model document," because Load Line 10 was not expected to need an FS.

By November 2012, the Army and Leidos had responded to Ohio EPA's general concerns, and Ohio EPA had provided conditional concurrence.

On February 28 2013, the Army and the Ohio EPA met again to discuss future Land Use and the risk assessment process. At this meeting, a new Risk Assessor for Ohio EPA questioned the protectiveness of the Army's cleanup goals, even though the cleanup goals had been included in the work plan approved by Ohio EPA. The Army agreed to write a Land Use and Risk Assessment Technical Memorandum (Tech Memo) to support the cleanup goals. The Army submitted the first version of the Tech Memo by the end of March 2013. During this additional 6 months of delay caused by the Ohio EPA questioning previously approved cleanup goals, the Ohio EPA did no additional review on the Load Line 10 RI Report. The total delay was 15 months at that point. During this process, USACE-LRL advised the Army customer to initiate dispute resolution procedures, but the customer thought it would be better to cooperate with the Ohio EPA.

On April 24, 2013, the Ohio EPA sent a letter with comments on the Tech Memo and notified the Army that all Ravenna document reviews were ceased and would not resume until agreement was reached on a Final Tech Memo (16 months total delay).

With each iteration of the Tech Memo, the Ohio EPA changed or added requirements. A final Tech Memo was not approved until mid-February 2014 (25.5 months total delay).

On April 17, 2014, Leidos submitted a Revised Draft RI Report for Load Line 10 which addressed changes required by the Tech Memo as well as Ohio EPA's general concerns (27.5 months total delay).

The Ohio EPA assigned a new Project Coordinator (PC) for the 16 AOCs, and on July 1, 2014 the Ohio EPA issued a totally new set of comments on the Revised Draft RI Report for Load Line 10. These comments were not attributable to Leidos. Many of these comments stemmed from the new Ohio EPA PC wanting all of the historical data and background included in the report, rather than allowing the report to reference precursor studies and reports, as we had done previously (30 months total delay).

On July 29, 2014, the Army and Leidos met with Ohio EPA to resolve the comments from July 1. The Army and Leidos believed we had reached agreement with Ohio EPA on our proposed responses (31 months total delay).

On August 25, 2014, Leidos submitted a revised response to comments, based on the agreed responses from the July 29 meeting (32 months total delay).

On October 10, 2014 the Ohio EPA PC provided another letter with a whole new set of comments on the Revised Draft Load Line 10 RI Report (34 months total delay). Again the Army evaluated the comments and determined that they were not attributable to Leidos.

On December 8, 2014, the Army and Leidos again met with the Ohio EPA to resolve comments on the Revised Draft Load Line 10 RI Report (36 total months delay). Again the Army and Leidos believed we had reached agreement with Ohio EPA on a set of proposed responses.

Ultimately, the Contractor was able to prepare a Final Load Line 10 RI, a Final Atlas Scrap Yard RI and a Pre-draft Atlas Scrap Yard FS before the task order ended on July 6, 2015.

11. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in this justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

12. Requirements Certification: I hereby determine that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in this justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable based on comparison with existing contract prices. The estimated cost for this work, , is considered fair and reasonable, because it is based upon an independent Government estimate (IGE), which was prepared as described above.

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

15. Final Approval: Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of these services to Leidos on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 USC 2304(c) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.