Combined IT Systems Support for DFAS-TSO-IN

Added: Oct 03, 2011 11:10 am

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) PART 8
LIMITED SOURCE JUSTIFICATION
DFISS III Task Order for TSO-IN

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE REQUIRING AND CONTRACTING ACTIVITY:

a. Requesting Activity:

Technology Services Organization - Indianapolis (TSO-IN)
ATTN: DFAS-HTTACB/IN
8899 East 56th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46249-4300
(317) 212-3578

b. Contracting Activity

DFAS Indianapolis
Contract Services Directorate
8899 East 56th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46249

2. NATURE OR DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION:

The purpose of this document is to obtain the necessary approvals for a limited source acquisition in accordance with FAR Part 8.405-6. "Limited source" in this case pertains to the award of a logical follow-on task order for the continuation of DFISS III systems support in TSO-IN. The provision for a logical follow-on can be found at FAR 8.405-6(a) (1) (i) (C) and FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) (C). This acquisition is being conducted under the authority of the Multiple Award Schedule Program, Title III of the Federal Property Administration Act of 1949. This exception has been used four (4) times.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICE:

The DFISS III Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs) were awarded in April 2007 to fulfill a continuing need for DFAS system support. TSO-IN provides DFAS with software and technology support. TSO-IN supports the DFAS mission and other selected outside customers. The implementation of DFAS standard systems requires project and program management support, analytical, technical, and programming support as well as the writing of programs to support database administration. Due to varying systems at each site, several types of abilities are required for the required tasks. Systems analysis skills are required for a variety of languages and processes. Technical analysis of hardware platforms including mainframe, mid-tier, as well as personal computers, is also needed. This Task Order will provide TSO-IN with contractor support for the following systems: Automated Time Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS), Computerized Accounts Payable System (CAPS), Case Management System (CMS), Defense Civilian Pay System (DCPS) Operations Support, Defense Debt Management System (DDMS), Deployable Disbursing System (DDS), Enterprise Testing Support, Elimination of Unmatched Disbursements (EUD) System, the Headquarters Accounting Reporting System (HQARS), the Operational Data Store (ODS) system in support of the WebCas Module and Funds Control Module, Program Budget Accounting System (PBAS), the Rewards and Recognition System (R&R), the SMARTDOCS system. If necessary, support may also be required for the Defense Integrated Financial System (DIFS). Software Process Improvement support is required for Task 6, Software Process Management. In addition, there may be support required for other TSO-IN systems, but this option under the Task Order will only be used if required by the government.

DFAS/TSO-IN requires contractor support for the DFISS III TSO-IN services for the period of October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012 at TSO-IN, Indianapolis. TSO-IN is requesting the issuance of a logical follow-on Task Order HQ0425-07-A-0003-0019 to continue providing a contractor staff that can respond quickly to changing environments in support of those systems/projects assigned to TSO-IN. Contractor support is required to assist TSO-IN in implementing software related System Change Requests (SCRs), customer support, process improvement and installation support. The services to be acquired fall within the general areas of software design and analysis, software development, programming, debugging, software testing, software maintenance, software installation, document conversion, risk management, software process improvement (SPI), quality assurance, project management, prototyping, development of system documentation and training. The contractor shall provide design, development, modification, conversion, technology infusion, technical support and guidance as required, and maintenance of the system and its subsystems supported by TSO-IN.

4. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance is from October 1, 2011 through September 30, 2012.

5. ESTIMATED DOLLAR VALUE

The Total Estimated Value is $10,865,289.10.

6. PROPOSED CONTRACTOR'S UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS

The DFISS III BPAs were awarded so that the activities requiring these services could depend on the consistency of one company for a period of five years. The BPAs were competed and awards were based on best value factors including technical experience, past performance, management, staffing, and cost/price. Per FAR 8.405-3(a)(3), all new requirements were initially competed between the four BPA holders. The BPA terms specified that subsequent awards for the same services will not be recompeted, but logical follow-on orders will be awarded after a determination of satisfactory performance has been made.

In this case, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services (HP) is the incumbent. HP currently has a staff of 71 people. This staff supports numerous systems for TSO-IN and DFAS. TSO-IN relies on the staff for their technical qualifications and system knowledge and cannot risk the personnel disruption of a recompetition every year. The primary reason for establishing a five-year BPA with the understanding that follow-on orders would be awarded was to avoid the risk of the learning curve, as well as improving staff retention. One of the subfactors in the BPA evaluation was staff retention.

7. DETERMINATION OF BEST VALUE

The award of this task order is considered a best value award as it is a logical follow-on to a best value competed award. The competition was between GSA Schedule holders. Five proposals were received. Evaluations for the competed award considered the following evaluation factors: 1) Past Performance; 2) Technical; 3) Management Plan; 4) Personnel Expertise and 5) Price. Of these, price was not the most important. HPES won the initial competition because their proposal received an overall rating of Outstanding. Pricing proposed for the BPA was based on GSA Schedule pricing and then discounted for the DFAS award. Pricing was provided for five years and the best evaluation considered the total of five (5) years. HPES's BPA pricing is considered fair and reasonable based on comparison with Schedule pricing, historical and DFISS II pricing and the competitive environment of the BPA award.

While four years have passed since the initial competition, the circumstances and type of work being accomplished have not changed. Additionally, the experience that HPES has gained in this particular effort has increased over the last three years. To bring on a new contractor at this point would again not override the technical expertise and value and thus it is doubtful that a new awardee would win in a best value competition under the purview of the DFISS III BPAs.

8. DESCRIPTION OF MARKET SURVEY

The market survey for the BPA competition revealed numerous companies with potential capability for these services. The BPA RFQ was posted on GSA e-Buy for all qualified companies to consider. Five quotes were received. Four BPAs were awarded. The BPA holders have included numerous small and small disadvantaged businesses in their portfolios to use in conjunction with their own capabilities.

9. ANY OTHER SUPPORTING FACTS

This order must be issued on a limited-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the BPA. Initially all FSS 70 schedule holders were provided fair opportunity to establish a BPA. In turn, all BPA awardees were then given a fair opportunity to be considered for the initial task order. The use of a logical follow-on is justified because the same work is continuing and there is a continuing need for contractor support. The inclusion of priced options was not considered viable since the Statement of Work is updated from year to year which results in different numbers of hours per labor category. The SOW changes from year to year are within scope of the base year, in that as some system work is minimized, other systems may be bolstered.

10. ACTIONS TAKEN TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO COMPETITION (Efforts to obtain competition)

See Paragraph 6 above. The BPA awards were competed and resulted in pricing below the GSA schedule; then, the initial task order awards were competed between the BPA holders resulting in further reduction in rates. The BPA instructions notified the holders that subsequent task orders for the same services would not be recompeted, but that logical follow-ons would be awarded.