You are on page 1of 5

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

(JOFOC)


Pursuant to the requirements of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), as
implemented by FAR Subpart 6.3, the following facts and rationale justify the
basis for a noncompetitive contract.

1. I recommend that the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) use other
than full and open competition for the acquisition for mail screening services
to receive and screen incoming mail from the United States Postal Service
(USPS). The estimated price, including any options, is $90,000.00.

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

Facilities Operations Management anticipates a firm-fixed-price type of
contract for the above services. The period of performance consists of one
six-month period with one six-month option for a total performance period of
twelve months if the option is exercised.

The name of the contractor is:

SoBran Inc.
271 Circle Drive North
Piscataway, NJ 08854


3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agencys
needs.
Facilities Operations Management requires a contractor to receive, screen, X-
ray and irradiate harmful biological agents from the incoming mail.

Background: FHFA relocated from three different locations in J anuary 2012
to one facility (Constitution Center). Prior to relocating, the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS) granted FHFA permission to utilize its assigned unique
government zip code for receipt of mail. Most of the mail received by the
FHFA was processed with OTS mail via USPS since FHFA was co-located in
the same building with OTS. Mail with federal addresses (unique zip code) is
sorted at a Washington, DC facility, and then trucked to a New J ersey
irradiation facility operated by Sterigenics. This mail is heated to
temperatures exceeding 150 degrees and then scanned by electron beam or
X-rayed to kill potentially harmful biological agents including anthrax. After
this process the mail that is determined safe is then returned to the respective
federal agency for distribution.

After FHFA relocated to Constitution Center (400 Seventh Street SW
Washington DC 20024), the agency could no longer use the OTS zip code
and did not qualify for a unique zip code resulting in the use of the assigned
zip code for the current location. Utilizing the area zip code led to FHFA mail
no longer being irradiated, therefore putting the agency employees at risk.

April 2013 envelopes addressed to the President of the United States and a
Congressman tested positive for the deadly poison ricin. The FHFA Acting
Director has received harassing mail, and protesters have demonstrated at
both FHFA and his private home. Based on the aforementioned, having the
mail screened and determined safe became an urgent matter for the agency.
On April 17, 2013, all incoming mail was contained at the Constitution Center
loading dock until a purchase card transaction was executed for one month
with SoBran to screen, X-ray and irradiate harmful biological agents from the
incoming mail.


4. An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and
open competition.


41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(2), FAR 6.302-2, Unusual and compelling urgency is the
applicable authority for this request.


5. A demonstration that the proposed Contractors unique qualifications or
the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited (for sole
source acquisitions; also required for unusual and compelling urgency
where more than one offer will not be solicited).

As stated above in #3, the recent events (letters addressed to the President
and Congressman tested positive for the deadly poison ricin) warranted
immediate action from Facilities Operations Management to ensure the
incoming mail for FHFA had been screened and determined safe for
distribution to employees. The threat of ricin or any other biological agent
calls for an urgent response to protect the employees of FHFA.


6. A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as
many potential sources as is practicable.

The initial market research included vendors from the GSA Schedule 36 SINs
733 1 and 733 6 who were contacted on April 17 and 18, 2013 via telephone
and email to determine if they performed the services required by FHFA.


7. A determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to
the Government will be fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer will
make a fair and reasonable determination, pursuant to the FAR.

8. A description of the market survey conducted and the results or a
statement of the reasons a market survey was not conducted.
Initially, two (2) vendors (Brightkey Inc. and NISH) from GSA Schedule 36
SINs 733 1 and 733 6 were contacted on April 17, 2013, via telephone and
email to determine if these vendors could perform the services required by
FHFA. Brightkey Inc. indicated it could provide the service; however, the
service would have to be performed onsite at an FHFA facility and also FHFA
would be required to purchase additional equipment. The vendor estimated
the cost of the on-site installation unit at $350,000 and upwards and could
take between 60 and 120 days after bids are received before operational.
These requirements were outside of the FHFA scope; therefore, Brightkey
Inc. was no longer a consideration. Neither email nor telephone response
was received from NISH.

On April 18, 2013, the remaining contractors on GSA Schedule 36 SIN 733 6
were contacted via email except Dualdraw, LLC due to the office being
located in Commerce City, CO. Serco Services required an on-site operation
within FHFA space; therefore, it was also eliminated from further
consideration. Nonetheless, the Serco representative identified (Ron
Boatwright) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as a multi-client facility
that screens mails for multiple agencies. Since DHS contract expires in 2015
and it is not sure of whether it will continue to contract these services out or
bring it back in-house, Mr. Boatwright was unable to offer FHFA assistance
right now via an IAA. Discussion with Mr. Boatwright concluded with referrals
to other government agencies or contractors. Ultimately, this led to a
discussion with SoBran Inc., a minority-owned veteran company. SoBran
was the 2006 Department of Homeland Security Small Business Achievement
Award recipient for CBRNE antiterrorism related services.

Delta Research Associates, Inc. (DRA) responded on April 19, 2013, stating it
could provide the services; however, after a phone conversation it was
determined it requires on-site access. Therefore, DRA was removed from
further consideration.

On April 22, 2013, Pitney Bowes responded it could provide all of the services
required by FHFA; however, it required too much start-up time to meet our
requirements. Given the urgent nature of the requirement, Pitney Bowes was
no longer a consideration for the immediate requirement.



9. Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open
competition.

There are no additional facts supporting this justification.

10. A listing of sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the
acquisition. As stated above, other sources were contacted and expressed
an interest in the requirement; however none were able to respond
immediately to our urgent need.

11. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or
overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent
acquisition for the supplies or services required.

This is a bridge contract with up to twelve months of performance. This time
allows Facilities Operations Management time to assess current procedures
and develop a complete requirement package for a competition. Award of a
contract is anticipated for J anuary 2014 with contract performance beginning
March 2014.

CERTIFICATIONS

I certify that this justification is accurate and contains complete data necessary to
support the recommendation for other than full and open competition.



________________ ________________________________
Date Katrina D. J ones
Manager, Facilities Operations Management



I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of the
Contracting Officers knowledge and belief. Also, I hereby (1) determine the
circumstances cited as the statutory authority apply to this action, (2) determine
the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable, and (3)
recommend approval for this action.



_________________ ________________________________
Date Marie Johnson
Contracting Officer

Include OGC Clearance for actions that must be published on The Federal
Business Opportunities Web Page.

I determine that this submission is legally sufficient to support an exception to fair
opportunity procedures.



_________________ ________________________________
Date Karen Lambert
Associate General Counsel
Office of General Counsel

You might also like