SOLICITATION NOTICE
M -- DE-AC03-99-SF21530 Environmental Restoration and Remediation of the Former Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC) Site
- Notice Date
- 7/10/2009
- Notice Type
- Justification and Approval (J&A)
- NAICS
- 561210
— Facilities Support Services
- Contracting Office
- Department of Energy, Federal Locations, All DOE Federal Contracting Offices, Various, Various locations, 20585
- ZIP Code
- 20585
- Solicitation Number
- DE-AC03-99SF21530
- Point of Contact
- LeAnn Dumont, Phone: (513) 246-0563, Derrick J. C. Franklin, Phone: (513) 246-0103
- E-Mail Address
-
leann.dumont@emcbc.doe.gov, derrick.franklin@emcbc.doe.gov
(leann.dumont@emcbc.doe.gov, derrick.franklin@emcbc.doe.gov)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Award Number
- DE-AC03-99SF21530
- Award Date
- 6/30/2009
- Description
- 1. Agency and Contracting Activity: The United States Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Environmental Management (EM), Consolidated Business Center (CBC), Office of Contracting (OOC), intends to contract through other than full and open competition. This document provides the justification and approval for the use of non-competitive procedures pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1) and in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1(a). 2. Nature and/or Description of the Action Being Approved: The action being approved is the negotiation of a non-competitive extension of contract DE-AC03-99SF21530 with The Boeing Company (Boeing), which is due to expire on September 30, 2008. 3. Description of Services Required to Meet Agency's Needs: A. Background: (1). Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL), located on approximately 2,850 acres in the hills between Chatsworth and Simi Valley, CA, was developed as a remote site to test rocket engines and conduct nuclear research. The Atomics International unit of Rockwell International's Canoga Park-based Rocketdyne Division began in 1947. Thousands of open-air rocket tests were conducted at the site that supported the space program. In 1996, Rockwell International sold its aerospace and defense business, including the SSFL, to Boeing. The areas that encompass the SSFL are either owned by Boeing or the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2). The Atomic Energy Commission built a small nuclear power plant to deliver energy to the commercial grid at the lab. Research also included nuclear powered space vehicles and sodium coolant medium with ten small reactors. DOE performed research work on 90 acres at the former Energy Technology and Engineering Center (ETEC). All nuclear research work at ETEC was completed in 1988, with all reactor operations ending in 1980. Beginning in the 1960s, several facilities were removed once there was no longer a need for the specific facility. (3). DOE conducted an Environmental Assessment for the cleanup and closure of ETEC, and in March 2003, issued a decision finding no significant impact in its Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1345) Cleanup and Closure of the Energy Technology Engineering Center. This decision was challenged by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Committee to Bridge the Gap, and the City of Los Angeles. (4). In May 2007, a District Judge ruled against DOE in a challenge to the Environmental Assessment (DOE/EA-1345) Cleanup and Closure of the Energy Technology Engineering Center. Specifically on May 2, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Natural Resources Council et al. v. DOE et al.) issued a decision which directed DOE to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) for Area IV of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). The EIS and ROD are currently being prepared for DOE by CDM, A Joint Venture (CDM) under a task order, with completion scheduled for December 31, 2010. (5). In August 2007, the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) issued a Consent Order to DOE, NASA, and Boeing under its Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authority. This Order (a) requires cleanup of all chemically contaminated soils at SSFL by 2017 or earlier; (b) provides the option for DTSC to require more work to be conducted offsite from Area IV to assess air, soil and water contamination; and (c) requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The EIS being prepared by CDM may be used in the preparation of the EIR required by the DTSC Consent Order. (6). The current period of performance for contract DE-AC03-99SF21530 with Boeing ends on September 30, 2008. The required period for the sole source modification will extend the contract performance period through September 30, 2011. The contract extension will only include the services needed to (a) economically maintain and monitor the ETEC site in a state that assures the protection of the workers, the public and the environment; and (b) comply with all applicable laws and regulations and DOE policy. Continuation of site services through September 30, 2011, will facilitate fulfillment of the May 2, 2007, U.S. District Court decision. B. Required Services: (1). DOE, EM, CBC, OOC, intends to issue a sole source modification to extend the period of performance under contract DE-AC03-99SF21530 with Boeing to provide interim services to safely and economically maintain and monitor the ETEC site during the period required to complete the EIS and ROD for Area IV of the SSFL. (2). As a result of the decision rendered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, coupled with DTSC's suspension of its review of the Closure Plan submitted by Boeing for the closure of the Radioactive Materials Handling Facility (RMHF) at ETEC, a partial Termination for Convenience for contract DE-AC03-99SF21530 was issued by DOE to Boeing on July 18, 2007. The remaining contract services are required through the extension period to provide continuity of facilities operation and site support services. These services include, but are not limited to the following: (a) Work associated with RCRA Facility Investigation Report development, including characterization and document preparation in response to the State of California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) DTSC Consent Order for Corrective Action (Docket No. P3-07/08-003, Aug 16, 2007); (b) Work associated with the requirements to retrieve and produce all historical documents and records, including photographs, maps, figures of SSFL and surrounding areas, data table summaries and bibliographies, as required by the State of California EPA DTSC Control Consent Order for Corrective Action (Docket No. P3-07/08-003, August 16, 2007); (c) Perform all environmental monitoring within Area IV of the SSFL as required by regulations, statutes, and DOE policy; (d) Provide support to the DOE EIS contractor (CDM), including but not limited to, providing data from past sample analysis for Area IV of the SSFL; (e) Place all buildings into a safe shutdown mode, ensuring that all buildings are maintained in a safe and stable configuration throughout the performance period or until facility removal; (f) Complete disposition of waste generated prior to July 18, 2007, (the date of the Termination for Convenience), or newly generated wastes resulting from maintenance, monitoring, analyses or characterization activities; and (g) All safety and health, landlord activities, program support, waste management and all other related activities as described in the Statement of Work for contract DE AC03 99SF21530. 4. Identification of the Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition: The Competition in Contracting Act (41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1)), implemented under FAR 6.302-1(a), authorizes other than full and open competition when the supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. 5. Unique Contractor Qualifications: A. The ETEC environmental restoration and remediation work began in 1990 under a Management and Operating (M&O) contract (DE-AC03-76SF00700) with Rockwell International's Rocketdyne Division, at a time when the primary mission of ETEC was to conduct nuclear energy research and development activities. As DOE-sponsored research and development activities ceased, the ETEC mission changed to one of environmental restoration and remediation, waste management, and related support activities. Boeing North American Inc. / Rocketdyne Propulsion and Power (BNA-Rocketdyne P&P) purchased the Rocketdyne Division in December 1996. The change in the ETEC mission required DOE and BNA-Rocketdyne P&P to enter into a non-M&O form of contractual arrangement which included terms and conditions suitable to the environmental restoration and remediation activities. The selection process was a non-competitive process and the services of BNA-Rocketdyne P&P were solicited on a sole source basis under the statutory authority of 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1). The Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC) for the resultant contract anticipated that, with the exception of long-term ground water treatment and monitoring, there would be no future requirements for environmental restoration of the ETEC site after work under the contract was completed. Contract DE AC03 99SF21530 was awarded to BNA-Rocketdyne P&P on December 31, 1998. During the period of performance of the contract, the contractor's name changed to The Boeing Company. B. As follows, unique and special circumstances, many of which existed at the time of award of contract DE-AC03-99SF21530, also currently warrant the award of a contract extension to Boeing: (1). Cooperative Permits: The California DTSC issues RCRA related permits for the ETEC site. There are currently two facilities at ETEC for which DTSC has issued cooperative permits to both DOE and Boeing. These two facilities are the RMHF (buildings 4021, 4022 and 4621 only) and the Hazardous Waste Management Facility. The process of modifying the permits to change the holder to a new contractor would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive. It is anticipated this modification process would take between 3-12 months depending on information available to DTSC about the qualifications and past performance of the new contractor. Such a delay could jeopardize timely compliance with the Consent Order and disrupt completion of the EIS. (2). Duplication of Costs: If a contractor other than Boeing were to take on the current contract requirements at ETEC, that contractor would have to develop the same level of knowledge and expertise regarding the individual facilities and release sites that Boeing possesses. The resulting delays and duplicate costs while a new contractor developed the required expertise would be compounded by the very real potential to disrupt CDM's ongoing performance of the EIS task order for Area IV of the SSFL. Interface between Boeing and CDM is very critical to successful EIS completion. Furthermore, it is reasonably likely that a new contractor will qualify its acceptance of the technical and engineering data previously developed for DOE by Boeing. That is, a new contractor would likely either want to confirm the accuracy of previously collected data or, alternatively, to qualify its own work product by noting that its conclusions are predicated on data for which it is not responsible. In either case, EIS would likely be delayed and more expensive. There is a reasonable expectation of substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. (3). Access Issues: ETEC is located within the SSFL, a secure, limited access facility jointly owned by Boeing and NASA. The only physical access to ETEC is through the SSFL. If DOE were to award the contract to someone other than Boeing, site access to ETEC could become extremely contentious. As the land owner, Boeing has ultimate responsibility for the condition of its property and for the conduct of operations on its property. (4). Infrastructure Support: All infrastructure support for ETEC is provided by Boeing as part of its operation of the SSFL, including road maintenance, water and sewer services, electrical power, physical security, site access control, fire protection and safety and health support. DOE would need to enter into a contract with Boeing for these types of services even if another contractor were to be awarded a contract for the environmental restoration and remediation work. (5). RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) Groupings: There are a number of non-severable RFI sites within Area IV or in close proximity to Area IV which overlap into other Boeing-owned and NASA-owned areas of the SSFL. Additional Surveillance and Maintenance (S&M) activities in the overlapped groupings are required to continue while the Area IV EIS is being performed. There have been no EPA regulator challenges to Boeing's process for conducting S&M activities. DOE does not have the authority to force Boeing to use a DOE contractor to perform the required S&M activities for the overlapped groupings. In addition, even though there are RFI groupings that do not overlap, it is not practicable to compete these services as they are of relatively low dollar value. The mobilization costs required for a new contractor to perform the services would not be recovered through competition. As previously stated, Boeing will be conducting sampling activities as they complete S&M requirements. Transitioning to a new contractor to conduct these S&M activities would jeopardize the completion of the EIS. The integration and communication between Boeing and CDM is critical to optimize the flow of existing data and site information. 6. Efforts to Solicit Offers from as many Potential Sources as Practicable: On July 21, 2008, DOE issued a synopsis stating the intent to issue a sole source modification to extend the period of performance under contract DE-AC03-99SF21530 with Boeing. Though not a formal request for proposals or an invitation for bids, interested parties were afforded an opportunity to respond within fifteen (15) days (August 4, 2008). 7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Anticipated Cost: A. The contract with Boeing was originally awarded with an effective date of December 31, 1998. The current total estimated contract value is approximately $162 million for the entire contract period of performance through September 30, 2008. Using current contract baseline and cost report information, with an estimated value of $13 million per year, the total value of the three-year extension is estimated to be $39 million. B. The original contract estimated costs and fee were determined fair and reasonable with negotiated settlement on December 8, 1998. A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data in accordance with FAR 15.4 was executed by BNA-Rocketdyne P&P on December 15, 1998. The determination of the fair and reasonable price for the extension will also be by negotiated settlement and will consider terms and conditions of the current contract, current rates and factors, and other applicable cost or pricing related matters. A Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data will be required after settlement on the extension proposal. 8. Description of Market Research Conducted: A formal market survey was not conducted for this extension. No responses from interested contractors were received by the DOE to the contract extension synopsis which was posted on July 21, 2008. If the services contained in this extension are not continued without disruption, DOE would not meet its regulatory mandates at ETEC and Area IV of the SSFL to protect the workers, the public and the environment. 9. Other Facts Supporting the Use of Other than Full and Open Competition: None. 10. Listing of Interested Sources: There were no responses received in the timeframe allowed by the synopsis posted on July 21, 2008. Boeing will be the only source solicited. 11. Actions to Remove or Overcome any Barriers to Competition Before any Subsequent Acquisition for the Services Required: With the results of the EIS and ROD being completed for Area IV of the SSFL by December 2010, DOE will have much more refined information available to determine follow-on ETEC site remediation requirements. The extended period of performance positions DOE to conduct an acquisition for remediation activities required to complete closure of ETEC site at that time. The acquisition will be conducted on a competitive basis using existing multiple award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contracts, small business set-aside, or other competitive acquisition approaches most appropriate at the time.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/DOE/PAM/HQ/DE-AC03-99SF21530/listing.html)
- Place of Performance
- Address: Los Angeles, Conoga Park, California, Los Angeles, California, 91303, United States
- Zip Code: 91303
- Zip Code: 91303
- Record
- SN01871699-W 20090712/090711000108-a5e171b19189f16ffb104fff91b99ade (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |