Loren Data's SAM Daily™

FBO DAILY ISSUE OF OCTOBER 03, 2012 FBO #3966
DOCUMENT

Q -- ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY LABS FOLLOW-ON - Attachment

Notice Date

10/1/2012
 

Notice Type

Attachment
 

NAICS

541690 — Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
 

Contracting Office

Department of Veterans Affairs;VA Denver Acquisition & Logistics Center;(001AL-A2-4D);555 Corporate Circle;Golden CO 80401
 

ZIP Code

80401
 

Solicitation Number

VA79112R0051
 

Archive Date

10/28/2012
 

Point of Contact

Michael Sanford
 

E-Mail Address

3-6212<br
 

Small Business Set-Aside

N/A
 

Award Number

VA791-12-C-0021
 

Award Date

9/28/2012
 

Awardee

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE;3520 FIFTH AVE;PITTSBURGH;PA;152133320
 

Award Amount

$1,994,955.00
 

Description

August 10, 2012 JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION Upon the basis of the following justification, I, as Contracting Agency Competition Advocate, hereby approve the use of other than full and open competition of the proposed contractual action pursuant to the authority of 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(1), "Only one responsible source and no other services will satisfy VA's requirements". Identification Number: Acquisition Plan number VA791-12-AP-0052. 1.The Department of Veterans Affairs, Denver Acquisition and Logistics Center (DALC), proposes to enter into a contract on the basis of Other than Full and Open Competition for the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Program. 2.The acquisition is to establish a Follow-on contract with the University of Pittsburgh, where substantial duplication of cost is not expected to be recovered through competition. The anticipated Follow-on contract is planned for a Base Year with four One-Year options. The Base Year is anticipated to start on, or before, September 30, 2012. The original contract to the University of Pittsburgh was awarded in March 2009 following a "Best Value" competition. That contract, number VA-791-P-0156, was for services in support of VHA's Assistive Technology Laboratories (AT Labs) at four VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers. The period of performance for the original contract ends on October 31, 2012. 3.The follow-on work would further enhance the education, consultation, product review, staff development, needs assessment, outcomes data gathering, outcome analysis and clinical inventory of Assistive Technology Services in the whole of VA. The University of Pittsburgh has provided similar services to the 4 VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers via a competitive contract over the past 3 years. In order to sustain this development and further VA clinical staff education, this proposal would allow expansion to 18 new sites. 4.The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 41 U.S.C.253(c)(1) as implemented by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 6.302-1entitled, "Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements." 5.Given the knowledge that the University of Pittsburgh has gained regarding the VA system over the past 3 years, a sole source contract is requested to minimize the time that another contractor would need to understand the VA system and develop application strategies. Additionally, tools that have been developed through the past contract with the University of Pittsburgh which would allow rapid deployment to the rest of the VA system. The learning curve for a different contractor would take significant time and would not allow efficient transition. The time to develop these systems would be a duplication of work that has already been provided by the University of Pittsburgh. 6.The University of Pittsburgh group has extensive experience with policy development and has advised the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on Assistive Technology Policy. The University of Pittsburgh also supports the Rehabilitation Engineering Society of North America, which is the leading professional organization for assistive technology and the International Seating Symposium which is an international group devoted to ensuring proper wheelchair seating and positioning for the disabled. 6.The competition for the original contract resulted in only two qualified Offerors, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Colorado. A search of the Internet shows that other universities might be capable of performing the work. However, the learning curve for a different contractor would take significant time and would not allow efficient transition. The time to develop these systems would be a duplication of work that has already been provided by the University of Pittsburgh. 7.The estimated cost for this acquisition is a total of $2 million, including the base year and all four option years. Negotiations will be conducted with the University following Cost/Price Analyses to ensure a fair and reasonable contract price is reached. 8.The original competition resulted in two qualified sources, the University of Colorado and the University of Pittsburgh. A search of the Internet shows additional potential sources that have involvement in Assistive Technology Labs. Other than the University of Pittsburgh, none of the sources have developed the Assistive Technology Labs for the VA Polytrauma Centers. 9.The University has unique qualifications, beyond what was gained in the preceding contract for Assistive Technology Labs. The University of Pittsburgh has provided education via web portal which is maintained and updated by them. The University of Pittsburgh also has the capability of providing on-line consultation via a software package that they have developed which is compatible with VA systems. Additionally, they have developed a system to analyze clinical outcomes of prescribed technology to various disability groups. This information is currently available on their web portal and this proposal would allow further reviews and would allow the information to be available to more VA clinicians.. The current contract with the University of Pittsburgh is valued at $4,116,814. The current contract represents the developmental "learning' phase of the program. It is estimated, based on the Program Manager's judgment and experience, that any other contractor would have to repeat the developmental 'learning curve' process at roughly the same cost. The University of Pittsburgh's knowledge gained through the current contract will allow that $4 million cost to be avoided. While the original contract produced four qualified sites the follow-on contract is expected to cost only $2 million for 18 additional sites. The estimate to use a new contractor is a 'learning curve' cost of $4 million, plus a cost of $2 million to add 18 new sites. If a sole source is not utilized it is anticipated the government will be harmed by redundant spending of approximately $4 million. The current contract with the University of Pittsburgh expires on October 31, 2012. Placing a follow-on contract by September 30, 2012 allows for a smooth transition of the program phases and assures retention of the current program staff. 10.No other sources have expressed an interest in this acquisition. 11.Competition is not planned. This is a follow-on procurement and it is not feasible to consider any other sources without incurring an unnecessary and redundant developmental cost. Certification The information contained in this justification for other than full and open competition is certified accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Acquisition Initiator/Senior Program Official: I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and which form a basis for this justification, are complete and accurate. __see file__________________ __________ William Wenninger Date AT Labs Program Manager Contracting Officer: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. _see file___________________ __________ Michael J. Sanford Date Contracting Officer Reviews and Approvals Office of General Counsel: I have reviewed this justification. __see file__________________ __________ Signature Date Activity Competition Advocate: I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Since this JOFOC does not exceed $2.0M, this review serves as approval. __see file__________________ __________ Craig Robinson, ADAS, HCA Date
 

Web Link

FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/VA/VADDC791/VADDC791/Awards/VA791-12-C-0021.html)
 

Document(s)

Attachment
 

File Name: VA791-12-C-0021 VA791-12-C-0021_1.docx (https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=490189&FileName=VA791-12-C-0021-000.docx)

Link: https://www.vendorportal.ecms.va.gov/FBODocumentServer/DocumentServer.aspx?DocumentId=490189&FileName=VA791-12-C-0021-000.docx

 

Note: If links are broken, refer to Point of Contact above or contact the FBO Help Desk at 877-472-3779.
 

Record

SN02905305-W 20121003/121001234552-1ef1267c9cd1cf2cdfbd04344c807abd (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 |