Source of Income Discrimination

JUSTIFICATION FOR EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(C) ________________________________________ 1. REQUIRING AGENCY: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Office of the Chief Procurement Officer (OCPO) 801 Cherry Street, Unit # 45, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity 2. NATURE/DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPROVED: This document serves as justification for an exception to the fair opportunity process for a task order modification to be issued directly to Urban Institute under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(C). 3. DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES REQUIRED TO MEET AGENCY'S NEEDS (INCLUDING ESTIMATED VALUE): HUD's office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R) has determined that a contract modification is needed in order to complete the objective of the research to determine source of income (SOI) discrimination against voucher holders. The service required is based on feedback from the Expert Panel convened on April 24, 2014. The current scope of the SOI study is to a) develop testing instruments and analytical strategies to measure SOI in the rental housing market and b) pilot testing of those instruments and strategies in at least four metropolitan areas. It was decided after the Expert Panel convened that two additional questions would need to be answered to advance HUD's knowledge of possible discrimination in low-poverty neighborhoods. The questions are as follows: a. To what extent do landlords with units in opportunity neighborhoods discriminate against voucher holders? b. To what extent are voucher-affordable units advertised and available in low-poverty neighborhoods? These two questions are a subset of the research question in section 1.4.5 of the PWS, "What is the prevalence and extent of source of income related discrimination?" These supplemental research questions will require additional fieldwork and an adjustment to the current sampling and analysis plan. If the current proposed strategy is utilized to collect rental units that are at or below the Fair Market Rent (FMR) of an area it is highly probable that the high-poverty neighborhoods (which currently willingly accept vouchers) will be over-represented and the analysis will lead to a skewed conclusion of a lack of SOI discrimination. If the contract is modified and changes are made to the ad sampling plan and forthcoming analysis, it can be assured of a proportionate sample that includes both low-poverty (low-voucher) and high-poverty (high voucher) areas so that the results of the study can be reliable and sufficient to authoritatively answer if SOI discrimination does exist. It was only after discussions with the Expert Panel, site selection was finalized and an initial analysis of a sample of ads in each of the sites was it determined that being able to distinguish between low-poverty neighborhoods and high-poverty neighborhoods was important to the full understanding the possible existence of voucher discrimination. At this time the period of performance of Task Order 006 will be increased by 13 months. The estimated cost of this contract modification will be $300,000. 4. IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY AND THE SUPPORTING RATIONALE: FAR 16.505(b)(2)(C) is the exception that applies to this modification. The current sampling approach uses online sources to draw a representative sample of ads from neighborhoods based on the distribution of eligible voucher affordable units in a testing site. However concerns have been raised from HUD and the Expert Panel that this approach will not garner enough advertised units in low-poverty areas. The contractor will need to conduct a sampling analysis to establish whether the current ad sampling approach for housing discrimination studies will be sufficient to obtain a sample in low-poverty areas for analyses. The additional work planned to conduct the sampling analysis, conduct an ad pre-test and the constant monitoring during data collection will mean an additional 8 months to the data collection period. The revised data collection period will be just over 12 months in total. It is critical for the incumbent contractor to continue work on the study because of the confidentiality of the testing sites. Each of the sites chosen is kept confidential in order to ensure the integrity of the study. In the past when site selection was compromised sites had to be dropped from the study because landlords were informed of the possibility of discrimination testing. As such, less than five people in HUD are aware of the study sites for SOI to ensure that a breach in protocol does not lead to a failed study. Even during data collection, it may be possible that the Urban Institute would need to contact each of the local testing organizations (LTOs) in order to verify results of testing. Therefore, because confidentiality is paramount to the success of this study, changing contractors could lead to a failure of the study and/or its findings. 5. DETERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTING OFFICER THAT THE ANTICIPATED COST TO THE GOVERNMENT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE: Given the increase in the testing and the increased analysis that is required, and the proposed cost, the contracting officer determined that the anticipated cost to the Government is fair and reasonable. The proposed cost is 0.2% less than the Government cost estimate. 6. ANY OTHER FACTS SUPPORTING THE JUSTIFICATION: N/A. 7. STATEMENT OF ACTIONS TO REMOVE OR OVERCOME ANY BARRIERS THAT LED TO THE EXCEPTION OF FAIR OPPORTUNITY BEFORE ANY SUBSEQUENT ACQUISITION FOR THE SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IS MADE: There are no actions to be taken by HUD that will prevent situations similar to the one described above. 8. DETERMINATION BY APPROVING OFFICIAL: It is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to provide an exception to the fair opportunity process and award the modification to Urban Institute under Task Order 006 for this requirement. This exception to the fair opportunity process is authorized under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(C) when, "The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order." Program Office Official's Certification I certify that the information provided in support of this justification is complete and accurate to the best my knowledge and belief. Head of Program Office Name Title/Name of Office: _______________________________________________________________ Signature: Date: x ______________________________________________________________________________________ CONTRACTING OFFICERS CERTIFICATION: I certify that the facts contained in this justification are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. ______________________________________________________________ Cornel (Dave) Codner Date: Contracting Officer