CUI - 842571048_MES Consolidation DF_Signed_Redacted.pdf

CUI

Reference Number: 842571048 Title of Procurement: Consolidation Determination & Finding for Mobility Enterprise Services

Controlled By: DISA Controlled By: SD51 CUI Category: PROCURE Distribution/Dissemination Control: FEDCON POC: disa.meade.id.list.mde@mail.mil

P a g e | 1

DETERMINATION AND FINDINGS CONSOLIDATION OF CONTRACT

REQUIREMENTS

Mobility Enterprise Services (MES)

I have reviewed the requirement for MES that Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) / Acquisition / Program Executive Office Services (SD) / Enterprise Services Portfolio Management Office (SD5) / Mobility Branch (SD51) proposes to solicit as a consolidation procurement action under 15 U.S.C. 657q. My review resulted in the following findings:

FINDINGS

1. The DISA Mobility Program Management Office (PMO), through the Defense Information

Technology Contracting Organization, plans to solicit for MES and has conducted market research that demonstrates consolidation of this procurement is both necessary and justified.

2. Description of the Procurement Action: This procurement is intended to provide a consolidated classified and unclassified mobile enterprise solution to eliminate the need to service and maintain two service orders for the classified and unclassified offerings, reducing the overall risk to the Government for integration and service delivery. Additionally, the DISA Mobility PMO can reprioritize resources to avoid unnecessary administrative costs and duplication of efforts for both the Government and the contractor, realize efficiencies in process and task management, and improve accountability. Currently, the DISA Mobility PMO is administering two separate orders that make up the Department of Defense (DoD) Mobility Classified Capability (DMCC) and the DoD Mobility Unclassified Capability (DMUC) Programs. The following provides an overview of the two orders in support of the DMUC and DMCC programs:

Contract/Task Order: HC102818D0006/HC108421F6105 Contract Vehicle ENCORE III Full & Open Suite

Brief Description: MES-Unclassified (MES-U) for DMUC Engineering and Support Services

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (BAH) Business Type: Large Business

Period of performance (including all options):

April 4, 2021 – April 3, 2025 April 4, 2025 – October 3, 2025 (Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.217-8)

Life Cycle Contract Value:

Contract Type: Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Method of Acquisition: Competed Fair Opportunity

P a g e | 2

Contract/Task Order: HC108420D0004/HC108420F0242

Contract Vehicle Mobility Enterprise Services - Classified: DISA Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity

Brief Description: MES-Classified (MES-C) for DMCC Engineering and Support Services

Contractor: BAH Business Type Large Business

Period of performance (including all options):

July 20, 2020 – July 19, 2025 July 20, 2025 – September 19, 2025 (FAR) 52.217- 8)

Life Cycle Contract Value:

Contract Type: FFP Method of Acquisition: Single Award Delivery Order

The new consolidated order will be issued as a sole source to BAH under the DISA contract, Systems Engineering, Technology, and Innovation (SETI). The follow-on effort has an estimated total value of for a one-year base period of performance and four, one-year option periods (including 15% surge and FAR 52.217-8).

3. Applicable Statues/Regulations: 15 U.S.C. 657q and FAR, Subpart 7.107-2, Consolidation.

4. Results of Market Research: On October 31, 2024, the Government conducted market research using a Sources Sought Notice (SSN) submitted to all ENCORE III large and small business and to industry via the government-wide point of entry, SAM.gov. The SSN solicited sources for the Government’s consideration of combining the DMUC and DMCC requirements into one acquisition. The SSN included seven capabilities that were identified if it was supporting DMUC, DMCC (DMCC-Secret/DMCC-Top Secret), or both mobility systems. Primarily, the MES contractor would need to be a Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) Trusted Integrator (TI) and have experience with unclassified Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM), Mobile Application Management (MAM) and Mobile Threat Defense (MTD) systems. A CSfC TI is defined as an organization that meets National Security Agency (NSA) established criteria and is qualified to assemble and integrate components according to a CSfC capability package, test the resulting solution, provide a body of evidence to the solution Authorizing Official/Designated Approving Authority, maintain the solution, and be the first line of response in troubleshooting or responding to security incidents. To perform these tasks, the contractor must have demonstrated experience in system integration, with the technologies to be integrated, in formal testing processes and in evidence generation for system authorization. NSA provides criteria to establish a baseline for CSfC TIs.

When responding to the SSN, the company was to identify if they can meet one or both mobility systems. A total of 14 responses were received, consisting of 11 small businesses and three large businesses. The first step was to determine if the companies were a CSfC TI.

Of the 14 submittals, two large businesses and two small businesses were CSfC TIs. The next step was to determine if the CSfC TI companies had experience with an unclassified EMM, P a g e | 3

MAM, and MTD systems. Only BAH was identified as a CSfC TI with the required EMM, MAM, and MTD experience.

On December 27, 2024, additional market research was conducted, targeting large and small businesses that were CSfC TIs and had experience with an unclassified EMM, MAM, and MTD systems. The DISA Mobility PMO solicited companies on the CSfC TIs List, https://www.nsa.gov/Resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Classified-Program/Trusted- Integrator-List/ that did not respond to the initial SSN. Four responses were received, consisting of three large businesses and one small business. None of the responses had the required experience in EMM, MAM and MTD systems. BAH remains the only source capable to meet the unclassified and classified requirements.

Based on the market research conducted from August 2024 – April 2025, the small business market is not capable of executing either the unified MES order or for status quo of keeping MES-C and MES-U separate orders. The following explains why a small business cannot meet the requirement:

A consolidated order requires the small business to be a qualified CSfC TI as the prime since the CSfC TI workload is over 50% of the costs. A small business that was a CSfC TI was not identified that also had the knowledge and experience to support the majority of the unclassified work that consisted of EMM, MAM and MTD.

Separate orders for MES-C/DMCC and MES-U/DMUC:

a) MES-C/DMCC: The first and second round SSN identified that the CSfC TI small business community does not have the experience to meet the CSfC requirements.

b) MES-U/DMUC: The first and second round SSN identified that the small business community does not have the experience to meet the EMM, MAM and MTD requirements, which constitutes over 50% of the cost.

5. In accordance with FAR 7.107-2 (c), Consolidation of this requirement is necessary and justified as the Government will receive substantial benefits.

Alternative Contracting Approaches Involving a Lesser Degree of Consolidation and Rationale for Rejection:

a) Use existing government personnel to perform all technical support services:

Alternative a) was not selected because there is not enough manpower to manage the depth and scope of this effort due to lack of government personnel. The Government is staffed with the appropriate skills to provide the oversight but does not have the resources to perform the required services of this magnitude.

b) Operating under status quo and recompeting the orders separately:

P a g e | 4

Alternative b) was not selected based on the following considerations:

Cost Savings: There are higher costs associated with managing and overseeing two separate orders in lieu of one consolidated order. In addition, monetary savings are expected with regards to the actual costs due to more advantageous pricing from the contractor as a result of cross utilization of the workforce, overall lower labor rate, and economies of scale.

Management Efficiencies: More government resources would be required to manage and provide oversight of the two separate orders including two times the manpower required to process invoices, review deliverables, and complete performance reviews.

Consolidation of these capabilities under one order will allow for more streamlined management and improved utilization of the services in terms of both internal and external order management.

Quality: The Government anticipates a better understanding of the requirements, both from the Government and contractor’s perspective, which will result in overall improved maintenance and support. This consolidated approach will allow the contracting officer representative (COR) to focus on a single order, as opposed to dividing attention between two separate orders. Using a single order will allow integration of activities for a more efficient delivery of services. The consolidation will eliminate risks and vulnerabilities associated with separately managed orders enabling improved monitoring and management of the effort.

Acquisition Cycle: Awarding and maintaining one order through consolidation versus awarding two smaller orders streamlines the process by reducing the number of Federal Government employees needed (both CORs and contracting officers) to award and administer the orders. The acquisition cycle benefits of a consolidated order versus awarding and maintaining two separate orders include reduced administrative burden, lower costs, and time savings created by not having to perform duplicative procurement actions. Instead of two government contracting and finance teams, only one acquisition team will be required for the consolidated effort, significantly reducing time and costs associated with the acquisition cycle.

This procurement does not involve bundling as defined in FAR 2.101, because the bundling does involve two or more requirements previously provided under separate, smaller contracts that when combined will be unsuitable for award to a small business. Thus, a bundling analysis was not conducted pursuant to FAR 7.107.

6. Impact on Small Business Concerns: Based on the market research conducted and the resulting analysis, the small business community and/or a small business is not capable of supporting the full requirement.

7. Steps Taken to Include Small Business Concerns/Maximize Small Business Participation:

Although market research has found small business concerns not capable of executing this full requirement, small businesses may support this requirement through subcontracting opportunities. This sole source order will require subcontracting to small business in the