SIGN_ JUON_A2A Dual Mode_JA_1Oct25 (Atch1)_rpl.pdf

Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other Than Full and Open Competition

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 7August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 7

Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A? Yes No

Is this a new or amended J&A Document? New Amended ( Prior to Award Only! )

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at DAFFARS 5302.101? Yes No

Dollar Value of this Acquisition: < $750K > $750K and < $15M > $15M and < $100M > $100M

Contracting Activity: AFLCMC/EBDA

Purchase Request (if available) / Local ID Number:

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) Combatant Commanders (CC) -0588 Air-to-Air (A2A) Dual Mode

Program Type (PEO, Enterprise, of Operational): PEO Weapons

Authority:

6.302-1 – 10 USC 3204(a)(1), Only One Responsible Source - No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $ 145,000,000 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) Sign and Save Procedure

** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Date Project Lead/Program Mgr/Requiring Activity Jonathan G. Chancey, NH-03, DAF

AFLCMC/EBDA, DSN: 872-0854

Signature

X

Date Contracting Officer Laura M. Luttrell, NH-03, DAF

AFLCMC/EBDA, DSN: 872-1029

Signature

X

Date Chief of Contracts Patricia A. Chisholm, NH-04, DAF

AFLCMC/EBA, DSN: 872-0790

Signature

X

Date Local Legal Reviewer Isaac J. Nehus, NH-04, DAF

AFMCLO/JANE, DSN: 872-8281

Signature

X

Date Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO) Jeffrey B. Mixson, NH-04, DAF

AFLCMC/EB DSN: 872-6935

Signature

X

Date Competition Advocate Gregory L. Parry, NH-04, DAF

AFLCMC/PZC DSN: 875-7284

Signature

X

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 7August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 7

APPROVAL ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a))

Date Program Executive Weapons (Requirements Cognizance) Robert P. Lyons III, Brig Gen, USAF

AFLCMC/EB, DSN: 872-5422

Signature

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 7August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 7

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

The individual Justification and Approval (J&A) is to request authority of Other Than Full and Open Competition (OTF&OC) supporting requirements generated for Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Attack Division (AFLCMC/EBD), Eglin AFB, FL 32542-6807. The contract activity is AFLCMC/EBDA Air-to-Air (A2A) Dual Mode.

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

The activity requests authority to acquire component upgrades to the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) AGR-20F rocket (FALCO), which is utilized against Group 3 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) threats.

The required upgrades include a nose mounted Long Wave Infrared (LWIR) seeker and mid-body warhead with dual safe proximity fuze that will ensure minimal changes to the existing outer mold line and provide the necessary solution for counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems (cUAS) to meet the United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Navy (USN) requirements. Systems engineering and technical analysis are required to ensure seamless component integration and compatibility with APKWS architecture. The required upgrades enable the Air-to-Air Dual Mode All-Up Round (Dual-Mode A2A) hand-off from the designator laser to the LWIR seeker to minimize time the aircraft operator must keep the laser on the target. These Air-to-Air Dual Mode subcomponents are being developed to be interchangeable with the existing APKWS interface developed by BAE Systems to increase capabilities and ensure cost effectiveness.

In August 2024, the combatant commanders issued a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) validating a requirement to advance the APKWS technology, in less than 24-months, including seeker, warhead, dual safe proximity fuze, and guidance sections to deter and, if needed, win against evolving adversary threats.

The requirement for these changes has been designated under the CC-0588 Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) by Central Command and Air Force Central Command. The urgent need is for a lower-cost system in large numbers to defeat swarms (potentially numbering in the hundreds) of lower-cost Group 3 UAS. This individual Justification and Approval (J&A) covers an estimated $145,000,000 contract action to be awarded on a sole-source basis to BAE Systems (65 River Road, Hudson, NH 03051, CAGE Code 94117) through an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract structure. This procurement responds to the referenced JUON, with work required to commence no later than 2QFY26.

Orders under this IDIQ are anticipated to be issued as a mixture of contract types such as but not limited to: Cost Plus Fixed-Fee (CPFF) for most of the work involving development and integration; Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs in anticipation of travel and training expenses; and Firm-Fixed Priced (FFP) CLINs for materials and the procurement of AUR parts.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

This effort provides for the development, manufacturing, and delivery of the Long Wave Infrared (LWIR) seeker, mid-body warhead with dual safe proximity fuze and modified guidance sections which will be used by Government personnel to build 300 prototype All Up Rounds (AUR) to achieve a partial solution. This AUR capability fulfills the JUON for a basic A2A solution to counter the growing (Group 3) mass attack threat. Due to the severity of these threats, a solution is required to be capable of fielding in 24 months. APKWS guidance sections will be provided by Hill AFB as Government Furnished Material (GFM) with the remaining components, mid-body warhead, dual safe proximity fuze, and LWIR Seeker to be provided by BAE Systems under the development within the scope of the

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 7August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 7 effort.

Within this requirement the contractor will mature the design for the LWIR seeker, mid-body warhead, dual safe proximity fuze, and modified guidance section to TRL 7. The goal of Dual-Mode is to heavily leverage the success of the AGR-20F FALCO UON as a cost-effective cUAS solution with reduced lase time enabling faster rate of fire.

Building upon APKWS, BAE's existing architecture allows the component delivery schedule to meet urgent operational needs, ensuring expedited testing and integration on the F-16 platform and rapid fielding of the Air-to-Air capability. The contractor's Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) 7 will ensure production representative processes to support build and delivery of these components. Build and delivery of sub-components for test hardware enables completion of qualification, test and integration to ensure airworthiness and safety requirements are met. These production representative processes must be further refined following the 24-month initial partial solution in order to achieve a full solution to the JUON problem set.

Under this J&A the contractor shall also perform technical evaluation and analysis support required for the qualification, test and integration to achieve fielding certification. Of the 300 prototype units being built under this effort, 100 are intended for integration and test events, while 200 are intended as operational leave behinds to facilitate operational testing down range.

This contract action includes a 60-month ordering window to accommodate acquisition requirements. The effort begins with a 24-month development and integration phase for a partial solution per the JUON specifications, followed by additional ordering capacity to achieve a full solution and production-ready capabilities. The flexible approach reflects lessons learned from the FALCO program regarding increasing demand and changing inventory needs. Current operational requirements emphasize speed and efficiency to enhance munitions capabilities. The cost and schedule ceiling estimates derive from multiple sources: previous BAE seeker development efforts, contractor Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) estimates, and technical evaluations conducted by the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The total cost of this acquisition is estimated to be $145M: $62M for the development of components, $56M for the testing and qualifications of the operational leave behinds, $27M to cover technical risk and USN qualification efforts.

Under the effort subject of this J&A and for the remainder of the AFRL effort, the Government intends to maximize Government data rights for the complete technical data packages, with focus on defining and ensuring Unlimited rights in any form, fit, and function of hardware and logical interfaces for mating components. If BAE assertions to date are justified, then improvements funded by the Government under the AFRL effort and this effort should result in at least sufficient rights in form, fit, and function integration data to enable integration of alternative weapon system component upgrades to adapt faster against advancing threats. This modularity combined with obtaining data rights will facilitate future full and open competition. The Government will request separately priced CLINs for Intellectual Property.

The APKWS is currently the most cost effective munition that meets the required capabilities with minimal changes (3 components) and can be integrated on the F-16 platform in the required timeline. The APKWS munition is developed and produced by BAE Systems. BAE asserts comprehensive intellectual property rights over the majority of the hardware and software based on development at private expense. In early 2024, software development for the guidance section and hardware component adaptions were performed to combat advancing adversary unmanned systems and answer an Urgent Operational Need. Research into the UON contract administered by the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) confirmed the data rights assertion made by BAE Systems which assert "Restricted Rights" primarily on software and "Limited Rights" primarily on hardware, with no deliverable for a comprehensive Technical Data Package (TDP) to the Government. The AFRL contract is still active; therefore, AFRL has not received final technical data from BAE Systems for APKWS components being evolved.

Under this effort sbuject of this J&A and for the remainder of the AFRL effort, the Government intends to maximize Government data rights for the complete technical data packages, with focus on defining and ensuring Unlimited

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 7August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 7 rights in any form, fit, and function of hardware and logical interfaces for mating components. If BAE assertions are to date as justified, then improvements funded by the Government under the AFRL effort and this effort should result in at least sufficient rights in form, fit, and function integration data to enable integration of alternative weapons system component upgrades to adapt faster against evolving threats. This modularity combined with obtaining data rights will facilitate future full and open competition. The Government will request separately priced CLINs for Intellectual Property.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited above.

Statutory Authority Justification:

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 USC 3204(a)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), only one responsible source, and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

This effort will continue development and produce the LWIR seeker and mid-body warhead with dual safe proximity fuze weapon system/highly specialized equipment, which was developed under a competitive contract, FA8651-23-D-B002 awarded to BAE Systems, Hudson, NH.

Unacceptable Delay

The Attack Division Program Office has determined that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements.

A survey, conducted by the Air Force, concluded that a BAE cUAS weapon seeker was being developed for evolving adversary threats through the Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) IDIQ contract FA8651-23-D-B002, DO FA8651-23- F-B005. Based on Air Force APKWS historical data and AFRL developments, the Government estimates that awarding this requirement to any other source would result in an estimated delay exceeding 44 months. This delay would critically impact the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions by leaving a critical vulnerability open. If BAE is not leveraged for this requirement, the following time is required: 1) BAE to complete the APKWS data packages (12 months), BAE Systems is currently developing this cUAS seeker under AFRL IDIQ contract FA8651-23-D-B002, DO FA8651-23-F-B005. Another vendor would require at least this long to independently develop a similar data package, 2) the Government to finalize and approve the data package (2 months), 3) the Government to conduct a competitive acquisition (12 to 18 Months), and 4) sufficient time for a new vendor to become operationally skilled with the hardware structure and software execution (12 months). An award to any other source would directly prevent the ability to deliver enhanced cUAS capability in 24-months and severely degrade a combatant commander's ability to manage battlefield threats.

Summary

Accordingly, BAE Systems is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 7August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 7

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under FAR 5.202 applies.

A Request for Information (RFI), Notice ID: JUON1 was posted on SAM.gov on 14 March 2025 and closed on 27 March 2025. The Government requested sources that had counter-UAS capabilities against drone groups 2/3 with ground-to-ground or air-to-air capability. The RFI also requested the vendors to prove the ability to demonstrate All- Up Round capability at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6 no later than 30 Jun 2025. There were 43 respondents to the RFI as detailed in the Market Research Report dated 31 Mar 2025. This market research indicated that BAE Systems is the only response that proposed a solution with the necessary technical maturity level, 24-month timeline, airworthiness considerations, F-16 integration, and meets the requirements of the overall critical capability. The F-16 integration was selected for its higher intensity flight test profile, ensuring the prototype meets structural capabilities for both F-16 and MH-60 platforms. The other 42 responses failed to meet either the required airworthiness or their proposed solution would require extensive integration efforts to the aircraft platform that would not meet the 24-month timeline. Additionally, the technical maturity of these other proposed solutions would not support the necessary technology readiness within the required schedule. The information provided by the RFI supported the justification and basis for establishing a sole source IDIQ to BAE Systems.

A notice of proposed contract action will be posted to SAM.gov stating the Governments intent to award to BAE Systems.

VI. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

Based upon (1) certified cost or pricing data provided in the offeror's proposal, (2) the Program Office's technical analysis of the offeror's Basis of Estimates (BOE), and (3) inputs from the Defense Contract Management Agency, including from the Administrative Contracting Officer, the Contracting Officer expects they will be able to determine that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

In order to solicit offers from as many offerors as possible, the Contracting Officer considered techniques for conducting market research IAW FAR 10.002(b)(2). The Contracting Officer reviewed market research performed for this program. A Request for Information (RFI) dated 13 March 2025 was reviewed in its entirety to understand the current capabilities and landscape of ground launched and air-to-air counter UAS weapon systems. The research showed that no company could meet the Technology Readiness Level requirement in the time frame of the JUON.

Further, the research identified that no company could translate their solution into an all up round capability and the RFI responses did not address experience with USAF or Navy aircraft. BAE Systems was found to be the only company with the relevant capability to manufacture the components required for the JUON CC-0588 A2A Weapon System. The JUON CC-0588 A2A Team (contracting officer, program manager, and lead engineer) also consulted with knowledgeable Government personnel to determine if there was any potential for additional source participation. No additional sources were identified that could fulfill the JUON's requirement based on the cost efficiency requirement and within the 24-month timeline.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 7 of 7

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

N/A

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

No other sources expressed interest.

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

Competition is limited by the factors and conditions stated in previous sections. Due to the 24-month timeline and cost effectiveness, BAE Systems is the only vendor capable of producing the requirements.

The JUON CC-0588 A2A Dual Mode program office will continue to perform market research and investigate any possible competition opportunities. Moreover, the Government will continue to examine the opportunities to procure data packages from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for technologies developed in the future, and to challenge non-conforming or unjustified markings on data the Government currently receives.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by my signature above, I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

As evidenced by my (our) signature(s) above, I (we) certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my (our) responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

Remove the Guidance pages below.

August 2023 Page of International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR) Page of 13 May 2022 Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A?

!! Attach the preceding J&A in the staff package for this J&A. The preceding J&A will be used as a reference document.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document?

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at DAFFARS 5302.101?

Dollar Value of this Acquisition:

J&A Type:

!! Provide estimated cost of all contracts.

COORDINATION ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

APPROVAL ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) NOTE 1: A signature block will appear here (replacing these notes) based on the "Dollar Value of this Acquisition" selected above. Since most digital signatures that include date/time-stamps are redacted before they are made publicly available, always insert the date in the “Date” cell when affixing a digital signature to this document.

NOTE 2: Some types of acquisitions awarded under circumstances where full and open competition is not required by statute do not have to be supported by a written justification and approval. See 10 U.S.C. § 3204(e)(7); FAR 6.302-5(c)(2). For Class J&As, all contracts within the class must fall within the same statutory authority.

NOTE 3: Users of this template are directed to SAF/AQC Policy Memo 22-C-02, or latest issuance, which provides detailed instructions on how to complete each section of a J&A. The memo will be posted at the following location:

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/KnowledgeCenter/Documents/Contracting_Memos/Policy/22-C-02.pdf (See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" after item XII below.)

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

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

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited above.

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under FAR 5.202 applies.

VI. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

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

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

Specific Guidance for Completing this Template I. Agency and Contracting Activity. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1)) Self-explanatory II. Nature and description of the action being processed. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2)) An individual J&A is for a single contract. State whether the action is a new contract or a modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the contract type(s) planned (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee). If exception 2 is cited (unusual or compelling urgency), include the date of UCA/contract/modification issuance and amount.

An individual J&A cannot be used to support more than one contract action irrespective of the quantities or the dollar value stated therein. If a proposed contract will contain unpriced options (including NTE prices), those options must be supported by a separate J&A prior to option exercise. Stoehner Security Services, Inc., 248077.3, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 286 at 6. This principle applies with equal force and effect whenever a contracting officer seeks to exercise FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) if the contract that incorporated that clause by reference is not a Service Contract Labor Standards-covered contract, as such contracts do not include wage determinations that establish “prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor.” FAR 52.217-8. See Major Contracting Services, Inc., B-401472, Sep. 14, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 170 at 6, mot. for reconsid. den., Department of the Army --Reconsideration, B-401472.2, Dec. 7. 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 250 at 5-6. In the alternative, the J&A supporting the basic contract must be a Class J&A. Although a Class J&A may be written for multiple awards to a single source, or multiple awards to various sources, it must describe each proposed contract action separately so it is clear that each such action is within scope of that Class J&A. FAR 6.303-1(d).

III. Description of the supplies/services required to meet agency needs. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3)) Describe the supplies, services, or supplies and services to be acquired. Identify the quantities of each item, the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance, the type of appropriation(s) that will acquire those supplies/services, the total estimated value of the acquisition (including options), and the methodology used to arrive at that total estimated value. Provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the approving official that the acquisition of intellectual property (IP) and associated IP rights will satisfy the program's requirements, acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan.

The program's requirements for IP and IP rights in the Request for Proposals (RFP) must be consistent with the program's acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan. Accordingly, approving officials will ensure this section of the J&A:

(1) States whether the CLIN structure will include separately-priced CLINs for intellectual property (IP) and IP rights. Once the DFARS is revised to implement 10 U.S.C. § 4236, Air Force contracting officers will be required to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for IP and associated IP rights. Air Force contracting officers must start thinking now how they will do so during sole-source and competitive negotiations and how the resulting contract will reflect the results of those negotiations. Otherwise, they may be caught flat-footed if the RFP did not include such separately-priced CLINs and the Director of Defense Pricing and Contracting issues the final rule implementing 10 U.S.C. § 4236 --the effective date of which occurs one day prior to the award date. See also FAR 7.105(b)(14)(iii) and DFARS 215.470(a);

(2) Lists the titles of all such IP (including digital models) to be to be acquired contained in Exhibits A-N of the draft Request for Proposals; and

(3) Identifies the type of IP rights to be acquired to those deliverables (including the IP rights to be acquired to contract administration information since the standard DFARS clauses do not grant the Air Force any license rights to that type of IP).

Mission-focused business leaders are encouraged to engage early in the acquisition life-cycle with industry regarding the subjects of IP and IP rights. They are also encouraged to consult with approving officials, designees, or both, regarding those subjects well in advance of submitting a draft J&A to the appropriate approving official.

For Class J&As, identify each contract action (contract, modification) to be authorized by the proposed J&A for each potential offeror. If the same information applies to more than one contract, it need only be stated once.

For ID/IQ or requirements contracts, use the maximum dollar value of the total estimated orders as the total estimated value of the acquisition.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)) Provide detailed facts sufficient to justify the use of the particular authority cited. Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of a lack of advance planning or concerns relating to the amount of funds available (e.g., expiring funds). (FAR 6.301(c)).

Check the applicable box below. Checking a box will display the text for that section.

In the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, the rationale must first justify the supplies/services as either associated with a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment”. It must then justify either “substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition” or “unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements”, whichever situation applies. If both of those situations apply, the rationale can be based upon either or both of those two situations. This authority shall not be used when any of the other authorities apply.

Sub-subsection 1. FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) require that the J&A demonstrate that specific conditions have been satisfied. Therefore, this sub-section must deconstruct the specific words in those provisions and demonstrate to the appropriate approving official how the proposed acquisition satisfies those words.

For example, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the proposed acquisition is a “follow-on contract” by identifying the current contract number of the contract the intended awardee of that “follow-on contract” is currently performing, the basis of award for that contract (competitive, sole-source), the purpose of that contract, the date of contract award, and the date that contract will expire. PTC, Inc., B-416863, Dec. 20, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 48 at 6-7. This subsection must also demonstrate the proposed acquisition will continue “development” or “production” of a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof” or provide “highly specialized services.” In the case of the former, this subsection must either identify the ACAT I or II program --since the legal definition of a “major system” includes ACAT I and II programs --or explain why the equipment sought to be acquired is “highly specialized” for which the proposed acquisition will “continue[ ] development or production”. In the alternative, this subsection must explain why the services sought to be acquired are “highly specialized”.

If the planned acquisition will result in a “bridge” contract that contains options, this subsection must explain why options are necessary. If significant lead time is required prior to approval of the J&A in order to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III, this subsection should mention that fact and explain why that is the case.

Next, this sub-subsection should add a concluding sentence to the end of this subsection, suitably tailored; e.g., “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of a major system.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of a major system.”, “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued provision of highly specialized services.”

The purpose of that sentence is to bring the approving official back to the regulatory requirements the preceding paragraphs of this section of the J&A have discussed to demonstrate the J&A satisfies those requirements.

Sub-subsection 2. Thoroughly describe the contractor's unique/highly specialized capabilities and qualifications (e.g., facilities, personnel, special tooling acquired), (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)), and why no other type of supplies or services will satisfy the agency requirements.

Sub-subsection 3. This subsection should begin with the following sentence, suitably tailored:

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Government's requirements.”

The purpose of this opening sentence is to direct the approving official's attention to which specific words in FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) will be the basis for going sole-source.

Next, when the rationale for going sole-source is based upon substantial duplication of cost, this sub-subsection must include an estimate of the amount of cost that would be duplicated (e.g., training required so that another source could acquire the skills necessary to perform the work, equipment, facilities) less the estimated cost to run a competition. (For example, the development costs the Government incurred under the existing contract or similar programs may provide insight into the amount of cost duplication were the proposed acquisition to be competed.) This sub-subsection should also identify the organization(s) that/who performed the analyses that supports those estimates, and describe the analysis that/those organization(s) performed to arrive at both estimates. The methodology must account for inflation during the projected remaining life cycle of the acquisition. (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A); FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(ii)).

When, however, the rationale for going sole-source is based upon unacceptable delay, this sub-subsection must state how long it would take someone else to obtain this capability (in months/years) and why, and provide a detailed explanation of the impact or problem caused by the delay. When describing the impact or problem caused by the delay, the rationale must identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III and the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in that section, and the reduction (or frustration) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. The explanation provided must be commensurate with the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in Section III (e.g., longer delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance necessitate a more detailed explanation). (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(B) & (iii)(B)).

Although the existence of IP rights retained by the developer make the supplies and services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Therefore, if the program office will use that rationale to justify going sole-source, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the program office performed sufficient due diligence to validate the developer retains such IP rights that require the use of this authority to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III. Specifically, this sub-subsection must explain:

(1) What IP rights the Government acquired to what IP deliverables under predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section and why those rights are insufficient to compete acquisition of the supplies or services described in Section III;

(2) What IP clauses (include the month/year of issuance) or applicable commercial computer software licenses were included into all of those predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section;

(3) Whether those predecessor contracts included the Deferred Ordering clause (DFARS 252.227-7027) and if so, why the program office did not exercise its rights to acquire needed IP deliverables by exercising its rights under that clause;

(4) Why the Government did not acquire sufficient IP deliverables and IP rights under that/those predecessor contract(s) that would have precluded the need to go sole-source for the proposed acquisition (e.g., acquisition strategies for those predecessor contracts were based upon the Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) initiative);

(5) What IP deliverables did the program office acquire under that/those predecessor contract(s) and what restrictive markings did the developer affix to those deliverables;

(6) What pre-challenge requests for information or formal challenges the program office initiated in response to a developer's assertions of development at private expense (DFARS 252.227-7019, DFARS 252.227-7037) and what analysis the program office performed of the information it received in response to that request or formal challenge;

(7) What investigation the program office conducted to determine whether the IP deliverables provided under that/those predecessor contract(s) was/were developed in whole or in part at Government expense (e.g., reviewing the developer's IR&D project approvals and accounting records, reviewing earned value management data and integrated program management reports);

(8) Assuming the results of that investigation validate the developer's assertion of development at private expense, what if any steps did the contracting officer take to request the developer propose a price to furnish the IP deliverables and IP licenses needed to compete the proposed acquisition; and

(9) The extent to which the program office considered reverse engineering any subsystems or components of the end item described in Section III (and summarize the estimated cost to reverse engineer those subsystems or components and the time it would take to complete such reverse engineering activities); or considered use of a modular open system approach to acquire those subsystems or components consistent with the program's capability development document, acquisition strategy, and system engineering plan. (DFARS 207.106(S-72)(2)(v); DFARS 227.7103-5(d)(2)(iii)).

Although the control of basic raw material makes the supplies or services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights or circumstances does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Under such circumstances, this sub-section must identify how the intended source acquired a monopoly on those raw materials.

When acquiring utility services, circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service, or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(3)).

When the agency head has determined in accordance with the agency's standardization program that only specified makes and models of technical equipment and parts will satisfy the agency's needs for additional units or replacement items and only one source is available, (FAR 6.302-1(b)(4)), this sub-section must identify the relevant standardization program.

Notwithstanding FAR 6.302-1(c)(2), a justification and approval is required in order to use brand name or equal descriptions or the use of proprietary specifications or standards. (DFARS 206.302-1(c)(2) and (S-70)).

Sub-subsection 4. When using the rationale described in sub-subsection 3 above, conclude this subsection by including one of the following sentences, as applicable:

“Accordingly, ___[insert company name]___ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be recovered through competition.”, “Accordingly, __[insert company name]__ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

“Accordingly, __[insert company name]__, is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

The purpose of this sentence is to restate for the approving official's benefit which rationale(s) is/are the basis for going sole-source, thereby sensitizing them to the fact the author will now turn to discussing a different topic.

Contracting Officers must notify SAF/AQC as soon as practicable when contemplating the use of this authority for a J&A requiring SPE approval.

Provide an explanation why the supplies or services are needed at once due to, e.g., fire, flood, explosion, other disaster, emergency) or essential equipment or repairs to that equipment are needed at once to facilitate meeting critical mission needs of the Government. Identify the nature of the urgency, the reasons for it occurring, and the extent of the anticipated serious injury to the Government -- thereby demonstrating why the Government's need for the supplies or services described in Section III is of “unusual and compelling urgency” to preclude adverse impact to military readiness. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(iii)). In other words, identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III and the reduction (or elimination) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. Merely citing a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON), Force Activity Designator (FAD) rating, Program Management Directive (PMD)/Program Action Directive (PAD) guidance, or DX priority rating is not in and of itself sufficient reason to use this exception from the requirement to obtain full and open competition. Note that only the minimum quantity required to satisfy the unusual and compelling urgency qualifies for this exception. In addition, the period of performance CANNOT exceed one year, including all options unless the head of the agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply (FAR 6.302-2(d)(ii)); thus, the inclusion of options when using this authority is not advised.

Note: This statutory authority requires that agencies request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-2(c)(2)).

Justifications citing this authority must demonstrate the need to maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization; to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center; or to acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute. If the proposed contract will require the contractor to keep vital facilities or suppliers in business or make them available in the event of a national emergency, train a supplier in the furnishing of critical supplies or services, prevent the loss of a supplier's ability and employees' skills, or maintain active engineering, research, or development work, maintain properly balanced sources of supply, create or maintain the required domestic capability for production of critical supplies, or continue in production where there would otherwise be a break in production, or divide current production requirements among two or more contractors, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(1)). If the proposed contract will establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an education or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center for theoretical analyses, exploratory studies, experiments in any field of science of technology, or engineering or development work calling for the practical application of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)). If the proposed contract will acquire the services of an expert to use in any litigation, dispute, or alternative dispute resolution proceedings involving the Government, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(3)).

Identify the applicable statute explicitly authorizing other than full and open competition. (FAR 6.302-5(b); DFARS 206.302-5(b)). The following is a non-exclusive list of statutes lifted from FAR 6.302-5(b) that authorize acquiring supplies and services from specified sources or through another agency:

(1) Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) (18 U.S.C. § 4124 (see FAR Subpart 8.6).

(2) Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely disabled (41 U.S.C. Chapter 85) Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see FAR Subpart 8.7).

(3) Government Printing and Binding (44 U.S.C. §§ 501-504, 1121 (see FAR Subpart 8.8)).

(4) Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program (15 U.S.C. § 637), but see FAR 6.303 for requirements for justification and approval of sole-source 8(a) awards over $25 million. (See FAR Subpart 19.8).

(5) Sole source awards under the HUBZone Act of 1997 (15 U.S.C. § 657a)(see FAR 19.1306).

(6) Sole source awards under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. § 657f).

(7) Sole source awards under the WOSB Program (15 U.S.C. § 637(m)(see FAR 19.1506).

Note: Some statutes do not require a written J&A.

Full and open competition need not be provided for when the disclosure of the agency's needs would compromise the national security (e.g., would violate security requirements) unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals. Accordingly, if this authority is used, this section shall explain how these conditions are satisfied.

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by FAR 5.2 and, if not, indicate which exception under FAR 5.202 applies. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(6); FAR 6.303-2(b)(8); FAR 6.303-2(b)(10)) The contracting officer shall issue a sources sought synopsis or an RFI, provide the date the synopsis was issued, the synopsis number, and a brief description of its content. Identify the number of responses received, the names of the respondents, the results of the screening process, and the rationale for determining the unacceptability of any respondents, unless exempted by the MAJCOM SCO or Operating Location SCO with rank of GO or SES, otherwise approval by the HCA is required. (FAR 6.302-1(d)(2); DFARS 206.302-1(d); DFARS PGI 206.302-1(d); AFFARS 6306.302-1(d); AFFARS MP5301.601(a)(i)).

Specify whether this acquisition will require a Notice of proposed Contract Action (NOCA) IAW FAR 5.201 and if not, provide the exception IAW FAR 5.202. If a NOCA was or will be publicized provide the dates or expected dates of publication of the NOCA. Address any other actions taken or planned to facilitate competition for this acquisition.

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-1, an RFI or Sources Sought Synopsis is mandatory. (DFARS PGI 206.303-2(b)(i)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-2, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances unless the Government would be seriously injured if the agency complied with the time periods specified in FAR 5.203. (FAR. 5.202(a)(2); FAR 603.2-2(b)(2)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-3, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action is for utility services other that telecommunications services and only one source is available. (FAR 5.202(a)(5)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-5, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action results from acceptance of a proposal under the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. (FAR 5.202(a)(7)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-6, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-6(c)(3)). The fact that a proposed solicitation or contact action contains classified information, or that access to classified information may be necessary to submit a proposal or perform the contract does not, in itself exempt that proposed contract action from the synopsis requirement. (FAR 52.202(a)(1)). Under such circumstances, this section must identify what alternatives the program office used to compete this requirement (e.g., accessing the National Reconnaissance Office's (NRO) Acquisition Research Center's Central Contractor Registry database or the National Security Agency's (NSA) Acquisition Resource Center's Business Registry database to identify potential cleared offerors and summarize what outreach the program office conducted with those potential cleared offerors to determine their interest in the proposed acquisition).

If qualifying country sources have expressed interest, but will be excluded, provide supporting rationale.

VI. Determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7)) Include the following text, suitably tailored: “Based upon (1) certified cost or pricing data provided in the offeror's proposal, (2) the program office's technical analysis of the offeror's Basis of Estimates (BOE), and (3) inputs from the Defense Contract Management Agency, including from the Administrative Contracting Officer, the contracting officer expects they will be able to determine that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.”

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(8)) Discuss any market research conducted pursuant to FAR Part 10 (in addition to any actions described in Section VI above) and describe the results of that research.