Approved EDS Class J A Redacted.pdf

Justification and Approval FAR Part 6 Authority

(d) TSA anticipates using 2024 Capital Funds to award any potential orders that would be issued under the subject IDIQ contracts in Fiscal Year 2024.

(e) The solicitation numbers for the IDIQs are TBD.

(f) Background information about the requirement: Historically, TSA has awarded contracts for

Type I and Type II EDS production, installation, and support services since the EBSP transferred over from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the wake of 9/11. The 2018 contracts will expire in 2024.

The EBSP is a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Level I Investment Program, and is responsible for acquisition and deployment of checked baggage screening technologies.

Public Law 107-71 states that 100 percent of checked baggage must be screened at all federalized airports across the United States with an explosive detection system or a suitable alternative be implemented and deployed. EBSP is currently in a sustainment acquisition cycle, focusing predominately on the produce/deploy/support phase of the acquisition process. The primary technology acquired and deployed under EBSP is EDS.

TSA maintains a QPL for Type I and Type II EDS, which offered any interested vendor an opportunity to have their products tested against TSA’s detection and operational specifications and standards. Products that successfully passed these qualification testing requirements were then placed on TSA’s EDS QPL. The latest EDS QPL closed on October 2, 2019 and is expected to remain closed until the next generation EBSP program requirements are available (anticipated between 2028 and 2030). Testing included technology readiness and certification, successful completion of Transportation Security Lab (TSL) Certification testing (CERT), TSA Systems Integration Facility (TSIF) Integration testing and Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E). Only equipment placed on the QPL has been determined to satisfy program requirements and are considered “eligible” for deployment into the field. As mentioned above, there are only two EDS manufacturers who have passed the TSA’s certification and qualification process for Type I and Type II EDS: Leidos and Smiths.

The EDS equipment can exist in two configurations:

Standalone systems typically are found in lobby screening for small airports or in larger airports with terminals that have low baggage volume.

In-line configurations integrate the EDS equipment into the baggage handling system that is customized for each airport. This type of automation improves working conditions for Transportation Security Officers (TSO) because they can resolve alarms in quieter, dedicated spaces that are designed properly for alarm resolution.

EBSP continues to require EDS production and installation for planned deployments to support two primary objectives:

i. EBSP supports airport developments to enhance checked baggage screening.

This may include building a new baggage screening solution where none currently existed or upgrading old checked baggage screening infrastructure that will enable improved and automated detection.

ii. Recapitalization (or replacement) addresses the programmatic elements required for EDS life cycle replacement. The range of EDS recapitalization efforts may include replacement of existing standalone EDS, replacement of partially integrated EDS, and the replacement of inline EDSs. Such projects require work to remove the existing EDS and install and test the new EDS.

3. Description of Supplies/Services.

The purpose of the intended contracts is to establish a contract vehicle for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of TSA certified and qualified EDS with a seven (7) year ordering period. Both IDIQ contracts will include three primary requirements needed to produce and install EDS at selected airport locations:

(a) EDS Production: This includes all hardware for the unit and any ancillary hardware required to operate the system, such as primary and secondary viewing stations, printers, bar code readers, network servers, uninterruptible power supply, entrance and exit conveyors, and operational test kits.

All hardware, software, and documentation required for operation and support of the EDS will also be provided under this requirement.

(b) Installation of EDS: This includes all labor, materials, equipment and services needed to assemble, power up, configure, and install the EDS machine into the required operational condition for the intended end-state configuration (inline integration or standalone). All support activities in furtherance of integration and integration testing will also be provided to support this requirement.

(c) EDS Maintenance: This includes all labor, materials, and services needed to provide corrective and preventative maintenance for the initial two (2) years after each EDS installation.

4. Identification of Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 41 U.S.C.3304(a)(1) implemented by the FAR Subpart 6.302-1 entitled “Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.”

5. Demonstration that the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited.

All EDS currently deployed have passed rigorous testing and successfully completed TSA’s latest certification and qualification requirements. If the subject Class Justification were not approved, and consequently, if contracts are not available to provide the needed supplies and services, EBSP will not be able to deploy screening systems intended to deter, detect, mitigate and prevent transportation of explosives on commercial aircrafts.

As stated above, this Class Justification grants authority to solicit and award a single-award IDIQ contract to each EDS qualified vendor (Leidos and Smiths). The orders will support recapitalization requirements which addresses the programmatic elements required for EDS life cycle replacement.

The range of EDS recapitalization efforts may include replacement of existing stand-alone EDS, replacement of partially integrated EDS, and the replacement of inline EDS. Such efforts will require work to remove the existing EDS and install and test the new EDS. Recapitalization requires replacement EDS to be from the same vendor to ensure TSA does not incur additional costs in construction or loss of operational performance at the airport. The costs involved with substituting presently available EDS with a new vendor EDS are prohibitive due to factors such as: the cost of new construction, the loss of operational capability during the construction phase which would decrease TSA’s ability to screen baggage accurately and efficiently while redesign and technology substitution is ongoing. Design and construction costs for each airport and terminal varies by project but normally costs TSA millions to hundreds of millions per project.

The EDS vendor designated for each airport project was identified based upon the airport Checked Baggage Inspection System (CBIS) design specifications and agreements prior to EDS purchase.

Although there are presently two (2) certified and qualified suppliers, only one specific EDS is selected during the design phase of CBIS development. Airport projects are funded and authorized under a separate procurement action; which outlines the standard TSA approval process for the design of the CBIS prior to authorizing the construction project. The IDIQ contract solely covers the purchase, installation, and two (2) years of initial maintenance of the EDS. A specific EDS is selected based on a variety of local factors and conditions that affect design decisions. In making the decision, TSA takes into consideration funding and how the EDS vendor selected would impact the overall project. For new in-line systems or recapitalization projects, TSA looks at several factors in determining the ability to compete the project between multiple vendors.

Factors taken into consideration when making a determination vary by airport and project and may include the size of the EDS equipment and available airport space, layout and condition of the airport, other existing EDS for level 2 and 3 screening centralization, and airport throughput. For Recapitalization projects there are several additional areas that impact the decision, to include such things as the extent Baggage Handling Systems (BHS) modifications to existing in-line systems are required to accommodate a vendor change, existing EDS network equipment, operational impacts associated with phasing and training, and schedule and performance risks. When making such design decisions, the determination of an optimal screening solution for the airport requires a partnership between TSA, the airport operator and its key airline tenants.

In order to utilize these systems in an airport environment, EDS must be integrated within an airport BHS. To accomplish integrating an EDS, the airport BHS design must be married to the particular make and model of EDS that has been selected for the airport. Airport BHS designs incorporate a degree of flexibility during the earlier design phases; however, as the design progresses, the make and model of the EDS must be solidified as each has its own design and dimensional requirements.

Mechanical, electrical, and computer networking considerations are designed to interface with the EDS in order to ensure that the entire BHS functions properly.

The security technology sector is not yet mature enough to benefit from open technology standards, such as those that allow information technology products to mix and match. Security technology requires customized electrical, mechanical, and networking component configurations in order to conduct high volume automated screening and movement of baggage. Because of these unique configurations, the costs involved to substitute presently-available EDS are prohibitive. Factors such as BHS redesign, reprogramming, removal of existing systems and mechanical components, disposal, equipment movement, additional electrical requirements and operational testing all must be considered when evaluating the potential cost of switching or substitution. TSA would also suffer the loss of operational capability, decreasing TSA’s ability to screen baggage accurately and efficiently while redesign and technology substitution is ongoing. These factors represent substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

Certain information regarding the EDS is proprietary; therefore, only the vendor that manufactured the EDS equipment can perform the installation, integration, and networking services of the EDS at the level of expertise required to ensure that the work is completed to the TSA specifications without jeopardizing the proprietary nature of the equipment. Due to vendor’s proprietary data restrictions and complexity of the equipment, only the vendor of the EDS unit is capable of fulfilling certain TSA requirements due to the unique or specialized nature of these ancillary equipment items and services that support the EDS unit. The EDS units that are scheduled for purchase, installation and integration, support recapitalization and/or new in-line baggage screening systems. Both vendors’ EDS units are required for the recapitalization (replacement) of EDS equipment at multiple airports that have reached the end of its useful life cycle with the latest technology, which provides improved detection capability over the legacy EDS equipment. TSA also works with airports that require EDS equipment to implement a baggage screening security solution. EDS equipment is required for installation and integration with newly constructed BHS, which provide airports with CBIS solutions (in-line EDS) to improve threat detection where none may have existed.

Therefore, per 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(1), the respective EDS OEMs are the only one responsible sources and no other supplies or services could satisfy TSA's requirements for required EDS equipment and installation services.

6. Description of Efforts Made to Ensure that Offers are Solicited from as Many Potential Sources as is Practicable.

Prior to the issuance of the solicitation, TSA will issue a Notice of Intent on the SAM.gov website regarding TSA’s intent to contract using other than full and open competition with the OEMs for EDS production and installation services. In the Notice of Intent, TSA will offer interested parties the opportunity to identify their interest and capability to respond to the requirement.

More detailed information regarding market research conducted is described in Section 8 of this Justification.

7. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the Anticipated Cost to the Government will be Fair and Reasonable.

The Contracting Officer will ensure that the anticipated cost to the Government is fair and reasonable through proposal analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 prior to award. In order to determine fair and reasonable pricing, the Contracting Officer anticipates using the historical contract data and actual cost data for comparison purposes.

8. Description of Market Research.

Market Research is based on products that have passed qualification requirements for EDS over the past 10 years. Currently, there are two EDS vendors who have passed the TSA’s Certification and Qualification process for Type I and Type II EDS: (i) Leidos and (ii) Smiths. Only these vendors’ EDS products on the QPL are capable of meeting this requirement.

Only equipment placed on the QPL is determined to satisfy program requirements and considered for deployment in the field. The vendors of the EDS acquired by TSA have proprietary rights in the technology which preclude these installation support services from being provided by a third party.

This consists of software, firmware, design and hardware associated with the equipment and may also include proprietary networking configuration for applicable EDS.

Any Other Facts Supporting the Use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

None.

A Listing of the Sources, if Any That Expressed, in Writing, an Interest in the Acquisition.

Not applicable at this time as the notice was not issued prior to the routing of this document.

A Statement of the Actions, if Any, the Agency May Take to Remove or Overcome Any Barriers to Competition Before Any Subsequent Acquisition for Supplies or Services Required.

The Planning Guidelines and Design Standards (PGDS) for CBIS are used by U.S. Airports for the planning and design of new or renovated airport facilities. The PGDS provides specific guidance on methods to design baggage screening systems that have a reduced cost and have higher performance than the first generation of installed baggage screening systems. Lessons learned from previous installations are emphasized, as are the benefits and specifications of emerging new screening technologies. All airports submitting applications to the TSA for checked baggage screening systems must be PGDS compliant. All designs, from conceptual designs to 100% designs, must be reviewed and approved by TSA for compliance with the PGDS. This enables TSA to be included in the airport design process as early as possible to increase TSA's ability to encourage competition in future procurements.

Additionally, APM is currently making investments that will improve the interoperability of TSE through standardized interfaces for security system components and establishing standard image and data formats for certain security technology systems. Resources are currently being spent to define a system architecture that will create conceptual models that describe the existing and future structures of a particular system as well as their components and the relationships between each component. The standardization of component interfaces will allow accelerated independent development of critical component technologies as well as the establishment of modular security system platforms. Standardized image and data formats will reduce barriers to integration that exist because of the technical differences between proprietary vendor systems. It will also provide flexibility to acquire capabilities that have the potential to be integrated with independently developed detection algorithms, imaging programs, and operating platforms. Other efforts, such as development of common Graphical User Interfaces, (GUI) are ongoing to support common system platforms as well. Once a common system architecture is built, APM intends to engage in new and innovative partners to solve problems to emerging needs, increasing the number vendors to support TSA security technology.

Lastly, TSA utilizes two paths for purchasing EDS systems. The first path, which directly relates to this Class Justification, requires IDIQ contracts to ensure orders can be placed to each OEM to support ongoing airport recapitalization projects. The second path entails full and open competitive procurements for airport projects that require EDS at airports for new in-line Checked Baggage Inspection Systems that do not require a particular OEM.

(Remainder of this page left blank intentionally)