BNM_Redacted.pdf

BRAND NAME JUSTIFICATION

1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUIRED SUPPLIES/SERVICES, ESTIMATED

VALUE, AND DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

High-fidelity integrated development environment (IDE) to configure, program, program-test, and maintain machinery control system logic for programmable automation controllers (PLCs). Must support industry-standard languages (Ladder Diagram, Structured Text, Function Block Diagram), safety controller programming, and version control. Essential features include offline project editing, online controller monitoring, logic comparison tools, and diagnostic message logging. Estimated value of $3,000 to $12,000 per user license/seat (annual subscription or perpetual) depending on the tier (Standard, Professional, or Enterprise bundle). Volume enterprise discount pricing can lower per-seat costs.

High-fidelity digital twin and software-based emulation platform that simulates physical PLC CPU execution. Must allow direct download of development projects without hardware modification, support testing of standard/safety logic, and provide API/SDK capabilities. Must execute code identically to physical controller hardware (including safety signatures and motion axis testing). It must interface natively with development environments and allow external SDK connections. Estimated value of $1,500 to $5,000 per user license/seat (annual subscription) depending on multi-chassis support and simulation interface features.

2. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR BRAND NAME BASED ON

CONTRACTOR’S UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS OR NATURE OF THE

ACQUISITION

This document provides the brand-name justification for selecting Siemens Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) Portal and its associated emulation software (PLCSIM Advanced), based on the market survey findings detailed in the "Future Engineering Control System (ECS) Report" dated 22 February 2022. The report, which conducted a comprehensive evaluation between Siemens and Rockwell Automation, concludes that Siemens’ software ecosystem is significantly more mature, feature-complete, and aligned with the Navy's immediate and future requirements for the DDG(X) program. The selection is justified by Siemens' currently available and superior capabilities in critical areas, including software code management, virtualization, cybersecurity, and support for DevSecOps initiatives, which are unavailable or only planned for future, high-risk releases from the alternative vendor.

Contractor’s Unique Qualifications and Proprietary Constraints Several critical areas were identified where Siemens possesses unique and currently available qualifications that are essential to the program's success. The selection of Siemens as a brand name is based on these qualifications:

Justification Factor

Technical Rationale

1. Mature and Feature-Complete Integrated Development Environment

The report highlights significant risk with Rockwell's proposed IDE, noting it is a new product to be "rolled out in phases over the next couple of years." In contrast, the report states, "In this aspect, Siemens is significantly ahead of Rockwell" and that Siemens' TIA Portal is comparable to what Rockwell hopes to accomplish in the future. The Siemens IDE currently provides essential features for which the alternatives are immature or non-existent.

2. Superior Code Management and DevSecOps Support

The report finds that only Siemens' IDE provides the features necessary to support the Navy’s “compile to combat in 24 hours” (C2C24) initiative today. Specifically, Siemens offers native integration with Git, the ability to download small, individual code blocks (critical for agile deployment), and a robust API (Openness). The report notes Rockwell's process is manual, requires downloading the entire project for any change, and its API will not be available until "two or three iterations after the initial release."

3. Advanced Virtualization and Emulation

The report concludes Siemens' virtualization capabilities are more mature. It cites a use case where "Siemens was able to run 16 virtual PLC on a server with each virtual PLC exchanging data with the other virtual PLCs." It also notes Rockwell is in the "beginning phases of a major revamping of their virtual PLC software," making Siemens the only viable option for the DDG(X) Test Facility's immediate simulation and de-risking needs.

4. Implemented Cybersecurity Features

While both vendors are working to enhance security, the report states, "Siemens products currently implement many of the software and security features needed for the DDG(X) program." It specifies that Rockwell may meet certain requirements in a future release, but Siemens has the advantage now in areas like Host Level Protections, Communications security, and Logging/Auditing, giving them a clear lead in this high-priority area.

Justification Factor

Technical Rationale Based on the ECS Report

3. MARKET SURVEY

A Market Survey for Programmable Logic Controller Vendors was conducted by NSWCPD Department 50. A Request for Information (RFI) was formally released, multiple vendors provided responses, multiple Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) participated in the evaluation, and an final report titled "Future Engineering Control System (ECS) Hardware/Software Recommendation Report" was generated to document the overall evaluation of the vendor responses. The table below outlines the requirement categories of the RFI.

Category Sub-Category

Hardware

Hardware Component Design Hardware Cost Drawings & Suggested Design Component Lifespan

NRE

Software

Code Management Virtualization Capabilities Advanced Modeling OBT Support Communications

Logistics Support

Engineering Support & Expertise Technical Support Supply Chain Mngmt

Cybersecurity

Physical & Port Security Hardware Certs Host Level Protections Firmware Time Sync Communications Firewall & Boundary Protections Logging & Auditing

DevSecOps Compile 2 Combat in 24hrs Presentation Overall RFI Presentation

Other Factors

Processor Technology (Cyber) Software IDE OEM Background Experience Customer Base

4. ADDITIONAL FACTS

Unacceptable Impact of Alternative Selection Selecting the alternative vendor, Rockwell Automation, would introduce unacceptable schedule risks and require the Navy to rely on future, unproven software releases. The ECS Report explicitly states:

• Schedule Misalignment: "Unfortunately, neither Rockwell’s vision nor their schedule aligns with the immediate needs or schedule the Navy desires for

DDG(X)."

• Guaranteed Rework: "Any work done in the current Rockwell software IDE would require some amount of rework, which could be significant, in order to use the new Rockwell software IDE."

• Reliance on Future Promises: The report repeatedly notes that critical features from Rockwell (e.g., API, cybersecurity enhancements, DevSecOps support) are planned for future releases. It cautions, "Since the Navy is only a small customer of either OEM, there is no guarantee that features specific to the Navy’s need will be available in a future releases."

Procuring the alternative would mean forgoing the mature, tested, and feature-rich environment offered by Siemens in favor of a competitor's product that does not currently meet the Navy's critical requirements, thereby jeopardizing the aggressive development and testing schedule for the DDG(X) Test Facility.

Determination of Market Constraints The market for PLC software is inherently vendor-locked, where software from one manufacturer (e.g., Rockwell) cannot program or interface with hardware from another (e.g., Siemens). The "Future Engineering Control System (ECS) Report" was conducted specifically to down-select to a single, comprehensive vendor ecosystem. The report's exhaustive, multi-phase evaluation, culminating in the recommendation for Siemens, serves as the definitive market research for this acquisition. While competition will be sought from authorized Siemens distributors, the brand itself cannot be substituted without invalidating the entire technical basis of the report's findings and jeopardizing the DDG(X) program's timeline.

5. APPROVALS:

I certify that the statements and information provided above are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the processing of this justification precludes the use of full and open competition.

GRECH.PETER.J.12451739

Digitally signed by

GRECH.PETER.J.1245173918

Date: 2026.07.02 11:56:52 -04'00'

Signature of Cognizant Requisition Originator Date

MARINO.PHILIP.P.128551

Digitally signed by

MARINO.PHILIP.P.1285512375

Date: 2026.07.07 13:13:36 -04'00'

Signature of 1st Level Supervisor Date Digitally signed by

WATERS.SHAWN.MICHAEL.14548

CHAEL.1454892662 92662

Date: 2026.07.15 07:53:42 -04'00'

Signature of Contracting Officer Date

WATERS.SHAWN.MI