DF Consolidation 832571904-redacted.pdf

CUI

3. Applicable Statues/Regulations: 15 U.S.C. 657q and Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR),Subpart 7.107-2, Consolidation.

4. Results of Market Research: Market research was conducted between December 2025 and June 2026. Techniques and tools included reviewing the acquisition history, a sources sought notice, consideration of existing contract vehicles, review of the System for Award Management website, and review of the Small Business Administration Small Business Search website. The sources sought received responses from four small businesses: Credence Streamline Solutions; Metric 8, LLC; BCMC, LLC, and Semper Valens Solutions. All four vendors were found to be capable of performing at least 50% of the work and each hold a prime contract on the DISA SETI contract vehicle; thus, the recommended acquisition strategy is a competitive SB set-aside, to be procured via DISA SETI.

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

Consolidating the program management support services for PM Cyber Warfare provides significant benefits that could not be achieved through separate, smaller contracts. The integrated nature of the support required, spanning ten distinct but interconnected task areas from program management to cybersecurity and systems engineering, necessitates a unified team. A single contractor provides a centralized point of management, ensuring a holistic and synchronized approach to supporting PM Cyber Warfare's complex and rapidly evolving portfolio.

The following alternatives to consolidation were considered:

Alternative 1: Status Quo, Multiple Standalone Contracts/Orders: Continue acquiring the required support services through four separate contracts/orders.

Rationale for Rejection: Maintaining the status quo by procuring PM Cyber Warfare’s support services through multiple, smaller, decentralized contracts or task orders would continue suboptimal levels of performance. Separating highly interdependent technical fields such as cybersecurity, systems engineering, and program management into independent contracts creates critical operational silos. Without a unified team under a single contractor, the Government would face severe coordination friction, fragmented technical reporting, and inconsistent engineering standards across the portfolio. Furthermore, maintaining multiple standalone contracts dramatically increases the Government's procurement lead times and administrative overhead, requiring multiple Contracting Officer's Representatives to oversee disjointed efforts rather than leveraging a centralized, cost-effective single-point-of-contact contractor.

Alternative 2: Performance by Government Personnel (In-House Support): Use existing civilian or military Government personnel.

Rationale for Rejection: Utilizing existing or newly hired Government civilian and military personnel to perform these ten specialized program management and technical support task areas in-house was evaluated, which prioritizes maximizing the utilization of the existing civilian and military workforce. However, this alternative is not viable due to severe workforce and capability constraints. The highly specialized technical skillsets required to support rapid-acquisition cyber warfare portfolios, including advanced cybersecurity architecture and specialized software systems engineering, are in extremely high demand and are critically short in supply within the Federal civil and military service. Staffing these positions internally would require significant time to recruit, clear, and onboard, which directly conflicts with PM Cyber Warfare's immediate operational timelines. While the program aggressively leverages in-house personnel for inherently governmental oversight, a permanent Government workforce lacks the operational agility of a commercial contractor that can rapidly scale highly technical teams up or down to meet shifting tactical requirements and fast-moving technological threats.

Alternative 3: Lesser Degree of Consolidation (Hybrid Sourcing)

Rationale for Rejection: Grouping only closely related services into two or three separate mid-sized contracts (such as consolidating technical engineering under one contract while placing program management and administrative support on another) was also evaluated and rejected. This hybrid structure introduces organizational hand-offs that create inefficiencies and directly delay execution. For cyber warfare acquisitions, systems engineering decisions must be seamlessly integrated with day-to-day program management oversight and cybersecurity compliance. Splitting these functions across separate corporate entities creates competing business priorities, contractual barriers to information sharing, and communication gaps that delay critical program milestones and increase overall program risk, thereby failing to deliver the "substantial benefits" required by both FAR 7.107-1.

In addition to the above alternatives, a detailed benefits analysis of consolidation was conducted and is summarized below:

Benefit 1: Improved Quality and Efficiency: A single, integrated contractor team can more effectively coordinate across all functional areas, reducing communication overhead, eliminating redundant efforts, and ensuring a consistent standard of support across the entire program. This enhances performance and efficiency in delivering critical cyber capabilities.

Benefit 2: Accelerated Acquisition and Reduced Administrative Overheard: Consolidating the complementary requirements into a single task order, awarded and managed by one contracting office and performed by a single contractor, significantly accelerates the acquisition cycle. This approach ensures consistent timelines, PoPs, and contract administration policies and procedures across the U.S. Army PM Cyber Warfare requirements. Given ongoing reductions in Government personnel, minimizing the administrative burden through a single, unified task order managed by one program and contracting office is critical for effective monitoring and administration of support. This consolidation also enables the strategic alignment of technical resources across programs managing various cyberspace capabilities and defensive/offensive cyber solutions, driving further efficiencies, reducing costs, and optimizing warfighter support. Managing a single task order is more efficient for the Government than administering multiple smaller contracts, which would require separate oversight, reporting, and management for each task area. This reduces the administrative burden and streamlines the acquisition lifecycle.

Benefit 3: Standardized Terms and Conditions: A consolidated task order allows the Government to negotiate more favorable terms, including the ability to surge support up to 45% of the contract value to meet urgent, unforeseen mission requirements. This flexibility would be difficult and costly to manage across multiple, disparate contracts.

6. Impact on Small Business Concerns: The market research indicates a strong and competitive small business industrial base capable of meeting the full scope of services. The consolidation is not expected to have a negative impact on small business concerns, as the procurement is recommended to be a small business set-aside.

This procurement does not involve bundling as defined in FAR 2.101. It does not combine two or more requirements for supplies or services previously provided or performed under separate smaller contracts into a single contract, multiple-award contract, or a task order that is likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern. Thus, a bundling analysis was not conducted.

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

This procurement is recommended to be set aside for small businesses on the DISA SETI contract vehicle.