Distribution A_PA-2117_Starshield Custom Fleet Aviation Services EFO_SBS005516_Redacted.pdf

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

16 Jun 2022 Page 3 of 8 e.

B.

(U) Currently, the only potential alternative solutions available for PLEO service to aviation platforms are OneWeb-compatible terminals and services. Market research indicates that no OneWeb-compatible aviation terminals have been tested to MIL- STD-810H and MIL-STD-461G standards suitable for military aviation use. In any case, OneWeb terminals are significantly larger than Starshield Tile Mini terminals and thus cannot satisfy the Government's requirements that Starshied Tile Mini terminals can satisfy. Since OneWeb-compatible aviation terminals cannot satisfy the Governments requirements, use of those terminals would mean cross-platform capabilities would be lost or degraded.

(U) The Starshield service utilizes the Starlink network, which is both owned and managed by SpaceX. As a commercial PLEO SATCOM service, the government lacks the authority to mandate SpaceX to allow third parties to create terminals compatible with Starshield. Nevertheless, the Starshield service, offered over the Starlink satellite constellation, provides the most comprehensive global coverage, highest data rates, and lower pricing compared to alternatives, making it the best value for the government. Additionally, SpaceX is deploying Starshield-specific points of presence, which will offer significant advantages to U.S. mission partners connecting to the Department of Defense Information Network (DoDIN).

2) RFO 16.507-6(b)(6) and RFO 6.103-1(c)(2) - "only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements" due to substantial duplication of cost and unacceptable delays:

A. Substantial Duplication of Cost

a. During 2024-2025, U.S. Government mission partners funded development of a smaller, more rugged PLEO aviation terminal suitable for use on a range of military aircraft including tactical fighter jets. Developing another source for this capability would necessitate repeating this substantial investment. This effort included research, development, testing, evaluation (RDT&E), prototype fabrication, interoperability assessments, aircraft integration activities, and qualification testing. and other mission partners leveraged a cost-sharing approach involving eleven participating organizations, including programs. Total identified expenditures supporting development and qualification of the Tile Mini capability were approximately $51.9M. This historical investment represents the best available estimate of non-recurring costs that would likely require substantial duplication if an alternate provider were pursued, including:

- Terminal development or modification

- Aircraft integration and certification activities

- Interoperability and cybersecurity validation

- Qualification of alternate hardware/software

- Operational testing and evaluation

- Associated rework resulting from platform differences.

Because these investments have already been incurred, substantial portions would not reasonably be expected to be recovered through competition.

b. Pursuit of an alternate provider would likely require additional Government expenditures beyond replication of prior development costs. In terms of installation of alternative hardware, based on a conservative estimate of the number of aviation terminals already installed that would need to be replaced, the cost for replacement hardware alone would be roughly $72M.

This $72M estimate is broken down as follows: replacement terminals (qty 140): $21M; (qty 90): $4.5M;

(qty 140): $10.5M; other MPs with existing aviation hardware: $36M. Duplicated costs would include:

16 Jun 2022 Page 7 of 8

Instructions for Completing the Template IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)

(2) State whether the action is a new order or a modification to an existing order. Identify the basic multiple award contract number and the order number for the current action. Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g., Firm Fixed price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.).

(3) Specifically describe the supplies/services to be acquired including the price/cost and quantity of each item in the order and the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether services are performance-based, and if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. State the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order. Explain how the requirement/order fits under the scope of the basic multiple award contracts.

(Note: The Contracting Officer must ensure that the order is issued within the period of performance and within the maximum value of the contract).

(4) Include the appropriate exception from FAR 16.505 (b)(2) and the supporting rationale. FAR16.505(b)(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to provide each awardee under a multiple award contract, a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 unless a statutory exception applies. The specific exception that precludes the fair opportunity process for this acquisition is FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)( ) [Insert A,B, C, D, or E]. If a brand name product description is being justified, use this section to explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and why other companies' similar products/services do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A): “The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the mission impact if awarded to any other contractor. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements of urgency are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B): “Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification, with supporting documentation, as evidence of the “unique or highly specialized” nature of the procurement. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

Supporting documentation may be attached to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C): “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order”. When using this exception provide information on the previously competed order under this contract and detail the economies and efficiencies that will be obtained by going sole source for the follow-on order. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

General statements are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D): “It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.”

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E): “For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.”

Discuss the market research that was conducted by the user/technical team/contracting officer among the supplies/services of all awardees that resulted in the conclusion that a fair opportunity exception applied. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1) and DFARS 216.505-70 could not be met. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale. If any other awardee expressed interest in fulfilling the requirement, but was not considered a potential source, explain why that awardee cannot provide the required supplies/perform the service.

16 Jun 2022 Page 8 of 8

If the use of a brand name purchase description is being justified, the market research should include an analysis of any industry proposed alternative products or approaches to meeting the requirements. Additionally, the Government's efforts to identify as many potential sources as practicable offering the required brand name item(s) should be addressed.

(5) This paragraph needs to be tailored based on the types of CLINs in the order and the pricing arrangements on the basic multiple award contract. If the contract did not establish the price for the supply or service, the Contracting Officer must establish prices for each order IAW FAR 15.4. The paragraph needs to describe the steps that will ensure that the prices/estimated cost of the order will be fair and reasonable. For example, even if firm-fixed prices were obtained under adequate price competition in the award of the multiple award contract, the Contracting Officer still needs to consider market conditions and other factors that may have changed since contract award and explain the basis in the determination that prices/costs are fair and reasonable prior to award of the order.

(6) Provide any other facts supporting the use of exceptions to the fair opportunity process.

(7) Include a statement of the actions, if any, to be to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.