JA E200495 PACA Signed 20 June 2012.doc

Purchase Request Number: TBD

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION (OTFAOC)

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Justification for OTFAOC Number: JA12-107 Upon the basis of the following justification, I, as Procuring Activity Competition Advocate, hereby approve the use of other than full and open competition of the proposed contractual action pursuant to the authority exception to fair opportunity 10 U.S.C. §2304c(b), FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B).

JUSTIFICATION

1. REQUIRING AGENCY AND CONTRACTING OFFICE:

Agency:

Deputy Director, Joint Force Coordinator, J-31 (DDJ31), 7927 Ingersol St. Suite 110, Norfolk, VA 23511-2331 Contracting Office:

Defense Information Systems Agency/Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization (DISA/DITCO) Scott Field Office, 2300 East Drive, Bldg. 3600, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5406

2. NATURE/DESCRIPTION OF ACTION(S):

This requirement is for the Deputy Director, Joint Force Coordinator, J-31 (DDJ31). The DDJ31 represents the joint community’s operational need for Preferred Force Generation (PFG) automated solutions and for developing the remaining PFG user requirements needed to achieve PFG Full Operational Capability (FOC). The continued, uninterrupted production and delivery of PFG operational capabilities is necessary to assure the unimpeded completion and fielding of PFG FOC solutions to the joint operational community in FY13/FY14.

The action for which this approval is sought is to grant an exception to Full and Open Competition for a new task order (TO) award to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) to complete final work on PFG using FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(i)(B). This exception is based on only one awardee being capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized. This shall be a new TO that is a follow-on effort to the current development in contract HC1028-08-D-2017, Task Order 0019. The type of order is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF); the type and year of funds to be used is FY12/FY13 RDT&E and O&M funding; and the estimated ceiling for the contract is less than $5,653,884.23. The period of performance will be 365 calendar days, 28 July 2012 to 27 July 2013.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES:

The contractor shall provide technical expertise and operational Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to continue the specific development of the PFG service capabilities from its current state to a defined FOC. The contactor shall also provide maintenance support and sustainment operations on the existing PFG baseline while the PFG development continues under the auspices of the PFG Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD). Preferred Forces are defined by the 2010-2011 Global Force Management Implementation Guidance (GFMIG) as forces identified by the Support Combatant Commander in order to continue employment, sustainment, and transportation planning and assess risk. The PFG tool is a modular web-based software application Extensible Markup Language (XML) Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) networked integration that is universally accessible via the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) utilizing an open systems web browser (i.e., Firefox or Internet Explorer). The PFG service currently resides at SPAWAR Atlantic, Charleston, SC. In its current state, the PFG application and web services is an emergent capability under development using agile software development processes. Thus the PFG codebase requires additional development in order to achieve an FOC. The contractor shall continue to identify user requirements and develop PFG with a Service Oriented Enterprise (SOE) approach including an Net-Centric Enterprise Services (NCES) compliant set of services (e.g. Enterprise Messaging) in order to achieve FOC by the end of the contract period of performance. This will involve direct user interface, development of conceptual storyboards for illustrative purposes to enable user discussion, storyboard refinement and PFG demonstration back to the users and senior leaders designed to ensure development addresses operational needs.

Currently, PFG design, production, testing and delivery efforts are ongoing and tasked to this contractor. The contractor possesses a unique and comprehensive understanding of the functional purpose and technical basis of PFG and its required operational capabilities, having initiated and facilitated the development and vetting of Combatant Command and Service user’s operational concepts and functional requirements specifications for PFG. The contractor has enabled the development of PFG solutions since inception of the PFG concept, applying their extensive in-depth expertise in joint operations planning and execution, global force management, and force deployment and distribution processes and supporting technologies. Their current services are producing the PFG Initial Operating Capability (IOC) that will be delivered for fielding in FY12/FY13. Continuation of these same services is necessary to produce and deliver the PFG FOC in FY13/FY14. The specific services to be provided will be tasks that are tailored specifically to the development, completion and delivery of PFG FOC software solutions. These services will consist of task order management; integrated functional and technical solutions analysis and management; custom application development and software maintenance; testing and evaluation; security engineering certification and accreditation; operations support; and hardware and software supply and installation. To ensure continuation of the current efficiencies and rapid generation of PFG solutions, the delivery schedule will consist of three 16 week development cycles. Each 16 week cycle will be further divided into five three-week development sprints and one delivery sprint in which all newly developed software and non-software deliverables would be provided to the DDJ31 for testing and acceptance.

This is to complete requisite tasking in the narrow window afforded and then allow for full and open competition for the next contract to sustain and maintain PFG within the environment defined by the PFG JCTD. The estimated cost for this procurement is $5,653,884.23.

4. IDENTIFICATION OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY and DEMONSTRATION OF CONTRACTOR’S UNIQUE QUALIFICATIONS:

Statutory Authority: 10 U.S.C. §2304c(1); FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B), the agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays; and FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B), only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized. Originally, the PFG capability was procured and development began under contract HC1028-08-D-2017-0017. This contract was established for a software tool called the Joint Capabilities Requirements Manager (JCRM). The PFG capability was to be an additional module within this tool. However, during technical discussions and briefings to the PFG Integrated Management Team, occurring from January to March of 2011, it was determined that a separate enclave should be built to continue PFG development due to it being accepted as a JCTD. This led to the creation of the current contract (HC1028-08-D-2017-0019) awarded with limited sources justification using FAR 16.505 (b)(2)(i)(A) and (C) to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). Task Order 19 was recognized as a logical follow-on based on economy and efficiency and due to a compelling urgency.

On January 22, 2011, a PFG feasibility demonstration was provided to the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (VCJCS). The VCJCS directed Joint Staff J31, at the time US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) J381, to continue development and indicated his desire for an Initial Operational Capability (IOC), but did not dictate a timeline. Additionally, after this initial demonstration, the VCJCS directed funding be provided in support of this IOC capability. It was not known at that time when these funds would be provided due to the uncertain fiscal environment, specifically the Congressional Continuing Resolution Authority (CRA) that occurred in 2011 suspending DoD funding. The VCJCS placed a great deal of importance on this capability given the need to provide this capability to the war fighter without delay. Thus the impetus associated with the letting of task order HC1028-08-D-2017-0019. The VCJCS instructions indicated the requirement to provide to the Warfighters an IOC of PFG within one year of the JCTD being approved. This led to Task order 0019 being awarded for an original POP of nine months and later extended to 15 months due to the JCTD not being approved and OSD not able to provide funding until June 2011, again due to the CRA.

This JCTD is adhering to a two year (July 2011 to July 2013) lifecycle to provide the capability to the community of interest. In order to meet the demanding schedules associated with JCTDs, continuity of efforts is vital. The JCTD program directly addresses Joint, Coalition, and/or Interagency capability needs expressed by Combatant Commanders. The mission of the JCTD program is to find, demonstrate, transition, and transfer the best operational concepts and technology solutions for transformational, joint, and coalition warfare. Typically, JCTDs are no more than two years in duration with the PFG application/tool as the most important aspect of this JCTD. This leads to the unacceptable risk associated with having another contractor assume development due to the delivery commitment and development schedule of the PFG JCTD. The Office of Secretary Defense appointed Integrated Management Team (IMT) has mandated the two year timeline as a tenet of this JCTD. It is estimated a four to six month delay would occur by having another contractor assume the development of PFG. Time is the key resource. Given enough time, another development team could theoretically gain an understanding of the complex algorithm created in PFG. However, the time and resources required to gain a comprehensive understanding of the Global Force Management (GFM) and the Joint Operational Planning processes would pose significant risks to the current development efforts. This would impose significant burden on the government in both time and costs. The JCTD’s projects would not be met with the current development lifecycle for Full Operational Capability (FOC) which is scheduled NLT July 2013. Currently, the developer, CSC, has in place a full staff of Subject Matter Experts and Software Programmers that exhibit the foundation of experience and knowledge.

The nature of the existing, accelerated, sprint-based capability development timelines; the ongoing functional and technical analysis, user-vetting and synchronization processes; and the tightly aligned and configuration controlled developer/government system functionality and security testing processes prevent an efficient and economical stop in order to transition this final work on PFG to another contractor. This exception to full and open competition is so essential for these services to remain affordable and on schedule, that by not approving this opportunity, DDJ31 would incur unacceptable costs and more importantly assume significant risk of delaying the achievement of PFG FOC beyond FY14.

The PFG capability was initiated as a JCTD to develop automation to support and improve inaccurate and slowed force planning processes. The continuous growth in PFG capabilities demonstrated to the VCJCS throughout FY11 amplified the operational value of PFG and accelerated development of its initial operational capabilities under the current contract, cited above. At the same time, during the course of these rapid and frequent development and demonstration cycles, CSC repeatedly demonstrated and proved the value of their unique and highly responsive development processes, extensive operational and technical knowledge base, and their ability to immediately respond to and satisfy a very fast-paced delivery schedule to support the needs of the VCJCS and the operational community.

The accelerated timelines and urgency associated with the PFG demonstrations and solutions precluded the use of a more planned acquisition and led to the current situation that requires use of procedures for other than full and open competition.

The government’s estimate indicated an additional $1,500,000 over four to six months would be required to fund duplicative activities and develop the necessary infrastructure by bringing on a new contractor. These efforts would include the establishment of new development environments (hardware and licensing infrastructure); analyzing the extensive systems environments and internal and external PFG software services and data structures, and the necessity to orient, train, qualify, and certify personnel to assume task responsibilities. These duplicative efforts and costs estimates were derived from analyzing and quantifying the time, activities and funding recognized in Task Orders 17 and 19. A government technical evaluation team, including the JS J31 program manager, JS J31 technical lead and members of the PFG JCTD IMT, looked at three areas that would be necessary to transition this development effort to another vendor. These areas included the necessity to readdress and re-engage the warfighter community’s operational requirements of PFG, the requirement to rebuild the systems infrastructure, and the requirement to technically assess the PFG software. The team plotted, via a timeline, the efforts needed to bring on a new contractor to assume development of PFG. Given these activities had previously been accomplished under task orders 17 and 19, it was estimated a new contractor would require four to six months to perform before being able to resume productive application development. These activities included but were not limited to procurement of necessary hardware and software, software regression assessments/code review, information assurance assessments, and an operational requirements assessment. All these activities would impact the current timeline of achieving FOC by July 2013 and fielding PFG operationally.

In the JCTD year two, time and schedule is both limited by resources and holds expectations that the agile software development rhythm delivers increments of working code every three weeks in order to meet a fully operational capability that will then transition to an acquisition authority for portfolio management. This is critical because the PFG JCTD construct compels the need to accomplish a Technology Readiness Level (TRL). This is important since the purpose of the PFG application is to solve or resolve "an operational/war fighter problem" primarily by conducting technology and operational demonstrations (the scheduled TD1 and OD1) and operational utility assessments (OUA) of mature technology/solutions. As discussed, this estimate considered the time required for a new contractor to prepare for and to fully resume the PFG development and delivery schedules. Based on the efforts to date, this delay would also impact the development of PFG FOC solutions by stalling the current ongoing dialog with the operational community, and stalling current ongoing technical exchange meetings and coordinating initiatives with the many organizations and systems engineering teams involved in the production and transition of PFG services to enterprise environments. The loss of synergy in the current, extensive PFG development community was assessed as an unnecessary and significant inefficiency.

5. COST/PRICE FAIR AND REASONABLE DETERMINATION:

Rates have been established within the ENCORE II contract. All rates set forth in the contract, and used on individual orders, were based on competition among the DITCO ENCORE vendors and a price analysis was accomplished.

The labor rates used/set forth in the ENCORE II contract will remain the same. The prices were considered fair and reasonable based on competitive proposals in conjunction with price analysis. The total estimated value for this action is estimated at $5.65 million. The proposal will be reviewed to consider the level of effort and the mix of labor proposed to perform the tasks being ordered to determine whether the total price is reasonable.

A determination will be made by the Contracting Officer concerning whether the order represents the best value to the Government by conducting both a technical review and a fair and reasonable price determination.

6. MARKET RESEARCH:

While the intent is to issue this Task Order using Sole Source justification, market research was conducted to provide clarity with some degree of confidence as to what size and type of contractors that could potentially satisfy the Governments need to fulfill the PFG requirement. The market research included analysis of the current contract scope, a sampling analysis of other contractor capabilities and the estimated duration and additional cost associated with awarding this requirement to a new vendor. This provided some indication as to the nature and scope of the current effort. It was determined that there was an absolute need to have a well rounded group of professionals who could draw upon a wealth of corporate and Government expertise to deliver the necessary product. The market research included a Request for Information (RFI) issued by DISA’s Chief Technology Office (CTO) and web based research conducted by Joint Staff J31. The outcome of the research did not provide a level of confidence for the JS J31 or DISA CTO that transitioning the PFG development to another contractor would maintain the current truncated development timeline and limited funding associated with this JCTD. Additionally, the market research did not provide satisfactory outcome to identify other potential developers having the inherent subject matter expertise, specifically in the areas of Global Force Management; Strategic and Operational Planning and Adaptive Planning Global Force Management Planning and Execution. These unique capabilities have been cultivated and matured within the contractor development team through creation of PFG and JCRM applications.

Joint Staff J31 conducted market research in search of a company that could provide technical expertise and operational Subject Matter Experts to continue the specific development of the PFG algorithm as web service capability from its current IOC state to FOC. This included evaluating through web based research and a RFI. The need for a company, without interruption in the development cycle, needed to facilitate direct user dialog, development of conceptual storyboards for illustrative purposes to enable user discussion, storyboard refinement and PFG demonstration back to the users and senior leaders designed to ensure development is progressing correctly to addresses operational needs. Further, the contractor would need to support the development and maintenance of PFG application instances and web services at SPAWAR Atlantic, Charleston, SC and on the DISA ESC ensuring it maintains proper certification, accreditation and Information Assurance security posture.

FINDINGS:

In July 2011, the DISA CTO issued a Request for Information (RFI) # RFICTOPFG, published on FedBizOpps.gov, titled RFI Preferred Force Generation. This was an attempt to garner additional interest in the PFG development. The DISA CTO solicitation was published to request information to determine sources with core competencies and demonstrated experience in developing and sustaining the PFG JCTD and to fulfill market research as part of the acquisition planning phase for the development of Preferred Force Generation solutions. The RFI surfaced minimal output and did not lead to finding other sources that could economically transition PFG to another contractor while maintaining continuity of development within a timeframe meeting JCTD deadlines for FOC. The only two vendors that responded to the RFI were Harris Corporation and Phacil, Inc. These two companies did not provide enough information to adequately determine they could meet the requirements of JS J31. CSC, possessing the core competencies and demonstrated experience sought in the RFI, continued performing services as the PFG developer under the direction of the DDJ31 and in coordination with the DISA CTO, and continues to do so presently.

Between February and March 2012, additional market research was performed which included a review of the Marketing Research website, http://marketresearch.com. The search was narrowed to Software and Enterprise computing firms. This research had previously led to the discovery that while there are many IT services available for hire, most are very area specific. For instance, it was found that numerous firms do web hosting but none that could provide web hosting coupled with Oracle database management, Linux database management, Virtualization services, web logic installation, custom software development, helpdesk support as well as Government Security office review and certification assistance. These combined services comprise the totality of capability that is necessary to successfully complete this tasking. This market research website required payment to continue to use these services, hence, research at this site ended and we proceeded to other sources.

The U.S. Small Business Administration website, http://dsbs.sba.gov/dsbs/search/dsp_dsbs.cfm was then consulted to discover as to whether there were any qualified small businesses that could be utilized. The “Quick Market Research” feature on this website was utilized. The search parameters included to those contractors within the state of Virginia, Maryland, District of Columbia and North Carolina. The in-state filters were applied due to the definite need to have several contractors on site for continuous support. The keyword search was “Software Development” which in itself is restrictive and not truly reflective of the necessary support, but was a starting point. There were 192 certified Section 8(a) businesses that were returned. A search refinement was conducted by applying the “Research and Development” and “Services” filter and a required capability to complete virtualization of PFG. This reduced the number of qualified contractors to 3. The list included Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc., Cage Code 3BGU6; J2 Associates, LLC, Cage Code 53AS4; and Mori Associated, Inc., Cage Code 1K3Y7.

A more detailed review is provided below. A review of the Thomas Register (TR) website, http://thomasnet.com and the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) website, http://www.bpn.gov/ccr/default.aspx was also conducted. Based upon this market research and the prior experience with the program and similar efforts, it was concluded that none of the small businesses found were capable of completing more than 50% of the effort. Research is as follow:

Utilizing the North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS), this effort was classified under code 541712. I evaluated numerous businesses available for viewing on the websites mentioned in the previous section. A clear requirement necessary from the standpoint of Information Assurance and continued DISA Authority to Operate (ATO) certification is that the company must be Capability Maturity Model – Integration (CMMi) certified. Further they must have expertise in the Defense Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process (DIACAP). An additional requirement was that the contractors must be able to hold a Top Secret (TS) clearance. If a firm did not hold these certifications and/or clearances, they were immediately discarded as the risk to the program was too great. Based on this collective criteria, the following companies, as indicated previously, were further explored as potential candidates: Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc, J2 Associates, LLC, and Mori Associated, Inc.

Business Integra Technology Solutions, Inc (CAGE Code 3BGU6) did not adequately demonstrate their personnel possessed the requisite knowledge with regards to planning and execution required for the current tasking. It appeared as if their main focus area was in the health services, space systems and management consultation. There was no evidence of appropriate experience in the realm of Force Planning or use of VM Ware for Virtualization.

The second firm considered was J2 Associates, LLC (CAGE Code 53AS4). This firm appeared promising as it was familiar with IPV6 compliance (a requirement in the contract). Further review found their core expertise centered in IA Security (which is necessary for this effort). However, there is a definite difference in IA Security consultation and implementation. It also appeared as if their domain of expertise was IT service Management and Systems management. The requirement of this contract is very specific to web design and software implementation. This key expertise was not adequately demonstrated. Again, this company did not seem to possess the requisite Global Force Management (GFM) or Joint Operational Planning Execution Systems knowledge required of this tasking.

The last firm considered, Mori Associated, Inc. (CAGE Code 1K3Y7) appeared to have the most promise. The firm is a small, veteran owned business with some experience in federal IT programs. The firm has specific specialties in systems providing highly specialized technical, financial, administrative and programmatic support and analysis to its research and engineering programs. While some of these services may be employed during the contract, the actual core competency of programming and subject matter expertise as it relates to the Joint Operational Planning Environment was clearly lacking. This firm may serve well as a subcontractor for this effort but would not adequately function well as a prime.

DETERMINATION: Based on the criteria necessary to facilitate a seamless transition of PFG development without incurring redundant costs, the JS J31 examined the current contracts awarded through DISA DITCO and a sampling availability of market capability determining a competitive contract was not the most acceptable option under ENCORE II. Due to the urgency of this requirement, a Justification and Approval is submitted under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) (B) citing only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized to the current contractual effort for PFG contained in contract HC1028-08-D-2017-0019. Due to the nature and extent of the acquisition, it was concluded that this should not be a small business set aside.

7. ANY OTHER SUPPORTING FACTS:

The objective of the JCTD program is to rapidly demonstrate and deliver a significant operational capability to the warfighter. This JCTD is adhering to a two year (July 2011 to July 2013) lifecycle to provide the capability to the community of interest. In order to meet the demanding schedules associated with JCTDs, continuity of effort is vital. The risk associated with having another contractor assume development is high due to the delivery commitment and development schedule the PFG JCTD Integrated Management Team (IMT) has imposed and agreed to as a tenet of the JCTD. An assessment of the potential costs of a full and open competition of this order was performed. The estimate included the duplicative costs to the government to transition from CSC to another contractor, the cost in time for a new contractor to analyze and sufficiently comprehend the specified and implied functional and technical requirements and capabilities of PFG, and the cost for a new contractor to sufficiently comprehend the extensive variety of interfaces and messaging methods PFG employs to interface with the more than 10 major classified and unclassified systems and data environments external to PFG. More importantly, the assessment estimated the amount of time it would take for another contractor to prepare for and resume PFG capability development and delivery, and the impact of that delay on the fielding of PFG FOC solution by July 2013.

The technical data packages, specifications, and engineering descriptions suitable for full and open competition are not available for this order. Unlike a traditional acquisition for services to build a well defined product or service, the rapid and dynamic nature of a JCTD calls for accelerated development and integration of leading edge technologies with new, emerging concepts that are much better suited for development in a very responsive, efficient and agile development environment such as PFG. The processes used by the PFG JCTD enable the production of capabilities much more quickly and more directly aligned to the users need. This is possible due to the constant participant interchange of functional needs and technical solutions. While PFG’s JCTD-rooted development effort and agile production cycles do still generate data packages, specifications and engineering designs, these artifacts are incrementally generated, continually refined, and are then finalized, reviewed and approved by monthly and quarterly configuration control boards rather than at the beginning of a task order.

These schedule delays would seriously set back the progress of the PFG effort, delay the fielding of needed capability, and are for that reason considered operationally unnecessary. By maintaining in-place the current, fully qualified and responsive contractor, the DDJ31 could continue to leverage current efficiencies, avoid unnecessary additional and duplicative costs, and deliver final PFG FOC solutions on schedule.

8. ACTIONS TAKEN TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO COMPETITION:

(a) Procurement history:

HC1028-08-D-2017 Task Order 0017 awarded 11 June 2010 (currently 19 amendments), in the amount of $4,900,431.00, Period of Performance: 12 June 2010 to 11 June 2011 with two option years. Awarded with Full and Open Competition. PFG was originally developed as a module to the JCRM application. The JCTD IMT directed it be removed from JCRM and created as a standalone application. PFG was then separated out and awarded on TO 0019.

HC1028-08-D-2017 Task Order 0019 awarded 29 April 2011 (currently 6 amendments), in the amount of $3,924,963.00, Period of Performance: 29 April 2011 to 27 July 2012 with no option years. Awarded with Limited Sources Justification.

(b) As indicated previously in this document, market research was accomplished and a RFI was submitted by DISA CTO to explore market availability and capability. Our research concluded that turning development over to another vendor is not possible due to the uniqueness of the PFG application in its current state of development and the significant cost overruns and time delays.

(c) The accelerated timelines and urgency associated with the rapid delivery requirement of PFG demonstrations and solutions precluded the search and use of a more deliberate acquisition opportunity and led to the current situation that requires use of procedures for other than full and open competition. At this time, the JCTD IMT has indicated all future work associated with the PFG application will be procured through the receiving Program of Record, DISA C2C JPES PMO, using full and open competition.

9. REFERENCE TO THE APPROVED ACQUISITION PLAN (AP) PROGRAM PLAN (PP):

N/A This requirement does not require a written Acquisition Plan (AP).

TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION: "I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the J&A are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief." (FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)(9)).

NAME: __LCDR Neil Allen, SC ,USN __ SIGNATURE: __ //Signed// __ ___

TITLE: ___TM/PM PFG_______________

DATE: __30 May 2012______

REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION: "I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the J&A are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.” (FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)(9)).

NAME: __LCDR Neil Allen, SC ,USN __ SIGNATURE: ____//Signed//_ __ ____

TITLE:___TM/PM PFG_______________

DATE: __30 May 2012______

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION: Include the following determination:

“I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.” (FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C1)).

NAME: __Aaron Schwarz__

SIGNATURE: ___

TITLE: __Contracting Officer__

DATE: _31 May 2012_

PROCURING ACTIVITY COMPETITON ADVOCATE APPROVAL

“I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Since this justification does not exceed $12.5M, this review serves as approval.”

APPROVED BY: (FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(C)(2))

Signature:

ANN M. VAUGHN, Procuring Activity Competition Advocate, PLA, 20 Jun 2012 Printed/Typed Name and Title

Organization Phone

Date

Enclosure 12c, J&A (Part 16)

Page 3 of 10 Pages

22Nov2011/v1.2