E2FDS Contract Extension JA Final_Redaction_Redacted.pdf

PDF 1 MB Posted

Attached to
E2FDS Redacted Justification and Approvals (J&A's)
Solicitation number
W56HZV-17-D-0008_P00024
Issued by

About this file

This document is a justification for a limited competition contract extension. The contract extension is for the E2FDS system developed by DRS Sustainment Systems, Inc. and will allow the Army to order the remaining systems needed to fulfill its acquisition objective of 13 units. Key details include that DRS is the original equipment manufacturer and developer of the proprietary E2FDS technology. Conducting a full competition would result in an unacceptable delay of over 4 years due to the time needed for a competitor to receive, review, and utilize the technical data package. The sole source extension with DRS will allow the Army to order the remaining systems within the existing contract period to meet its requirements on schedule.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
E2FDS OSD Increase JA_Redaction_Redacted.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

CMO Control: 2022-031

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

Unacceptable Delay: An unacceptable delay would occur if competition was sought to procure the E2FDS. DRS is the developer and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the E2FDS. The Government does not currently have the pertinent technical data and computer software to enable competitive re-procurement. The Technical Data Package (TDP) and computer source code is available as a priced option, which includes the associated data rights, under the existing contract which the Government anticipates ordering at Milestone-C (MS- C) approval. The Government projects it will be two years following the award of the TDP before the document is approved and able to be provided to support a competitive procurement.

The following table provides the timeframes to execute a competitive award based on providing industry the TDP. This timeframe is based on history and Subject Matter Expert (SME) analysis:

Competitive Award Timeline Utilizing TDP

Event Duration

Award of TDP at MS-C Approval 60 Days

Acceptance of TDP 730 Days

Request for Proposal (RFP) Development and Competitive Source Selection

365 Days

Delivery of First Article Test Asset 365 Days

Completion of FAT 180 Days

First Fielding 30 Days

Total Duration 1,730 Days (4.7 Years)

If a competitive action were to be completed without a TDP, a new system would be developed based off of the Automotive Tank Purchase Description (ATPD) requirements which would result in an increased delay. The following chart provides the timeframes to execute a competitive award for development of a new capability:

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

a. Effective Competition: The Government will not compete this effort for the reasons outlined in paragraph 5 above. This procurement action will be synopsized in SAM.gov, a Government point of entry. The notices required by FAR 5.201 shall be published, and any bids or proposals received shall be considered.

b. Subcontracting Competition: To ensure DRS competitively awards subcontracts to the maximum extent possible, the contract contains FAR clauses 52.244-5, “Competition in Subcontracting”. Additionally, DRS submitted an individual subcontracting plan (ISP), dated 19 September 2016.

The DRS ISP was approved and incorporated into the contract via Attachment 0034. The Contracting Officer review’s DRS’s ISP annually in the Electronic Subcontracting Reporting System (eSRS).

7. Actions to Increase Competition: The Government will not take additional action to increase competition for this action, based on the information provided in Section 5 above. Should additional contract actions be necessary, the Government will review each action to determine the ability to increase competition through utilization of the TDP.

8. Market Research: ACC-DTA posted a sources sought notice to SAM.gov between 01 December 2021 and 16 December 2021. One response in the form of a capabilities statement was received from DRS, the current OEM for the E2FDS system.

9. Interested Sources: To date, no other sources have written to express any interest.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History:

(1) Contract W56HZV-17-D-0008, Award Date: 27 October 2016 Contractor: DRS Sustainment Systems, Inc.

(2) Competitive Status: Full and Open Competition

(3) N/A

(4) N/A

(5) The previous contract was awarded on a full and open basis, but for this action, the source will be limited to DRS based on the justification detailed in Section 5 above. The original contract value was estimated at $38M and included the ability to order up to twelve systems. To date, the Government has been able to obligate $18M under this contract for two test assets, test support, and logistics products.

This contract extension will allow the Government to order the remaining hardware systems to support fulfillment of the (Army Acquisition Objective AAO) of 13 systems.

(6) N/A

(7) N/A

b. Other Facts: None.

11/12. Technical and Requirements Certification:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: COL Shane M. Sullivan Date: _20APR2022_____

Title: Project Manager, Force Projection Signature: _//signed//___

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination:

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

The negotiated price will be determined fair and reasonable through a combination of Cost Analysis (to thoroughly analyze each of the proposed individual cost elements) and/or price analysis (to ensure that the price agreement is consistent with the IGE and/or historical pricing). ACC-DTA has a dedicated Cost and Pricing Division with trained Cost/Price Analysts and Industrial Specialists who will assist the PCO by performing the Cost and Price analysis. The PCO will request that engineers or similar subject matter expert(s) familiar with the end item perform a technical evaluation to review labor types and quantities as well as material kinds and quantities to ensure that what is proposed is and reasonable. The Cost/Price Analyst will use the recommendations as contained in the various audits, technical reports, and historical data to develop a recommended negotiating position. The PCO will also review the detailed Government Position in a comprehensive Business Clearance Review. Certified Cost or Pricing Data will be required and will form the basis for this analysis. The Post Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) that will be reviewed and concurred upon by the Team Chief within the Pricing Division will document the results of negotiations, and the detailed Price Fair and Reasonable determination from the Contracting Officer.

Name: Lynn M. Byrne Date: 21 Apr 2022___________

Title: Procuring Contracting Officer Signature: __//signed//____________

14. Contracting Officer Certification:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief:

Name: Lynn M. Byrne Date: _21 Apr 2022__________

Title: Procuring Contracting Officer Signature: __//signed//____________

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .