SSJ - F35 PCD CO SIGNED _Redacted (1).pdf

Department of the Air Force: Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition

CUI

March 2026 Page 2 of 3

I. Agency and Contracting Activity (RFO 6.104-1(a)(1)):

The contracting organization that is responsible for the proposed contract action is the Air Force Test Center (AFTC), Directorate of Contracting, Installation Contracting Division, AFTC/PZZG, 5 South Wolfe Avenue, Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1185. Justification for other than full and open competition.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being approved (RFO 6.104-1(a)(2)):

The current F-35 cockpit architecture (TR-2) has reached its maximum computational capacity. Transitioning to the TR-3 modernization suite is a mission-essential requirement to enable Block 4 capabilities and maintain air dominance against near-peer threats.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs (RFO 6.104-1(a)(3)):

The legacy mobile demonstrator was originally procured as a low-fidelity outreach tool for public engagement. However, the system currently fails to meet the technical fidelity requirements for mission-relevant training. A hardware upgrade is essential to achieve configuration parity with our existing simulation architecture and ensure tactical consistency across the trainer enterprise.

IV. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(4)):

10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

V. Rationale for Use of Authority (RFO 6.104-1(a)(5)):

Even if the legacy system works fine today, its parts are facing Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS). Buying the upgrade now avoids massive, unpredictable maintenance and reverse-engineering costs in the next 5-10 years

VI. Integrated Market Analysis and Efforts to Solicit Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(6), (8), and (10)):

Market research for this procurement was limited solely to evaluating the capabilities and pricing of Driven Technologies.

Due to the highly specialized nature of the existing JSE F-35 cockpits architecture, introducing an alternative vendor would result in a substantial duplication of cost that is not expected to be recovered through competition, as well as unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Department of War's mission requirements. Therefore, market research focused strictly on validating Driven Technologies' ability to continue providing this critical support

VII. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost (RFO 6.104-1(a)(7)):

The Contracting Officer is responsible for evaluating, determining, and documenting the anticipated contract cost/price is fair and reasonable in accordance with RFO Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing.

VIII. Any Other Facts Supporting the Justification (RFO 6.104-1(a)(9)):

The proposed F-35 cockpit is a specialized design tailored to meet IFAST (445TS/EWJN) mission requirements, distinguishing it from legacy JSE cockpits. It will replace our current low-fidelity PMIC cockpit, which is fabricated from PVC pipe and no longer adequately supports critical training and mission rehearsals.

Department of the Air Force: Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition

CUI

March 2026 Page 3 of 3

While Driven manufactured the original Joint Simulation Environment (JSE) F-35 cockpits, the cockpit requested here is uniquely configured to support the specific mission requirements of the Integrated Flight Avionics Systems Testbed (IFAST) under the 445th Test Squadron (445TS/EWJN). Our current Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory/Instructional cockpit (PMIC) is a low-fidelity, highly portable PVC-pipe construction that fails to realistically represent an actual aircraft. Because this legacy setup no longer adequately supports essential mission rehearsals or Flight Test Conductor courses, replacing it with a high-fidelity, representative cockpit is critical to meeting our operational training standards.

Hardware degradation in the aging legacy cockpit poses a significant risk to operational readiness, threatening to delay essential mission rehearsals and Flight Test Conductor (FTC) courses within the IFAST (445TS/EWJN). Furthermore, the current estimated lead time to field a replacement is projected to exceed 12 months, compounding the risk of mission impact if action is delayed.

Competing this effort to a new vendor would force the government to fund the design from scratch. Lacking the existing design baselines, a new vendor would introduce severe pricing uncertainty, with engineering estimates indicating that development duplication would double the baseline cockpit cost.

IX. Actions to Overcome Barriers to Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(11):

N/A