Turkey_(J A)(Final)_Redacted.pdf

Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other Than Full and Open Competition

NOTE: If a Justification and Approval was approved for the preceding acquisition, a copy of the approved J&A for the predecessor action must be included in the staff package for approval of the instant J&A. This applies to J&A staff packages that are submitted for review and approval at a level above the contracting officer. The predecessor J&A will be used as a reference document by the approving official.

Choose the funding level for this J&A Document:

< $700K > $700K and < $13.5M > $13.5M and < $93M > $93M

Contracting Activity:

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Electronic Warfare and Avionics Contracting Branch (AFLCMC/

WNYKB

Purchase Request / Local ID Number: FD2060-16-90835

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Sniper ATP system for the Turkish Air Force (TurAF)

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): PEO Agile Combat Support (ACS)

Authority (include full title): 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1

Estimated Contract Cost (including options): J&A Type: Class Individual

Y

I. Contracting Activity.

This Justification and Approval to request authority for Other Than Full and Open Competition supports requirements generated for the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Electronic Warfare/ Common Avionics (WNY) Division, Precision Attack System Program Office for International Sales (WNYBAI).

The contracting activity for this requirement is the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Electronic Warfare and Avionics Contracting Branch (WNYKB). The Purchase Request number supporting this contract action is FD2060-16-90835.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed.

Due to the circumstances described herein, this activity requests authority to acquire Line Replaceable Unit (LRU) Spares and integration activities in support of the Turkish Air Force (TurAF) F-16 aircraft Compact Multi-Band Data Link (CMDL) for the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) using Other Than Full and Open Competition as prescribed by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible source and No Other Supplies or Services will Satisfy Agency Requirements. This individual Justification and Approval (J&A) authorizes the use of other than full and open competition procedures to award a delivery order under the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) Contract FA8540-15-D-0001, with a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) pricing arrangement for CMDL support to:

Lockheed Martin Corporation (LMC)

(CAGE: 04939)

5600 W. Sand Lake Road #MP-265 Orlando, Florida 2819-8907 Large Business

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

This requirement is to procure Turkish Air Force (TurAF) Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod requirements as depicted in the Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) Amendment 8 for TK-D-SMB for spares (Line 057).

CMDL is a Sniper ATP downlink (the transmission of video, voice, and/or data) option that dramatically enhances Close Air Support (CAS) as well as allowing CAS capabilities at greater standoff ranges. The ability to put Sniper video in the hands of ground personnel radically changed Sniper ATP operational capabilities.

Prior to downlink capabilities Sniper Urban CAS capability was very limited. The United States Air Force (USAF) rapidly adopted downlink of 100% of Sniper ATPs once the first few fielded systems proved so valuable in Iraq operations. CMDL downlink capability

The added advantage of the CMDL is VDL is more limiting regarding VDL (Video Down/Data Link)

The CMDLs will support the current baseline as well as the new F-16 S1 baseline. This upgrade will ensure FMS customer owned F-16 aircraft will provide the appropriate advanced capabilities necessary to support future national and coalition operations. The objective of this delivery order is to satisfy Turkey's requirement.

The scope of this effort is estimated to cost $3,820,380.00 and will provide for the acquisition of twenty-two

(22) each LRU Spares Compact Multi-Data Link (CMDL) (P/N: 77421800) and CMDL Antenna's (P/N: 77421610) with Containers and integration activities in support of the CMDLs for the Turkish Air Force (TurAF).

The period of performance to complete these integration activities and complete delivery of the CMDLs is estimated to take thirty-six (36) months after the contract is awarded. The type of funds to be used for these supplies and incidental services is Foreign Military Sales (FMS).

IV. Statutory authority permitting Other than Full and Open Competition.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

V. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above (applicability of authority).

The Sniper ATP was competitively acquired as a Non-Developmental Item (NDI) in 2000 and the United States Government (USG) did not purchase the Sniper ATP procurement or repair data. LMC remains the only source that possesses the proprietary drawings, design and manufacturing technical data, and specific software test programs required to manufacture and support Sniper ATPs. The Sniper ATP systems as well as associated test equipment are specialized military unique hardware that have been customized to the point that they could not be re-engineered by an unqualified source or bought commercially off-the-shelf. There are no other contract vehicles in place to deliver the requirements stated in Section III. As such, this individual J&A requests approval to enter into a sole source acquisition with LMC for the procurement of services to upgrade the Sniper ATP system where an award to any other source would result in duplication of costs that would not be recovered through competition. FMS customers would experience duplication of cost if these acquisition services were competed through one of two ways: 1) If a winning contractor, other than LMC, were awarded the contract, that contractor would have to subcontract to LMC for engineering support for upgrades, support for design anomalies and engineering solutions for re-design due to obsolescence as the USG could not provide technical data for the Sniper system to the awarded contractor; and 2) If a winning contractor, other than LMC, were to attempt to re-engineer the technical data for the Sniper system in order to fulfill the services, the customer would realize reverse engineering and schedule costs unacceptable to the Turkish Air Force.

LMC possesses the specialized capabilities including the proprietary software, engineering personnel, data, and equipment necessary to manufacture the Sniper ATP. As the original system designer and builder, LMC has retained the engineering expertise to address all the customer's technical requirements. This is accomplished through a core team of software engineers familiar with the proprietary Operational Flight Program (OFP) software for the Sniper system. This team will be called upon to remedy any technical problems that may arise.

Additionally, the contractor engineering team has modified common support and test equipment tailored to manufacture and sustain the Sniper systems. Since the original procurement of Sniper in 2000, the USAF and other FMS customers have maintained a sole source relationship with LMC for Sniper ATPs, for a wide range of mission support, production and contractor field support capabilities. The FMS program office intends to capitalize upon its investment in LMC's: 1) familiarity with the Sniper ATP systems specifications and related systems engineering processes, to translate operational needs into system requirements documents and sub-specifications, 2) unique engineering expertise to research any of the system's problems, develop and test engineering changes associated with modifications, enhancements, and upgrades, and 3) support infrastructure to continue the existing two-level maintenance concept and relationships, and to furnish field support for its operational customers.

In 2010, the USG requested a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) for procurement of Sniper ATP systems data rights. LMC responded in April 2010 with a ROM for for planning purposes only and not intended for procurement of the data. In July 2013, July 2014, and July 2015 they declined to offer data rights or software for sell to the USG. Without proprietary data or software, reverse engineering the Sniper system will burden the numerous members of the test community of all the systems that interface with the Sniper System. Based on past experience with a similar project for international wave form (firmware and hardware), reverse engineering the Sniper ATP would be a high risk, costly effort. This project required an investment of million. It required platform integration for each customer's aircraft and ground station configuration. The Sniper ATP would require a similar investment of money and time.

Failure to meet the aircraft testing schedule would necessitate an additional testing period be scheduled for required Sniper software integration into the aircraft Operational Flight Program at an additional cost of . This estimate is based on similar FMS cases involving the same test. Additionally, Turkey's LOA (TK-D-SMB) does not support the costs associated with reverse engineering or delay of the aircraft testing schedule. Furthermore, any effort to reverse engineer Sniper ATP would add unacceptable delays to Turkish Air Force and LMC's thirty-six (36) month delivery schedule. Sniper ATP development began prior to the 2000 original procurement with the first qualified system delivered 2004. Other enhancements and requirements have also been made since the 2004 timeframe which would increase the amount of time to reverse engineer and approve a new vendor. The estimated time to reverse engineer, test and produce a qualified system would be approximately .

Accordingly, LMC is the only firm capable of providing the services described in Section III above without Turkey experiencing duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.

VI. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable.

The original requirements establishing the IDIQ Contract FA8540-15-D-0001 was synopsized in the Federal Business Opportunities web page as required by FAR 5.201. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Electronic Warfare and Avionics Division, Contracting Branch, has recently posted two separate Requests for Information (RFI) seeking any sources that may possess the expertise, capabilities, and experience to meet the requirements for manufacturing, testing and delivering AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) Systems, LRU Spares, Bench Stock, Support Equipment, Technical Orders, Contractor Technical Support (CTS) and User Familiarization for the Sniper ATP systems sold to the Foreign Military Sales customers. RFIs were posted on 16 September 2015 and 18 September 2015 respectively (FA8540-15-R-RFI01 & FA8540-15-R-RFI02).

VII. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

The prices established within the basic IDIQ Contract FA8540-15-D-0001 were determined fair and reasonable to the government. Certified cost and pricing data were obtained. Pricing incorporated into the basic IDIQ production contract covers the scope of these requirements. The unit prices were negotiated by the United States Government (USG) based on recommendations from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). This new delivery order will utilize pricing in accordance with the IDIQ contract terms.

VIII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

Market research was conducted in August 2014 (FA8540-15-D-0001) and November 2015 (FA8540-15- D-0001-0004) pursuant to FAR Part 10.001 and 10.002 and consisted of:

Research for this effort was based on internet searches, past experience with similar contracts, and discussions with USG personnel leading similar efforts. Additional information was gathered during the negotiations of data rights between the USG and LMC on the first USAF Sniper ATP contract, reviewing data rights assertions on

FMS contracts involving LMC and participating in three Department of Defense (DoD) source selections for precision attack systems.

A review of the USAF Operational Requirements Documents, the Advanced Targeting Pod System Specification and participation in the operational requirements assessment of the USAF source selection for ATP, and (2) Using generic criteria to identify additional sources on the World Wide Web (WWW). The generic searches were conducted on Google, www.google.com, and Thomas Register, www.thomasnet.com with the terms “Sniper pods”, “Sniper ATP”, “Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod”, “LANTIRN”, and “Infrared Search and Track,” which resulted in identification of additional targeting pods manufactured and supported by various sources who manufacture Litening III & IV, Litening AT, and Terminator. No sources with Sniper ATP experience were identified other than the prime, LMC. No other source has manufactured or repaired the Sniper ATP system listed. As the Sniper ATP is a non-developmental item, there is insufficient data available that would allow another source to qualify. The items covered under this requirement are LMC manufactured/specification controlled items for which there is no alternate manufacturing source or total organic repair capability. LMC is the only qualified source capable of meeting the requirement as described by the FMS LOA.

RFIs were posted on 16 September 2015 and 18 September 2015 respectively (FA8540-15-R-RFI01 & FA8540-15- R-RFI02). No responses were received for those postings.

There are three DoD contractors that specialize in precision attack sensor systems. The three companies offer competing targeting systems for which they each maintain exclusive data rights. Due to the proprietary nature of the Sniper ATP systems, LMC is the only source of supply.

IX. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

None

X. List of sources, if any, that expressed interest in the acquisition.

See Section VI above.

XI. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before making subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

LMMFC is currently only one qualified source with all the equipment and data necessary to manufacture the Sniper ATP system. During the acquisition to establish the IDIQ Contract FA8540-15-D-0001, the Contractor advised that they do not intend to offer a technical data package for sale to the USG via an email response dated 24 July 2014. The Sniper ATP System Program Office supports FMS customers based on the USAF existing support infrastructure. Should the USAF reconsider purchasing the TDP to make competition practical, the Sniper ATP System Program Office would follow suit. The program office will continue to assess the business case analysis of the USAF and how it supports the subject system until the last buy projected to end . Additionally, none of the current LOAs include funding or a requirement to purchase re-procurement data for the Sniper system. With the current unavailability of procurement data, reverse engineering efforts would be required for future acquisitions if the FMS customer authorizes funding under an LOA amendment or new case. The Precision Attack System Office will engage with the FMS customers to discuss the need for an established requirement to procure the TDP, at the next scheduled program review. At such time, the customer will be provided with the appropriate cost and schedule data to determine if developing a new source through reverse engineering efforts is a viable option. If the customer establishes a viable requirement, the government will solicit LMMFC again for the availability of the procurable data necessary for reverse engineering efforts.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by my signature above, I have determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

As evidenced by my (our) signature(s) above, I (we) certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my (our) responsibility, is both accurate and complete.