APKWS_FOE_Final_Signed_Redactions_Redacted.pdf

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

Is this a brand name product justification? Yes No If yes, please provide the following information.

Brand Name Product Title:

Brand Name Product Description:

1. Contracting Activity: AFLCMC/PZJ

2. Purchase Request: April 2016

3. Program Name (and Program Element, if applicable): Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS)

4. Estimated Cost/Price of the Order (including options): $5,200,000

5. Type Program (see AFFARS 5302.101 for definitions): PEO Program Other Contracting

6. Fair Opportunity Exception: FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i), subparagraph (A) (B) (C) (E)(D)

7. Type Determination: Class Individual

Date

28 Mar 2016

Program Manager

Signature

Date

28 Mar 2016

Contracting Officer

31 Mar 2016

Local Legal Reviewer

12 Apr 2016

Competition Advocate

Click here to access the instructions for the boxes below.

(1) Contracting Activity:

The contracting activity for this Fair Opportunity Exception is the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Eglin Operating Location Rapid Acquisition Cell AFLCMC/PZJ, Eglin AFB 32542.

(2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved:

The action being approved is a sole-source delivery order for integration, engineering, technical, flight test, training, procurement of test assets, and test evaluation support for the Advanced Precision Kills Weapon Systems (APKWS). This contract will be awarded to BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc. Nashua, NH. Anticipated contract types are Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee for technical and Engineering support, and Firm Fixed-Price for test assets. Contract award is expected NLT June 2016. This contracting action will be executed under the existing Agile Acquisition Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract, FA8656-15-D-0261.

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

(3) Description of the supplies/services required to meet the agency's needs:

The Air Force has identified an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for a laser guided 2.75-inch rocket to complement its current inventory of unguided rockets, air-to-ground missiles, and guns for A-10 and F-16 aircraft. The Semi-Active Laser guided rocket is to be employed against soft to lightly armored/hardened stationary and moving targets. The objective of adding precision to the unguided 2.75-inch rocket is to reduce collateral damage and enhance weapon effectiveness.

The UON specifies a requirement for a complete laser guided rocket consisting of an APKWS II Fixed Wing (FW) Variant Guidance Section (WGU-59/B) integrated with a 2.75-inch unguided rocket (rocket motor, warhead and fuze). The combination of the guidance section with the unguided rocket constitutes an All Up Round (AUR). The WGU-59/B mechanically interfaces with available Mk 66 Mod 4 rocket motor, the M151/Mk152 10lbs fragmentation High Explosive Point detonating warhead, and M282 penetrator warhead without modification to those components. The 2.75-inch guided rocket AUR is launched from a LAU-131A/A or LAU-68F/A launcher, both capable of carrying and launching 7 rockets. Four WGU- 59/B units are delivered in one CNU-711/E container.

To achieve the requirement, a Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) effort is necessary to demonstrate, integrate and test the APKWS II FW Variant configuration with the M282 warhead. The RDT&E tasks will support integration of a 2.75-inch laser guided rocket on A-10 and F-16 aircraft. The configuration of the system covered by the requirement is known as Fixed- Wing Variant and consists of Rotary Wing specific Hardware and Fixed Wing Autopilot software. The Contractor shall provide technical efforts to support development of Flight Clearance and System Safety requirements.

The fixed wing A-10/F-16 integration tasks will include a variety of tasks such as Risk Assessment, M282 Compatibility Analysis, Hazardous Analysis, Wing Deployment Analysis, Aiming Methodology, Structural Analysis, Compatibility Captive Flight Profile (CFP) Analysis, ESOH/Safety Analysis and Data Accession List (DAL).

The fixed-wing testing requirements include Test Planning, Delta Qualification Test, and Flight Tests.

The estimated cost for A-10/F-16 integration tasks and fixed-wing testing requirements is

Test Assets have a total estimated cost of based on the quantities below. However, as this is an RDT&E effort, actual quantities of test assets and tests may vary based on what is necessary to fully verify performance requirements of the weapon system:

1. The Contractor shall provide and ship (22) guidance sections in the FW Variant configuration for CFP testing and provide unit test results from in-house functionality testing during manufacturing;

2. The Contractor shall provide and ship (30) telemetry guidance sections in the FW Variant configuration for DT/OT;

3. The Contractor shall provide and ship (42) mass simulant WGU-59/B guidance sections for DT/OT; and

4. The Contractor shall provide and ship (4) full-sized All-up training guidance section models with retractable wings.

As it relates to the basic Agile Acquisition multiple award contract, this effort is related to the armament mission and involves engineering activities for the modification of existing systems. This action is within the ordering period of the basic contract, is within the contract ceiling, and falls under the basic contract scope throughout the statement of work, specifically as detailed below:

3.1 Demonstration/Studies (3.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.10)

3.2 Design and Engineering Development (3.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.7)

3.3 Testing (3.3, 3.3.10)

3.4 Hardware/Software Modification (3.4, 3.5, 3.5.3, 3.5.5, 3.5.8)

3.6 Logistics (3.6, 3.6.7, 3.6.9)

(4) Identification of the exception to fair opportunity and the supporting rationale:

FAR 16.505(b)(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to provide each awardee under a multiple award contract fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,500 unless a statutory exception applies. The specific exception that precludes the fair opportunity process for this acquisition is 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.

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

The UON specifically calls for procurement of "Rotary Wing Plus (RW+) guidance kits (i.e. rotary wing hardware with fixed wing software) and M-151/152 warheads with fuzes. It also requires development & integration of the guidance kits on the M-282 warhead. These actions will result in a low collateral damage weapon system with a moving target kill capability. The only available guidance kit for rotary wing systems that is compatible with M-151/152 warheads and can be integrated with the M-282 is the WGU-59/B APKWS II RW Guidance Section (G/S). The software of this G/S can be modified relatively easily to a fixed wing version to enable the APKWS II G/S to meet the UON requirement as early as possible.

BAE Systems is the sole designer, developer, and producer of the WGU-59/B APKWS II RW G/S as a result of various contracts with the Department of the Navy and is the only contractor with the requisite knowledge, experience and technical data to be able to revise the APKWS II RW G/S software and to perform the integration and testing of the G/S on the M-282. The Government does not own a G/S technical data package, which would be necessary in order to develop other sources for this highly specialized item. As such, BAE is the only awardee capable of providing this unique G/S, modifying its software and integrating it on the M-282 to meet the UON requirement.

(5) Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Contracting Officer will ensure the negotiated price is fair and reasonable to the Government. Steps taken to ensure the final contract price is fair and reasonable will include: (1) Accomplishing a price analysis by comparing proposed prices to recent contract actions for like items: (2) Using rates set forth in the current (FPRA, FPRR), provisional billing rates for cost analysis purposes: (3) Technical evaluation from the Program Manager that evaluates the proposed labor mix, hours, materials, travel, and shipping for reasonableness and realism; (4) Weighted Guidelines (WGL) tool to determine the appropriate profit/fee; and

(5) IAW the Truth in Negotiations Act (TINA) and FAR 15.403-4, upon conclusion of negotiations, the Contracting Officer will obtain a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data form the Contractor.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

(7) Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to increasing fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services:

There are no actions planned to remove or overcome any barriers to competition for subsequent acquisitions for these supplies and services under the AA IDIQ. Market research proved that BAE is the sole manufacturer of the proprietary APKWS that was specifically named in the UON. As such, BAE is the only proprietor who has the expertise and background to effectively and efficiently support the efforts to integrate the APKWS on the A-10 and F-16.

(8) Contracting Officer's certification that the justification is accurate and complete:

The Contracting Officer's signature on the signature page provides evidence that he/she certifies that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

[ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY]

(9) Certification of technical/requirements personnel that supporting data is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by his/her signature on the signature page, the Program Manager certifies that any supporting data contained herein, which is his/her responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

(10) Determination by the approving official that one of the circumstances in FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i) applies to the order

As evidenced by my signature on the signature page, I hereby determine that the fair opportunity exception checked in block 6 (Page 1) applies.