FA18_BRU55_Integration_JA_Final_For_Approval_(PEO_Signed).pdf

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

Page 1 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16

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: AFLCMC/EBMK

Purchase Request / Local ID Number: FA8672-18-D-0011

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) F/A-18E/F Integration

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): ACAT 1C, PEO Program

Authority (include full title): 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)

Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $93,000,000.00 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION (AFFARS 5306.304(a) ) Sign and Save Procedure

** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Date Contracting Officer

MELISSA A. ST. VINCENT, NH-04

AFLCMC/EBMK/DSN 875-2884/ COM 850-883-2884

Signature

X

Date Project Lead / Program Mgr / Requiring Activity

KEVIN D. HICKMAN, Col, USAF

AFLCMC/EBM/DSN 882-2881

Signature

X

Date Local Legal Reviewer

PAUL A. LUTHY

AFMC 96 TW/JAQ/DSN 872-8266

Signature

X

Date Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO)

OUIDA A. WINTERS, NH-04

AFLCMC/EBK/ DSN 875-6935

Signature

X

Date Competition Advocate

KATHERINE B. HODGES, NH-04

AFLCMC/PK (EGLIN)/ DSN 872-0150

Signature

X

Date Senior Contracting Official (SCO or SCCO)

BRETT W. HARRY, Col, USAF

AFLCMC/PK-OL (EGLIN)/DSN 872-0039

Signature

X

Page 2 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a) ) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Date

02 Feb 2018

PEO (Requirements Cognizance)

ANTHONY W. GENATEMPO, Brig Gen, USAF

AFLCMC/EB/DSN 872-5422

Signature

X

Page 3 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16

Note 1: See guidance at the end of this document for completing the following sections.

Note 2: Each field will expand automatically if additional space is needed.

I. Contracting Activity.

The Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Miniature Munitions Division, Small Diameter Bomb II (SDB II), Eglin AFB, FL 32542-6844 is the responsible contracting activity supporting this class Justification and Approval (J&A) action for Other Than Full and Open Competition.

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

This class J&A is for the award of a new Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract to Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS,) 1151 E Hermans Road, Tucson, AZ, 85756 that will enable the SDB II program to procure the hardware and capabilities to integrate the SDB II onto the F/A-18E/F aircraft. The class task orders under this IDIQ contract may use fixed-price or cost-reimbursement contract types. Under the contemplated contract, RMS will provide the following supplies and services in support of F/A-18E/F aircraft integration:

(1) Procure SDB II test assets, portable test equipment, weapon system simulators, and SDB II aircraft integration expertise to support developmental testing and Department of the Navy (DoN) supportability events of the SDB II with modified (Bomb Rack Unit) BRU-55 on an F/A-18E/F at an estimated $72M via the use of a cost or fixed price type delivery order on this IDIQ.

(2) Procure SDB II test assets, portable test equipment, weapon system simulators, and SDB II aircraft integration expertise to support operational testing of the SDB II with a modified BRU-55 on an F/ A-18E/F testing Block H14 software at an estimated $20M via the use of a cost or fixed price type delivery order on this IDIQ.

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

The SDB II is an evolutionary acquisition of the Air Force (AF) 208-lb class miniature munition capable of destroying mobile/relocatable targets in adverse weather from standoff range as described in the SDB II Capability Development Document (CDD). The CDD identifies the F/A-18E/F as an objective platform for SDB II integration.

The DoN has been directed by USD(AT&L) per Resource Management Directive (RMD) 0703 dated December 2013 to immediately begin the integration of the SDB II onto the F/A-18E/F aircraft. This F/ A-18E/F integration contract will be a companion contract to the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD)/Production contract (FA8672-10-C-0002) which was awarded under a full and open competition on 09 August 2010. The anticipated period of performance is from FY18 through FY22 and the maximum dollar value of the total estimated contract is $92M.

The SDB II program requires aircraft integration throughout the EMD and Production phases. The primary objective of aircraft integration is to provide the necessary aircraft lab, flight test, flight clearance and simulation support during all platform integration efforts. Under the contemplated contract, RMS will provide the supplies and technical expertise necessary to manufacture, maintain/repair assets, and support equipment needed for aircraft integration related efforts. This effort includes all necessary troubleshooting, failure analysis or other activities to understand anomalies or failures that occur during aircraft or SDB II Operational Testing (OT) related activities as well as providing the support required during these activities.

Finally, RMS will provide Flight Test Support to include but not limited to test planning, test operation, test reporting, and telemetry. Specific testing activities include analysis, modeling and simulation, ground test, captive flight, and live fire testing for SDB II related activities. The contract award is anticipated to be in the

Page 4 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16

2nd Qtr of FY18 with a total contract value of $92M. This contract will be funded with Navy 1319 (RDT&E) appropriations.

Under the contemplated contract, RMS will provide the following supplies and technical expertise in support of the SDB II integration on the F/A-18E/F with the modified BRU-55 to attain Initial Operational Capability:

(1) Approximately 76,767 hours and $72M for SDB II test planning, analysis and support of SDB II Developmental Testing with the modified BRU-55 as part of the H14 software block upgrade for F/ A-18E/F to attain Initial Operational Capability and the SDB II test assets that will be required for developmental integration and testing. This task will include procurement and maintenance of operational test hardware. Test assets will include Ejection Test Vehicles, Instrumented Measurement Vehicles, Jettison Test Vehicles, Jettison Test Vehicles+6 Degrees of Freedom (DOF) kit, Separation Test Vehicles, Guided Test Vehicles, All Up Rounds with inert warheads, All Up Rounds, Electromagnetic Environment Effort Vehicles, Hazard of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance Vehicles, Weapon System Simulators, and Captive Carry Reliability Test Vehicles. The period of performance is anticipated from FY18 to FY21 and will utilize 17-1319 appropriations.

(2) Approximately 21,726 hours and $20M for test planning, analysis, support and sustainment of SDB II Developmental and Operational Testing with the modified BRU-55 as part of the H14 software block upgrade for F/A-18E/F to attain Initial Operational Capability. The anticipated period of performance is from FY19 to FY25 and will utilize 17-1319 appropriations.

This J&A includes requirements for more than one fiscal year as no feasible actions could develop future competition in the near term.

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

The statutory authority for this acquisition is 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, as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(B).

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 SDB II program is a joint interest United States Air Force (USAF) and DoN Acquisition Category (ACAT) IC program, with the USAF as the lead service. The SDB II EMD contract (FA8672-10-C-0002), was awarded 09 August 2010 to Raytheon Missile Systems under a full and open competition. The EMD contract will remain open through F-35B/C integration which, are the Navy's threshold platforms and scheduled to conclude in FY23. Under that contract, RMS designed and built SDB II test assets and is now qualifying the SDB II weapon using USAF F-15E and F-35B/C aircraft. Aircraft integration is a requirement for the EMD contract based on system qualification to the environment of several aircraft. Integration on the DoN F/A-18E/F will be a continuation of the current contract that integrates SDB II on the DoN F-35B/C.

The integration on F/A-18E/F is additional work requiring the same type of SDB II test assets, Universal Armament Interface (UAI) software support, and support equipment designed and built under the current EMD contract.

This integration requirement was directed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense per OSD RMD (0703) to begin immediately and be completed by FY19. As the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the SDB II, RMS possesses proprietary knowledge and engineering expertise of the weapon hardware, software, function, and performance of the SDB II system. During risk reduction and EMD, RMS developed and integrated all components of the SDB II and demonstrated the functionality through ground, flight, and

Page 5 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16 modeling and simulation testing. The knowledge and experience obtained during these test and development phases makes them uniquely qualified with the technical expertise required to integrate the SDB II system on the F/A-18E/F within the required schedule. Per the Acquisition Strategy, the Government did not acquire the Technical Data Packages (TDP) for the weapon or associated test hardware. As such, it would be incumbent upon any potential supplier other than RMS to subcontract with RMS to acquire the test hardware and technical expertise required for integration. Without RMS as a subcontractor, a potential supplier would be required to develop the test hardware and technical expertise gained by Raytheon throughout three (3) years of risk reduction and seven (7) years of engineering and development. The test assets built under the EMD contract are intended for F-35 integration. Due to conflicting schedules, F-35 test assets cannot be shared with F-18E/F integration; therefore test assets for F-18E/F integration will be procured under this J&A. No other company can develop the test assets in time to meet the required integration date of FY20.

The SDB II System Program Office (SPO) believes that an award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling OSD's F/A-18 E/F requirement. The current SDB II weapon is a result of seven (7) years of maturing a state-of-the-art tri-mode seeker technology and development of subsystems to meet form, fit and function of the SDB II system. In addition, a supplier must understand the UAI interface, possess or be able to use the integrated flight simulator (IFS) modeling and simulation tools to predict and verify flight performance, and possess the knowledge of each SDB II test variant required to support each phase of mechanical, electrical and logical integration. The test asset availability is the critical schedule driver to the SDB II integration and presents the longest lead-time in the integration process. RMS is the only company that currently possesses the test assets required for the integration. Without a TDP, any other contractor would have to begin the SDB II integration effort from the technology development phase thus potentially causing a minimum seven (7) year delay. The delay of F/A-18E/F integration would impact the DoN capability to use SDB II in the fleet prior to the fleet release of F-35B/C using SDB II. F/A-18E/F integration will also allow DoN and USAF to maintain SDB II planned production schedules.

Accordingly, RMS is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.

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

On 21 March 2014, ALCMC/EBMK posted a Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) (Solicitation number FA8672_SDBII_SourceSought) on the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website (www.fbo.gov). The notice stated the Government is seeking potential sources for SDB II aircraft integration on objective platforms as outlined in the Capability Development Document (CDD) dated 8 April 2005. The posting requested interested contractors to submit a capabilities document by 21 April 2014. Four companies formally responded to the SSS:

1. RMS responded to the SSS on 17 April 2014 with a letter detailing their ability “to provide effective and efficient platform integration capability to the Department of Defense.” See additional information in Section VIII regarding follow up discussions.

2. Boeing responded to the SSS on 21 April 2014 with a letter detailing their capability and interest in the requirement. See additional information in Section VIII regarding follow up discussions.

3. Cummings Aerospace responded to the SSS on 21 April 2014 with a letter that “demonstrates the breadth and depth of our system engineering, hardware and software development, modeling and simulation, and test and evaluation expertise in integrating armament on aircraft.” See additional information in Section VIII regarding follow up discussions.

4. Gauss Management Research and Engineering (GMRE) responded to the SSS on 21 April 2014 with a letter stating their “skill set and expertise covers the full spectrum of aircraft integration including engineering, hardware production, software, simulations, test and test hardware.” See additional information in Section VIII regarding follow up discussions.

Page 6 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16

Due to the interest from multiple sources, the SDB II SPO created an F/A-18E/F Integration draft Statement of Objectives (SOO) that provided more information regarding F/A-18E/F Integration. Additional information included specific test asset hardware necessary to accomplish an integration effort and a schedule of when each asset is required in order to meet the testing schedule. Section VIII details the follow up discussions between the four companies listed above and the SDB II SPO.

On 19 August 14, AFLCMC/EBMK posted a Notice of Contract Action (NOCA) synopsis on FBO. The notice stated the Government's intent to solicit and award under the authority of FAR 6.302-1 an IDIQ sole source contract to RMS for the integration of the SDBII to the F/A-18E/F. As of the time of the posting suspension date of 03 September 14, no responses were received.

On 8 June 2015 , AFLCMC/EBMK awarded the first sole source contract to RMS for the integration of SDB II onto the F/A-18E/F. This contract allowed for the purchase of long lead hardware to support F/ A-18E/F integration and was not protested by any of the other potential sources. Due to the ongoing nature of this integration effort, it is still not possible for any other potential offeror to come in at this time and provided the hardware, software and SDB II subject matter expert support to meet an SDB II - F/A-18E/F IOC date of Sept. 2020.

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

The Contracting Officer will ensure that the negotiated price is fair and reasonable to the Government based on price analysis and cost analysis. The proposed rates and hours will be analyzed and compared to actual rates and hours on the current contract and the Government estimate of hours. Cost analysis shall be used to evaluate the reasonableness of individual cost elements. In addition, this office will utilize Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) field pricing support and will obtain audits as required for major subcontracts. The following steps will be taken to ensure the final contract price is fair and reasonable: (1) Obtaining a DCAA audit of the Contractor's proposed costs, if necessary, (2) Getting a technical evaluation from the technical team familiar with the past and current effort and qualified to make recommendation that evaluates the proposed labor hours, materials, and shipping for reasonableness, (3) Using the Weighted Guidelines (WGL) tool to determine the appropriate profit/fee, and (4) In accordance with 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 from the Contractor.

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

The field of competition has not changed since the original market research was conducted. RMS remains the only company capable to meet the aggressive time-line required for fielding on the F/A-18E/F. To meet the F-18E/F fielding date of FY20, integration work, including test planning, asset deliveries, analysis, and flight test support must start as early as FY18. Any company tasked to build the resource infrastructure to support an SDB II integration would require multiple years lead time, which would not support that time line.

As described in Section VI above, market research, in accordance with FAR Part 10, was conducted with a SSS of the proposed acquisition, advising industry of the pending acquisition and soliciting inquiries from interested parties.

The SSS garnered interest from the four companies listed in section VI. In order to better understand how each of the four companies would meet the integration requirement, the SDB SPO sent draft F/A-18 E/F SOO to the four companies on 28 April requesting an Executive Summary stating specifically how each company would meet the requirement. All four companies submitted an Executive Summary restating their ability to meet the requirement.

Page 7 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16

However, Boeing, Cummings Aerospace, and GMRE all cited using RMS as a sub-contractor for assets and engineering expertise in their strategy. Additionally, GMRE stated their strategy was high risk if the Government did not mandate an Associate Contractor Agreements between the weapon system prime and GMRE. Specifically they stated: “signed Teaming Agreements with Raytheon SDB II Program Office, Boeing F/A-18E/F Program Office, and RTSC critical in order to be successful and meet the SOO Requirements.”

All respondents excluding RMS stated they could only complete the integration in the required amount of time if Raytheon provided the test assets as a subcontractor or if test assets were provided as Government Furnished Property (GFP). It took RMS approximately 7 years through the Technology and Development and EMD process to develop and manufacture SDB II specific test assets. To meet the F-18E/F fielding date of FY20, integration work, including test planning, asset deliveries, analysis, and flight test support must start as early as FY18. Any company tasked to build the resource infrastructure to support an SDB II integration would require multiple years lead time, which would not support that timeline. Therefore, the SDB II SPO has determined the only company expressing interest in the SSS capable of meeting the timeline is RMS. The original market research is still valid based on the knowledge and expertise of the technical team and based on the further mature state of the SDB II program. The field of competition has not changed since the original market research was conducted.

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

Additional facts supporting “Only One Responsible Source” as the relevant authority for this acquisition as cited in paragraph IV above are as follows. The Government does not own a TDP that would permit manufacture or sustainment by another source.

RMS is the sole source developer and prime integrator of the SDB II and is the only contractor in possession of the technical data, documentation, and detailed knowledge (i.e., design, configuration, software design and functionality, facilities and tooling, manufacturing processes, aircraft integration, and maintenance support procedures) to successfully perform the required activities. A TDP for the SDB II is not currently available.

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.

A TDP for the SDB II weapon system is not currently available. This contract action will cover the period required to complete SDB II system qualification as well as the initial DoN procurement that begins in FY18 and will run concurrently with the F/A-18E/F Integration contract. If a TDP is purchased following EMD, future integration onto objective platforms may be competed. The SDB II SPO will conduct market research required by the FAR to support future acquisitions for continued life cycle technical support. Based on the results of that market research, the Government will determine whether competition is viable. As stated in Section III, the testing and evaluation portion of the integration effort will take place between FY18-FY25;

therefore, a sole source effort beyond one year is necessary in order to fulfill the total requirement.

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

Page 8 of 8Updated: 15 Mar 16 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.

Remove the Guidance pages below. Remove the IACR pages below.

Page of Updated: 15 Mar 16 International Agreement Competitive Restrictions Page of 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:

J&A Type:

COORDINATION (AFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Note 1: See guidance at the end of this document for completing the following sections.

Note 2: Each field will expand automatically if additional space is needed.

I. Contracting Activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

GUIDANCE

I. Contracting Activity.

Fully identify the contracting agency and organizational activity responsible for the proposed contracting action. Specifically identify as a “Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition.” Identify purchase request number, if applicable.

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

State whether the action will be awarded as a new contract or by modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the type contract planned (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee, etc.). If exception 2 is cited (unusual or compelling urgency), state date of UCA/contract/modification issuance and amount.

An individual J&A cannot be used to support more than one contract irrespective of the quantities or the dollar value stated therein. If a proposed contract will contain unpriced options (including NTE prices), those options must be supported by a separate J&A prior to option exercise or the J&A supporting the basic contract must be a Class J&A. For Class J&A situations where the number of contracts in the class can be identified: (1) Provide brief general description of actions, (2) identify the document as a Class J&A, (3) identify the supplies and services that are being acquired, and (4) for each contract in the class identify the contractor; estimated value; type of contract and rationale for contract length; and estimated award date. Where the same information applies to more than one contract within the class, it need only be stated one time. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2)).

III. Description of the supplies/services required to meet agency needs. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3))

Specifically describe the supplies and/or services to be acquired including the estimated value (including options) and quantity of each item, the total estimated value of the acquisition, and the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance. For example, if commodities are being procured with technical data, support equipment, and support services (staff-hour quantity of support hours) each should be listed, not just commodity quantities. If all of the ancillary requirements associated with a particular item are not specifically described in the J&A, those ancillary requirements cannot be included in the resulting contract unless a second J&A covering those ancillary requirements is executed. Also, state the type of appropriation (e.g., 3600, 3010, 3400) that will be used to fund each requirement listed.

Here is an example of such a list:

“Under the contemplated contract, ABC Corporation will provide the following supplies and services in sustainment of the XYZ program:

(1) Approximately 30,030 staff-hours will be acquired each year for: (a) depot-level (Level II) maintenance on eight XYZ systems around the world and routine (Level 1) maintenance on the two systems located at ABC Corporation's facility, (b) help desk services (24 hours/day, 7 days/week) to provide daily assistance to military personnel to maintain the systems, and (c) software releases for the XYZ system (including any deficiency releases needed to fix minor problems that occur after a major release) and maintenance training on those software releases. The period of performance of this effort will be from January 2005 through 30 September 2005, and 3400 appropriations will fund this effort.

(2) Approximately 2,640 staff-hours will be acquired each year to convert seventeen XYZ systems into seventeen QRS systems to enable a transportable weather system to be deployed into forward locations in order to provide polar ingest capability outside the UMQ-13 polar footprint. Deliveries of these items will occur between January 2005 and March 2006, and 3400 appropriations will fund this effort.

(3) . . .

(N) . . .”

If approval for more than one fiscal year requirement is needed, give the rationale for this request. Generally, the scope of these actions is limited to current requirements only, so that actions may be taken to facilitate competition for out-year requirements. In some cases, there are no feasible actions that could develop future competition, and it is reasonable to seek approval for more than one fiscal year's requirements.

For ID/IQ or requirements contracts, use the maximum dollar value of the total estimated orders as the estimated J&A dollar value.

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

10 USC 2304(c)(?) (see Note 1 below), as implemented by FAR 6.302-? (see Note 2 below), required by FAR 6.303-2(b)(4).

Note 1: Complete the 10USC 2304(c) citation with the statutory subparagraph cited in the (a) Authority (1) Citations portion of the Competition exception used for your J&A.

Note 2: Complete the FAR citation with the appropriate subparagraph.

Note 3: For class J&As, all contracts within the class should fall within the same statutory authority. Where a different authority must be used for any contract action, a separate J&A should be prepared.

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

Provide, in narrative form, a detailed explanation supporting and clearly relating to the conditions described by the FAR for using the particular authority cited. This section is normally the most detailed part of the justification as the essence of the justification is presented here. For acquisitions that include both supplies and services, separately justify the use of the authority for the services and supplies. (FAR 6.303-2(5))

Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of lack of advance planning by the requiring activity or concerns related to the amount of funds available (e.g., funds will expire) (FAR 6.301(c)). To assist you, the following information is provided:

A. Only One Responsible Source (FAR 6.302-1)

In the case of a follow-on contract for continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment/services, the rationale must first justify the supplies/services as being a “major system” or “highly specialized.” The rationale must then justify “either” substantial duplication of cost to the government that is not expected to be recovered through competition, or unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements, whichever situation applies. If both of these situations apply, the rationale can be based on either of these two situations, or both

Discuss the use of restrictive brand name descriptions in requirements documentation here under Part V. An acquisition that uses a brand name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand name, product, or feature of a product peculiar to one manufacturer does not provide for full and open competition regardless of the number of sources solicited. If a brand name will be used, you must justify it and clearly explain why a specific brand produced by a single company is required, as opposed to allowing free and open competition. The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the acquisition is essential to the Government's requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company. (FAR 6.302-1(c))

(Brand-name or equal descriptions, and other purchase descriptions that permit prospective contractors to offer products other than those specifically referenced by brand name, provide for full and open competition and do not require justifications and approvals to support their use.)

Subsection 1. When using this exception…

(a) Describe the system or support element to which supply/service to be procured under the contemplated acquisition relates in terms of its purpose and its capabilities. Describe how the contemplated acquisition relates to that system or support element. State what work the current contractor has been performing. Include the current contract number, basis of award for that contract award (competitive/sole source), when the contract was awarded, and when the contract will expire. If the work the contractor will perform under the contemplated acquisition is being done under an ACAT I or II program, state that designation. If the work will not be done under an ACAT I or II program, provide a detailed explanation from a technical perspective as to why the supplies/services to be procured are “highly specialized.” This section must summarize your justification by including the main point(s) of the justification.

(b) If the planned acquisition is a “bridge” effort, which contains options, so state and explain why options are necessary.

(c) Add a concluding sentence to the end of this paragraph, suitably tailored; e.g., “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of a major system,” or “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of highly specialized equipment,” or “Therefore, this acquisition will be follow-on contract for the continued development of a major system,” or “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of highly specialized equipment,” or “Therefore, this acquisition is for continued performance of a highly specialized service.”

Subsection 2. When using this exception, describe in 3-4 sentences the contractor's unique/highly specialized capabilities and/or qualifications (e.g., facilities, personnel, special tooling acquired). (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5))

Subsection 3. When using this exception, you should begin with the following sentence, suitably tailored: “The (XXX SPO, or XXX Wing) believes that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Air Force's requirements.” Then, discuss either or both of the following situations (although only one of these situations is needed; if the facts exist to support both, then provide that information):

(a) When the rationale is based on substantial duplication of cost, state the approximate cost and state that the cost could not be recovered through competition. When FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) is cited for follow-on acquisitions as the basis for the justification, include an estimate of the anticipated cost to run a competition offset by the amount of cost that would be duplicated. Include the rationale for the amount of cost that would be duplicated (e.g., training required so that another source could acquire the skills necessary to perform the effort, equipment, facilities) and how the estimate was derived (e.g., development costs incurred by the Government under the existing contract or similar programs). (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(ii))

(b) When the rationale is based on unacceptable delay, state how long it would take someone else to obtain this capability (e.g., months, years) and why, and provide a detailed explanation of the impact or problem caused by the delay. For example, the impact of not adding additional quantities of launch support services staff-hours to an existing contract might cause a launch to not occur as scheduled, thus delaying the operational use of a spacecraft, thus reducing the constellation's operational availability - and thus reducing (or precluding) the ability of the war fighter to accomplish specific missions.

Subsection 4. When using this exception, you should include one of the following sentences, whichever is applicable:

(a) “Accordingly, XYZ Corporation is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition.”

(b) “Accordingly, XYZ Corporation is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

(c) “Accordingly, XYZ Corporation is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

B. Unusual and Compelling Urgency (FAR 6.302-2, 6.303-2(a)(b)(iii), DFARS PGI 206.302-2)

Contracting Officers shall contact SAF/AQC at usaf.pentagon.saf-aq.mbx.saf-aqc-workflow@mail.mil as soon as practicable when contemplating an award under the authority cited in FAR 6.302-2 for J&As requiring SPE approval. Provide an explanation why (1) the supplies or services are needed at once because of fire, flood, explosion, or other disaster, or (2) essential equipment or repairs to that equipment are needed at once, e.g., to preclude impairment of launch capabilities or mission performance of missiles or missile support equipment, eliminate imminent grounding of the XX fleet crucial to what mission of the USAF and Defense of the Nation. In other words, identify the anticipated serious injury to the Government, the nature of the urgency, the reasons for it occurring and why it is “urgent and compelling” to preclude adverse impact to military readiness. Merely citing a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON),Force Activity Designator (FAD) rating, Program Management Directive (PMD)/Program Action Directive (PAD) guidance, or DX priority rating is not in and of itself sufficient reason to use this exception from the requirement to obtain full and open competition. Note that only the minimum quantity required to satisfy the unusual and compelling urgency qualifies for this exception; thus, this exception might not suffice to justify option quantities. For example, a JUON covering an entire program may not necessarily warrant a class J&A for all program requirements. The inclusion of future “unknown” requirements in class J&As proceeding on this basis is disfavored. In addition, actions covered by a relevant JUON should, a) cite the JUON, b) describe the nature of the need covered by the JUON, and c) describe the relationship between the JUON and the requirements contemplated under the J&A (e.g., whether the J&A includes requirements not covered by the JUON, whether the J&A covers just a portion of the JUON's scope, etc.). JUONs can provide important support for the J&A; however, the J&A is a stand-alone document and should not rely solely upon the fact that a JUON has been issued as a basis for approval. Activities are under a continuing duty to ensure maximum competition practicable under the circumstances, and JUONs to not automatically provide relief from that duty.

The exception for “unusual and compelling urgency” does not authorize a sole source contract. This exception only authorizes limitation to the greatest number of potential sources than can fulfill the requirement in the time needed. Therefore, the J&A should also describe the method and rationale for identifying the sources to which the solicitation will be limited. If the solicitation is to be limited to only one source, the J&A must be based on an exception that authorizes selection of a single source.

C. Industrial Mobilization; or Engineering, Developmental, or Research Capability (FAR 6.302-3)

The most important part of justifications citing this authority is demonstrating the need to maintain the capability possessed by the identified source(s). Some form of market survey may be critical in demonstrating the uniqueness of this capability.

D. Authorized or Required by Statute (FAR 6.302-5)

It is imperative to identify what is being acquired and the applicable statute authorizing other than full and open competition. Note: Some statutes do not require a written J&A.

E. National Security (FAR 6.302-6)

Provide the minimum essential information needed to establish validity of the justification. This information will make the J&A a classified document. Special handling procedures are required for processing such documentation to the approval authority. Only parties with a “need to know” and the proper level of security clearance should be permitted access to the documentation. Such acquisitions are also exempt from synopsis under FAR 5.202(a)(1).

F. Public Interest (FAR 6.302-7)

This authority may only be used when none of the other authorities is appropriate and may not be made on a class basis. Provide detail addressing the reasons full and open competition is not in the public interest and why no other authority is appropriate for use.

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

Describe all efforts taken (or to be to be taken) to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances. Although Market Research is covered in Section VIII, the information in Section VI should correlate with the Market Research described in Section VI. The following issues should be addressed in this paragraph:

Sources Sought Synopsis. If a sources sought synopsis was issued, state the date the synopsis was issued, the synopsis number, and a brief description of its content. If any responses were received, describe in detail the results of the screening process and the rationale for determining the unacceptability of any synopsis respondents. This is particularly important when citing the authority of 10 USC 2304(c)(1), “Only one (or a limited number of) responsible source(s)”, since it is this survey of the market place that confirms our assumptions regarding the capability of industry to meet our needs.

Address whether this acquisition will require a synopsis IAW FAR 5.201. If the proposed action was not or will not be synopsized, cite the specific authority for not doing so (FAR 5.202) and the rationale for the synopsis exception. Note that although synopsis of proposed contract actions initiated pursuant to FAR 6.302-2 may not be required, use of this authority is not an automatic exemption from synopsis. (FAR 5.202(a)(2)).

Other Actions. In this paragraph, discuss any other actions taken or planned to facilitate competition for this acquisition. The discussion should include actions tried or considered even if the actions were unsuccessful. If the efforts were unsuccessful, so state and describe why.

Qualifying Country Sources. If qualifying country sources have expressed interest, but are to be excluded, provide supporting rationale.

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

Include a statement by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost will be considered fair and reasonable and provide the basis for this determination. The steps that will be taken to ensure the final contract price will be fair and reasonable are also described here. Describe the extent of cost or price analysis anticipated including the requirements for certified cost or pricing data, technical evaluations, and audits. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7)) VIII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted.

Discuss any market research conducted pursuant to FAR Part 10 and describe results of that research. Market research is any effort undertaken to determine if sources capable of satisfying the agency's requirements exist and to determine if commercial items or non-developmental items are either available or can be modified so that they will satisfy the agency's needs. Market research should be focused not only on identifying alternate sources, but also on alternate equipment or substitutes that might fill the government needs with only minor modification. Regardless of the approach used, the results should provide a high level of confidence that no other qualified sources exist.

Generally, some form of market research should be conducted, but it is most critical when citing the authority of FAR 6.302-1, Only one (or a limited number of) responsible source(s). Under such circumstances, use the following sentence: “As described in Section VI above, market research, in accordance with FAR Part 10, was conducted by synopsis of the proposed acquisition, advising industry of the pending acquisition and soliciting inquiries from interested parties.”

When other exceptions from the requirement to obtain full and open competition are relied upon, the market research might be limited to an examination of the acquisition history and experience with the marketplace under previous acquisitions for the same or similar items.

If no market research was conducted, so state and provide the rationale.

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

Provide any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition, including an explanation of why technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, statements of objectives, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed, are not being developed, are not being used, or are not available. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2) and 6.303-2(b)(9)(i)).

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

State “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.

Describe any actions taken or to be taken to foster competition for future acquisitions of the supplies or services being acquired. Describe potential actions that could be undertaken to remove the barriers to competition that have been identified in the justification and include a milestone schedule for accomplishing these actions. For example, if a follow-on competitive acquisition is planned, so state and give planned award date (FAR 6.303-2(b)(11)), or state the Government will attempt to acquire rights in technical data and computer software sufficient to compete follow-on acquisitions as a priced option in the contract action that is the subject of this J&A, or (if applicable) state how the Government intends to challenge nonconforming markings on technical data and computer software delivered to it under previous contracts so those markings can be removed in order that that technical data and computer software may be used in support of a follow-on competitive acquisition, or describe plans to qualify additional sources.

Address efforts to ensure competition for future spare parts and maintenance in support of systems or equipment covered by the justification, even when these acquisitions will be accomplished by other organizations. Include a discussion on available breakout data.

If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons. If approval is sought for more than one year, explain why a sole source effort is required for the planned time duration.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by his/her signature, the contracting officer has determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(12)) XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel

As evidenced by their signatures, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein, which is their responsibility, is both accurate and complete. (FAR 6.303-2(c)) Do You Need to "REDACT" Text?

This template is interactive and has special features. In its current state, it cannot be redacted. In order to redact any portion of this template, you must first convert it to a normal PDF file. Click here for instructions.

The following page contains a suggested template for “International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR)”. The authority to prepare an IACR has been delegated from the HCA to the Contracting Officer. (AFFARS 5306.302-4) COORDINATION (AFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

IV. Statutory Authority: 10 USC 2304(c)(4) as implemented by FAR 6.302-4, International Agreement.

VI. Certification of Accuracy and Completeness:

As evidenced by his/her signature, the contracting officer has determined the IACR to be both accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief. The CO also approves the IACR.

As evidenced by his/her signature, the…