Justification_for_an_Exception_to_Fair_Opportunity_or_to_Use_Brand_Name_Restriction.pdf

Justification for an Excepti(?n to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

Is this a brand-name justification? D Yes 181 No

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan? 0 Yes 181 No

Contracting Activity: Air Force Research Laboratory/RIK

PurchaseRequest E-8-1616

Program Name (and Program Element, if applicable): Analytical and Reporting Capabillties Engineering Services II (ARCESII)

Estimated Cost/Price of the Order (including options)

Type Program (see AFFARS !!�01;.1 Ql for definitions): D PEO Program 181 other Contracting Fair Opportunity Exception: FAR 16,505jblf2)Ql, subparagraph 0(A) 0(0) 181 (C)

Type of Determination: [81 Individual 0 Class Expires: I dick and select]

(1) Contracting Activity:

Cilek her.e_f_or.instructlons to complete the boxes below.

(a} Organization Activity; Air Force Research Laboratory/Information Directorate

(b) Contracting Activity: Air Force Research Laboratory/RIK 26 Electronic Parkway Rome, NY 13441

(c) Contracting Officer: Phone

{d) Purchase Request:Number: E·8�1616

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

DIDI DIEi

This action will result in a new Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) (Completion) order using the NETCENTS 2 Application Services (NC2AS) Full and Open contract far the acquisition of Analytical and Reporting Capabilities Engineering Services II {ARCES II). This ARCES II order, FA8732-15-D-0002, TO FA8750-18- F-0006, is a follow-on to FA8732-15-D-0002 RX01 (ARCES), which was previously award�er NETCENTS 2 Application Services Full and Open multiple award contract. i

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

a. Total Estimated Value of the Acquisition:

multiple sources (users and sites).

; order will be funded with 3400, O&M, from

b. Period of Performance (Calendar dates are estimates): Base year-12 months (15 March 2019 - 14 March 2020), Option year 1-12 months (15 March 2020 - 14 March 2021), Option year 2 -12 months (15 March 2021 - 14 March 2022), Option year 3 -12 months (15 March 2022 -14 March 2023), Option year 4 - 12 months (15 March 2023 - 14 March 2024).

Continuation of services by the Contractor, BAE Systems, is required to provide software testing, perform software installation at field sites, and maintain and update document review for soflvlare baselines for a suite of software tools.

Under the contemplated order, BAE Systems will provide performance-based services consisting of system engineering analysis of reporting and analytical capabilities/software. hardware, data bases, Marcti2018 Page 1 of7

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction recommendation for changes/upgrades; traffic/load analyses in support of enhanced network component alocationfdesign; DoDAF Operational View (OV) and System Views (SV), Network /communications configuration; systems test/validation; data base administration; workstation configuration (to incfude hardware/software version control); demonstrate reuse and modularity of software compo nents to OoD test organizations; software modifications and enhancements; commercial software analyses change requests and problem reports. This work falls directly within the scope of the basic IDIQ's technical objective to provide a vehicle for customers to access a wide range of seivices such as sustainment, migration, integration, training, help desk support, testing and operational support.

The Application Services Full and Open JDIQ contract has a 7-year ordering period which consists of a 3-year base period and four 12-month options. The IDIQ contract was awarded 31 March 2015with a base period of31 March 2015-30 March 2018 and the following option periods: Option Period One-31 March 2018-30 March 2019, Option Period Two-31 Mar-ch 2019-3.0 March 2020, Option PeriodThree-31 March 202Q-.30 March 2021, and Option Period Four- 31 March 2021-30 March 2022. POOOOS was awarded on 30 March 2018 exerci'sing Option Period One. Per the NETCENTS 2 Application Services Users Guide, uThe TO shall identify the period of performance. Task Orders may be issued during any of the contract years. The performance period for each task order shall be cited in each individual order and may extend beyond the expiration date of this ID/IQ contract. ... The total duration of any TO issued under this basic contract shall not exceed 5 years, including all option periods."

Per Clause F002 of the basic IDIQ contract, uThe period o,f performance for any task order shall not exceed more than 3 years beyond the last day of the basic contract ordering period (e.g., a task order issued on the last day of the ordering period of the basic contract could have a 1 year base period and two 1-year option periods).

In discussions with the NETCENTS 2 Applications Services Procuring Contracting Officer, -he confirmed under the Application Services Full and Open Contract, task order performance is a lowed so long as performance (to include option years) does not extend beyond 30 March 2025.

c. The following funding profile is anticipated annuaKy for the entire effort.

1. Approximately � O&M funds for United State Central Command (USCENTCOM)

2. Approximately llllllin O&M funds for Pacific Air Forces (PACAF)

3. Approximately saln O&M funds for the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC)

4. Approximately ... In O&M funds for the National Air and Space lnteUigence Center (NASIC)

5. Approximately Slllin O&M funds for Special Operations Command Pacific (SOCPAC)

6. Approximately -in O&M funds for the United States Naval Forces Central Command (NA VCENT)

7. Approximately $-in O&M funds for the United States Naval Forces Central Command (NA VCENT)

8. Approximately -in O&M funds for the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM)

9. Approximately llllllin O&M funds for the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM}

10. Approximately $-in O&M funds for the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM}

11. Approximately -in O&M funds for the Eighth United States Army (EUSA)

March2018 Page2of7

12. Approximately lllllin O&M funds for the United States Forces Korea (USFK)

13. Approximately -in O&M funds for the United Army, Japan (USARJ)

14. Approximately tllllln O&M funds for the United Africa Command (AFRICOM)

15. Approximately j-n O&M funds f,or the Spscial Opsrations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA)

16. Approximately$ in O&M funds for US Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A)

17. Approximately $-n O&M funds for Special Operations Joint Task Force-Afghanistan (SOJTF-A)

18. Approximately $- in O&M funds for 241h Air Force Command/United States Cyber Command in support of 624th Operations Center

19. Approximately $lllllin O&M funds for US Anny Cyber Command/2rn1 Army in support of G-38

20. Approximately n O&M funds for Air Combat Command (ACC)

21. Approximately -in O&M funds for Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC)

22. Approximately -n O&M funds for Air Force Aeronautical Systems Group {AESG)

23. Approximately $•In O&M funds for U.S. Air Forces central Command (AFCENl)

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

a. FAR 16.505{b}(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to pr,ovide each awardee under a multiple award contract, a 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)(C). The order must be issued on a sole-source basis In the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to the original order FA8732-15-D-0002 RX01, already issued under the contract. BAE Systems is cross trained across multiple functional areas, products and vendors that uniquely positions them to provide stable continuity to the Government. The Government Is also going through a substantial software development transition, migrating from Waterfall to Agile methodology. In addition, the Government is currently shifting code and document management to a cloud based platform. BAE Systems has been Integral in the transition process and altering contractors mid-transition could jeopardize continulty.

Additionally, all NC2AS Full and Open awardees were given a fair opportunity to be c onsidered for the original order, The original order provides lifecycle management support for analytical and reporting technologies that are directly related to national se curity.

The scope of the follow-on is identical to the original competed order, which included multiple areas that wlll be of increasing importance during the follow.on, particularly in the areas of software testing, installation, and document review. On the original order, the incumbent performs software testing, installatioi1, and document review for a suite of software tools that are developed by a single vendor under another contract. During the life of this logical follow-on, the Government intends to shift the development of software tools to multiple vendors instead of a single vendor, requiring continuity in

March 2018 Page3 of7

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restr,iction e ng nct,ona o so re oo an ms a tion expe ise, 112mg an app 1ca sta ory exception to the fair opportunity process to maintain continuity of lifecycle management of analytical and reporting technologies while multiple vendors enter the development process is necessary, economical, and efficient ror national security purpcses. The training necessary to develop another contractor to perform at BAE Systems current proficiency level would be very timely and costly.

b. Market Research was conducted for the original order. A review of the scope and funding for the initial ARCES order coupled with market research and scope review indicated that NETCENTS 2 Application Services (NC2AS) was the most appropriate contract vehicle. A Request for Information (RF!) for the Analytical and Reporting Capabilities Engineering Services (ARCES) order was posted on NETCENTS.2 Application Services Small Business on 28 Aug 2015, with responses from potential � 015. In total, three responses were received, from:

.......... and lntheRFlresponsefram ,the respondent did not indicate they were capable of performing the work ba$ed on the fact that the system engineering and certification and accreditation portions of the draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) were not addressed. In addition to not addressing portions of the PWS, the respondent did not demonstrate expertise in the lntellrgence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (JSR) domain of which this work resides. The RFI response submitted from id not indicate sufficient information and references to describe the level o now e ge expenence in Certification and Accreditation (C&A) processes. They were lacking ![>Ufficient expertise in ISR domain as it relates to reporting and analytical capabilities. The response did not indicate a means of handling changes on the order of deployments to new locations and customers. And lastly, the RFI response from -did not provide any description of safety practices. The response did not indicate a means of handling changes on the order of deployments to new locations and customers. The respondent did not describe knowledge and capabilities in the ISR domain and did not provide any past performance examples.

Based on the information provided, it was determined there·was not a reasonable expectation that offers would be obtained from at least two small business concerns demonstrating adequate applicable knowledge and capabilities to meet the requirements of the acquisition.

Subsequent review of the performance histories and capabilities of the 20 Large Businesses (LBs) on NC2AS indicated that adequate sources were available. Adequate price and technical competition was anticipated. Fair Opportunity procedures at FAR 16.505 were used to seek and promote competition for the award of the initial ARCES order. The Performance Work Statement (PWS) defined the requirement such that the Government's focus was on performance outcomes rather than any specific method of performance. As a result, Contractors were able to propose the approach that maximized the effectiveness of their organization and capabilities to fulfill the Govem s. During market research stages, the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR}, etermined that a large majority of the offerors in the pool had a great deal of experience with systems engineering, software testing and validation, software/system installation, configuration management, certification and accreditation, and information management services of software ln the ISR domain. Therefore tt was the goverM1ent's expectation that two or more offerors would have responded to the ARC ES RFP.

Furthermore, it was reasonably concluded that the respondent also expected two or more offerers to respond s ince they were also awar.e of their competitors' relevant experience in these ar,eas.

c. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was therefore issued using the ordering procedures of the NET CENTS 2 Application Services (NC2AS) Full and Open multiple award contracts. One proposal was received.

After extensive review of the evaluation documentation and in consultation with the evaluation team, the Contracting Officer determined the proposal submitted by BAE Systems Information Solutions Inc., offered the best value to satisfy the Air Force's stated requirements for the Analytical and Reporting Capabilities Engineering Services {ARCES) order. The Government used a Trade Off methodology for

March 2.018 Page4 of7

Justification for an Exception to Fa,ir Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

,eva ua on o e proposa using eva ua 10n ors, 1s escen mg or er o 1mpo ance: m ss on capability, past pert:ormance, and cost/price. While the Cost/Price factor was the least ·in order of importance, cost/price stiU contributed substantially to the best value award decision. Within the mission capability factor, the following 3 sub-factors were considered: technical approach, management approach, and stand-up plan. Sub-factor 1, technical approach was of greater of importance than sub factors 2 and 3, While sub-factors 2 and 3 were of equal importance to one another.

d. Per the technical/resource evaluation it was found BAE Systems' proposal demonstrated a workforce that has extensive experience supporting the needs of AFRL. The proposal outlined c1n extensive approach at completing the tasks ouHined in the PWS. The offeror's workforce included a sufficient number of cleared personnel to begin work at time of award. Transition/stand-up risks were minimal to insignificant giVen the offer or's presence in R,ome and experience with this type of work. Additionaliy, the offerer had expertise in conducting Test, and Evalua�ion {T&E), the As.sessment and Authorization (A&A} accreditation process, system engineering, and configuration management support. Based on the Contr.acting Officer's assessment of the BAE Systems' proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria for the ARCES order, it was the decision that the proposal submitted by BAE Systems represented the best overall value to the Government.

e. In accordance With DFARS 215.371-2(b), the Government requested feedback via email dated 21 March 2016, subsequent to award of the ARCES order {awarded 17 March 2016), from potential offerers who were expected to submit an offer, however chose not to do so, in an effoi1 to overcome barriers to competition for future r uiremen . b uested within 10 calendar days. Both and pondE!d that the work being pe rme un er t ,s e art did no a w1 m · e r core capa i. 1 • indicated a shortage of staff with the necessary requirements, and a lack of required past performance contributed to their no bid decision. Both and indicated 'that potential organiza tional conflict of interest concerns led to their no bid decision. No other companies under tfle F&O po1ll replied. M a result of this feedback, the Contracting Officer did not identify any barrlers for which further action could be taken to increase competition.

t Currently ,on the original order, the contractor manages with minimal required supervision over the entire test an-d systems engineering process. Current and previous CPARS reports indicate VERY GOOD in all categories.

{5) Contracting Officer's determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and r1;!asonable:

The initial FAB732-15-D-0002 Task Order (TO) RX01 was awarded as a CPFF (Completion) order. The Contracting Officer determined that potential offerers had a reasonable expectation that other offers would be received and therefore, in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(ii), price analysis was used to determine that the proposed price was fair and reasonable. As this :new TO will be similar to the work the contractor has been performing under TO FA8732-1S.D-0002 RX01 and no adequate price competition will exist, cost analysis will be utilized to evaluate each individual cost element as being fair and reason:able IAW FAR 15.404-1(c). A cost realism analysis will also be performed since a cost reimbursement type contract w:ill be used.

Review and evaluation of the separate cost elements and fee of the offerer's proposal will be performed to detennine a fair and reasonable price, and the application of judgment to establish how well the proposed costs represent what the cost of the order should be, assuming reasonable economy and efficiency. The Government will use various cost analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price, March2018 Page 5of7 given the circumstances of the acquisition, to include: verification of cost data and evaluation of cost elements; previous cost estimates from the offerer or from other offerers for similar items; the Independent Government Cost Estimates by technical personnel; and forecasts of planned expenditures, In addition, verification by the Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) that the offerer's cost submissions are in accordance with the contract cost principles and procedures and, when applicable, the requirements and procedures in Title 48 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter .99. Cost Accounting Standards.

As required by NETCENTS 2 Application Services (NC2AS} contracts, CUN structure will be segregated to reflect separate contract line items for travel and other direct costs.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

No other awardee expressed interest in fulfilling the current requirements.

(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:

As stated in paragraph !V(a), during the fife of this logical follow-on. the Government intends to shift development of software tools to multiple vendors. Once that occurs, the need for continuity in testing functionality of software tools and installation expertise will diminish. It is anticipated that the risk to national security will be sufficiently lowered as to aUow future orders to be competed.

Current actions are being taken to remove future barriers. BAE Systems has been instructed to establish all testing requirements on the cloud based D12E GovCloud Environment. This will provide a consistent process for testing Government software, as well as establishing software requirements and test procedures to be made readily accessible to those with access to D12E. In addition, an initiative to migrate established Government software and source code onto D12E to provide approved Government contractors with the ability to download, compile, and execute Government software. Access to DJ2E and be granted within 24 hours and would minimize the risk associated with a new contractor's stand up plan.

In accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(D)(1 ), �unless disclosure would compromise national security (e.g.

would result in disclosure of classified information} or create other security risks, within 14 days after placing an order exceeding the SAT that does not pr ovide for fair opportunity IAW 16.SOS{b), the CO shall publish a notice in accordance with 5.301 and make publically available the justification required at (b)(2){ii){B) of this section.� The CO will publish a notice making the Justification for Exception to Fair Opportunity publically available within 14 days after award of the order, and ensure it remains posted for 30 days.

(8) Program Manager's certification that supporting data is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

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

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best ofmy knowledge and belief.

March 2018 Page 6 of7

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand�Name Restriction

(10) Approving Official's determination that one of the circumstances in fABJ_6.S�O�(bli2llll applies to the order.

k. evidenced by my signature below, J hereby determine that the fair opportunity exception che<ked on page T applies.

Date

25 Jun 2018

Date

25 Jun 2018

Date

27 Jun 2018

Date

Date

19Jul 2018

Date

Date

March 2018

Program Manager/Contracting Officer

Date: 20UL06.2S 14:49:42 -04'00'

, ,tal 51 nect b

Oat�: 201&06.l7 11:31:13 -04'00'

Page 7 017