SSDA_J_and_A_Redacted.pdf

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

Choose the funding level for this J&A Document:

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

Contracting Activity: AFLCMC/HIAK

Purchase Request / Local ID Number: AFLCMC/HIK-16-J002

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Depot Maintenance Systems Integration DMSI Spectrum System Development Architecture SSDA

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): PEO

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

Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $4,400,000.00 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION (A F F A R S 5 3 0 6. 3 0 4 ( 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.

X

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.

Date Contracting Officer

[Ruth Farmer]

[ ALFCMC/HIAK/986-2346 ]

Signature

FARMER.RUTH.A.1265 Digitally signed by FARMER.RUTH.A.1265138345 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, 138345 ou=USAF, cn=FARMER.RUTH.A.1265138345 Date: 2015.12.03 10:05:51 -05'00'

Date Program Manager

[Charles N. Bruce Jr.]

[ AFLCMC/HIAM/986-0558 ]

Signature

BRUCE.CHARLES.N.JR. Digitally signed by BRUCE.CHARLES.N.JR.1387568197 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USAF, cn=BRUCE.CHARLES.N.JR.1387568197

1387568197 Date: 2015.12.03 10:13:03 -05'00'

Date

Dec 03, 2015

Communications and Info Systems Officer (CSO)

[ David A. Riley]

[ AFLCMC/HIQD/674-0872 ]

Signature RILEY.DAVID.ALLEN.10 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, Digitally signed by RILEY.DAVID.ALLEN.1079041218

79041218 ou=USAF, cn=RILEY.DAVID.ALLEN.1079041218 Date: 2015.12.03 10:24:59 -05'00'

Date Local Legal Reviewer

[Gregory D. Whitt]

[ AFLCMCLO/JA /674-7121]

Signature

WHITT.GREGORY.D.12 Digitally signed by WHITT.GREGORY.D.1230125208 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, 30125208 ou=USAF, cn=WHITT.GREGORY.D.1230125208 Date: 2015.12.07 13:53:26 -05'00'

Date HIK Policy

[Richard G. Osterland]

[AFLCMC/HIQK/904-2075]

Signature Digitally signed by

OSTERLAND.RICHARD OSTERLAND.RICHARD.GROVER.1080119794

.GROVER.1080119794 ou=USAF, cn=OSTERLAND.RICHARD.GROVER.1080119794 Date: 2015.12.07 14:18:38 -05'00'

Date Acting, HIAK Division Chief

[Kevin D. Poole]

[AFLCMC/HIAK/674-0207]

Signature

POOLE.KEVIN.D.12 Digitally signed by POOLE.KEVIN.D.1280220279 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USAF, cn=POOLE.KEVIN.D.1280220279

80220279 Date: 2015.12.08 13:37:43 -05'00'

Date AFLCMC/HI Deputy Chief of Contracting

[Robert D. Bochenek]

[AFLCMC/HIK/787-5988]

Signature

BOCHENEK.ROBER Digitally signed by

BOCHENEK.ROBERT.D.1230177259

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, T.D.1230177259 ou=USAF, cn=BOCHENEK.ROBERT.D.1230177259 Date: 2015.12.09 16:32:39 -05'00'

APPROVAL (A F F A R S 5 3 0 6. 3 0 4 ( 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

14 Dec 2015

AFLCMC/PZC Policy

[Pamela E. Jergens]

[AFLCMC/PZC/785-0404]

Signature JERGENS.PAMELA. JERGENS.PAMELA.E.1230264607 Digitally signed by

E.1230264607 ou=USAF, cn=JERGENS.PAMELA.E.1230264607 Date: 2015.12.14 14:19:15 -05'00'

Date Signature

Date Signature

Date Signature

Date

15 Dec 2015

Competition Advocate

[ Donald S. Poole]

[ AFLCMC/PK/ 785-3741 ]

Signature

POOLE.DONALD.S Digitally signed by

POOLE.DONALD.S.III.1230206372

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, .III.1230206372 ou=USAF, cn=POOLE.DONALD.S.III.1230206372 Date: 2015.12.15 10:55:07 -05'00'

Date Signature

Date Signature

Date Signature

Date Signature

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.

Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Contract Management Division (AFLCMC/HIAK), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio is the contracting office for this acquisition. The Contracting Officer is Ruth Farmer, DSN 986-2346. This is a Sole Source Justification.

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

A. This is a Follow-on contract for continuing performance based services to provide sustainment of SSDA. Contractor services under this acquisition are needed to replace the current contract that expires 30 June 16. This Justification and Approval requests approval to award a new Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract with Cost Reimbursable (CR) elements of Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs). These services provide technical support to the AFLCMC Enterprise Logistics Systems Division Maintenance Branch (HIAM), Depot Maintenance Systems Section for the maintenance and sustainment of the Spectrum System Development Architecture (SSDA). This requirement provides for the software maintenance/ enhancement support services needed to maintain and enhance SSDA. SSDA has been uniquely modified to be utilized by the Depot Maintenance Systems Integration (DMSI) components.

B. Solicitation Number: FA8770-16-R-0004 Contract Number: FA8770-16-C-0004 Contract Type: FFP & CR; 12 month Base Period with four (4) 12 month

Option Periods and a six (6) month extension of services option.

Contractor: NCI Information Systems, Inc.; DUNS Number 620864504

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

A. The estimated cost for the known and recurring requirements is $4,349,597.81. The SSDA effort may require the inclusion of new, within scope Technical/Computer System Requirements Documents (TCSRDs/CSRDs) after award for sustaining the DMSI architectural infrastructure.

The services to be acquired to meet SSDA mission objectives include the following requirements:

1. Recurring requirements under sustainment and development services include software infrastructure, resolution of Severity 1-5 Deficiency Reports (DRs), Software Problem Reports (SPRs), Baseline Change Requests (BCRs), CSRDs, Information System Requests (ISRs) and Level II and III Help Desk Support. The Contractor is responsible for defining and analyzing system requirements, developing design specifications, translating specifications into programming logic (coding), and conducting development testing. Also, this support may include (but is not restricted to) activities related to engineering studies, internet/intranet applications (web enabled), systems engineering, systems integration, integration support for Depot Maintenance System Integration (DMSI) hardware and software architecture, software engineering, architectural design, structured analysis, and object-oriented principles and required tool suites. The Contractor participates in all phases of the software development life cycle, with emphasis on analysis, design, coding, testing, documentation, and acceptance phases.

2. Non-recurring requirements:

(a) Major/minor functional/capability enhancements/modifications (CSRDs) to the existing legacy system. The Contractor shall perform requirements analysis, design, development, and implementation of solutions required by AF, HQ AFMC, and logistics community customers.

Additional technical requirements may be identified throughout the Period of Performance to ensure SSDA compatibility with the DMSI suite of servers/hardware, operating systems(s), and COTS software.

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

10 USC 2304(c) (1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a) (2) (iii) (A)

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

FAR 6.302 requires an ordering activity to justify its actions when awarding a contract without providing for full and open competition

FAR 6.302-1, “Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.” The SSDA software is proprietary to NCI and cannot be modified by a third party. NCI owns the Source Code and they have no authorized resellers. Therefore, NCI is the only source that can provide the required software maintenance for this procurement. The AFLCMC Program Executive Office Business Enterprise Systems is leading an effort to subsume the Depot Maintenance requirements, including DMSI, into an enterprise solution, the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul Initiative (MROi). The first iteration of this effort is expected to begin subsuming two of the six DMSI applications in FY 18. The DMSI PMO also researched the possibility of replacing the current SSDA by developing a new architecture that would be non-proprietary, which would allow for competition. However, a PMO Business Case Analysis (BCA) for developing a new architecture showed it would cost over $64M and would require over five (5) years to develop and integrate the new framework solution into the DMSI applications. With DMSI scheduled to be fully subsumed by MROi by FY22, investing in a new non-proprietary architecture is not in the best interest of the USAF. Both MROi and DMSI architecture re-development would represent a substantial duplication of costs to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

The SSDA is a large and complex software-based framework that allows the DMSI components to integrate and function as one system. Each DMSI component is built using the SSDA framework source code and design standards. If an alternative path was selected, in an effort to foster competition, there would be unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements. As the DMSI application suite is not operational without the SSDA, and the new potential framework solution would take an estimated 5 years to develop. Refer to section VIII and the provided market research report for further BCA detailed information.

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

A Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) was posted on www.fbo.gov, Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOps), on 2 July 2015. The purpose of the RFI/SSS was to identify interest and request capability statements in an effort to compete the SSDA requirement. Responding contractors were instructed to provide a maximum of ten (10) pages in response outlining their business information, intent to propose, relevant experience, and technical capabilities in accordance with the RFI/SSS. A total of three contractors, MPF Federal, LLC, Garcia Information Systems Corporation, and Micro-tech responded to the posting with capability packages. All three received a “Not Capable as Prime Contractor,” assessment for fulfilling the contract requirements. None of the contractors were capable of providing the critical SSDA support required to deliver maintenance, sustainment and development of the SSDA. A notice will be publicized as required by FAR Subpart 5.2.

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

The Contracting Officer will perform a thorough cost analysis to evaluate the offeror's proposal prior to negotiation and award. Cost will be determined fair and reasonable through the use of the structured approach to cost analysis and the Government Objective will be developed using the Weighted Guidelines Method. Certified Cost and Pricing Data will be required. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) will not be requested to conduct an audit of the offeror's cost proposal as the effort is below the DoD threshold for field pricing assistance (PGI 215.404-2). No special circumstances exist to request an audit of indirect rates or other cost elements. When necessary, forward pricing recommended rates or provisional billing rates will be requested if available.

The Contracting Officer will perform a price analysis to evaluate the offeror's proposal prior to negotiation and award, and to http://www.fbo.gov/ determine fair and reasonableness. The AFLCMC/HIAM Depot Maintenance Program Office will conduct a technical evaluation of the proposal to support the best value determination and the price/cost analysis. The PMO has several years of historical pricing information associated with this effort to include the current contract and pricing information related to major enhancements.

1. Current Contract/Delivery Order Number: FA877011C0019

2. Basis of Award: FAR Part 15 Non-Competitive Acquisition, one proposal received.

3. Award Date: 01 July 2011

4. Contract Expiration: 30 June 2016

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

A Request for Information (RFI)/Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) was posted on the FedBizOps, on 2 July 2015. The purpose of the RFI/SSS was to identify interest and request capability statements in an effort to compete the SSDA requirement.

Responding contractors were instructed to provide a maximum of ten (10) pages in response outlining their business information, intent to propose, relevant experience, and technical capabilities in accordance with the RFI/SSS.

A total of three contractors, MPF Federal, LLC, Garcia Information Systems Corporation, and Micro-tech responded to the posting with capability packages. All three received a “Not Capable as Prime Contractor,” assessment for fulfilling the contract requirements. None of the contractors were capable of providing the critical SSDA support required to deliver maintenance, sustainment and development of the SSDA.

The Air Force investigated the possibility of acquiring data rights to the SSDA as a means of removing barriers to outsourcing the sustainment of the SSDA to a company other than NCI. As recently as May 2015, NCI has stated that they would not allow third party access to the SSDA source code and documentation. In the case of unlimited data rights, they also stated they will NOT allow another company access nor will they allow the Government to purchase unlimited rights to the SSDA source code.

In an effort to foster competition, the PMO explored the possibility of competing the SSDA by either acquiring the required data rights to the proprietary source code or replacing the SSDA with comparable front end architecture type software. A total of three alternatives were considered, to include: the status quo alternative of a sole source award to NCI, the procurement of data rights to the SSDA to re-compete DMSI front-end sustainment, and compete the DMSI architecture requirement and re-develop the DMSI application to a new non-proprietary architecture. This exercise found that competing this requirement was not feasible. For further detailed information, please refer to the attached market research report.

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

See section V above.

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.

During the initial selection/development/implementation of DMSI, the AF selected a proposed solution with embedded proprietary software. The 1990's selection of the solution with the proprietary product "SSDA" to integrate the DMSI components committed the Air Force to a long term relationship with NCI for the life-cycle of the system. Only an estimated 7 years useful life remains due to MROi replacing the DMSI suite by Sep 2022.

Therefore, the best opportunity for removing barriers to outsourcing the sustainment of SSDA will occur when the system is replaced by MROi.

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.

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