CHACJARedacted19Dec25.pdf

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

August 2023 Page 3 of 11August 2023 Page 3 of 11

(See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" after item XII below.)

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

The contracting organization that is responsible for the proposed contract action is the Air Force Test Center (AFTC), Directorate of Contracting, Test Range & Specialized Contracting Division, Specialized Test Contracting Branch, 5 South Wolfe Avenue, Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1185. The requiring activity for this action is the ( The Contracting Officer for this acquisition is Mr. Marc Venzon. This is a Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition. The Purchase Request (PR) number for this acquisition is to be determined.

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

A new ten (10) year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF)/Cost Reimbursement (CR) contract to support CHAC requirements currently estimated at $98M. CHAC is a follow-on requirement. The previous contracts are as follows: Virtual Integrated Electronic Warfare Simulations (VIEWS )(FA9302-09-D-0030) and VIEWS II (FA9302-15-D-0004), and Validated Red Airspace Virtual Environment (VALRAVN) (FA9304-20-D-0003).

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

The CHAC support requires specialized technical and engineering work in support of the Digital Integrated Air Defense System (DIADS) program office activities. These activities include software development of new capabilities, software sustainment, customer project support and execution, integration into simulators and ranges, and program management support. The total estimated cost for this effort is $98M.

The type of appropriations that will be used to fund this requirement are 3400, 3600 and 3080. The period of performance is 10 years with a 6-month option to extend services. Ordering period is 1 Oct 2025 to 30 Sep 2035. It is a five year base ordering period and a five-year option ordering period.

This is a non-commercial service effort.

Estimated annual cost by FY:

2025 $ 3,808,965.93

2026 $7,992,001.97

2027 $8,391,602.07

2028 $8,811,182.17

2029 $9,251,741.27

2030 $9,714,328.33

2031 $10,200,044.77

2032 $10,710,046.98

2033 $11,245,542.34

2034 $11,807,826.82

2035 $6,204,404.15

August 2023 Page 4 of 11August 2023 Page 4 of 11

The contract is expected to have the following Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs):

CLIN 0001 - Labor

CLIN 0002 - Subcontractor

CLIN 0003 - Materials

CLIN 0004 - Travel

CLIN 0005-Software Deliverables

CLIN 0006-Data

CLIN 0005 Software Deliverables and CLIN 0006 Data are not separately priced.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited above.

The DoD uses DIADS, a model unique to the U.S. Government to support test, training, and survivability analysis. DIADS is highly configurable and is integrated with 30+ customer facilities. The CHAC acquisition will continue development of highly specialized services. The CHAC contract is a direct follow-on contract to the current VALRAVN contract (FA9304-20- D-0003). The CHAC contract will provide support for all aspects of DIADS including software development, customer support, and sustainment. Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued provision of highly specialized services.

Previously, DIADS support was provided by the VIEWS (FA9302-09-D-0030), VIEWS II (FA9302-15-D-0004), and VALRAVN (FA9304-20-D-0003) contracts, all awarded sole-source to Avarint. The most recent award VALRAVN was awarded 31 Mar 2020, and ends on 30 Sep 2025. Avarint has successfully supported DIADS requirements under all three of these efforts which are similar to CHAC requirements. While not an ACAT designated program, the DIADS program office plans to use this contract to support multiple ACAT I and II customers.

( -3 on that

Avarint was identified as the only responsible source during market research. Avarint has demonstrated technical expertise in air defense modeling, modeling and simulation (M&S) test execution, range integration and operations, flight simulator integration and operations and DIADS software development. All of these areas of expertise are critical to successful performance of CHAC requirements.

The has determined 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. Award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the U.S. Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and result in unacceptable delays

August 2023 Page 5 of 11August 2023 Page 5 of 11 in fulfilling the Air Force's requirements. To estimate the duplication of cost, the specialized skills can be broken down into two categories: software development and survivability analyst. DIADS is a C++ based model and the skills and tools used to maintain the model are widely available. Based on historical data on spinning up software developers, it would take 3 - 6 months of time for each of the 10 people to become familiar with the DIADS architecture and to competently make changes and develop capabilities. The survivability analyst skill set is highly specialized and not widely available. It takes the Air Force around 2 years to train someone to be a competent analyst and we estimate around 15 analysts will be needed. Based on average labor rates this would translate to a total duplicate cost of ~$10.6M and 2 years of delay. The additional cost is 10.8% of the total estimated contract value and would unlikely be recovered through competition in these technical fields.

Accordingly, Avarint is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing a substantial duplication of cost that could not be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under

FAR 5.202 applies.

As per the requirements of DFARS PGI 206.303-2(b)(i), the performance work statement was posted on SAM.gov on 16 Feb 2024 to invite interest from prospective offers. Subsequently, five sources expressed their interest, namely

Avarint, and Three of five vendors who replied to the Sources Sought had and experience in the and ( response highlighted a they have been working on. Their response did not mention DIADS or the ability to support the requirements outlined in Section B.

response highlighted their familiarity with Their response did not mention DIADS or the ability to support the requirements outlined in Section B. They also showed no experience with the aircraft side of modeling and simulation. and both have strengths that could be leveraged to meet greater DIADS demand in the future as subcontractors to Avarint.

Avarint, LLC is the current contractor fulfilling all requirements noted in PWS and is deemed the sole source due to their relationship with and all of the current DIADS customers. Additionally, Avarint has current sole source contracts with the DoD for DIADS support at Nellis AFB, Wright Patterson AFB, and Robins AFB.

Avarint is a small business. is a SBA 8(a), specifically a "Mentor Protege Program Unpopulated Joint Venture." is a small business with socioeconomic status of "Native American, Economically Disadvantaged Woman-Owned Small Business ."

The AbilityOne program cannot meet the requirements of this contract.

The Government took great efforts to open up as much work as possible to other contractors by splitting off a large portion of work not related to DIADS and competing it on the open market. The previous support contract (VIEWS II) included support for both the Benefield Anechoic Facility (BAF) and DIADS test capabilities. The future BAF work has been separated from the DIADS contract and will be competed.

This acquisition will require a Synopsis of proposed Contract Action (SOCA) IAW FAR 5.201, with an expected 15 days of publication.

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

The Contracting Officer will ensure that the anticipated prices are determined fair and reasonable by utilizing price/cost analysis, historical pricing information for same or similar services, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit support, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) technical support, and certified cost and pricing data, as this action is non-

August 2023 Page 7 of 11August 2023 Page 7 of 11

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

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

XII. 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.

August 2023 Page 8 of 11August 2023 Page 8 of 11

Specific Guidance for Completing this Template

I. Agency and Contracting Activity. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1))

Self-explanatory

II. Nature and description of the action being processed. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2))

An individual J&A is for a single contract. State whether the action is a new contract or a modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the contract type(s) planned (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee). If exception 2 is cited (unusual or compelling urgency), include the date of UCA/contract/modification issuance and amount.

An individual J&A cannot be used to support more than one contract action 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. Stoehner Security Services, Inc., 248077.3, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 286 at 6. This principle applies with equal force and effect whenever a contracting officer seeks to exercise FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) if the contract that incorporated that clause by reference is not a Service Contract Labor Standards-covered contract, as such contracts do not include wage determinations that establish “prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor.” FAR 52.217-8. See Major Contracting Services, Inc., B-401472, Sep. 14, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 170 at 6, mot. for reconsid. den., Department of the Army --Reconsideration, B-401472.2, Dec. 7. 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 250 at 5-6. In the alternative, the J&A supporting the basic contract must be a Class J&A.

Although a Class J&A may be written for multiple awards to a single source, or multiple awards to various sources, it must describe each proposed contract action separately so it is clear that each such action is within scope of that Class J&A. FAR 6.303-1(d).

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

Describe the supplies, services, or supplies and services to be acquired. Identify the quantities of each item, the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance, the type of appropriation(s) that will acquire those supplies/services, the total estimated value of the acquisition (including options), and the methodology used to arrive at that total estimated value. Provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the approving official that the acquisition of intellectual property (IP) and associated IP rights will satisfy the program's requirements, acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan.

The program's requirements for IP and IP rights in the Request for Proposals (RFP) must be consistent with the program's acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan. Accordingly, approving officials will ensure this section of the J&A:

(1) States whether the CLIN structure will include separately-priced CLINs for intellectual property (IP) and IP rights. Once the DFARS is revised to implement 10 U.S.C. § 4236, Air Force contracting officers will be required to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for IP and associated IP rights. Air Force contracting officers must start thinking now how they will do so during sole-source and competitive negotiations and how the resulting contract will reflect the results of those negotiations. Otherwise, they may be caught flat-footed if the RFP did not include such separately-priced CLINs and the Director of Defense Pricing and Contracting issues the final rule implementing 10 U.S.C. § 4236 --the effective date of which occurs one day prior to the award date. See also FAR 7.105(b)(14)(iii) and DFARS 215.470(a);

(2) Lists the titles of all such IP (including digital models) to be to be acquired contained in Exhibits A-N of the draft Request for Proposals; and

(3) Identifies the type of IP rights to be acquired to those deliverables (including the IP rights to be acquired to contract administration information since the standard DFARS clauses do not grant the Air Force any license rights to that type of IP).

Mission-focused business leaders are encouraged to engage early in the acquisition life-cycle with industry regarding the subjects of IP and IP rights. They are also encouraged to consult with approving officials, designees, or both, regarding those subjects well in advance of submitting a draft J&A to the appropriate approving official.

For Class J&As, identify each contract action (contract, modification) to be authorized by the proposed J&A for each potential offeror. If the same information applies to more than one contract, it need only be stated once.

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

August 2023 Page 10 of 11August 2023 Page 10 of 11

VI. Determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7))

Include the following text, suitably tailored: “Based upon (1) certified cost or pricing data provided in the offeror's proposal, (2) the program office's technical analysis of the offeror's Basis of Estimates (BOE), and (3) inputs from the Defense Contract Management Agency, including from the Administrative Contracting Officer, the contracting officer expects they will be able to determine that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.”

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(8))

Discuss any market research conducted pursuant to FAR Part 10 (in addition to any actions described in Section VI above) and describe the results of that research. 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. Discuss what relevant documentation the contracting officer provided to respondents in a bidders library (e.g., capability development document, system engineering plan, system requirements document, statement of work/ performance work statement, technical data package, compliance documents). Discuss how the contracting officer shared the Government's analysis of each respondent's response with that respondent.

If market research was not conducted, so state and provide the rationale.

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(i))

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, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed or are not available. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(i)).

IX. List of sources, if any, that expressed interest in the acquisition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(10))

If all interested sources are identified in Section V, it is acceptable to state, “See Section V above.”

X. 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. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(11))

Describe any actions taken or to be taken to foster competition for future acquisitions of the supplies or services being acquired.

Describe potential actions the program office will take to remove existing barriers to competition identified in the justification and include a milestone schedule for accomplishing those actions. For example, if the barrier to competing acquisition of the supplies and services described in Section III is the lack of IP deliverables or sufficient IP rights to those deliverables, identify and analyze what possible steps could be taken to:

(a) Acquire those IP deliverables and associated IP rights,

(b) Implement a modular open system approach consistent with the program's capability development document, acquisition strategy, and system engineering plan (10 U.S.C. §§ 4401-4403), or

(c) Reverse engineer subsystems or components of the end items described in Section III.

IAW DFARS PGI 206.304(a)(S-70)(ii), for a non-competitive follow-on acquisition to a previous award for the same supply or service supported by a J&A citing the authority at FAR 6.302-1, include a copy of the previous J&A and include a discussion of the actions planned to overcome barriers to competition established in the previous justification, the status of those actions, and the results of those actions. The approval authority shall determine whether the planned actions were completed. If the planned actions were not completed, the justification for the follow-on acquisition shall be approved by the approval authority one-level above the approval authority for the previous justification. If the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) approved the previous justification, the approval remains at the SPE level.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(12))

As evidenced by their signature, the contracting officer certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their

August 2023 Page 11 of 11 knowledge and belief.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel. (FAR 6.303-2(c))

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.