FAR 6 - JA Other Than Full and Open Competition_DACMS Requirement_Signed.pdf

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

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 6

Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A? Yes No

Is this a new or amended J&A Document? New Amended ( Prior to Award Only! )

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at DAFFARS 5302.101? Yes No

Dollar Value of this Acquisition: < $750K > $750K and < $15M > $15M and < $100M > $100M

Contracting Activity: 763rd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron - Flight PKB

Purchase Request (if available) / Local ID Number: F3SF375226A002

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Deployable Automated Cargo Measuring System (DACMS) Requirement

Program Type (PEO, Enterprise, of Operational): Enterprise

Authority:

6.302-1 – 10 USC 3204(a)(1), Only One Responsible Source - No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $ 9,991,904.79 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION ( DAFFARS 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

12 Sep 2025

Requiring Activity SALINAS, PETER MSgt

AMC A4T1 618.520.3574

Signature

X

Date

12 Sep 2025

Contracting Officer

PENDRAGON, LISA R., CIV USAF

763 ESS /PKB 505.225.9752

Signature

X

Date

12 Sep 2025

Legal Reviewer

MARTIN, BRYAN T. CIV USAF

HQ AMC/JACQ, 618.229.0025

Signature

X

Date Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO)

GROSS, LISA A., CIV USAF

DIRECTOR 763 ESS 618.256.9995

Signature

X

APPROVAL ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a))

Date

12 Sep 2025

Command Competition Advocate

MADISON, SUSAN R. CIV USAF

AFICC - OL AMC

618.229.0267

Signature

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 6

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

The Department of the Air Force (DAF), Air Force Installation Contracting Center (AFICC), 763d Enterprise Sourcing Squadron (763 ESS), Flight B (PKB), located at 510 POW/MIA Drive, Bldg. P40, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5022, is responsible for the proposed contracting action.

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

This is an individual Brand Name Only (BNO) Justification and Approval (J&A) (FAR 6.302-1(c)) supporting the 763 ESS/PKB intentions to award a contract for Deployable Automated Cargo Measurement Systems (DACMS), which are manufactured by Intercomp Company. The resulting award is anticipated to be a Firm-Fixed Price Contract with a 12 month delivery date.Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25).

It is the Contracting Officer's determination that this requirement is a Bona Fide Need for the current 2025 fiscal year: the need for these items arose in FY 25 but delivery will extend into the following fiscal year due to their classification as long lead time items, requiring significant manufacturing and material procurement periods. This situation falls under a recognized exception to the bona fide needs rule, which generally requires that purchases be used within the same fiscal year they are contracted for. This exception is permissible when the time between contracting and delivery is reasonable, the items are not readily available commercial products, and the procurement addresses a legitimate need identified within the current fiscal year. In essence, the unavoidable delay due to specialized manufacturing justifies receiving these items in the subsequent fiscal year, as fulfilling the FY25 need necessitates a longer lead time than the standard procurement process allows. IAW US Code, Title 31, Section 1502, we are permitted to "consider normal production lead-time in determining bona fide need for a purchase.

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

Intercomp Company Part Number:

160154 - DoD Portable DACMS

AMC/A4T1 program requires the procurement of sixty-seven (67) Deployable Automated Cargo Measuring Systems (DACMS) to enhance cargo processing and deployment capabilities. Each DACMS unit is a critical component and is comprised of four (4) high-precision Weigh-In-Motion (WIM) scales manufactured by Intercomp Company, utilizing part number 160154.

A key requirement of the DACMS is its seamless integration and interoperability with existing Department of Defense (DoD) logistics and transportation systems. The Intercomp WIM scales are required to interface directly with the following systems:

Integrated Computerized Deployment System (ICODE), Global Air Transportation Execution System (GATES), Cargo Movement Operations System (CMOS), Logistics Module (LoGMOD), and Transportation Coordinators' Automated Information for Movement System II (TCAIMSII). This interoperability ensures efficient data exchange, streamlined cargo tracking, and improved situational awareness across all branches of the DoD.

To ensure the longevity and reliable operation of the DACMS, a comprehensive three (3) year warranty is mandated for each of the sixty-seven (67) kits. This warranty covers all aspects of the system's functionality, including hardware and software components. Importantly, all warranty-related repairs and maintenance services must be provided at no additional cost to the Government. This comprehensive warranty minimizes the risk of downtime and ensures the Government receives maximum value from its investment in the DACMS program.

Necessary training shall also be provided to government personnel within 10 business days of delivery. The training shall be

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 6 considered incidental, completed in 1-2 days, and must ensure proficiency with operation, troubleshooting, and maintenance requirements to allow personnel to safely, independently, and effectively operate the system.

The Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) breakdown will be:

CLIN Description CLIN Type Qty Unit 0001 Deployable Automated Cargo Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) 43 Each (EA) Measuring System (DACMS)(CONUS)

0002 DACMS (OCONUS) FFP 22 EA

0003 DACMS (PACAF) FFP 1 EA

0004 DACMS (USAFE) FFP 1 EA

0005 DACMS 3-year warranty NSP 0006 DACMS 2-day Training NSP

Delivery Due Date: As soon as possible after award.

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

Sub-subsection 1. IAW FAR 6.302-1 this acquisition will be a new contract for the purchase of Brand Name Only (BNO) for highly specialized DACMS equipment. The purpose of that contract is to acquire and maintain the DACMS kit for weight-in-motion portable scales which is considered highly specialized equipment because it's the only commercially available system that integrates seamlessly with Air Force manifesting and load-planning systems, and the Army's cargo movement system, offering proprietary wireless/Bluetooth capabilities, solar power options, and an existing Authority to Operate (ATO) on DoD networks. The system's unique ability to interface with manifesting systems negates the need for manual inputs and imports/exports, streamlining operations. Therefore, this acquisition is brand name only.

Sub-subsection 2. Contractor's Unique Capabilities and No Other Satisfactory Type of Supplies Intercomp Co. possesses unique capabilities and qualifications. It has developed the DACMS system, which is specifically designed for weight-in-motion measurements of cargo and vehicles in a military environment. Intercomp Co. has facilities, personnel, and potentially special tooling acquired over the life of DACMS to specifically develop and maintain the DACMS. No other type of supplies will satisfy the agency's requirements because generic measurement equipment will not interface with the Air Force's manifesting and load-planning systems. Manual data entry would be required, which is time-consuming and error-prone. Market research demonstrates that other commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) weigh-in-motion scales lack the same interface capabilities as the DACMS system. Crucially, the Intercomp Co. DACMS is the only weight-in-motion scale with an Authority to Operate (ATO) with the Army and the Air Force due to its compatibility with the Army cargo movement system.

Sub-subsection 3. A4TI has determined that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements. Acquiring a new weight-in-motion system from another vendor would necessitate obtaining a new Approval to Operate (ATO) for Air Force networks. This process is a significant undertaking, due to the rigorous evaluation and validation processes mandated by Air Force cybersecurity policies and procedures. These procedures include extensive documentation, vulnerability assessments, security testing, and continuous monitoring implementation. These activities add an estimated minimum of 6-12 months to fielding a new system. Beyond the ATO, a new vendor's system would require integration with existing Air Force and Army manifesting and load-planning systems. The DACMS system has proprietary wireless/Bluetooth capabilities that negates the need for wired connection from the scales to the laser profiling towers.

Market research conducted revealed other commercial of the shelf weigh in motion scales did not offer the same interface capabilities that the DACMS system provides. A system with different interfaces and proprietary wireless capabilities would require programming, testing, and integration. This process could take up to 3 years. The combined delays from ATO and system integration would result in unacceptable delays of up to 48 months in the continued production of the DACMS. This delay would hamper the Air Force's ability to accurately and efficiently weigh cargo, potentially impacting deployment timelines and operational readiness.

Further, A4T1 has also determined that award to any other source would result in at a minimum of $1M in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition to to develop an entire system and gain authority to operate on DoD systems.

Sub-subsection 4. Conclusion Accordingly, DACMS kit is the only brand capable of providing the supplies described in

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 6

Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements and causing mission failure.

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.

IAW DFARS PGI 206.302-1 (d) a Request for Information was posted on August 18, 2025 with responses due August 25, 2025. To further broaden the reach, all authorized resellers were also contacted directly via email. The Government received three responses to the sources sought from authorized resellers indicating their interest in the requirement. While Intercomp Company serves as the sole manufacturer of the DACMS, the market benefits from having eight authorized resellers. This expands the avenues for procurement and potentially fosters competition among the resellers in terms of pricing and service offerings. While Intercomp holds the largest market share as the sole manufacturer, the resellers also hold a portion of the market share as well.

A combined synopsis/solicitation for BNO DACMS will be posted to GPE for all responsible parties to respond.

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

The Contracting Officer anticipates they will be able to determine the price the Government pays as fair and reasonable based off adequate price competition. However, should only one proposal be submitted, the Contracting Officer will utilize the price analysis techniques found in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine a fair and reasonable price when evaluating prices.

These techniques include comparison to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than Government, comparison to the independent government cost estimate, and competitive published price lists. Since these systems are commercial products, comparison to prices paid by the public, historical prices paid in the past (such as the deliveries at Kadena), and alternative WIM scale pricing can also be utilized to determine prices fair and reasonable.

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

Searches of AbilityOne and FPI databases on August 2025 indicated that the required DACMS or similar items are not available through those programs. The DACMS kits are, however, available on GSA Contract - GS-07F-078BA (ends: Dec 31, 2028) and the Kadena Air Force Base IDIQ contract (FA527023D0010). Despite theoretical use of the IDIQ contract, its remaining ceiling is insufficient and modification is not feasible due to associated delays. DACMS is commercially available from Intercomp and authorized resellers, and no immediate environmental, safety, or market concerns exist.

The Government likely constitutes a minority of the overall market for DACMS units. The item is a commercial product sold across various industries and applications. This means that pricing is driven by broad commercial market forces. We need to consider that the Government's demand is just one element influencing price and availability, compared to the broader demand from the entire customer base.

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

The DACMS system since its procurement has been extensively utilized in every military exercise/ Dynamic Force Employment (DFE) within PACAF. As a singular example, the DACMS system was utilized to support exercise Cope North, where it successfully executed nine (9) missions reducing the time to measure, generate load manifests and load cargo from 72 hours during the previous years exercise to 12 hours this year. This is a verifiable reduction by 84%.

The DACMS system has implemented into the Air Force Technical School House at Sheppard AFB, establishing a standard of training utilizing this system across logistics career fields. Additionally, the Army and the Marine Corp utilize the DACMS system since 2013, meaning implementation of this system in the Air Force will standardize logistics equipment across the DoD, boosting the joint

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 6 capabilities and interoperability of the military service branches. Furthermore, the DACMS system requested is deployable, and simple to setup and operate. The system is ready-made to support the Multi-Capable Airman (MCA) and Agile Combat Employment (ACE) initiatives in the priority theatre and all geographical commands. It is imperative that all service members are trained on the same equipment, across all branches.

In 2023 Project Kinetic Cargo was the number one (1) selected project for Tesseract (SAF/A4L) Aether Sprint and was a DAF Spark Tank finalist. DACMS removes the manual labor and input of outdated weighing methods of the past such as yardsticks, manual calculators, tape measures and 50 pound scales. Resulting in an overall, reduction in the time to weigh cargo from 20 minutes to seven to eight (7-8) seconds. This is a benchmark reduction by 99%. Additionally, implementation of the DACMS system and the removal of manual labor to weigh cargo reduces the risk of injury to personnel performing these functions. At locations that have adopted the DACMS system there have been no recorded injuries attributed to weighing and measuring cargo. This is a vital benefit to the DoD to ensure our service members are not taken out of the fight preemptively due to outdated equipment and processes.

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

Intercomp Company B&H International LLC

ADS, INC.

X. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

While acquiring Intercomp Co. DACMS units necessitates a brand name justification, it's important to note that competition exists among the eight authorized Intercomp Co. resellers. This allows for price negotiation and potentially other advantageous terms.

The reason a brand name justification is required stems from the DACMS unit's unique attributes that, at present, have no direct equivalent offering the same level of security authorization. Specifically, the DACMS is the only weight in motion scale currently possessing an Authority to Operate (ATO). This ATO is a critical requirement for our operational needs. While the kits themselves contain various components and utilize proprietary wireless/Bluetooth capabilities, the lack of an ATO for any alternative scale is the primary driver for the brand name justification.

Acquiring a scale without an ATO presents an unacceptable risk and would be a show-stopper for similar programs due to compliance requirements. Achieving ATO certification for an alternative vendor’s scale would be a lengthy and resource-intensive process. While we acknowledge the potential for future alternatives, until another company develops a similar weight motion scale (which meet the minimum specifications required) and successfully obtains an ATO, DACMS manufactured by Intercomp Co. remains the only viable option that meets the minimum specifications required.

To further mitigate any potential limitations associated with a brand name justification, the mission partner will actively monitor the market for emerging solutions. This includes actively researching companies with potentially similar product offerings and encouraging them to pursue ATO accreditation. Specifically, the mission partner will engage with potential vendors and provide clear guidance on the requirements necessary for ATO approval. Furthermore, will re-evaluate this brand name justification periodically, specifically when the market indicates new alternatives capable of meeting our requirements and securing an ATO, to ensure we are always leveraging the most competitive and advantageous solutions.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 6

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 our signatures above, we certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is our responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

Remove the Guidance pages below.

August 2023 Page of International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR) Page of 13 May 2022 Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A?

!! Attach the preceding J&A in the staff package for this J&A. The preceding J&A will be used as a reference document.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document?

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at DAFFARS 5302.101?

Dollar Value of this Acquisition:

J&A Type:

!! Provide estimated cost of all contracts.

COORDINATION ( DAFFARS 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 ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) NOTE 1: A signature block will appear here (replacing these notes) based on the "Dollar Value of this Acquisition" selected above. Since most digital signatures that include date/time-stamps are redacted before they are made publicly available, always insert the date in the “Date” cell when affixing a digital signature to this document.

NOTE 2: Some types of acquisitions awarded under circumstances where full and open competition is not required by statute do not have to be supported by a written justification and approval. See 10 U.S.C. § 3204(e)(7); FAR 6.302-5(c)(2). For Class J&As, all contracts within the class must fall within the same statutory authority.

NOTE 3: Users of this template are directed to SAF/AQC Policy Memo 22-C-02, or latest issuance, which provides detailed instructions on how to complete each section of a J&A. The memo will be posted at the following location:

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/KnowledgeCenter/Documents/Contracting_Memos/Policy/22-C-02.pdf (See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" after item XII below.)

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

X. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

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 acquisition.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)) Provide detailed facts sufficient to justify the use of the particular authority cited. Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of a lack of advance planning or concerns relating to the amount of funds available (e.g., expiring funds). (FAR 6.301(c)).

Check the applicable box below. Checking a box will display the text for that section.

In the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, the rationale must first justify the supplies/services as either associated with a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment”. It 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 those situations apply, the rationale can be based upon either or both of those two situations. This authority shall not be used when any of the other authorities apply.

Sub-subsection 1. FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) require that the J&A demonstrate that specific conditions have been satisfied. Therefore, this sub-section must deconstruct the specific words in those provisions and demonstrate to the appropriate approving official how the proposed acquisition satisfies those words.

For example, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the proposed acquisition is a “follow-on contract” by identifying the current contract number of the contract the intended awardee of that “follow-on contract” is currently performing, the basis of award for that contract (competitive, sole-source), the purpose of that contract, the date of contract award, and the date that contract will expire. PTC, Inc., B-416863, Dec. 20, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 48 at 6-7. This subsection must also demonstrate the proposed acquisition will continue “development” or “production” of a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof” or provide “highly specialized services.” In the case of the former, this subsection must either identify the ACAT I or II program --since the legal definition of a “major system” includes ACAT I and II programs --or explain why the equipment sought to be acquired is “highly specialized” for which the proposed acquisition will “continue[ ] development or production”. In the alternative, this subsection must explain why the services sought to be acquired are “highly specialized”.

If the planned acquisition will result in a “bridge” contract that contains options, this subsection must explain why options are necessary. If significant lead time is required prior to approval of the J&A in order to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III, this subsection should mention that fact and explain why that is the case.

Next, this sub-subsection should add a concluding sentence to the end of this subsection, suitably tailored; e.g., “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of a major system.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of a major system.”, “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued provision of highly specialized services.”

The purpose of that sentence is to bring the approving official back to the regulatory requirements the preceding paragraphs of this section of the J&A have discussed to demonstrate the J&A satisfies those requirements.

Sub-subsection 2. Thoroughly describe the contractor's unique/highly specialized capabilities and qualifications (e.g., facilities, personnel, special tooling acquired), (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)), and why no other type of supplies or services will satisfy the agency requirements.

Sub-subsection 3. This subsection should begin with the following sentence, suitably tailored:

“The __[insert program office name]__ 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.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ 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 and unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Government's requirements.”

The purpose of this opening sentence is to direct the approving official's attention to which specific words in FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) will be the basis for going sole-source.

Next, when the rationale for going sole-source is based upon substantial duplication of cost, this sub-subsection must include an estimate of the amount of cost that would be duplicated (e.g., training required so that another source could acquire the skills necessary to perform the work, equipment, facilities) less the estimated cost to run a competition. (For example, the development costs the Government incurred under the existing contract or similar programs may provide insight into the amount of cost duplication were the proposed acquisition to be competed.) This sub-subsection should also identify the organization(s) that/who performed the analyses that supports those estimates, and describe the analysis that/those organization(s) performed to arrive at both estimates. The methodology must account for inflation during the projected remaining life cycle of the acquisition. (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A); FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(ii)).

When, however, the rationale for going sole-source is based upon unacceptable delay, this sub-subsection must state how long it would take someone else to obtain this capability (in months/years) and why, and provide a detailed explanation of the impact or problem caused by the delay. When describing the impact or problem caused by the delay, the rationale must identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III and the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in that section, and the reduction (or frustration) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. The explanation provided must be commensurate with the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in Section III (e.g., longer delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance necessitate a more detailed explanation). (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(B) & (iii)(B)).

Although the existence of IP rights retained by the developer make the supplies and services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Therefore, if the program office will use that rationale to justify going sole-source, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the program office performed sufficient due diligence to validate the developer retains such IP rights that require the use of this authority to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III. Specifically, this sub-subsection must explain:

(1) What IP rights the Government acquired to what IP deliverables under predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section and why those rights are insufficient to compete acquisition of the supplies or services described in Section III;

(2) What IP clauses (include the month/year of issuance) or applicable commercial computer software licenses were included into all of those predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section;

(3) Whether those predecessor contracts included the Deferred Ordering clause (DFARS 252.227-7027) and if so, why the program office did not exercise its rights to acquire needed IP deliverables by exercising its rights under that clause;

(4) Why the Government did not acquire sufficient IP deliverables and IP rights under that/those predecessor contract(s) that would have precluded the need to go sole-source for the proposed acquisition (e.g., acquisition strategies for those predecessor contracts were based upon the Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) initiative);

(5) What IP deliverables did the program office acquire under that/those predecessor contract(s) and what restrictive markings did the developer affix to those deliverables;

(6) What pre-challenge requests for information or formal challenges the program office initiated in response to a developer's assertions of development at private expense (DFARS 252.227-7019, DFARS 252.227-7037) and what analysis the program office performed of the information it received in response to that request or formal challenge;

(7) What investigation the program office conducted to determine whether the IP deliverables provided under that/those predecessor contract(s) was/were developed in whole or in part at Government expense (e.g., reviewing the developer's IR&D project approvals and accounting records, reviewing earned value management data and integrated program management reports);

(8) Assuming the results of that investigation validate the developer's assertion of development at private expense, what if any steps did the contracting officer take to request the developer propose a price to furnish the IP deliverables and IP licenses needed to compete the proposed acquisition; and

(9) The extent to which the program office considered reverse engineering any subsystems or components of the end item described in Section III (and summarize the estimated cost to reverse engineer those subsystems or components and the time it would take to complete such reverse engineering activities); or considered use of a modular open system approach to acquire those subsystems or components consistent with the program's capability development document, acquisition strategy, and system engineering plan. (DFARS 207.106(S-72)(2)(v); DFARS 227.7103-5(d)(2)(iii)).

Although the control of basic raw material makes the supplies or services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights or circumstances does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Under such circumstances, this sub-section must identify how the intended source acquired a monopoly on those raw materials.

When acquiring utility services, circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service, or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(3)).

When the agency head has determined in accordance with the agency's standardization program that only specified makes and models of technical equipment and parts will satisfy the agency's needs for additional units or replacement items and only one source is available, (FAR 6.302-1(b)(4)), this sub-section must identify the relevant standardization program.

Notwithstanding FAR 6.302-1(c)(2), a justification and approval is required in order to use brand name or equal descriptions or the use of proprietary specifications or standards. (DFARS 206.302-1(c)(2) and (S-70)).

Sub-subsection 4. When using the rationale described in sub-subsection 3 above, conclude this subsection by including one of the following sentences, as applicable:

“Accordingly, ___[insert company name]___ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be recovered through competition.”, “Accordingly, __[insert company name]__ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

“Accordingly, __[insert company name]__, is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

The purpose of this sentence is to restate for the approving official's benefit which rationale(s) is/are the basis for going sole-source, thereby sensitizing them to the fact the author will now turn to discussing a different topic.

Contracting Officers must notify SAF/AQC as soon as practicable when contemplating the use of this authority for a J&A requiring SPE approval.

Provide an explanation why the supplies or services are needed at once due to, e.g., fire, flood, explosion, other disaster, emergency) or essential equipment or repairs to that equipment are needed at once to facilitate meeting critical mission needs of the Government. Identify the nature of the urgency, the reasons for it occurring, and the extent of the anticipated serious injury to the Government -- thereby demonstrating why the Government's need for the supplies or services described in Section III is of “unusual and compelling urgency” to preclude adverse impact to military readiness. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(iii)). In other words, identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III and the reduction (or elimination) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. 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. In addition, the period of performance CANNOT exceed one year, including all options unless the head of the agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply (FAR 6.302-2(d)(ii)); thus, the inclusion of options when using this authority is not advised.

Note: This statutory authority requires that agencies request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-2(c)(2)).

Justifications citing this authority must demonstrate the need to maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization; to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center; or to acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute. If the proposed contract will require the contractor to keep vital facilities or suppliers in business or make them available in the event of a national emergency, train a supplier in the furnishing of critical supplies or services, prevent the loss of a supplier's ability and employees' skills, or maintain active engineering, research, or development work, maintain properly balanced sources of supply, create or maintain the required domestic capability for production of critical supplies, or continue in production where there would otherwise be a break in production, or divide current production requirements among two or more contractors, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(1)). If the proposed contract will establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an education or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center for theoretical analyses, exploratory studies, experiments in any field of science of technology, or engineering or development work calling for the practical application of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)). If the proposed contract will acquire the services of an expert to use in any litigation, dispute, or alternative dispute resolution proceedings involving the Government, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(3)).

Identify the applicable statute explicitly authorizing other than full and open competition. (FAR 6.302-5(b); DFARS 206.302-5(b)). The following is a non-exclusive list of statutes lifted from FAR 6.302-5(b) that authorize acquiring supplies and services from specified sources or through another agency:

(1) Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) (18 U.S.C. § 4124 (see FAR Subpart 8.6).

(2) Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely disabled (41 U.S.C. Chapter 85) Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see FAR Subpart 8.7).

(3) Government Printing and Binding (44 U.S.C. §§ 501-504, 1121 (see FAR Subpart 8.8)).

(4) Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program (15 U.S.C. § 637), but see FAR 6.303 for requirements for justification and approval of sole-source 8(a) awards over $25 million. (See FAR Subpart 19.8).

(5) Sole source awards under the HUBZone Act of 1997 (15 U.S.C. § 657a)(see FAR 19.1306).

(6) Sole source awards under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. § 657f).

(7) Sole source awards under the WOSB Program (15 U.S.C. § 637(m)(see FAR 19.1506).

Note: Some statutes do not require a written J&A.

Full and open competition need not be provided for when the disclosure of the agency's needs would compromise the national security (e.g., would violate security requirements) unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals. Accordingly, if this authority is used, this section shall explain how these conditions are satisfied.

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 FAR 5.2 and, if not, indicate which exception under FAR 5.202 applies. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(6); FAR 6.303-2(b)(8); FAR 6.303-2(b)(10)) The contracting officer shall issue a sources sought synopsis or an RFI, provide the date the synopsis was issued, the synopsis number, and a brief description of its content. Identify the number of responses received, the names of the respondents, the results of the screening process, and the rationale for determining the unacceptability of any respondents, unless exempted by the MAJCOM SCO or Operating Location SCO with rank of GO or SES, otherwise approval by the HCA is required. (FAR 6.302-1(d)(2); DFARS 206.302-1(d); DFARS PGI 206.302-1(d); AFFARS 6306.302-1(d); AFFARS MP5301.601(a)(i)).

Specify whether this acquisition will require a Notice of proposed Contract Action (NOCA) IAW FAR 5.201 and if not, provide the exception IAW FAR 5.202. If a NOCA was or will be publicized provide the dates or expected dates of publication of the NOCA. Address any other actions taken or planned to facilitate competition for this acquisition.

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-1, an RFI or Sources Sought Synopsis is mandatory. (DFARS PGI 206.303-2(b)(i)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-2, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances unless the Government would be seriously injured if the agency complied with the time periods specified in FAR 5.203. (FAR. 5.202(a)(2); FAR 603.2-2(b)(2)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-3, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action is for utility services other that telecommunications services and only one source is available. (FAR 5.202(a)(5)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-5, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action results from acceptance of a proposal under the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. (FAR 5.202(a)(7)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-6, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-6(c)(3)). The fact that a proposed solicitation or contact action contains classified information, or that access to classified information may be necessary to submit a proposal or perform the contract does not, in itself exempt that proposed contract action from the synopsis requirement. (FAR 52.202(a)(1)). Under such circumstances, this section must identify what alternatives the program office used to compete this requirement (e.g., accessing the National Reconnaissance Office's (NRO) Acquisition Research Center's Central Contractor Registry database or the National Security Agency's (NSA) Acquisition Resource Center's Business Registry database to identify potential cleared offerors and summarize what outreach the program office conducted with those potential cleared offerors to determine their interest in the proposed acquisition).

If qualifying country sources have expressed interest, but will be excluded, provide supporting rationale.

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).