FAR_Part6_Justification_and_Approval_MILES_24Sept26.pdf

Control Number:

Contractor: Cubic Defense Applications, Inc.

Program/Equipment: MILES IWS2

JUNE 2025

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR Part 6 Justification and Approval for Other than Full and Open Competition

Program/Equipment: Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES) Individual Weapon System (IWS) 2 kits for the .

Authority: Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.) §3204(a)(1) as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.103-1 (previously 6.302-1), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

Amount: $860,000.

Prepared by: Phone:

Assistant Program Manager (APM) Date: 26 May 2026

Contracting Officer: Phone:

Contracting Officer Date: 26 May 2026

Technical: Phone: ( APM Date: 26 May 2026

Requirements: Phone:

Product Lead (PdL) International Integrated Combat Simulation and Instrumentation (IICSI) Date: 26 May 2026

Reviews: I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support other than full and open competition.

a. Background: The U.S. Government requires the procurement of fifty-five (55)

MILES IWS 2 kits to fulfill a BPC mission for the in support of U.S. AFRICOM objectives. This requirement is derived directly from the signed BPC Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) Case , dated 14 April 2026. The LOA specifies the delivery of standardized MILES-IWS2 live-training hardware and associated NET to build partner capacity. The core technical requirement is for a system that is fully interoperable with the existing live-training architecture used by U.S.

and Allied forces.

b. Contractor's Unique Qualifications: Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. is the sole Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and exclusive proprietor of the technical data package, software source codes, and manufacturing rights for the MILES IWS 2 system, which is built to the U.S. Army's proprietary Performance Specification PRF-PT- 00543B. Due to this, Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. is the only firm that can guarantee the required level of technical interoperability. This is not a follow-on contract;

it is a new requirement. However, an analysis of prior DoD contract actions for partner nations (e.g., ) demonstrates an established acquisition strategy of procuring this specialized equipment directly from the sole-source

OEM.

c. Unsuitability of "Brand Name or Equal": The Government considered a "Brand Name or Equal" acquisition strategy but determined it to be unexecutable. An "equal" system from an alternate manufacturer would not utilize the proprietary MILES laser encoding protocols and would therefore be unable to communicate with existing U.S.

and Allied training systems, defeating the primary purpose of the requirement. A technical data package suitable for full and open competition is not available because the data is proprietary to the OEM.

d. Alternatives: The Government analyzed three alternatives to this sole-source action, all of which were deemed not to be in the Government's best interest:

i. Suspend the Requirement: Suspending or canceling this requirement is not a viable alternative. This action is funded with FY26 BPC Section 333 funds that expire on 30 September 2026. Failure to award would result in the loss of funds and a critical failure to deliver promised security cooperation capabilities to a key partner nation, negatively impacting U.S. AFRICOM theater objectives.

ii. Conduct a Competitive Acquisition: A competitive acquisition (either as a small business set-aside or full and open) is not viable.

Small Business Set-Aside: Market research identified four (4) interested small businesses, but all were legally disqualified. As non-manufacturers, they cannot comply with the Nonmanufacturer Rule (FAR 52.219-33), which requires providing the product of a small business manufacturer.

Full and Open Competition: An unrestricted competition would be an exercise in futility. Any non-OEM vendor would be forced to act as a reseller, procuring the hardware from Cubic Defense Applications, Inc.

and adding a broker markup. This would introduce unnecessary pass-through costs, preventing the Government from achieving a fair and reasonable price.

iii. Use of In-House Resources: The U.S. Government does not possess the manufacturing capabilities or proprietary data rights to produce this system internally.

e. Impact if not approved: Disapproval of this justification would have severe negative impacts on the Government's mission:

Loss of Funds: The FY26 BPC funds would expire, and the capability would not be delivered.

Mission Failure: Without this J&A, the Government would be forced to either cancel the requirement or conduct competitive actions that would result in the procurement of a non-interoperable system or the imprudent expenditure of funds on a reseller. Both outcomes would fail to meet the mission's technical and fiduciary requirements.

7. Efforts to Obtain Competition: In accordance with FAR Part 10, the Government made a concerted effort to solicit interest from as many potential sources as practicable by publishing Sources Sought Notice (SSN) PANORL-26-P-0000-026741 on SAM.gov.

The notice was active for a total of ten business days (13 May 2026 to 26 May 2026).

The SSN generated formal capability statements from five (5) vendors: four (4) small businesses and the OEM.

A comprehensive evaluation of the submissions confirmed that only the OEM, Cubic Defense Applications, Inc., is a viable and capable source. The four (4) small business respondents were determined to be technically non-responsive and legally ineligible to perform as prime contractors, as they failed to demonstrate manufacturing capability and could not provide a legally executable plan to comply with the Nonmanufacturer Rule (FAR 52.219-33) or the Limitations on Subcontracting

(FAR 52.219-14).

The Contracting Officer will publish the Notice of Intent to Sole Source required by FAR 5.201, and any capability statements, bids, or proposals received as a result of that synopsis shall be considered.

a. Effective competition: Effective competition is not anticipated for this acquisition. Because the required MILES IWS2 system is a proprietary technology exclusive to Cubic Defense Applications, Inc., and the OEM does not utilize an authorized commercial distributor network, no other prime contractor can legally or technically satisfy the requirement. Any attempt to artificially induce competition by soliciting third-party integrators would merely result in redundant pass-through broker markups on the OEM's hardware, which does not constitute effective, value-added competition.

b. Subcontracting competition: Due to the relatively low dollar value of this firm fixed-price supply acquisition (estimated at $860,000), the requirement falls below the threshold for a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 19.702). However, in its capability statement, the OEM indicated that while the primary manufacturing will be performed in-house, they intend to maximize competition for minor ancillary support tasks (such as local logistics and shipping coordination into by soliciting competitive quotes from capable subcontractors within their established supply chain.

8. Actions to Increase Competition: This acquisition is a new requirement to support a BPC mission for the ; it is not a follow-on to a previous contract action for this specific partner nation.

There are currently no viable actions the Government can take to increase competition for this immediate requirement. The MILES IWS2 system is a Commercial-Off-The- Shelf (COTS) item built to proprietary OEM specifications. The Government does not own the technical data package or the manufacturing rights and procuring those proprietary data rights from Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. for the purpose of fostering full and open competition would be cost-prohibitive and is not in the best interest of the Government. Furthermore, breaking out individual subsystems or components for competition is unexecutable, as the proprietary software architecture requires a fully integrated end-item to ensure joint-force interoperability.

To remove or overcome barriers to competition for future acquisitions, the Government will continue to monitor the live-training and simulation market via SAM.gov, industry days, and the GSA eLibrary. Should the OEM authorize third-party commercial distributors, or should another manufacturer develop a commercial system proven to be fully interoperable with the existing U.S. and allied Cubic Defense Applications, Inc.

MILES architecture without requiring reverse-engineering, the Government will consider competitive acquisition strategies for future requirements.

9. Market Research: In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 10 and DFARS 210.001, market research was conducted between 13 May 2026 and 26 May 2026 to identify all qualified sources for this requirement. This research is current and was conducted within 12 months of this justification's approval date.

The primary market research technique was the issuance of a SSN, PANORL-26-P-0000-026741, posted on SAM.gov. To ensure maximum industry participation, the SSN was active for a total of 14 calendar days (10 business days).

The notice was amended once during the posting period to correct an administrative error and extend the response deadline, confirming a meaningful attempt was made to solicit interest.

The SSN generated formal responses from five (5) vendors: the OEM, Cubic Defense Applications, Inc., and four (4) small businesses. A comprehensive evaluation of these submissions, as detailed in the Market Research Report (MRR), concluded that only Cubic Defense Applications, Inc., is a viable and responsible source. The evaluation found that the four (4) responding small businesses are legally ineligible to perform as prime contractors for this specific supply requirement due to the following factors:

Violation of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR): As this is a supply contract, any small business prime must provide the product of a small business manufacturer (FAR 52.219-33). Market research confirms that the required proprietary MILES IWS 2 system is exclusively manufactured by Cubic, a Large Business, and no SBA waiver exists.

Inability to Meet Subcontracting Limitations: The small business respondents failed to provide a viable plan to comply with FAR 52.219-14, which requires the prime contractor to perform at least 50% of the cost of manufacturing the supplies. As non-manufacturers, they cannot meet this threshold.

Failure to Establish Technical Capability: None of the small business respondents demonstrated the technical experience or access to proprietary data required to manufacture or integrate the system to the Government's standards.

In addition to the SSN, market research included an analysis of historical procurement data for similar MILES systems provided to partner nations (e.g., , ), which established a clear precedent of sole-source awards to the

OEM.

Based on these comprehensive results, the Contracting Officer determined that there is no reasonable expectation of receiving offers from two or more responsible small does not exist for this proprietary system. This factual impossibility legally disqualifies from a small business set-aside award.

Consequently, Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. is the only interested source deemed technically capable and legally responsible to fulfill the agency's requirement.

6. Other Facts:

Procurement history. This is a new requirement for the country of . However, a review of prior PME ST3 PDL IICSI contracts for similar proprietary MILES training systems demonstrates a consistent and legally established precedent of sole sourcing these requirements to the OEM, Cubic Defense Applications, Inc., under the authority of

FAR 6.103-1.

A representative list of this procurement history is provided below:

Contract Number Supported Nation Procurement Method Authority Cited

Sole Source FAR 6.103-1

1. Prior Contracts & Competitive Status: The contracts listed above, executed for other partner nations, were all awarded on a sole-source basis to the OEM.

2. Authority Previously Cited: The authority previously cited for these sole-source awards was FAR 6.103-1, Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, consistent with the current action.

3. Changed Circumstances: There have been no prior competitive awards for this specific proprietary system. The circumstances have not changed; the Government is following the established, legally defensible precedent of awarding directly to the sole-source manufacturer to ensure technical interoperability and prudent use of funds.

4. Unusual Patterns: The only identifiable pattern is the consistent and repeated need to procure this proprietary equipment via a sole-source mechanism due to the lack of any alternative manufacturers or authorized resellers.