Final Class JA MTM-SLDv3_Redacted.pdf

CMO Control Number: 2025-015

5. Reason for Authority Cited: Award of this action on a sole source basis is necessary because the supplies required cannot be procured from sources other than GDLS without unacceptable delays. The Government does not have the pertinent rights to the technical data or the firmware to enable competitive re-procurement.

The Government reached out to GDLS on 24 September 2024 asking if

GDLS would consider selling the rights for the MTM/SLDv3 kits to the Government. On 03 October 2024, GDLS responded that at present time, GDLS was . GDLS is the only source capable of providing the MTM/SLDv3 kits described herein without unacceptable delays affecting the operational readiness of the Stryker Brigades.

a. Background: The display in the VDET currently has a 19-month lead time for replacement, with backorders. The current VDETs are sustained through the Repair and Overhaul (R/O) program; however, key components needed to sustain the VDET are obsolete. The Original Equipment Manufacturer, GDLS, attempted a last chance buy of the required materials in to sustain the system, but the components were no longer available. The MTM/SLDv3 is the only existing replacement to continue supporting the Stryker platform and sustain the fleet. The MTM/SLDv3 supports the Stryker vehicles and other Programs of Record

The and supply stock concerns. The MTM/SLDv3 is in critical need to sustain the Stryker Family of Vehicles and adjacent shared programs utilizing the Stryker platform.

The MTM/SLDv3 kits will upgrade the technology within the DVHA1 vehicles to allow the ability to perform on-board diagnostics, training, and maintenance, while providing the vehicle commander with control of essential electronic systems. Due to the 23-month long lead time for production and delivery of the MTM/SLDv3 kits, the DVHA1 fleet of the Project

Management Office Stryker Brigade Combat Team (PMO SBCT) fleet.

The MTM/SLDv3 kit consists of the MTM/SLDv3 and the integration/installation kit. The MTM/SLDv3 was developed by GDLS. They are the only source capable of supplying the MTM/SLDv3 since they

, to address the VDET obsolescence. Additionally, GDLS has the unique engineering reverse engineered components through hydro testing, survivability, reliability testing and TDP review and release.

b. Firmware development: Based on similar development efforts it would take approximately 24 months to develop the operational firmware. Firmware would have to be compatible with the existing vehicle software. The Government is restricted from sharing GDLS’s proprietary firmware data, resulting in the requirement to develop new vehicle firmware.

Firmware development would result in an additional 24-month development delay, as it would have to be developed and tested to ensure that the kit can be operational with the already existing vehicle software.

i. Firmware: Approximately 14 months to develop firmware needed to integrate software. Development consists of coding and Cyber security control integration.

ii. Software compatibility: Approximately 10 months to integrate vehicle software with new firmware, including four (4) months to conduct regression testing and lab-based testing.

c. TDP: Development and validation will take approximately 12 months which consists of computer-aided designs, Elementary Wiring Diagram development, vendor source drawing identifications, power analysis reports, Military Standard compliance reports, environmental standard specification reports, and development/production step by step processes.

Development involves reviewing the developed drawings for accuracy, markings, and distribution statements, and uploading the drawings into Windchill and validation of the TDP. TDP development and validation would run concurrently with hardware and firmware development.

ii. SSEB: Based on similar acquisitions, there is a minimum of six (6) months required for a source selection evaluation.

iii. Prototype Build and Kitting: Based on GDLS’s procurement lead times for parts and kitting, it would take 21 months to manufacture all necessary parts to be able to produce the first MTM/SLDv3 kit and two (2) months for kitting (which consists of assembling the MTM/SLDv3 kit components, harness, and packaging) for the First Article Test.

iv. First Article Testing (FAT): A minimum of 12 months is needed to complete the FAT, assuming successful performance. An unsuccessful FAT would cause additional delay. The FAT testing consists of a FAT Report, delivery and Government approval of the FAT Report and completing validation. Validation includes setting up new vehicle methods, documentation, and facilities to conduct the validation activity.

The Government conducts validation to ensure that the MTM/SLDv3 kits will operate and perform as intended.

v. ATEC Safety Testing: Prototype kits will require government safety testing on the platform. Systems will require Electromagnetic Interference (EMI), Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) testing, vehicle performance testing, grounds and bonds testing leading to an eventual safety confirmation prior to full rate production approval. It will take approximately 12 months to complete the testing and receive a Safety Confirmation form Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC).

vi. Production: Once the FAT is approved, then the contractor can order production quantities, which would begin the 23-month production lead time. These delays would make the earliest kit delivery date in 2033 (competitive procurement and not meeting the fielding windows starting thru .

The delays outlined above would impact operational readiness, as units would not have the requisite displays and capabilities to support their missions.

Stryker vehicles are NMC without the legacy display or the new MTM/SLDv3 kit. Vehicles that are NMC are not able to be fielded, which will result in a lack of vehicle availability, degrade readiness of the unit, and will effect the safety of the soldiers. The procurement of MTM/SLDv3 kits from GDLS will allow the Government to continue obtaining the required components to support a Fully Mission Capable (FMC) vehicle.

If the Government were to pursue a competitive acquisition of the MTM/SLDv3 kits, the competitive acquisition would cause an unacceptable delay, reduce warfighter readiness and disrupt vehicle fielding schedules.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

a. Effective Competition: The Government will not compete this effort for the reasons stated above in section 5. Synopsis is required and will be posted to the Government point of entry (SAM.gov) per the statutory requirements of FAR 5.201. Any proposals received will be considered.

b. Subcontracting Competition: A small business subcontracting plan is required in accordance with FAR 19.702, as GDLS is a large business. To encourage competition at the subcontractor level, the contract will contain all the required FAR and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) subcontracting clauses.

7. Action to Increase Competition: Although no further action to increase competition is contemplated at this time, the Government will continue to survey the marketplace and review the acquisition strategy, along with continuing efforts to obtain a Specifically Negotiated License, if an additional requirement for the MTM/SLDv3 kits beyond 2030 arises. Any information received will be considered to determine if a competitive acquisition should be conducted or to determine potential future requirements.

8. Market Research: The Government has surveyed the market through a

Sources Sought Notice and searched for potential suppliers to enable competition of this action. The Government issued a Sources Sought on SAM.gov from 03 October 2024 to 10 October 2024. The Sources Sought notice included questions related to experience with production and/or upgrades of ground combat vehicles, experience with United States Army Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center systems, experience with production of MTM/SLDv3 kits or similar kits, production rate, lead time for deliveries, facilities/tools and equipment used, International Organization for Standardization certification, capability to track components in inventory, experience working with Defense Contract Management Agency, experience in handling/storing/accounting for encryption data devices/hardware, and conducting root cause analysis to determine failure modes and fault isolation when required.

a. The following firms responded to the Sources Sought:

i. BHPE, LLC., (CAGE: 9SWS7)

ii. OREADY, LLC., (CAGE: 89KZ9)

Summary of Market Research: A total of two incomplete responses were received.

BHPE, LLC. – BHPE, LLC was not fully responsive. They stated that they were an interested vendor but failed to address key elements of the Sources Sought Notice, particularly how they would accomplish the requirements without access to the technical data or, alternatively, how they might obtain access to the technical data. BHPE, LLC. did not respond to any of the questions listed within the Sources Sought Notice. The BHPE, LLC submission is not considered as capable of meeting the requirements of this contract action because no support was provided to note that the company has the required experience to meet the requirement or access to technical data owned by GDLS and required to produce the MTM/SLDv3 kits.

OREADY, LLC. - OREADY, LLC was not fully responsive and failed to respond timely. Their response was received after the deadline, and it stated that they are interested should it become a fully competitive solicitation. They failed to address key elements of the Sources Sought notice, particularly how they would accomplish the requirements without access to the technical data or, alternatively, how they might obtain access to the technical data. OREADY, LLC.

did not respond to any of the questions listed within the Sources Sought Notice.

The OREADY, LLC submission is not considered as capable of meeting the requirements of this contract action because no support was provided to note that the company has the required experience to meet the requirement or access to technical data owned by GDLS and required to produce the MTM/SLDv3 kits.

Based on the results of the Sources Sought Notice neither company can provide the required MTM/SLDv3 kits.

FAR Subpart 10.002(b)(2)(iv) recommends querying the Government-wide database of contracts, which may be used by other agencies. PMO SBCT and ACC-DTA performed searches, between September and October 2024. Internet searches were performed using the Google search engine with the following terms: “Maintenance Training Module,” “Squad Leader Display version 3,” “Maintenance Training Module/Squad Leader Display version 3”, and the Kit Part Numbers, which include “LS1143013, LS1143014, LS1143015, and LS1163496.”

The same search terms were used on WebFLIS, LOGSA, www.contractdirectory.gov/contractdirectory/, and FED LOG databases to determine if there are any existing contracts or sources of supply which could satisfy this requirement. No contracts or other sources of supply were found under any of the search criteria for parts or included spare/repair components.

9. Interested Sources: To date, no other sources except as described in section 8 above have expressed an interest in this acquisition.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History:

i. PMO SBCT Production Contract:

1. Contract W56HZV-20-D-0005, Stryker Production MTM/SLDv3 Cut-In, was awarded on 23 August 2023 via Contract Modification P00010.

2. Sole-Source to GDLS.

3. 10 USC 3204(a)(1), FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B), “Only One Responsible

Source.”

4. The Government is not contemplating further competition for the

MTM/SLDv3 requirement. GDLS is the developer, integrator and manufacturer of the MTM/SLDv3 and is the only practical source that can provide the technical and logistical support.

5. N/A, no prior contract for this requirement was accomplished using full and open competition.

6. No unusual patterns were noted.

7. No significant changes were identified from the prior J&A.

11. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which is included in the above justification, is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Mr. Adam Sims Date: 12 January 2025

Title: Director of Logistics, PEO GCS, PMO

SBCT

Signature: //s// Adam Sims

12. Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Mr. Adam Sims Date: 12 January 2025

Title: Director of Logistics, PEO GCS, PMO SBCT Signature: //s// Adam Sims

13. Fair and Reasonable Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. A cost analysis will be performed to determine fair and reasonableness. Cost and pricing data will be required per DFARS 215.403-1.

Name: Marta Furman Date: 13 January 2025

Title: Procurement Contracting Officer Signature: //s// Marta Furman

14. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief:

Name: Marta Furman Date: 13 January 2025

Title: Procurement Contracting Officer Signature: //s// Marta Furman