GSM_Bridge_FOE_Redacted.pdf

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE

v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 2 of 7v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 2 of 7 able to execute the bridge contract. GSM then reached back to SAIO to create the bridge effort. The Requirements Approval Document (RAD) for this action was approved 22 December 2026. Therefore, it is necessary to issue a non-competitive solicitation for non-competitive pricing, that will result in the award of a new task order to Software Engineering Services Corporation (SES).

(3) Description of the supplies/services required to meet the agency's needs:

The USSPACECOM/J31, GSM Division, performs the day-to- day functions, roles, and responsibilities of the Global Sensor Manager, the Missile Warning Functional Manager's Office (MW FMO), the Space Domain Awareness (SDA) FMO, the Force Tracking Functional Manager's Office (FT FMO), Ground Moving Target Indicator support, Environmental Monitoring support, Joint Data Network (JDN) support, and Trans Regional Missile Defense (TRMD) support. The Global Sensor Manager has responsibility for generating globally informed risk decisions and recommendations regarding sensor command and control and in the prioritization in the employment of dedicated and contributing SDA, MW, and MD sensors in optimizing support of all mission areas, national priorities, and decision making.

This is a requirement for performance-based services with a 12-month base period with an estimated period of performance of 19 February 2026 through 18 February 2027. FAR 52.217-8 Extension of Services is also necessary to be included in the award of this requirement. It covers various Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) and knowledge-based services (KBS) within the GSM divisions to support both the Theater Missile Warning (TMW) function of the Theater Event System and the Strategic Missile Warning function of the Integrated Tactical Warning and Attack Assessment (ITW/AA). Additionally, these requirements support Shared Early Warning (SEW), which is a sub-set of TMW and the JDN. It establishes, maintains and monitors tactical data links, manages USSPACECOM tactical and operational data and ensures timely and efficient transfer of data to commanders and mission partners.

This requirement is for A&AS support and falls within scope of the GSA OASIS+ Management and Advisory Domain, specifically under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 541330 Engineering Services.

The anticipated contract line items and the corresponding line item type are as follows:

Labor: Cost Plus Fixed Fee Travel: Cost Reimbursable Other Direct Costs: Cost Reimbursable Contract Access Fee: Cost Reimbursable

The Procuring Contracting Officer and USSPACECOM have been reevaluating the commerciality of this work and disagree with previous contracting office determinations, thus justifying the ability to use CPFF to track actual costs against various lines of accounting.

The estimated period of performance for the base period is 19 February 2026 through 18 February 2027.

FAR 52.217-8, Extension of Services, will also be included and has an anticipated period of performance of 19 February 2027 through 18 August 2027.

v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 3 of 7v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 3 of 7

(4) Identification of the exception to fair opportunity and the supporting rationale:

This Fair Opportunity Exception is being pursued under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A): “The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.”

The services needed are to provide space capabilities such as missile warning and nuclear detonation detection to Combatant Commands (CCMDs), allies, and other entities to defend U.S. and allied vital interests. There is a significant risk related to the delay of the follow-on TO and the resulting break in service. The GSM would not be able to continue generating globally informed risk decisions and recommendations regarding sensor command and control (C2) and in the prioritization in the employment of assigned and unassigned SDA, MW, and MD sensors in optimizing support of all mission areas, national priorities, and decision making which would impact the capabilities of the U.S. Government its allies and other entities who depend on the GSM. Therefore, an urgent bridge TO is required to avoid mission failure.

RATIONALE FOR URGENCY OF FOE:

A short-term direct award to SES is necessary as they are the only contractor capable of successfully executing performance on 19 February 2026 with minimal risk to mission continuity and degradation in performance. This is due to their knowledge in executing the current requirement, already possessing the required clearances, zero transition lead time, and personnel already read into supported programs as the current incumbent contractor. Based on the responses from the first RFI for the ongoing reacquistion, industry indicates and effective lead-time for a full and proper transition of this complex requirement is approximately 30 days. While other contractors have the capability to perform there is, it would introduce unacceptable risks in performance delays due to the need for a transition/phase-in period for the contractor to get acclimated and would not make good business sense for a short-term contract solution.

It is in the Government's best interest to award a direct award service bridge to prevent a break in service.

This award is to allow the continuation of services in support of GSM functions. If this requirement was competed for the estimated period of performance, GSM would experience a break in service of more than 9 months. If this bridge requirement was awarded to a contractor other than the incumbent, GSM could experience a break in service of up to 90 days.

If the Government were to minimize the break in services to 30-days, the impacts will include: 1) Delay of the GSM Operations Order rewrite, a top priority of the USSPACECOM Commander, causing significant disruption at the action officer coordination level, which would jeopardize its timely release; 2) the inability to host mission critical 2 Star professional forums (Operations Approval Board and/or Mission Oversight Board) that address fielding concerns; 3) impact to Unified Command Plan mission responsibilities due to no contractor support for critical infrastructure at Cavalier Space Force Station and other Integrated Tactical Warning/Attack Assessment system maintenance; 4) no coordination between the Space Force's directed Multinational Force - Operation Olympic Defender efforts with the Office of the Under Secretary of War for Intelligence & Security and the Intelligence Community at large regarding critical allied engagement; and 5) significant risk to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) and Joint Force top priority of integrity of the Theater Missile Warning architecture.

An additional 60- to 90-day break in services will cause the following: 1) the jeopardization of ongoing planning and coordination efforts for the Golden Dome of America; 2) an unacceptable failure by not releasing the Global Integrated Asset Management SPACECOM Instruction potentially leading to v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 4 of 7v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 4 of 7 inefficient or ineffective asset management and coordination; and 3) a crippling reduction of over 75% in security cooperation engagements globally, coupled with the loss of personnel expertise to respond to essential requests for information with partner nations' advance strategic objectives, and 4) the loss of highly qualified and capable incumbent personnel due to job insecurity.

No vehicle has been identified that would afford for competitive acquisition in the time frame noted above.

(5) Contracting Officer's determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Procuring Contracting Officer has historical cost data for multiple A&AS task orders with the same or similar labor categories and levels, which will be utilized with proposal analysis techniques under FAR 15.404-1 to determine fair and reasonable pricing. Additionally, cost analysis of certified cost or pricing data through comparison with historical pricing, evaluation of direct labor rates, and trend analysis will also be conducted to determine the price as realistic and fair and reasonable. As a bridge contract to the incumbent, it is anticipated the cost will likely be strongly correlated to actual costs incurred under the current contract. Those costs were previously determined fair and reasonable utilizing adequate price competition and provide additional references for determining price fair and reasonable, but can not be utilized alone (even with escalation) given the unique nature of the current contract as a Fixed Priced Level of Effort contract transitioning to a CPFF. The contracting officer will utilize all of the above to analyze the contractor's proposed prices for the 12-month base and the Extension of Services so that the entirety of the proposed contract price can be determined to be fair and reasonable.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

Competing this requirement would create an ineffective operational end-state and incur non-recoverable costs to support the short-term period of performance. The transition to a new contractor is projected to incur significant non-recoverable costs exceeding , primarily for training, travel, and onboarding. These expenses are essential to bring the contractor is fully operational and cover specialized instruction on government systems and critical knowledge transfer. Furthermore, substantial costs are associated with travel for the new personnel and the logistical requirements of onboarding, such as security clearances and system access. These necessary, one-time investments ensure a smooth handover but represent a considerable financial commitment for the Government. The Government would then have to pay for these same costs when the current competitive procurement is awarded and begins. There is no expectation that a competitive procurement for this bridge action would result in a substantially lower price to trade-off the cost for better performance when the incumbent is meeting the Government's requirements.

(7) Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to increasing fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services:

A follow-on for this requirement is being completed through CFC/SAIO, and the revised milestones indicate award and transition prior to the expiration of this bridge contract. Additionally, in the event that CFC/SAIO is able to award the competitive contract in a shorter time frame, the 6-month extension of services under the -8 clause will not be utilized.

v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 6 of 7

Instructions for Completing the Template IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)

(2) State whether the action is a new order or a modification to an existing order. Identify the basic multiple award contract number and the order number for the current action. Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g., Firm Fixed price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.).

(3) Specifically describe the supplies/services to be acquired including the price/cost and quantity of each item in the order and the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether services are performance-based, and if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. State the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order. Explain how the requirement/order fits under the scope of the basic multiple award contracts.

(Note: The Contracting Officer must ensure that the order is issued within the period of performance and within the maximum value of the contract).

(4) Include the appropriate exception from FAR 16.505 (b)(2) and the supporting rationale. FAR16.505(b)(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to provide each awardee under a multiple award contract, a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 unless a statutory exception applies. The specific exception that precludes the fair opportunity process for this acquisition is FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(__) [Insert A,B, C, D, or E]. If a brand name product description is being justified, use this section to explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and why other companies' similar products/services do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A): “The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the mission impact if awarded to any other contractor. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements of urgency are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B): “Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification, with supporting documentation, as evidence of the “unique or highly specialized” nature of the procurement. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

Supporting documentation may be attached to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C): “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order”. When using this exception provide information on the previously competed order under this contract and detail the economies and efficiencies that will be obtained by going sole source for the follow-on order. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

General statements are not acceptable.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D): “It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.”

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E): “For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.”

Discuss the market research that was conducted by the user/technical team/contracting officer among the supplies/services of all awardees that resulted in the conclusion that a fair opportunity exception applied. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1) and DFARS 216.505-70 could not be met. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale. If any other awardee expressed interest in fulfilling the requirement, but was not considered a potential source, explain why that awardee cannot provide the required supplies/perform the service.

v 18 Jan 2024 SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE Page 7 of 7

If the use of a brand name purchase description is being justified, the market research should include an analysis of any industry proposed alternative products or approaches to meeting the requirements. Additionally, the Government's efforts to identify as many potential sources as practicable offering the required brand name item(s) should be addressed.

(5) This paragraph needs to be tailored based on the types of CLINs in the order and the pricing arrangements on the basic multiple award contract. If the contract did not establish the price for the supply or service, the Contracting Officer must establish prices for each order IAW FAR 15.4. The paragraph needs to describe the steps that will ensure that the prices/estimated cost of the order will be fair and reasonable. For example, even if firm-fixed prices were obtained under adequate price competition in the award of the multiple award contract, the Contracting Officer still needs to consider market conditions and other factors that may have changed since contract award and explain the basis in the determination that prices/costs are fair and reasonable prior to award of the order.

(6) Provide any other facts supporting the use of exceptions to the fair opportunity process.

(7) Include a statement of the actions, if any, to be to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.