Signed JA.pdf

For Official Use Only

1 FOUO

MIPR Number: F2BDAZ9054G002

Justification for OTFAOC Number: JA09-057

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL TO PROCURE JOINT PRECISION AIR

DROP SYSTEM MISSION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE WITH

SERVICE AND SUPPORT USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN

COMPETITION

Upon the basis of the following justification, I, Head of Contracting Activity, hereby approve the use of other than full and open competition for the proposed contractual action pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C.2304(c)(1), FAR Subpart 6.302-1; Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

JUSTIFICATION

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

Requiring Agency: 951 ELSG/JPADS Attn: Jon Beach, Capt, USAF 11 Barksdale Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731

Contracting Agency: Defense Information Technology Contracting Organization (DITCO), ATTN: PL8322

2300 East Drive Scott AFB, IL 62225-5406

2. Nature/Description of Action (FAR 6.303-2(a)(2)).

This contracting action will be a sole source ID/IQ contract with Planning Systems Incorporated (PSI) to procure the next generation of Joint Precision AirDrop System (JPADS) Mission Support Equipment (MSE) and associated services and support using other than full and open competition. The contract will be firm fixed price with a base year and two option years. The minimum order will be $5,614,199.08. The contract ceiling will be set at $45M. Purchases will be dependent on growth in requirements associated with the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

3. Description of Supplies/Services (FAR 6.303-2(a)(3)).

JPADS is a family of systems that provides Global Positioning System (GPS) guided air drops and significantly improves the accuracy of traditional unguided airdrops. It was developed as an Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) and fielded under a rapid fielding initiative in 2006. The system developed by PSI over a 10 year period has proven extremely effective in combat operations. Over 100 of the original versions of the ACTD are currently in use in Southwest Asia, delivering over 1 million pounds of cargo a month to front line troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, the JPADS system significantly reduces the number of logistic convoys on the roads which

2 FOUO

puts fewer soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines at risk of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and ambush.

JPADS consists of three main components: (1) software, (2) GPS-guided parachute system and (3) MSE. The software is responsible for providing the required aircraft release point and weather calculations. The GPS-guided parachutes deliver the cargo to predetermined coordinates. The MSE is comprised of three major subsystems: (1) UHF Dropsonde Receive Subsystem (UHF-DRS), (2) GPS Retransmit Subsystem (GPS-RTS) and (3) Dropsonde. The dropsonde is hand-launched from the aircraft and transmits real-time atmospheric data back to the UHF-DRS which provides the data to the software.

The GPS-RTS ensures that all GPS-guided parachute systems and dropsondes in the cargo bay have a GPS lock before they are dropped. See figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: JPADS Equipment

Figure 2: JPADS Employment

3 FOUO

The MSE was developed by PSI under two previous contracts. In the fall of 2008 a Product Quality Improvement (PQI), through PSI, was initiated to incorporate some minor environmental modifications into the MSE. These modifications will be complete in the spring of 2009 and incorporated into the production version of the MSE to be procured with this contract.

Additionally, the contract will procure Interim Contractor Support (ICS) for fielded and production systems. This will allow time to stand up organic logistic support. The ICS will include training support, sustainment, help desk and engineering/general services associated with the MSE.

4. Identification of Statutory Authority (FAR 6.303-2(a)(4)).

10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1), FAR Subpart 6.302-1. Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

5. Demonstration of Contractor’s Unique Qualifications (FAR 6.303-2(a)(5)).

In order to move from a fielded ACTD to a fully supportable and sustainable system, the program office requested proposals through a CECOM IDIQ contract for the development PQI of the hardware. The winning proposal was with ARINC who then subsequently subcontracted all of the development effort to PSI, with ARINC providing programmatic support to the effort. PSI is the only company that possesses significant experience with the hardware and completed 100% of new design modifications. This makes them the natural choice for the follow-on production of the new design. If a contractor other than PSI is awarded this contract, it will result in significant duplication of effort and significant delay in fielding.

The MSE is highly specialized equipment developed by PSI which has been tested and approved for operational use in cargo aircraft. The basic design of the PSI dropsonde was developed over a 5 year period and cost approximately $5.9M.

There are a number of other companies, addressed in section 6 of this justification that have existing systems that satisfy some of the JPADS CDD requirements. To obtain basic mission readiness, they would require extensive development and testing. The Program Office estimates that it would take Aerobotics, LLC, the contractor with most advanced existing system, a minimum of 3 years and over $5.65M to adapt and redesign their respective systems to achieve the level of operational effectiveness and expertise that PSI currently possesses. This analysis took into account the amount of work required to advance the Aerobotics system to mission readiness and correlated it to the cost and time required for PSI to complete similar work.

The breakout of the cost is as follows:

Effort Cost Time

Develop and Design $2.74M 2.5 Years

Test $2.91M 0.5 Years

Total $5.65M 3.0 Years

4 FOUO

A separate route to obtain competition would be to purchase required data rights to the current design and use that to compete the procurement work. Of the two possible routes to competition explored in this J&A the second route is more cost effective and expeditious than the first. There would be cost and time savings in development and testing as compared to the first option. Neither option is in the best interest of the government due to the cost associated with each that would not be recouped through the benefits of full and open competition. Additionally, as the development work for this version of the hardware is completed and testing starts in two months; and the time used to bid the work to a new company, then redo integration and test would delay the fielding of the system by at least 1.75 years. This will result in the waste of time and money already expended developing and testing this version. PSI has all of the level 3 engineering drawings and owns intellectual property rights to a small, but critical component of the UHF receiver. When asked to bid on the cost of level 3 engineering drawings and design specifications PSI quoted $1.2M and 6-8 months. This quote did not include the component of the system that PSI retains intellectual property rights to.

PSI declined to bid on that component. The program office estimates it will take $3.7M and 1.75 years to purchase the level 3 drawings, compete a production effort, design and integrate the hardware and test the system. These numbers are based on the quote provided by PSI, the amount of time and money that it took PSI to complete similar design and integration work and the amount of time and money for the government to complete similar test work. The winning contractor would still have to go to PSI in order to purchase the components of the MSE that PSI retained intellectual control over.

The breakout of the cost is as follows:

Effort Cost Time

Level 3 Information $1.2M 0.75 Years

Integration and Design $1.0M 0.5 Years

Test $1.5M 0.5 Years

Total $3.7M 1.75 Years

Even using the best case scenario the use of full and open competition would create a time delay that would be problematic due to high demand for precision airdrops in Southwest Asia. Current units are only equipped with 2 MSE kits. This represents a significant limitation on the size of current airdrops. This procurement will double the amount of kits per unit, and therefore double the amount of cargo that can be dropped during a single mission. A 1.75 year delay in this capability is unacceptable to the warfighter. There will also be an additional cost to the Government, estimated to be a minimum of $3.7M. The 1.75 year delay coupled with the additional cost of $3.7M could not be recovered through the benefits of a separate full and open competition.

6. FedBizOpps Announcement/Potential Sources (FAR 6.303-2(a)(6)).

A Sources Sought Synopsis # ASC-MSW-JPADS-001 was issued on 23 May 2008 with detailed technical and program requirements listed and asking for potential sources to determine the viability of pursuing a competitive production acquisition of the current PSI JPADS design. The program office received 5 responses (other than PSI), with 4 systems utilizing similar technology to PSI, but in very early stages of development. The

5 FOUO

5th company proposed a different technology that did not meet requirements and required substantial development. A detailed review of the proposals was conducted in June 2008 to determine line by line which of the requirements were met. The size and scope of the companies and previous work for the government was reviewed and factored into the evaluation of each company’s ability to deliver a system for the government. Of the 36 requirements set out, the range of requirements at least partially met was from 23 down to

5. After subjective evaluations, it was determined that none of the companies could be brought into competition without substantial time and money for development, detailed previously in section 5.

The companies and brief description of what they proposed is listed below.

Aerobotics, LLC: The company has a basic dropsonde that works in 900MHz band, not the frequency required by the CDD. The dropsonde does not use GPS to determine its position, another CDD requirement. Additionally, they have no GPS retransmission system. The dropsonde would require significant redevelopment and the GPS retransmission system would have to be designed from scratch.

Innovative Automation Technologies, LLC (IA Tech): They have a type of GPS/inertial measurement unit, but no dropsonde or GPS retransmission system.

They also have no production facility. The development of a dropsonde and GPS retransmission system would require significant effort and the company would require significant capital in order to stand up a manufacturing capability.

Northrop Grumman: Proposed a new style of radar to replace the dropsonde.

While the technology is promising it would require significant R&D and a number of years to realize any possible use.

Mist Mobility Integrated Systems Technology (MMist): They own a small battery operated GPS retransmission system and propose to develop a dropsonde after awarded a contract. The GPS retransmission system works well but would need some modifications to work with C-130’s and C-17’s. They would also have to develop a dropsonde from scratch.

Rockwell Collins: Proposed to integrate a number of existing systems. They did not appear to have existing contractual relationships with any of the other companies they proposed to work with or any of their own technical solutions.

A Request for Information was posted on FedBizOpps on 26 August 2008 soliciting information from companies that could provide off the shelf systems that could meet JPADS requirements or systems that could with minimal development. Three responses were received, other than PSI. None of the respondents, except PSI, could even partially meet all of the requirements. The following is a list of the companies and what they proposed.

6 FOUO

Mist Mobility Integrated Systems Technology (MMist): They own a small battery operated GPS retransmission system and propose to develop a dropsonde after awarded a contract. The GPS retransmission system works well but would need some modifications to work with C-130’s and C-17’s. They would also have to develop a dropsonde from scratch.

Mnemonics Inc.: The company has no systems that could be used. They do have extensive communication and aircraft integration experience. They would have to develop an entire system from scratch.

ECS Composites: ECS did not propose a solution to the RFI. Instead they proposed to partner with the winning contractor in order to supply the required shipping containers.

The intent to negotiate with only one source will be synopsized in FedBizOpps in accordance with FAR 6.302-1(d)(2).

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost (FAR 6.303-2(a)(7)). The IGCE is based on program office estimates and market research which has been conducted 3 times over the past 2 years. The Contracting Officer's best value determination will be based upon the IGCE, cost and pricing data provided by the vendor and a review from DCMA.

Cost or Pricing data will be required. The contracting officer will make a determination that the anticipated prices are fair and reasonable.

8. Description of Market Research (FAR 6.303-2(a)(8)). Market research has been ongoing since the initial developments back in 1997 and a formal request for information/capability has been requested 3 times over the past 2 years and has not produced another vendor capable of meeting the requirement.

Through program office market research, two companies were identified that could potentially provide a similar capability, Vaisala and GPS Source. Neither of the companies has existing technology that could be modified to work without significant development and testing.

Vaisala is the only other known developer and manufacturer of Dropsondes and Dropsonde receiver systems. Their system is mainly used to support the USAF C-130 Hurricane Hunters and would require some level of development to adapt into the DoD aerial delivery configuration. During earlier development of the JPADS system, efforts were made to garner support from Vaisala but they declined to bid on any tasks.

GPS Source was awarded a contract to develop a similar GPS rebroadcast capability in the C-17, but that system is being developed specifically for the C-17, not the C-130, and is not scheduled to be deployed on the C-17 until at least 2012. Additionally, the company does not have a dropsonde.

9. Other Support Facts (FAR 6.303-2(a)(9)). N/A

7 FOUO

10. Listing of Interested Sources (FAR 6.303-2(a)(10)). As stated in section 6 above, several sources are interested but require an immense amount of time and duplication of effort.

11. Actions Taken to Remove Barriers to Competition (FAR 6.303-2(a)(11)).

Completion of data packages suitable for competition are planned under this contract initiative to include required data rights for property of the Government, thereby providing an avenue for a future competitive procurement and sustainment. In addition, data packages will be developed to portion out the system as other vendors continue to develop their own technologies. After 2013 it is estimated that at least one new source for the GPS-RTS requirement will be viable on the C-17 aircraft. Market research identified a number of companies with immature technologies that, with significant development dollars and time, could possibly address the stated requirements in the future. These companies are currently in the early stages of developing their own solutions and technology, separate from PSI. Further market research and FEDBIZOPS announcements found 5 companies with products that fit this description. It is assessed that at least one of those will come on line in the next 3-4 years and provide competition against PSI in the future.

12. Statement of Period of Performance and/or Delivery Schedule (FARS 6.303-

2(a)(s-90). The period of performance is for one base year from award date with two follow-on option years.

13. Reference to the Approved Acquisition Plan (AP)/Program Plan (PP) (DARS

6.303-2). Acquisition Plan not required.

8 FOUO

Technical Requirements and Certifications (FAR 6.303-1(b), 6.303-2(b), DFARS 201.303-1 and

DARS 6.303-1(b)) The Program Manager's submission the Justification Review Document of this justification represents certification that the supporting technical data, which forms the basis for this justification, is accurate and complete to the best of the Program Manager's knowledge and belief.

TECHNICAL COGNIZANCE:

Signature: //SIGNED//

Jon Beach, CAPT 951 ELSG 845-9425 19 Mar 09

Printed/Typed Name and Title Organization Phone Date

REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE:

Signature://SIGNED//

Louis Duncan/Capt/Mobility Branch Chief 951 ELSG 845-9499 19 Mar 09

Printed/Typed Name and Title Organization Phone Date

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION (FAR Subparts 6.303-1(a)(12)) I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature:

Beverly L. Jones/Contracting Officer/PL8322 618-229-9689 31 Mar 09

REVIEW FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: (DARS 6.303-91)

This justification is determined legally sufficient.

Signature: //signed//

JOANN W. MELESKY, Deputy Legal Counsel, DITCO 618 229 9382 2 Apr 09

HEAD OF CONTRACTING ACTIVITY APPROVAL: (FAR Subparts 6.303-1(a) and 6.303-2(a)(12)) I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Since this Justification for OTFAOC does not exceed $78.5M, this review serves as approval.

Signature: //signed//

KATHLEEN MILLER/Head of Contracting Activity/PLD 703-681-2270