SWDC_Justification_and_Approval_(FINAL)_Redacted.pdf

J&A No: 18-0004 Contract No: HQ0147-18-R-0003

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Introductory Paragraph. Upon the basis of the following justification, I as Director of the Missile Defense Agency, hereby approve this issuance of the contractual action discussed below using other than full and open competition pursuant to the authority cited herein.

2. Agencies and Contracting Activity, (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1)). This Justification and Approval (J&A) is for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), Command and Control, Battle Management, and Communications (MDA/BC) program office, Directorate for Test, Space Systems program office, Directorate for Engineering, and Deputy Director (Warfighter Strategic Integration). The contracting activity is the MDA/DAC and C2BMC (MDA/DAC(B)). The point of contact for this action is Ms. Sharon Hall, Contracting Officer, at (256) 450-0709.

3. Description of the Action Being Approved, (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2)). The Government intends to award a sole source contract to the Northrop Grumman Corporation. A FAR-based contract is planned for award in the second quarter FY18 with an initial ordering period of three years extending through the first quarter of FY21 with two one-year options. In order to meet the program office’s need for flexibility in development and delivery capabilities, an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracting method will be utilized. The IDIQ contract contains a combination of cost plus award fee, cost plus fixed fee, cost plus incentive fee, fixed price incentive firm, cost reimbursable, not separately priced, and/or firm fixed price CLINs. Task order types are determined by the complexity and risk associated with the individual task order requirements.

4. Description of the Supplies and/or Services Required to Meet the Agency’s Needs (including the estimated value), (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3)). The scope of work for this award will include: development for BMDS Overhead Persistent Infrared Radar Architecture (BOA), Missile Defense Space Warning Tool (MDST); Simultaneous Correlation of Unambiguous Tracks (SCOUT), Modeling and Simulation – Simulation Knowledge, Analysis, and Processes; Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) International Simulation (I-Sim); Virtual Threat Modeling Center (vTMC) Production and Engineering, specialized support for Ballistic Missile Defense System Flight and System Ground test; Ballistic Missile Defense System Test Resources; Missile Defense Space Warning Tool (MDST) Operations; Missile Defense Space Center (MDSC); and operating, maintaining and sustaining the MDSC and its mission networks and mission systems; key last mile integration activities for BMDS Position, Navigation and Timing architectures; the development, test, integration, evaluation and analysis of MDSC Information System (MIS) software; development engineering for the integration of current, new and emerging MDA, Overhead Persistent Infrared Radar (OPIR) and other US Government space assets and capabilities for use with the BMDS; operation of MDA

APPROVED FOR

PUBLIC RELEASE 17-

MDA-9453

on-orbit experimental and demonstrator space assets; specialized support BMDS flight and ground tests; perform and facilitate cybersecurity, risk management and configuration management of the MDSC. The scope of the M&S work is required to sustain and maintain the applications of MDST, I-SIM (to include support to specified Foreign Military Sales (FMS) case(s), and Threat Software Engineering (threat modeling tools). Provide customer support thereto, and retain continuity of operations for all efforts identified above. Deliverables will include hardware and software data and products, training materials, test support and operations and maintenance.

The maximum stated value for this ID/IQ contract is $475.0 million in Research, Development, Test, and Engineering (RDT&E) funding. This effort will be funding with Research, Development, Test, and Engineering (RDT&E) funds or other funds as authorized and appropriated by Congress. The estimated cost profile for this effort is illustrated in the table below:

Estimated contract costs for the three year base

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 Total $52.75 $94.30 $93.77 $96.58 $337.40

(7 months) FY19-23 include 3% escalation

Estimated costs for two one year options

FY22 FY23 Total $99.77 $37.77 $137.54

(5 months) FY19-23 include 3% escalation

5. Statutory Authority Permitting Other than Full and Open Competition, (FAR 6.303-2(b)(4)). The proposed action is authorized under the provisions of 10 U.S.C.

2304(c)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 (a)(2)(iii). Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

(iii) For DoD, NASA, and Coast Guard, services may be deemed to be available from only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized services when it is likely that award to any other source would result in:

(A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition; or

(B) Unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency’s requirements.

6. Demonstration of Contractor’s Unique Qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)).

Northrop Grumman is currently providing the engineering and development of operational capabilities for BMDS Overhead Persistent Infrared Radar Architecture

(BOA), which is the third iteration of the software build used in C2BMC. Additionally, they provide the engineering for Simultaneous Correlation of Unambiguous Tracks (SCOUT) suite of advanced discrimination algorithms, the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Missile Defense Space Warning Tool (MDST) product, and the Missile Defense Space Center (MDSC). Northrop Grumman provides Modeling & Simulation support for the Engineering Directorate (DE), Ground and Flight Test support for the test directorate (DT), and Missile Defense Space Center (MDSC) development, integration, testing and exploitation of current and emerging MDA, OPIR and other US Government space assets and capabilities for use with the BMDS. Finally, Northrop Grumman currently supports the Warfighter Strategic Interface Directorate (DDW). The Government has invested ten years and an estimated $700M in the development, fielding, sustainment, and support of these BMDS systems/activities to date. Sources other than the Northrop Grumman Corporation would have to acquire extensive knowledge, experience, and technical data to successfully fulfill these requirements. The cost and time delays to the Government to reconstitute this experience, the learning curve, and the technical documentation would not be recovered through competition and would result in unacceptable time delays in fulfilling the Agency’s mission.

Awarding to a new contractor would require complex software development and sustainment for BOA, SCOUT, MDST, MDSC and much of the modeling and simulation efforts. This schedule delay will result in the failure to meet the milestones deployment and significantly delay critical testing associated with baselines defined in the MDA Integrated Master Test Plan. In order for MDA to meet the established capability delivery schedules these critical efforts must continue without delay.

These critical efforts are integral to many of the other BMDS program activities, including C2BMC, BMDS Flight and Ground Test support, MDST development and operations, Modeling and Simulation to include International Simulation, and ongoing warfighter support. Any disruptions to the ongoing activities will have a negative ‘ripple effect’ through all of these MDA program elements.

The critical expertise available with Northrop Grumman offers the unique benefit of institutional knowledge when operational problems arise due to the intimate knowledge of the BMDS resulting in faster resolution of the issues, decreased downtime of the system, and lower risk to the BMDS. This unique benefit would be lost if this requirement was awarded to a new contractor.

Specific BMDS capability delivery milestones currently exist for these systems and any delay would result in a delay of a Presidential milestone European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA Phase III) and/or delivery of capability to fulfill a stated warfighter requirement. Therefore, the cost and time delays to the Government to reconstitute this experience, the learning curve, and the technical data documentation would result in unacceptable time delays in fulfilling the Agency’s mission.

7. Market Research, FedBizOpps and Listing of Interested Sources, (FAR 6.303- 2(b) (6), (8) and (10)). A sources sought synopsis was posted to the FedBizOpps website on 13 November 2017 to inform prospective sources of MDA’s intent to award a sole source contract. No responses were received from industry expressing an interest in, or questioning, the acquisition. Any additional responses received will be assessed but sources expressing interest are not a viable competitor due to them having to acquire extensive knowledge, experience, and technical data (which the government does not currently possess) to successfully fulfill these requirements.

Furthermore, MDA is recognized as the Center of Excellence for Missile Detection and Hit to Kill technology. As such, MDA representatives maintain a close working relationships with industry throughout the world. This working relationship permits MDA to stay constantly abreast of available technologies and the manufacturing capabilities throughout the world, providing a base of knowledge more extensive than would normally be obtained through a formal market survey.

The results of the synopsis and MDA’s industry knowledge informed its conclusion to purse the fore mentioned approach.

8. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost, (FAR 6.303-2(b) (7)). In accordance with FAR 15.402 and due to thresholds for requiring cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403 the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) shall ensure all supplies and services ordered under this contract are procured at a fair and reasonable price. As necessary, the Contractor will submit formal price proposals with certified cost or pricing data and sufficient information to support the accuracy and reliability of estimates.

Pursuant to ensuring prices are fair and reasonable, the PCO will obtain information from sources other than the Contractor (e.g. forward pricing rate agreement information from Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). In turn, the Contractor’s proposed costs/prices will be reviewed by experienced technical and price analysts, as well as reviewed by contract specialists.

9. Any Other Facts Supporting the Use of Other Than Full & Open Competition (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)). The Government has invested ten years and an estimated $700M in the development, fielding, testing, and sustainment of these systems in support of the BMDS to date. Sources other than the Northrop Grumman Corporation would have to acquire extensive knowledge, experience, and technical data to successfully fulfill these requirements. Specific BMDS capability delivery milestones currently exist for these systems and any delay would result in a delay of a Presidential milestone (EPAA Phase III) and/or delivery of capability to fulfill a stated warfighter requirement. Therefore, the cost and time delays to the Government to reconstitute this experience, the learning curve, and the technical data documentation would result in unacceptable time delays in fulfilling the Agency’s mission. Sources other than the NGC would have to acquire extensive knowledge, experience, and technical data (which the government does not currently possess) to successfully fulfill these requirements. More specifically, those other sources would need to obtain contractor developed specifications for MDST, BOA, SCOUT, MDSC, TMSS, and BMD I-Sim as well as engineering and purchasing descriptions. A rough estimate of what it would cost the Government to acquire such information, if made available is $20M. This estimate is derived from Government knowledge gathered from ten plus years of experience with the NGC. Therefore, it is deemed more advantageous to use other than full and open competition to acquire the requisite services than attempt to obtain the documentation necessary for competition.

10. Actions Taken to Remove Barriers to Competition (FAR 6.303-2(b) (11)). Under this contract, the development BOA, SCOUT, MDST, and the modeling & simulation activities will include the use of open architecture systems. This will offer the opportunity to compete the insertion of new innovative technologies from outside sources into these existing systems.

The Government will also require the delivery of detailed technical data with the appropriate Government Rights. The technical data will document the configurations demonstrated and tested under this acquisition. Data developed under this effort will support competition for the development of future similar capabilities, which should afford lower risk opportunities to introduce new sources.

11. Technical/Requirements Official Certification ((FAR Part 6.303-2(c)). I certify that this justification for other than full and open competition is made in good faith and that the supporting data and information are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further certify that this request is not the result of a lack of advance planning.

John M. Bier, Program Director, C2BMC

__12/7/2017_ Date

12. Contracting Officer (FAR Part 6.303(b)(12)). I have determined that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable and certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Sharon J. Hall, PCO, DAC(B)

___1/5/2018_ Date

13. Legal Counsel. “I have reviewed the justification and determined it to be legally sufficient.”

William Groves, General Counsel, MDA/GC

_12/22/2017_ Date

14. Contracting Director (Program Level). “I have reviewed the justification and recommend it be approved.”

Sheri Baskins, Director of Contracts, DAC(B)

_1/5/2018 Date

15. Recommendation of Competition Advocate. “I recommend approval of the above justification.”

Michael O’Neil, Competition Advocate, DA

__1/2/2018 Date

16. Director of Contracts. “I have reviewed the justification and recommend it be approved.”

Karla Smith Jackson

__1/8/2018 Date

Director of Contracts, MDA/DAC

17. Director for Acquisition. “I have reviewed the justification and recommend it be approved.”

Laura M. DeSimone

__1/16/2018D Date

Director for Acquisition

18. Approval (FAR 6.304). “In accordance with FAR Part 6.304, the above justification for other than full and open competition is hereby approved.”

Samuel L. Greaves, Director, MDA/D

__2/1/2018__ Date