JA ARV-30_Final_Redacted.pdf

Contractor proprietary data

ARV is a Pre-Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) utilizing the Middle Tier of Acquisition-Rapid Prototyping (MTA-RP) acquisition pathway. The acquisition strategy laid out in the ARV prototyping plan relied heavily on development and Government evaluation, culminating in a demonstration to the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps (ACMC) and his Deputy Commandants (DC) with an associated Marine Corps Oversight Council (MROC) decision regarding the path forward for ARV. In alignment with Force Design update released on 5 June 2023 and the subsequent decision memo, dated 6 June 2023, ARV received direction to move forward with development of a purpose-built solution with increased funding in FY25 to support additional risk mitigation efforts prior to the anticipated entry into the acquisition lifecycle at MS B.

Failure to complete this project prior to entering Engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) at Milestone (MS) B and within the schedule limitations of the Middle Tier Acquisition Rapid Prototyping (MTA-RP) Phase which expires in , will introduce significant risk to the ARV program.

The ARV-30 provides additional detailed requirement to continue with the Government’s development and experimentation with ARV mission equipment packages while maintaining common chassis and network architecture. The high-level purpose of continued development and experimentation is to evaluate commonality and open systems architecture to understand if the foundation is in place to support a family of vehicles as well as inform program investment priorities and reduce risk to EMD.

b. Substantial Duplication of Cost: There would be substantial duplication of cost that is not expected to be recovered or acceptable within the affordability constraints of the USMC. The cost and schedule impact to qualify a new contractor for ARV-30 is prohibitive when compared to the estimated value of the current effort.

The ARV is conceived as a Family of Vehicles intended to operate on a common automotive platform. The C4UAS prototypes underwent significant testing of the automotive aspect of the platforms. The plan for the ARV-30 prototype is, in part, to assess the extent that the existing platform will have to be adapted to accept the Mk44Stretch Mod 4 and Kongsberg RT-20 turret developed by the USMC for the Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV). Using anything other than the existing common platform design, with the updates currently being processed as a result of lessons learned from the initial contractor and Government evaluation phases, would negate the ability to trace what adaptions will be needed to accommodate this Mission Role Package.

Additionally, the Government has already financed the design of two platforms, one for GDLS and one for Textron. Any new entrant would have to design, prepare, and participate in design reviews and subject their automotive platform to testing. Based on an analysis of the costs experienced by the current PV contractors and utilizing Actual Cost Report CDRLs, as well as the Government test and design review support costs, there would be a minimum duplication in cost of $46.6M per prototype. Of this amount, $22.3M represents duplicated contract costs. This figure was derived from a parametric estimate of the actual costs of the design and build of the ARV-C4UAS prototypes decremented as only the base platform would need to be designed and tested. The remaining amount consists of additional costs to secure test range support and facilities, Operation Schedule

Contractor proprietary data

c. Unacceptable Delay: The program’s success is predicated on leveraging existing development work completed by GDLS and Textron. As any new contractor would need time to refine a design, participate in multiple Government design reviews and test the base platform, the schedule for these supplicative efforts would extend the effort well past key program milestone events. The Government does not have the necessary intellectual property data rights to the complete developmental TDP or the complete computer software package (CSP) to release that complete TDP and CSP to another contractor for competitive procurement. The program does not have the funding that would be required to develop/build a new ARV chassis and network architecture. Based on previous market research, there are no other vehicles that meet the common requirement set and significant development would be required with an estimated minimum delay of 57 months. Both GDLS and Textron have been developing against ARV requirements prior to being on contract with PM LAV which contributes to the schedule investment and expected delay if anyone other than GDLS and Textron were contracted for this effort. This estimate is based off of the following:

(i) Competitive Contract Source Selection (6 months): Based on ACC-DTA’s previous experience with competitive source selections, it will take a total of six additional months to conduct a competitive procurement over a sole source procurement. This additional time includes the Source Selection Plan and evaluation criteria development, evaluation of offers utilizing a Source Selection Evaluation Board, discussions, and award.

(ii) Pre-Prototyping Development (minimum 24 months): Prior to being on contract with PM LAV, both GDLS and Textron made internal investments to prepare for the prototyping phase which allowed PM LAV to condense the prototyping phase. GDLS developed and produced Wheeled Light 1.

GDLS then incorporated lessons learned to the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Research Area 2 (RA2) Technology Demonstrator (TD).

Development of both was approximately five years. Textron internally developed the ARV Cottonmouth to prepare for the ARV prototyping competition which took approximately two years.

(iii) Prototyping Development (27 months): GDLS and Textron were competitively selected for agreement awards to develop the ARV-C4UAS.

The ARV-30 has the same FOV requirements as the ARV-C4UAS resulting in a common platform with a different mission equipment package. Developing and testing a new platform would take a minimum of 27 months and would be required to support the ARV-30.

Action Time Reference

Competitive Contract

6 months 5c(i)

Pre-prototyping Development

24 months 5c(ii)

Prototyping development

27 months 5c(iii)

TOTAL 57 months

General Dynamics Land Systems: GDLS submitted a response to the Sources Sought notice proposing to leverage the common ARV platform they developed under the ARV-C4UAS OTA and integrate the Government Furnished gun and a contractor sourced RT-20 turret to the platform. The GDLS response was assessed as credible to meet the requirements of this contract action.

Textron Systems: Textron submitted a response to the Sources Sought notice proposing to leverage the common ARV platform they developed under the ARV- C4UAS OTA and integrate the Government Furnished gun and a contractor sourced RT-20 turret to the platform. The Textron response was assessed as credible to meet the requirements of this contract action.

BAE Systems: BAE submitted a response proposing a solution that was determined to not meet the requirements of the ARV-30 Performance Specification.

9. Interested Sources: To date, the only sources who have expressed an interest in competing for the ARV-30 prototyping project and can meet the Government requirements are listed in section 8 above. As stated above, Government analysis shows the other interested sources are not capable of fulfilling the Government's requirement without experiencing a substantial duplication of cost and schedule delay because additional funding and time for development would be required.

10. Other Factors:

a. Procurement History: In addition to the activities listed in section 5a, the base agreements to both Textron and GDLS have been modified to incorporated lessons learned from the initial Government evaluation encompassed in the SIL 2.0 mod. This modification requires the contractor to update the subsystems to account for reliability in accordance with Automotive Tank Purchase Description (ATPD) 2404 and 2407.

The contractor is also required to update aspects associated with open architecture for hardware and software while accounting for supply chain risk reduction in compliance with the ARV Program Protection plan. Awarding the ARV-30 effort to any other company would cause a divergence with these critical updates resulting in further duplication of cost.

(1) Agreement Number Award Date Contractor Authority

W15QKN-17-9-1025-69-201811 31AUG21 GDLS 10 USC 4022

W15QKN-17-9-1025-69-201842 08SEP21 Textron 10 USC 4022

(2) The referenced agreements were awarded under full and open competition under the National Advanced Mobility Consortium (NAMC).

(3) The actions identified in this section were solicited under full and open competition under Authority 10 USC 4022.

(4) No justification and approval was prepared or required under the previous competitive action.

(5) For the reasons cited in Section 5 above, the Government is limiting sources to GDLS and Textron.

(6) No unusual patterns have been identified as there is only one previous solicitation which resulted in two OTA agreements.

(7) No justification and approval was prepared or required under the previous competitive action.

b. Other Facts: None

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

Name: Mr. John S. Myers Date: 10 JAN 2023

Title: Program Manager Signature: //signed//JSM//

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

Name: Mr. John S. Myers Date: 10 JAN 2023

Title: Program Manager Signature: //signed//JSM//

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the USG for these contract actions will be fair and reasonable through a combination of Cost Analysis to thoroughly analyze each of the proposed individual cost elements, and price analysis to ensure the proposed price is consistent with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and actual historical pricing of similar Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems (PEO GCS) and Program Executive Office Land Systems (PEO LS) programs. ACC-DTA has a dedicated Pricing Division with trained Cost/Price Analysts and Industrial Specialists who will assist the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) by performing the Cost and Price analysis. This analysis will also be supported by a PM LAV technical review. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) expertise and audit support may be requested for input if applicable. The recommendations contained in the DCAA Audit, DCMA Technical report, and/or Program Office engineering technical report will be used to develop a recommended negotiating position. This detailed Government position will be approved in a comprehensive Business Clearance Review (BCR) consisting of reviews from levels above the PCO. Certified Cost or Pricing Data will be required and will form the basis for this analysis. The results of negotiations, and the detailed Fair and Reasonable determination from the Contracting Officer, will be documented in a Post Negotiation Memorandum (PNM) that will be reviewed and concurred upon by senior contracting personnel within the Pricing Division.

Name: John Sarti Date: 10 Jan 2024

Title: Procurement Contracting Officer Signature: //signedjs//

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

Name: John Sarti Date: 10 Jan 2024

Title: Procurement Contracting Officer Signature: //signedjs//