CT 2.1

J&A No. 25,149

The period of performance for this contract action is expected to, total an 8-year period of performance from FY2025 – FY2032.

Table 1 – Funding Profile

*Calculation difference is due to rounding; figures rounded to nearest

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C. § 3204(a)(1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1. In addition, FAR 6.302- 1(a)(2)(ii) allows other than competitive procedures when the property is available from only one responsible source and no other type of property will satisfy the agency's needs. In the case of a follow-on contract to continually produce highly specialized equipment, such equipment may be available from only one source when it is likely that awarding to a new source would result in substantial cost duplication to the United States that is not likely recoverable through competition. Alternatively, the equipment may be available from only one source when it is likely that awarding to a new source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's needs.

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority.

a. The WSA Is Highly Specialized Equipment: In 2019, a competitive Other Transaction Authority Agreement was awarded to Raytheon Missile and Defense (RMD) for the development of the NLU. In 2021, RMD was awarded a FAR-based follow-on production contract for the NLU. Subsequently, the Milestone Decision Authority separated the procurement of the NLU into the two major subsystems, WSA and Fire Control electronics, so that they could be procured separately. Corvid is the original equipment manufacturer and the subcontractor for the WSA portion of the NLU. PdM NMESIS currently lacks the technical data rights to the WSA. Without the technical data rights, no other contractor will be able to ensure the WSA properly interfaces with the NLU and ROGUE-Fires Carrier to meet the requirements of the NMESIS system.

b. Awarding to a New Source Would Result in Substantial Cost Duplication: The development, integration, and production of the WSA subsystem onto Marine Corps systems represents an investment of approximately to date. Included in this sum are multiple purchases of Ballistic Testing Vehicles (BTVs) totaling approximately and non-recurring engineering labor of approximately to support prototyping, ballistic tests, qualification testing, and non-recurring engineering labor. Fulfilling the requirement for additional WSA subsystems by awarding to a source other than Corvid would result in approximately in cost duplication. As such, it is not expected that this investment could be recouped via a competition. Based on historical experience, this investment could not be recouped by competitively procuring an alternate system to replace the WSA. Development, testing, and

Appropriation FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 Total

RDT&E

certification of a new WSA would require new investment that, due to inflation and the need to reverse engineer technical data and establish a new production line, would exceed the original investment, and it is unlikely that a competition to procure a substitute subsystem would allow the Government to recoup its investment.

c. Awarding to a new source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's needs: The Government also estimates it would take, at minimum, three years to qualify a new WSA. Any source other than Corvid would have to establish new systems engineering baselines. After establishment, the uniqueness of the WSA subsystem would require live-firing tests to validate the technical baseline. Production would be delayed far beyond the required deployment timeframe of 2034 for all NMESIS systems. The required deployment timeframe is consistent with the Commandant’s Force Design 2030 planning requirements and a service-level shift towards focusing on peer-level competition, with special emphasis on the Indo-Pacific. The estimates of delay and duplicative effort are based on the following considerations:

i. Development efforts would include a period of initial design before initial developmental test assets could be defined adequately for procurement.

ii. Any contractor other than Corvid would be required to establish facilities, tooling, and specialized test equipment to produce and test a new WSA.

iii. Test articles would need to be procured and built requiring a minimum of one year for subsystem lead times, production, and delivery.

iv. Developmental testing then must occur which would require the use of test ranges, test personnel, and variants of the NSM used for flight and ballistic tests. The NSM variants used for flight and ballistic tests are telemetered encanistered missiles and BTVs. Both variants have a minimum two-year lead time and neither have been budgeted for additional tests, leading to further delays.

v. Time and funding would be required to refine the WSA design based on findings from developmental testing before production representative models could be procured for operational testing.

vi. An additional safety assessment of the new design by the Weapons Systems Explosive

Safety Review Board would be required prior to fielding of the system, adding additional fielding delays.

6. Description of Efforts Made to Solicit Offers from as Many Offerors as Practicable.

In accordance with FAR Part 10, market research was conducted by posting a Sources Sought Notice (SSN), M67854-25-I-1004, to SAM.gov on 2 October 2024 to determine market capabilities. The SSN closed 18 October 2024. The notice assessed industry’s capability to provide development support, production-level assets, prototype assets, sustainment support, and technical support for the NMESIS WSA.

MARCORSYSCOM will continue to monitor emerging technologies that may provide similar capabilities in the future.

COMPETITION ADVOCATE APPROVAL:

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby concur, as Procuring Activity Competition Advocate for MARCORSYSCOM, the solicitation of the proposed procurement described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 3204(a)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1.

Phone Date

Director, Contracts Marine Corps Systems Command

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR APPROVAL:

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve, as Executive Director, the solicitation of the proposed procurement(s) described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 3204(a)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1.

Russell A. Blauw Phone Date Executive Director Marine Corps Systems Command