JA - FA2487-18-D-0129 JMEM Signed 18MARCH2024.pdf

Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other Than Full and Open Competition

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

13 May 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 6

Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A? Yes No

Is this a new or amended J&A Document? New Amended ( Prior to Award Only! )

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at AFFARS 5302.101? Yes No

Dollar Value of this Acquisition: < $750K > $750K and < $15M > $15M and < $100M > $100M

Contracting Activity: AFLCMC/EBRW, Weaponeering Branch, Eglin AFB, FL

Purchase Request (if available) / Local ID Number:

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEMs) Production Contract, FA2487-18-D-0129

Program Type (PEO, Enterprise, of Operational): PEO Program

Supplemental Authority (if applicable):

6.302-1 – 10 USC 2304(c)(1), Only One Responsible Source - No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $ 12,500,000 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION ( AFFARS 5306.304(a) ) Sign and Save Procedure

** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Date

18 Jan 2024

Program Manager Kathleen Scuderi

AFLCMC/EBRW/850-883-3834

Signature

X

Date

25 Jan 2024

Contracting Officer Darrell I. Coleman

AFLCMC/EBRW/850-883-0158

Signature

X

Date

15 Mar 2024

Local Legal Reviewer Sean M. Hannaway

AFMC 66 ABG/JAS/ 781-225-5802

Signature

X

APPROVAL ( AFFARS 5306.304(a) )

Date

18 Mar 2024

Competition Advocate Gregory L. Parry

AFLCMC/PZC/ 850-883-7284

Signature

13 May 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 6

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Air Force Life Cycle Management (AFLCMC), Armament Directorate (EB), Rapid Enterprise Solutions Branch (EBRW), Eglin AFB FL 32542-6807 is the contracting activity supporting this Individual Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other Than Full and Open Competition.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

This Individual J&A supports a contract modification action to IDIQ FA2487-18-D-0129 in support of Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manuals (JMEM) mission critical requirements to be issued on a sole source basis to Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA), 4300 San Mateo Blvd NE STE A-220, Albuquerque NM 87110-1295,

(505) 881-8074, Cage Code: 9R446. The contract type is mixed (Firm Fixed Price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, and Cost Reimbursable). This individual J&A covers tasks issued under the IDIQ contract through the end of the ordering period and will not exceed $12,500,000, due to the actions that need to be completed are already on the effort in the form of options that will be exercised. The following table depicts an estimate of the 3600 funding at the summary level of actions required to be accomplished under the authority of this document. The JMEM products have been under development, production, testing, and sustainment by ARA since March 2018 under the Department of the Air Force IDIQ Contract number FA2487-18-D-0129. It is crucial that ARA continues the development of JWS v3 and J-ACE v5 software products through the remaining major milestones until the end of the ordering period. The following task orders included options at award that will be exercised and the values are reflected in the amounts displayed. These are six (6) month options.

Tasks $ Amount

- Continued Development & Production of JMEM Weaponeering $3,600,000 Software (JWS) v3

- Continued Sustainment for Joint Anti-Air Combat Effectiveness $2,875,000 (J-ACE) v5 & Development and Production of J-ACE v6

- JMEM Product Training, Support for Capabilities & Standardization, $4,950,000 IT/DevSecOps, Requirements, JMEM Operations Support, and Working Group(s) Support

- Continued Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Development, Testing, & $ 1,075,000 Production/Fielding of JWS v2.4.1 and Sustainment of JWS v2.2.1 for each FMS country (Australia, Canada, & United Kingdom)

Total: $12,500,000

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

The table above depicts summary-level tasks proposed at a $12,500,000 ceiling increase to be accomplished under the authority of this document. The JMEM products are critical to the execution of the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) Joint Technical Coordinating Group for Munitions Effectiveness (JTCG/ME) mission. JTCG/ME serves as the Department of Defense's sole developer of JMEMs of Weaponeering tools. These JMEM products/ tools are used daily within all services (US Air Force, US Army, US Navy, US Marine Corps, and Combatant Commands (CCMD) for planning and operational analysis for Weaponeering and targeting. The JTCG/ME authenticates weapons effectiveness data for use in operations, training, systems acquisitions, weapon procurement, and combat modeling and simulation. The JMEMs are used to plan operational missions, support training and tactics development, and support force-level analyses.

The JTCG/ME also develops and standardizes methodologies for evaluation of munitions effectiveness and

13 May 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 6 maintains databases containing target vulnerability, munitions lethality, and weapon system accuracy. The JMEMs requirements and development processes continue to be driven by operational lessons learned, the needs of Combatant Commands, Services, Military Targeting Committee, Operational Users Working Groups (OUWGs), and External Interface Working Groups (EIWGs) input. The responsibility for management and sustainment of the JMEMs contract has been delegated to the Air Force per Army Regulation 25-35 and assigned to the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Operational Weaponeering and Analysis Branch (AFLCMC/EBRW), Eglin AFB, FL. ARA provides analytical and software development and test support to the various JTCG/ME technical working groups and Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), which include, but are not limited to: The JMEMs Weaponeering System (JWS), Joint Anti air Combat Effectiveness (J-ACE), Capability and Standardization (C&S), Requirements, Digital Image Exploitation Engine (DIEE), and Warfighter Response teams.

Use of JMEM software for development of weaponeering and collateral damage estimates is required by national policy and detailed in CJCSI Joint Publication 3-60, “Joint Targeting”, and CJCSI 3160.01D, “No-Strike and the Collateral Damage Estimation Methodology”. JMEM software products are highly complex and cover a wide variety of targets and platform/weapon combinations, servicing Joint/Allied operations across all domains (i.e., kinetic/non-kinetic, space, cyber) and at all levels of military chain of command. Contractual updates/redirect necessary to meet critical Joint Targeting Initiatives in preparation for potential near peer conflict and focus shift from the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Further cost/schedule delays related to stand up of continued operations capabilities during COVID operating environment. Additionally, cost/schedule delays related to stand up and transition of code base to Authority to Operate (ATO’d) networks due to new/additional cybersecurity instruction have contributed to inability of government/contractor development teams to reach critical software milestones necessary for successful hand-off and avoidance of subsequent cost/schedule impediments upon award of follow-on contract. Further cost/schedule delays put JMEMs at high risk for meeting critical joint/allied operational imperatives. This action will provide continuity to the development, testing, and integration of the JMEM software products allowing ARA to complete essential milestones prior to the end of the ordering period. Three critical areas contributed to government/contractor-led development teams inability to reach critical milestones:

1) A major shift of focus in support of Joint Targeting Initiatives for all-inclusive (Point mensuration, Weaponeering, and collateral damage estimation capabilities) software suite driving a common User Interface (UI) and integration of desired joint targeting capabilities.

2) The stand-up of continued operations capabilities (unclassified, connected development networks) through a COVID period. The use of JMEM Software products has increased and the challenges of training with the COVID pandemic made steady-state requirement goals difficult. As the COVID limitation/restrictions have reduced over the past months, the Government had clearer expectations and requirements to draft new task order requirements and associated resource estimates. The unknown COVID environment did impact the ability to develop necessary solicitation documentation for requirements and resource estimates.

3) The new and increased cybersecurity directives requiring code base migration to an approved network environment. The growing emphasis on cybersecurity/resilience processes by the DoD also had impact on the Government. The DoD has emphasized the use of Secure Developmental Operations (DevSecOps) environments for software products over the past couple years. These DevSecOps environments help inject cybersecurity practices, but also come with increased IT infrastructure demands. These DevSecOps environments cause increased reviews on how previous product codes are archived which also increases the need for more resources and requirements. ARA has made monumental progress with establishing, preparing, and processing documents for a successful network environment. It is crucial that ARA continue working with Air Force Operational Test and Training Infrastructure (OTTI) on this effort as they have established a trust with the approving official.

The existing contractor, ARA, has the prior history and detailed working knowledge as well as the technical and specialized expertise to continue the project without further delays.

13 May 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 6

The existing contractor, ARA, has the prior history and detailed working knowledge as well as the technical and specialized expertise to continue the project without further delays.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited above.

Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. ARA has been developing the JWS 3.x and J-ACE 6.x since March 2018. While operating under a Government-Owned/Contractor- Operated (GOCO) facility, ARA is responsible for the computer hardware and software used for development and sustainment of JMEM products. ARA is not only tasked with developing new software products for JWS and J-ACE, but is also responsible for establishing a new network environment that meets cybersecurity policies. Currently ARA is in the middle of transitioning to the new network while continuing development of the product lines. Prior to 2018, the JMEMs products were built on 1960s software techniques. Through the decades, new targets and methodologies were added to the existing software codes. The IDIQ contract FA2487-18-D-0129 is responsible for designing and developing new code, testing, integrating, analyzing, and delivering the JWS v3 and J-ACE v6 products utilizing new computer programs improving computational efficiencies and addressing new computational requirements provided by the Government. This includes the integration of Government supplied software (developed by other Contractors) into the JMEM products. It is imperative that this development and integration of other vendor products continues with the existing Contractor to avoid further delays. Award to any other source other than ARA would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Air Force's requirements. It would take an estimated 12 months to assimilate the base knowledge of the source coding, establish relationships with existing vendors that provide integrated data as well as establishing a relationship with OTTI and the continuation of network migration. ARA is the only vendor capable to continue fulfilling the requirements of the contract without substantial unacceptable delays. Any gap in service will have a severe impact on support to the capabilities to the Warfighter. It is in the best interest of the Government in terms of technical quality, efficiency, time, and cost to increase the ceiling of this contract to continue development with ARA and provide the continuous critical user support, day-to-day operations, user Weaponeering training, to support JTCG and DOT&E.

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under FAR 5.202 applies.

The proposed contract action will not be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.202(a)(11), as the existing contract was previously synopsized. This action is to increase the ceiling of the IDIQ in order to modify in-scope Task Orders for services through the end of the ordering period. To allow the program office to release the data and information needed to support each effort, options will be exercised to continue to produce a final result which will allow the team to move forward in the next phase of the JMEMs effort. The next phase will also be competitively procured.

Prior to modification execution, the Contracting Officer will post this justification notifying industry of our intent.

VI. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

The Contracting Officer has determined that the Government obtained fair and reasonable prices for the actions awarded to this JMEMs IDIQ. The Task Orders associated with this IDIQ had thorough technical and cost analysis performed and utilized information provided by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as required. Options were included at time of award for the task orders associated with this IDIQ and due to this being competitively procured, this is deemed to be fair and reasonable.

This current justification and approval covers existing work on the four (4) task orders spoken to in section II of this document and no additional task orders will be awarded to this IDIQ. DCAA and DCMA analyses combined with Contracting Officer's analyses were used at that time for the substantiation of fair and reasonable prices. There will be options exercised on the mentioned task orders that were properly evaluated at the time of award. The options will be exercised in accordance with FAR 17.207(c), making sure funds are available, their is still an existing need

13 May 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 6 and that the exercising of the option is most advantageous to fulfilling the Government's need.

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

Market research was conducted during the initial phases of awarding this IDIQ. While other companies responded at that time, the current need lies with needing to increase the ceiling on the current IDIQ to ensure ARA is able to complete on-going system upgrades and sustainment programs. The current effort was posted on the SAM.GOV, Governmentwide Point of Entry (GPE) and was competitively sourced. Through the competition market research was established.

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

The JTCG/ME was chartered in 1968 to serve as the DoD focal point for munitions effectiveness data, methodologies and standards. This has taken the form of widely used JMEMs which address fielded nonnuclear US weapons. The JTCG/ME authenticates weapons effectiveness data for use in operations, training, systems acquisitions, weapon procurement, and combat modeling and simulation. The JMEMs are used by the Armed Forces of the US and other allies (including International Exchange Agreements) to plan operational missions, support training and tactics development, and support force-level analyses.

The JTCG/ME also develops and standardizes methodologies for evaluation of munitions effectiveness and maintains databases containing target vulnerability, munitions lethality, and weapon system accuracy. The JMEMs requirements and development processes continue to be driven by operational lessons learned, the needs of Combatant Commands, Services, Military Targeting Committee, Operational Users Working Groups (OUWGs), and External Interface Working Groups (EIWGs) input. The responsibility for management and sustainment of the JMEMs contract has been delegated to the Air Force per Army Regulation 25-35 and assigned to the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Operational Weaponeering and Analysis Branch (AFLCMC/EBRW), Eglin AFB, FL. This effort is a continuation of similar contractual efforts that have been periodically re-competed and awarded since 1968 to support this requirement. The Contractor provides analytical and software development and test support to the various JTCG/ME technical working groups and Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), which include, but are not limited to: the JMEMs Weaponeering System (JWS), Joint Antiair Combat Effectiveness (J-ACE), Capability and Standardization (C&S), Requirements, Digital Image Exploitation Engine (DIEE), and Warfighter Response teams.

JMEMs contain Joint approved weapons characterization, target characterization, and effectiveness prediction models. CCMD strike authorities, targeteers, mission planners, and coalition partners rely on the JMEM capabilities and credibility of Weaponeering tools to estimate the number/type of weapons required to achieve the desired effect and Commander's intent, while minimizing collateral damage in accordance with the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instructions. National Test and Training Ranges (NTTR) (e.g., Air Force Fighter Weapons School, Navy TOPGUN) also use JMEMs to enable and underpin air combat tactics, techniques, and procedures development.

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

This justification is being used to increasing the ceiling on the current IDIQ to meet current mission needs, a sources sought or industry day was not hosted for this action. Market research was originally conducted prior to IDIQ award.

X. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

This action is to increase the ceiling of an existing IDIQ, that was previously synopsized prior to award. The purpose

13 May 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 6 of this action is to have the existing Contractor, ARA, continue performance and the development of JWS 3x and J- ACE 6x while maintaining the facilities and IT network infrastructure in Building 4, Eglin AFB, operating as a GOCO. This work includes modifying the current tasks orders to exercise existing options, these options period of performance do not exceed six (6) months. Market research is ongoing for the subsequent acquisition and will be conducted in accordance with the FAR. Based on the results of that research, the prevailing marketplace conditions, and future ALFCMC/EBRW JMEMs requirements, a decision to pursue competition will be made to the maximum extent practicable. The contractor is progressing on a course with software development of the JWS 3x and JACE 6x programs to get to a point where the task is severable and can possibly be performed by other entities thus removing barriers to competition.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by their signature, the contracting officer certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

As evidenced by their signatures, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein, which is their responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

Remove the Guidance pages below. Remove the IACR pages below.

13 May 2022 Page of International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR) Page of 13 May 2022 Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A?

!! Attach the preceding J&A in the staff package for this J&A. The preceding J&A will be used as a reference document.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document?

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at AFFARS 5302.101?

Dollar Value of this Acquisition:

J&A Type:

!! Provide estimated cost of all contracts.

COORDINATION ( AFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

APPROVAL ( AFFARS 5306.304(a)) NOTE 1: A signature block will appear here (replacing these notes) based on the "Dollar Value of this Acquisition" selected above. Since most digital signatures that include date/time-stamps are redacted before they are made publicly available, always insert the date in the “Date” cell when affixing a digital signature to this document.

NOTE 2: Users of this template are directed to SAF/AQC Policy Memo 22-C-02 (or latest issuance), which provides detailed instructions on how to complete each section of a J&A.

NOTE 3: Some types of acquisitions awarded under circumstances where full and open competition is not required by statute do not have to be supported by a written justification and approval. See 10 U.S.C. § 3204(e)(7); FAR 6.302-5(c)(2). For Class J&As, all contracts within the class must fall within the same statutory authority.

(See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" after item XII below.)

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited above.

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under FAR 5.202 applies.

VI. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

X. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

Specific Guidance for Completing this Template I. Agency and Contracting Activity. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1)) Self-explanatory II. Nature and description of the action being processed. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2)) An individual J&A is for a single contract. State whether the action is a new contract or a modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the contract type(s) planned (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee). If exception 2 is cited (unusual or compelling urgency), include the date of UCA/contract/modification issuance and amount.

An individual J&A cannot be used to support more than one contract action irrespective of the quantities or the dollar value stated therein. If a proposed contract will contain unpriced options (including NTE prices), those options must be supported by a separate J&A prior to option exercise. Stoehner Security Services, Inc., 248077.3, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 286 at 6. This principle applies with equal force and effect whenever a contracting officer seeks to exercise FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) if the contract that incorporated that clause by reference is not a Service Contract Labor Standards-covered contract, as such contracts do not include wage determinations that establish “prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor.” FAR 52.217-8. See Major Contracting Services, Inc., B-401472, Sep. 14, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 170 at 6, mot. for reconsid. den., Department of the Army --Reconsideration, B-401472.2, Dec. 7. 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 250 at 5-6. In the alternative, the J&A supporting the basic contract must be a Class J&A. Although a Class J&A may be written for multiple awards to a single source, or multiple awards to various sources, it must describe each proposed contract action separately so it is clear that each such action is within scope of that Class J&A. FAR 6.303-1(d).

III. Description of the supplies/services required to meet agency needs. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3)) Describe the supplies, services, or supplies and services to be acquired. Identify the quantities of each item, the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance, the type of appropriation(s) that will acquire those supplies/services, the total estimated value of the acquisition (including options), and the methodology used to arrive at that total estimated value. Provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the approving official that the acquisition of intellectual property (IP) and associated IP rights will satisfy the program's requirements, acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan.

The program's requirements for IP and IP rights in the Request for Proposals (RFP) must be consistent with the program's acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan. Accordingly, approving officials will ensure this section of the J&A:

(1) States whether the CLIN structure will include separately-priced CLINs for intellectual property (IP) and IP rights. Once the DFARS is revised to implement 10 U.S.C. § 4236, Air Force contracting officers will be required to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for IP and associated IP rights. Air Force contracting officers must start thinking now how they will do so during sole-source and competitive negotiations and how the resulting contract will reflect the results of those negotiations. Otherwise, they may be caught flat-footed if the RFP did not include such separately-priced CLINs and the Director of Defense Pricing and Contracting issues the final rule implementing 10 U.S.C. § 4236 --the effective date of which occurs one day prior to the award date. See also FAR 7.105(b)(14)(iii) and DFARS 215.470(a);

(2) Lists the titles of all such IP (including digital models) to be to be acquired contained in Exhibits A-N of the draft Request for Proposals; and

(3) Identifies the type of IP rights to be acquired to those deliverables (including the IP rights to be acquired to contract administration information since the standard DFARS clauses do not grant the Air Force any license rights to that type of IP).

Mission-focused business leaders are encouraged to engage early in the acquisition life-cycle with industry regarding the subjects of IP and IP rights. They are also encouraged to consult with approving officials, designees, or both, regarding those subjects well in advance of submitting a draft J&A to the appropriate approving official.

For Class J&As, identify each contract action (contract, modification) to be authorized by the proposed J&A for each potential offeror. If the same information applies to more than one contract, it need only be stated once.

For ID/IQ or requirements contracts, use the maximum dollar value of the total estimated orders as the total estimated value of the acquisition.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)) Provide detailed facts sufficient to justify the use of the particular authority cited. Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of a lack of advance planning or concerns relating to the amount of funds available (e.g., expiring funds). (FAR 6.301(c)).

Check the applicable box below. Checking a box will display the text for that section.

In the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, the rationale must first justify the supplies/services as either associated with a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment”. It must then justify either “substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition” or “unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements”, whichever situation applies. If both of those situations apply, the rationale can be based upon either or both of those two situations. This authority shall not be used when any of the other authorities apply.

Sub-subsection 1. FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) require that the J&A demonstrate that specific conditions have been satisfied. Therefore, this sub-section must deconstruct the specific words in those provisions and demonstrate to the appropriate approving official how the proposed acquisition satisfies those words.

For example, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the proposed acquisition is a “follow-on contract” by identifying the current contract number of the contract the intended awardee of that “follow-on contract” is currently performing, the basis of award for that contract (competitive, sole-source), the purpose of that contract, the date of contract award, and the date that contract will expire. PTC, Inc., B-416863, Dec. 20, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 48 at 6-7. This subsection must also demonstrate the proposed acquisition will continue “development” or “production” of a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof” or provide “highly specialized services.” In the case of the former, this subsection must either identify the ACAT I or II program --since the legal definition of a “major system” includes ACAT I and II programs --or explain why the equipment sought to be acquired is “highly specialized” for which the proposed acquisition will “continue[ ] development or production”. In the alternative, this subsection must explain why the services sought to be acquired are “highly specialized”.

If the planned acquisition will result in a “bridge” contract that contains options, this subsection must explain why options are necessary. If significant lead time is required prior to approval of the J&A in order to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III, this subsection should mention that fact and explain why that is the case.

Next, this sub-subsection should add a concluding sentence to the end of this subsection, suitably tailored; e.g., “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of a major system.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of a major system.”, “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued provision of highly specialized services.”

The purpose of that sentence is to bring the approving official back to the regulatory requirements the preceding paragraphs of this section of the J&A have discussed to demonstrate the J&A satisfies those requirements.

Sub-subsection 2. Thoroughly describe the contractor's unique/highly specialized capabilities and qualifications (e.g., facilities, personnel, special tooling acquired), (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)), and why no other type of supplies or services will satisfy the agency requirements.

Sub-subsection 3. This subsection should begin with the following sentence, suitably tailored:

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Government's requirements.”

The purpose of this opening sentence is to direct the approving official's attention to which specific words in FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) will be the basis for going sole-source.

Next, when the rationale for going sole-source is based upon substantial duplication of cost, this sub-subsection must include an estimate of the amount of cost that would be duplicated (e.g., training required so that another source could acquire the skills necessary to perform the work, equipment, facilities) less the estimated cost to run a competition. (For example, the development costs the Government incurred under the existing contract or similar programs may provide insight into the amount of cost duplication were the proposed acquisition to be competed.) This sub-subsection should also identify the organization(s) that/who performed the analyses that supports those estimates, and describe the analysis that/those organization(s) performed to arrive at both estimates. The methodology must account for inflation during the projected remaining life cycle of the acquisition. (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A); FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(ii)).

When, however, the rationale for going sole-source is based upon unacceptable delay, this sub-subsection must state how long it would take someone else to obtain this capability (in months/years) and why, and provide a detailed explanation of the impact or problem caused by the delay. When describing the impact or problem caused by the delay, the rationale must identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III and the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in that section, and the reduction (or frustration) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. The explanation provided must be commensurate with the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in Section III (e.g., longer delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance necessitate a more detailed explanation). (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(B) & (iii)(B)).

Although the existence of IP rights retained by the developer make the supplies and services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Therefore, if the program office will use that rationale to justify going sole-source, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the program office performed sufficient due diligence to validate the developer retains such IP rights that require the use of this authority to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III. Specifically, this sub-subsection must explain:

(1) What IP rights the Government acquired to what IP deliverables under predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section and why those rights are insufficient to compete acquisition of the supplies or services described in Section III;

(2) What IP clauses (include the month/year of issuance) or applicable commercial computer software licenses were included into all of those predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section;

(3) Whether those predecessor contracts included the Deferred Ordering clause (DFARS 252.227-7027) and if so, why the program office did not exercise its rights to acquire needed IP deliverables by exercising its rights under that clause;

(4) Why the Government did not acquire sufficient IP deliverables and IP rights under that/those predecessor contract(s) that would have precluded the need to go sole-source for the proposed acquisition (e.g., acquisition strategies for those predecessor contracts were based upon the Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) initiative);

(5) What IP deliverables did the program office acquire under that/those predecessor contract(s) and what restrictive markings did the developer affix to those deliverables;

(6) What pre-challenge requests for information or formal challenges the program office initiated in response to a developer's assertions of development at private expense (DFARS 252.227-7019, DFARS 252.227-7037) and what analysis the program office performed of the information it received in response to that request or formal challenge;

(7) What investigation the program office conducted to determine whether the IP deliverables provided under that/those predecessor contract(s) was/were developed in whole or in part at Government expense (e.g., reviewing the developer's IR&D project approvals and accounting records, reviewing earned value management data and integrated program management reports);

(8) Assuming the results of that investigation validate the developer's assertion of development at private expense, what if any steps did the contracting officer take to request the developer propose a price to furnish the IP deliverables and IP licenses needed to compete the proposed acquisition; and

(9) The extent to which the program office considered reverse engineering any subsystems or components of the end item described in Section III (and summarize the estimated cost to reverse engineer those subsystems or components and the time it would take to complete such reverse engineering activities); or considered use of a modular open system approach to acquire those subsystems or components consistent with the program's capability development document, acquisition strategy, and system engineering plan. (DFARS 207.106(S-72)(2)(v); DFARS 227.7103-5(d)(2)(iii)).

Although the control of basic raw material makes the supplies or services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights or circumstances does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Under such circumstances, this sub-section must identify how the intended source acquired a monopoly on those raw materials.

When acquiring utility services, circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service, or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(3)).

When the agency head has determined in accordance with the agency's standardization program that only specified makes and models of technical equipment and parts will satisfy the agency's needs for additional units or replacement items and only one source is available, (FAR 6.302-1(b)(4)), this sub-section must identify the relevant standardization program.

Notwithstanding FAR 6.302-1(c)(2), a justification and approval is required in order to use brand name or equal descriptions or the use of proprietary specifications or standards. (DFARS 206.302-1(c)(2) and (S-70)).

Sub-subsection 4. When using the rationale described in sub-subsection 3 above, conclude this subsection by including one of the following sentences, as applicable:

“Accordingly, ___[insert company name]___ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be recovered through competition.”, “Accordingly, __[insert company name]__ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

“Accordingly, __[insert company name]__, is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

The purpose of this sentence is to restate for the approving official's benefit which rationale(s) is/are the basis for going sole-source, thereby sensitizing them to the fact the author will now turn to discussing a different topic.

Contracting Officers must notify SAF/AQC as soon as practicable when contemplating the use of this authority for a J&A requiring SPE approval.

Provide an explanation why the supplies or services are needed at once due to, e.g., fire, flood, explosion, other disaster, emergency) or essential equipment or repairs to that equipment are needed at once to facilitate meeting critical mission needs of the Government. Identify the nature of the urgency, the reasons for it occurring, and the extent of the anticipated serious injury to the Government -- thereby demonstrating why the Government's need for the supplies or services described in Section III is of “unusual and compelling urgency” to preclude adverse impact to military readiness. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(iii)). In other words, identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III and the reduction (or elimination) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. Merely citing a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON), Force Activity Designator (FAD) rating, Program Management Directive (PMD)/Program Action Directive (PAD) guidance, or DX priority rating is not in and of itself sufficient reason to use this exception from the requirement to obtain full and open competition. Note that only the minimum quantity required to satisfy the unusual and compelling urgency qualifies for this exception. In addition, the period of performance CANNOT exceed one year, including all options unless the head of the agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply (FAR 6.302-2(d)(ii)); thus, the inclusion of options when using this authority is not advised.

Note: This statutory authority requires that agencies request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-2(c)(2)).

Justifications citing this authority must demonstrate the need to maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization; to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center; or to acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute. If the proposed contract will require the contractor to keep vital facilities or suppliers in business or make them available in the event of a national emergency, train a supplier in the furnishing of critical supplies or services, prevent the loss of a supplier's ability and employees' skills, or maintain active engineering, research, or development work, maintain properly balanced sources of supply, create or maintain the required domestic capability for production of critical supplies, or continue in production where there would otherwise be a break in production, or divide current production requirements among two or more contractors, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(1)). If the proposed contract will establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an education or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center for theoretical analyses, exploratory studies, experiments in any field of science of technology, or engineering or development work calling for the practical application of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)). If the proposed contract will acquire the services of an expert to use in any litigation, dispute, or alternative dispute resolution proceedings involving the Government, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(3)).

Identify the applicable statute explicitly authorizing other than full and open competition. (FAR 6.302-5(b); DFARS 206.302-5(b)). The following is a non-exclusive list of statutes lifted from FAR 6.302-5(b) that authorize acquiring supplies and services from specified sources or through another agency:

(1) Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) (18 U.S.C. § 4124 (see FAR Subpart 8.6).

(2) Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely disabled (41 U.S.C. Chapter 85) Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see FAR Subpart 8.7).

(3) Government Printing and Binding (44 U.S.C. §§ 501-504, 1121 (see FAR Subpart 8.8)).

(4) Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program (15 U.S.C. § 637), but see FAR 6.303 for requirements for justification and approval of sole-source 8(a) awards over $25 million. (See FAR Subpart 19.8).

(5) Sole source awards under the HUBZone Act of 1997 (15 U.S.C. § 657a)(see FAR 19.1306).

(6) Sole source awards under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. § 657f).

(7) Sole source awards under the WOSB Program (15 U.S.C. § 637(m)(see FAR 19.1506).

Note: Some statutes do not require a written J&A.

Full and open competition need not be provided for when the disclosure of the agency's needs would compromise the national security (e.g., would violate security requirements) unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals. Accordingly, if this authority is used, this section shall explain how these conditions are satisfied.

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by FAR 5.2 and, if not, indicate which exception under FAR 5.202 applies. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(6); FAR 6.303-2(b)(8); FAR 6.303-2(b)(10)) The contracting officer shall issue a sources sought synopsis or an RFI, provide the date the synopsis was issued, the synopsis number, and a brief description of its content. Identify the number of responses received, the names of the respondents, the results of the screening process, and the rationale for determining the unacceptability of any respondents, unless exempted by the MAJCOM SCO or Operating Location SCO with rank of GO or SES, otherwise approval by the HCA is required. (FAR 6.302-1(d)(2); DFARS 206.302-1(d); DFARS PGI 206.302-1(d); AFFARS 6306.302-1(d); AFFARS MP5301.601(a)(i)).

Specify whether this acquisition will require a Notice of proposed Contract Action (NOCA) IAW FAR 5.201 and if not, provide the exception IAW FAR 5.202. If a NOCA was or will be publicized provide the dates or expected dates of publication of the NOCA. Address any other actions taken or planned to facilitate competition for this acquisition.

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-1, an RFI or Sources Sought Synopsis is mandatory. (DFARS PGI 206.303-2(b)(i)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-2, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances unless the Government would be seriously injured if the agency complied with the time periods specified in FAR 5.203. (FAR. 5.202(a)(2); FAR 603.2-2(b)(2)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-3, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action is for utility services other that telecommunications services and only one source is available. (FAR 5.202(a)(5)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-5, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action results from acceptance of a proposal under the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. (FAR 5.202(a)(7)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-6, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-6(c)(3)). The fact that a proposed solicitation or contact action contains classified information, or that access to classified information may be necessary to submit a proposal or perform the contract does not, in itself exempt that proposed contract action from the synopsis requirement. (FAR 52.202(a)(1)). Under such circumstances, this section must identify what alternatives the program office used to compete this requirement (e.g., accessing the National Reconnaissance Office's (NRO) Acquisition Research Center's Central Contractor Registry database or the National Security Agency's (NSA) Acquisition Resource Center's Business Registry database to identify potential cleared offerors and summarize what outreach the program office conducted with those potential cleared offerors to determine their interest in the proposed acquisition).

If qualifying country sources have expressed interest, but will be excluded, provide supporting rationale.

VI. Determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable.