JA for Sole Source - AFGSC Strategic Plan signed.pdf

Department of the Air Force: Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition

CUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUICUI

March 2026 Page 1 of 3March 2026 Page 1 of 3

Dollar Value of this Acquisition: < $10M > $10M and < $100M > $100M and < $500M > $500M

CERTIFICATIONS: CO certification serves as J&A approval < $10M, See J&A Template Guidance at https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/ AFCC/AQCP/KnowledgeCenter/SitePages/DAF-Contracting-Compass/Part-6---Competition-Requirements.aspx#exceptions-to-full-and-open-competition-mandatory J&A Template Guidance tab

Date

01 April 2026

Contracting Officer (RFO 6.104-1(12)) Capt Grant Wilson

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature

Date

01 April 2026

Technical and Requirements Personnel (RFO 6.104(b)) Dr. Creighlynn Thoele

I certify that the supporting data herein, which is my responsibility, is accurate and complete.

Signature

COORDINATION 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.

APPROVALS ( RFO 6.104-2(a) Table 6-1 & R-DFARS 206.104-72 Table 206.1)

CUI

March 2026 Page 2 of 3March 2026 Page 2 of 3

I. Agency and Contracting Activity (RFO 6.104-1(a)(1)):

Agency: Air Force Global Strike Command (AFGSC) Contracting Activity: 767 Enterprise Sourcing Flight (ESF)

II. Nature and/or description of the action being approved (RFO 6.104-1(a)(2)):

This document approves the award of a contract on a sole source basis to Executive Leadership Group for strategic planning advisory services in support of AFGSC. This justification is made on an Individual basis.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs (RFO 6.104-1(a)(3)):

AFGSC requires development of a comprehensive, executable strategic plan aligned to its nuclear deterrence and global strike mission. The effort includes: longitudinal reassessment using prior Force Improvement Plan (FIP) analytical frameworks; integration of vitality-based constructs from the Squadron Revitalization Study; strategic alignment and gap analysis; development of strategic architecture and implementation plans; strategic launch and execution management process initiation; and transition to Government sustainment. The period of performance is 365 calendar days. This requirement will be funded with the Commander's Withhold funds.

IV. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(4)):

10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

V. Rationale for Use of Authority (RFO 6.104-1(a)(5)):

Executive Leadership Group (ELG) is the only responsible source capable of satisfying this requirement without unacceptable risk to the Government. ELG led the development process and subsequent training of the initial 2014 AFGSC Force Improvement Plan (FIP) assessments and served as the architect of the analytical frameworks and structured interview methodologies used to establish AFGSC’s institutional performance baseline. ELG also conducted the Air Force Squadron Revitalization study, and designed the vitality-based analytical constructs. The current requirement is explicitly structured as a longitudinal reassessment requiring preservation of methodological continuity with the original FIP and vitality frameworks (see PWS Task 2). The Government requires: application of the original FIP analytical architecture; preservation of interpretive weighting constructs; use of vitality-based constructs embedded in prior assessments; and longitudinal comparability to prior baselines. ELG retains proprietary methodology associated with its structured interview approaches, synthesis frameworks, and integrated qualitative-quantitative analysis techniques. While the Government owns prior deliverables, the underlying analytical architecture, structured coding constructs, and interpretive sequencing logic remain ELG intellectual capital. Competition would require reconstruction or reinterpretation of analytical frameworks originally designed and applied by ELG. Such reconstruction would introduce risk of analytical distortion, degradation of longitudinal validity, and loss of comparability to prior institutional baselines. Given AFGSC’s role as the Air Force’s command for nuclear deterrence, degradation of analytical fidelity presents unacceptable mission risk. No other known source possesses direct experience architecting and applying the original FIP analytical framework, direct authorship of the vitality-based constructs used in the Squadron Revitalization study, embedded institutional knowledge necessary to preserve longitudinal validity, or demonstrated experience building strategic plans within the Department of the Air Force. Accordingly, ELG is uniquely qualified to perform this requirement.

VI. Integrated Market Analysis and Efforts to Solicit Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(6), (8), and (10)):

Market research was conducted to identify potential sources capable of preserving methodological continuity with prior FIP and vitality-based assessments. ELG submitted a detailed market research response outlining its phased methodology and

CUI

March 2026 Page 3 of 3March 2026 Page 3 of 3 prior experience. Though other vendors that provide strategic planning services to the DoW were identified (i.e., Deloitte Consulting, LLP, Booz Allen Hamilton, Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey & Company, KPMG LLP, Ironwood Business Consulting, Eagle Hill Consulting, and Strategic Consulting Partners), no other vendor identified demonstrated prior authorship or direct application of the FIP analytical framework or Squadron Revitalization vitality constructs. Given the requirement for longitudinal methodological continuity and proprietary framework application, no additional sources were solicited as it was determined that no other vendor was capable of satisfying the Government’s needs without unacceptable risk.

VII. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost (RFO 6.104-1(a)(7)):

The Contracting Officer is responsible for evaluating, determining, and documenting the anticipated contract cost/price is fair and reasonable in accordance with RFO Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing.

VIII. Any Other Facts Supporting the Justification (RFO 6.104-1(a)(9)):

The Government’s need is not for development of a new strategic baseline, but rather for structured reassessment integrating prior proprietary analytical constructs. Competing this effort would necessitate redevelopment of interpretive architecture and would invalidate longitudinal comparison to prior institutional baselines, thereby degrading decision-support quality for senior leaders overseeing nuclear deterrence operations. This justification is not based on lack of planning or expiring funds.

IX. Actions to Overcome Barriers to Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(11):

AFGSC intends to document analytical constructs to the maximum extent practicable; capture implementation frameworks within Government-owned deliverables; and develop internal capability to sustain strategic execution. Future follow-on efforts may be competed if longitudinal reassessment continuity is no longer required.

March 2026 Page of Dollar Value of this Acquisition:

CERTIFICATIONS: CO certification serves as J&A approval < $10M, See J&A Template Guidance at https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/AQCP/KnowledgeCenter/SitePages/DAF-Contracting-Compass/Part-6---Competition-Requirements.aspx#exceptions-to-full-and-open-competition-mandatory J&A Template Guidance tab

COORDINATION

** 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.

APPROVALS ( RFO 6.104-2(a) Table 6-1 & R-DFARS 206.104-72 Table 206.1) See J&A Template Guidance (https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/AQCP/KnowledgeCenter/SitePages/DAF-Contracting-Compass/Part-6---Competition-Requirements.aspx#exceptions-to-full-and-open-competition-mandatory) - Justification Approvals tab 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.

I. Agency and Contracting Activity (RFO 6.104-1(a)(1)):

II. Nature and/or description of the action being approved (RFO 6.104-1(a)(2)):

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs (RFO 6.104-1(a)(3)):

IV. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(4)):

V. Rationale for Use of Authority (RFO 6.104-1(a)(5)):

VI. Integrated Market Analysis and Efforts to Solicit Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(6), (8), and (10)):

VII. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost (RFO 6.104-1(a)(7)):

VIII. Any Other Facts Supporting the Justification (RFO 6.104-1(a)(9)):

IX. Actions to Overcome Barriers to Competition (RFO 6.104-1(a)(11):

9.0.0.2.20120627.2.874785