JA US qty 12 ABV-LDCS redacted draft V1_Redacted.pdf

CMO Control Number: 2025-017 production asset, incorporate it into the ABV, and conduct system performance, reliability, and operational testing requirements would not meet Government requirements.

Fabricating Prototypes: It is estimated that the procurement lead time, to award the effort to develop and manufacture a prototype, would be approximately 12 months.

Following that award, the estimated manufacturing time would be approximately 12 = 14 months, as some of the parts that would be required to produce a prototype have lead times as long as 240 days. Together, the contract award, development, and manufacturing processes amount to an estimated total of 24 months to complete. This estimate is based on subject matter experts’ experience in the contracts and technical fields within PdM Bridging’s Foreign Military Sales (FMS) team.

Hazard Electromagnetic Radiation Ordnance (HERO) Testing: To ensure the new source of supply meets the performance specification, as required by the Operational Requirement Document (ORD) of the ABV, full system testing will be required at an Army Test Facility. The MIL-STD-464, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Requirements for Systems, sets out minimal acceptable standards for the electromagnetic compatibility of ordnance and related equipment used in airborne, sea, space and ground-defense systems. Firing circuits contained within these devices is inherently susceptible to electromagnetic environments. Testing is critical for managing the risks associated with exposure to normally occurring electromagnetic radiation.

Hazard of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO) type testing is an essential component of achieving MIL-STD-464 compliance. HERO testing is used to determine that the ordnance safety margins required are met when the unit under test is exposed to the high levels of electric fields required by MIL-STD-464. The subject matter experts within PdM Bridging FMS determined that this testing would take an estimated 2 months, based on their knowledge of the testing process and past experiences. The testing site’s scheduling availability may also contribute to additional unknown delay.

Bench, Weld, and Destructive Testing: Bench Testing would be performed prior to installation to ensure the component is in working condition. Weld Tests are a process of inspecting the welds for defects and quality. Destructive Testing is a method in which the material is subjected to forces that are strong enough to destroy or deform the material. This testing process would also include a variety of extensive and detailed tests, inclusive of RAM testing, environmental testing, interoperability testing, and E3 testing. Additional, if testing fails, the contractor would be required to complete the necessary updates to the system and then retest the system. The subject matter experts within the PdM Bridging FMS team determined that this testing would take an estimated 12-18 months.

An estimated 38-40 months delay to reverse engineering of the LDCS, is unacceptable and would cause the ANAD production line to not meet its minimum sustainment rate, resulting in loss of experienced employees with institutional knowledge due to reassignment or layoff and the potential for production equipment failure after an

CUI

extended period of non-operation and standstill. By using the existing components and designs, it is anticipated that the schedule objectives will be met on time.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

a. Effective Competition: The Government does not anticipate effective competition and no actions to increase competition will be taken for the reasons set forth above in paragraph 5. This action will be synopsized in accordance with FAR 5.201.

b. Subcontracting Competition: To ensure Amentum competitively awards subcontracts to the maximum extent possible, the contract contains FAR clause 52.244-5, “Competition in Subcontracting.” The Small Business Administration will be provided with an approved subcontracting plan upon the establishment of the ordering year seven pricing modification.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: As described in paragraph 5 above, the Government does not have the pertinent technical data to enable competitive re-procurement. Without a TDP that is sufficient for competitive procurement, the significant delay to procure and produce on a competitive basis would result in an unacceptable delay in fielding of ABVs. Currently the Government is not seeking to increase competition for this contract. This modification shall extend the period of performance for 12 months to minimize negative impacts meeting mission needs. When additional requirements for the LDCS become know, the Government will post another sources sought notice to determine if there has been any changes to the market, in regards to seeking another vendor who can produce a system similar to the LDCS that will fulfill the Governments requirement and will request to procure the necessary technical data from Amentum and Dresser that would enable full and open competition of future requirement.

8. Market Research: ACC-DTA posted a Sources Sought notice to SAM.gov on 07 August 2024, for 30 days, notifying industry of the Government’s intent to extend the ABV LDCS contract. The Sources Sought notice provided a description and identified Amentum as the developer and current manufacturer of the LDCS. The Sources Sought notice encouraged interested vendors to submit capability statements and seek out subcontracting opportunities. No responses were received. The incumbent, Amentum, did not respond to the Sources Sought notice by the end date of 06 September 2024.

9. Interested Sources: No other sources have written to express an interest, as indicated in section 8 above no response were received from the market research.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History: The ABV began as a joint United States Marine Corps (USMC) – U.S. Army program. Primary Inventory Control Activity (PICA) transferred from USMC to the Army, designating the Army as lead service, in spring of 2014 and in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the two services dated

February 2008. The USMC has since divested all ABVs and the program is a U.S.

Army program for all future requirements.

In July 2005, US Army Communications Electronic Command (CECOM) Acquisition Center issued a solicitation for LDCS test support and manufacture of eight systems to support USMC development of the overall ABV. Edgerton, Germeshausen and Grier Technologies (EG&G) (Acquired by United Research Services (URS) in 2002 and AECOM acquired URS in 2014) was the only respondent. The eight systems were used to develop the current baseline LDCS.

In July 2006, Marine Corps System Command (MARCORSYSCOM) conducted a market investigation for production of the LDCS. Four vendors responded to the market investigation including EG&G. The remaining three were determined to be unqualified to meet the ABV requirements by MARCORSYSCOM and EG&G was awarded a sole source contract. Seventeen Army ABV LDCSs were purchased under that contract.

On 15 June 2009, the Army posted a market survey to FedBizOpps to determine whether additional sources had an LDCS that could meet the Army’s technical requirements. The Army received two responses: EG&G (now AECOM), the current manufacturer of the LDCS, and EBA&D. Although EBA&D specialized in the manufacture of the MICLIC (a rocket projected explosive line charge which provided a breaching capability) in several configurations and produced a small man portable line charge system, EBA&D was not capable of producing the LDCS which mounts and controls the MICLICS firing and detonation. EBA&D stated in its response that it did not produce or sell an LDCS that met the performance requirements for the ABV and provided no response to the question regarding a timeline to design and produce one.

EG&G did manufacture a fully designed production LDCS that met all the performance requirements for the ABV. As of June 2009, EG&G had manufactured and delivered 45 LDCS that had been Government tested and proven successful through operational mission conditions testing.

The Army Test & Evaluation Command System Team (AST) reviewed the USMC test results and issued a safety confirmation on 5 January 2010 and in April 2010, Army Type Classification and Full Materiel Release were obtained.

(1) On 27 July 2011, and after the Full-Rate decision, the Army awarded the five-year, FFP, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract W56HZV-11-D- 0127 to URS for the production of a potential 154 LDCSs at an estimated cost of $26.6M.

On 24 January 2019, the Army awarded FFP, five-year Requirements Contract W56HZV-19-D-0003 to Amentum Services, LLC. (previously Amentum) to produce a potential 39 LDCSs at an estimated $3.3M.

(2) Contract W56HZV-11-D-0127 was awarded on a sole source basis.