J A_16-010_16GJT08.pdf

J&A Number: 16-010

Code: 023

N00164-16-R-JT08

CLASS JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL (CJ&A)

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Activity

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Electro-Optic Contracting Branch (0231).

2. Description of the Action Being Approved

Award of Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA) on a sole source basis in the amount of $7,925,631 to BAE Systems 450 Pulaski Road Greenlawn, NY 11740 for the procurement of Mission Crew Workstations (MCW), spares, repairs and engineering services in support of PMA-290 Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircraft (MPRA) MCW Support and Sustainment. Authority to act under this CJ&A expires 5 years after contract award date.

3. Description of Supplies/Services

The resultant BOA will be for the procurement of MCW’s, as well as support tasks. Support tasks will include engineering tasks to overcome obsolescence issues, incorporation of developmental upgrades and software patches, procurement integration, installation, testing, training, Re-Certification & Accreditation (C&A) as required, Quick Reaction Capability (QRC), fielded-systems engineering support services, repairs, spares and sustainment of MPRA MCW. The MPRA MCW is maintained in a sustainment/readiness posture sufficient to meet Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) force requirements.

The required support will enable the MPRA platforms to maintain Fully Mission Capable (FMC) aircraft which is required in order to perform current and future missions. The MPRA is the primary maritime surveillance aircraft operated by the US Navy. Functions and duties include anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, Command, Control Communications, Computer, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), search and rescue, drug interdiction and exclusive economic zone protection. The MPRA is currently deployed across various theaters of operation in support of warfighters.

The Government’s minimum needs have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

The contract will be funded with appropriations from Aircraft Procurement-Navy (APN), Operations & Maintenance-Navy (O&MN) and Research, Development, Test and evaluation (RDT&E) funding. R&D will be used to address obsolescence or will be used for software modification to accommodate sensor improvements that the overall MCW interfaces with.

IN REPLY REFER TO:

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

CRANE DIVISION

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

300 HIGHWAY 361

CRANE INDIANA 47522-5001

Exact amounts of each type of funding will be dependent on mission requirements and programmatic decisions.

Estimated Dollar Value

Type Funds FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

TOTAL

Qty 2 ea. 2 ea. 2 ea. 2 ea. 2 ea. 10

APN 1,000,000 1,050,000 1,102,500 1,157,625 1,215,506 5,525,631

RDT&E 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000

O&MN 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 200,000 1,400,000

Total 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,602,500 1,657,625 1,615,506 7,925,631

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition

10 U.S.C.2304 (c)(1). Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority

In June 2004, the US Navy announced the selection of the Boeing multi-mission maritime aircraft (MMA) 737, and awarded a contract to Boeing for the system development and demonstration phase of the program for the US Navy's next-generation maritime surveillance aircraft. The aircraft was given the designation P-8A in March 2005.

As part of the effort, Boeing subcontracted to BAE of Greenlawn, NY to manufacture the Mission Crew Workstation for the human operational interface to the aircraft mission systems.

Boeing is the integrator for this system onto the aircraft and BAE, the OEM, possesses all data rights to the Mission Crew Workstation.

BAE, Greenlawn NY is unwilling to sell the Level III technical data package for the Mission Crew Workstation. The US Government has Restricted (CS) and Limited Rights (TD) to the Mission Crew Workstation. Therefore, the US Government does not have sufficient data rights to support a full and open competition of the MPRA Mission Crew Workstation or support thereof.

BAE is the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and is the only source that possesses the technical data required to produce, repair, support and maintain the MPRA Mission Crew Workstation for the P-8 platform. Given the complexity of the MPRA Mission Crew Workstation, only the OEM, BAE, possesses the required skills, experience and data necessary to perform the required support for the system. The lack of software documentation, test fixtures/stations and quality/performance acceptance test procedures prohibit any other source from directly manufacturing the Mission Crew Workstation or in performing required engineering support and repair actions.

If another system were procured the cost to procure, re-tool, reverse engineer, generate acceptance test procedures, perform first article testing, acquire flight certification and perform stress analysis would exceed $18 million dollars and five years to complete.

Estimated Qualification Costs for Mission Crew Workstation

A team of 26 Government workers broken out at 5 years of labor for reverse engineering and integrating another system onto the PMA-290 platform (computed using FY-15 dollars) are as follows:

The basis for this cost estimate is due to the fact that each workstation on the mission platform can be configured to any one of the six mission operator stations via the proprietary firmware/software. Due to the level of integration that is required, it took Boeing, the primary integrator; and BAE 5 years to deliver the first test platforms to the Navy. The first test P-8A aircraft was contracted by the Navy in July 2004 and delivered to the Navy on April 2009.

The development time would be even greater if another company needed to reverse engineer the Mission Crew Workstation. The schedule requirements to install additional Mission Crew Workstations on P-8 aircraft begin in the FY-16. BAE is the only vender that would be able to meet this schedule. Based on the above stated information, the costs associated with a competitive procurement would not be recovered through competition and would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling PMA-290E requirements.

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

The proposed contract was synopsized for Sources Sought, N00164-16-S-NB06, on the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPS) website on 27 October 2015 and no other vendors expressed an interest in this requirement. No additional market research was conducted because it is not practicable and for the reasons discussed in paragraph 5 above.

The proposed contract action has not been synopsized. The action will be synopsized via posting on the FedBizOpps website at the same time the solicitation is issued. As shown with the RFI response, inquiries regarding the synopsis are not anticipated; however, the requiring technical activity representatives will investigate and consider the possibility of a competitive procurement should responses be received.

Based upon the market research, and for the reasons discussed in Section 5, it is not practicable for any vendor other than BAE to provide the required supplies and services.

Pay Band Rate

Number of Employees Rate

Hours per Year Years Totals

1 10 66.04$ 1750 5 5,778,500.00$ 2 9 85.38$ 1750 5 6,723,675.00$ 3 7 104.92$ 1750 5 6,426,350.00$

18,928,525.00$ Labor Total:

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government for the supplies/services covered by the CJ&A will be fair and reasonable. The contracting office will use cost and price analysis to determine a fair and reasonable price. As cost or pricing data is required, Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may be utilized to analyze, evaluate and assist in negotiations based upon detailed cost or pricing data which will be certified at the conclusion of negotiations.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 5, NSWC Crane has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NSWC Crane will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible. The synopsis for this effort will include a statement that other sources may submit an offer.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION (FAR 6.303-2(b)) I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting acquisition planning data, including Acquisition Plan No. CR-14- 003, except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

TECHNICAL COGNIZANCE:

Signature Name (Print) and Title (Code) Phone No. Date

REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE:

Signature Name (Print) and Title (Code) Phone No. Date

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (NMCARS 5206.303(90))

I have determined this justification is legally sufficient.

Signature Name (Print) and Title (Code) Phone No. Date

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION (FAR 6.303-2(a)(12)) I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature Name (Print) and Title (Code) Phone No. Date

APPROVAL BLOCK (FAR 6.304 for Approving Official) Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve, as Competition Advocate for the Contracting Activity, the solicitation of the proposed procurements using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C 2304(c)(1).

COMPETITION ADVOCATE

Signature Name (Print) Date