N3319116R1004Attachment_1g_-_Performance_Technical_Statement_-_Missile_Warning_Facility_(Pages_989-1008).pdf

JTAGS RELOCATION SIGONELLA -NASII

PHOTO DOCUMENTS

View #33

View #34

Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS) Relocation WO 1335929 Naval Air Station II Sigonella, Sicily, Italy

PART 6 - ATTACHMENTS - Page 7

EURAFSWA AMI J&A

13. EURAFSWA AMI J&A

PART 6 - ATTACHMENTS - Page 8

EURAFSWA TREND J&A

J & A No. 15-13JA

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

N AV AL F AC I L I T I E S EN GI NE ER I NG C OM M AN D E U R AF S W A

N a va l Ai r S ta t i o n S i g o n e l l a

I t a l y

CLASS JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Enclosures: 1) TREND Published price list

2) Siemens Price catalog

3) Schneider Price catalog

4) List Price Comparison, (Trend, Siemens, Schneider)

5) Notice of Intent, published in euroNECO on March 31, 2015

1. Contracting Activity: - FAR 6.303-2(b)(1).

Naval Facilities Engineering Command EURAFSWA, NAS Sigonella, Italy

2. Description of the Action Being Approved: - FAR 6.303-2(b)(2).

Request approval to require the use of the following items in support of base-wide Direct Digital Control (DDC) requirements:

a. IQ2xx – Terminal Unit controller

b. IQ3XCITE – Main controller

c. IQ3XACT – Main Plant controller

d. IQ4xx – Plant controller

e. IQ4E – Main controller

f. IQeco (IQ31, IQ35, IQ38) Terminal Unit controller

g. INCx – Network modules

h. 3Xtend – Network controller

These specific items have been used to support DDC requirements at Sigonella Naval Air Station I (NAS I) and Sigonella Naval Air Station II (NAS II). This product meets the following regulatory requirements;

a. UFC 3-410-01 HEATING, VENTILATING, AND

b. AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS

c. UFC 3-430-11 BOILER CONTROL SYSTEMS

d. UFC 1-200-02 HIGH PERFORMANCE AND SUSTAINABLE BUILDING

REQUIREMENTS

e. UFC 3-530-01 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS AND

CONTROLS

f. UNI CEI EN 15232 “Energy performance of buildings. Impact of Building

Automation, Controls and Building Management”

g. la UNI EN ISO 50001 “Energy management systems – Requirements with guidance for use”

Over the past 12 years TREND DDC software/equipment has been purchased along with failed attempts at purchasing other brand name DDC software. The single largest purchase of TREND DDC software was completed under an Energy Savings Performance Contractor (ESPC) contract, N47408-00-D-8131. Task Order 0002 was completed in 2006 and Task order 0003 was completed in 2011 which installed approximately 70% of the total current DDC equipment; all from TREND. The total project cost of the TREND DDC equipment and installation was $3,299,592. The remaining 30% of the TREND DDC equipment was purchased through task orders via the Multiple Award Construction Contract (MACC) vehicle.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: - FAR 6.303-2(b)(3).

The use of TREND Control Systems brand name programmable building controllers will be required for all projects which require a connection to the existing NASSIG DDC network Energy Management Controls System. Programmable building controllers include Network Control Modules, Network Application Engines, Extended Digital Controllers, variable Air Volume Modular Controllers, Unitary Controllers, and Field Equipment Controllers. The requirement to use government-owned TREND software to program TREND brand name commercial equipment does not restrict who can install, commission, test, maintain, or operate the controllers and there are several known contractors who can do so. Prime contractors can select their standard subcontractors to perform this work and aren’t required to use TREND personnel whatsoever.

The total estimated value for the use of TREND brand name equipment through 30 September 2017 is $1,500,000 through the use of the following contracting vehicles:

Military Construction (MILCON) contracts and task orders through the JOC, MAC, and ESPC contracts. The cost of programmable building controllers typically represents approximately 20% of the cost of the total controls installation effort, and is an insignificant percentage of the total cost of any building construction effort.

Estimated Dollar Value of Brand Name Equipment ($K)

FY15 FY16 FY 17

MILCON/ SPECIAL PROJECTS / JOC / MAC $500,000 $500,000 $0

ESPC (Energy Savings Performance Contractor) $0 $300,000 $200,000

Total $500,000 $800,000 $200,000

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition: FAR 6.303- 2(b)(4).

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is Title 10, U.S.C 2304(c)(1), as implemented by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR 6.302-1), “Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.”

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority: FAR 6.303-2(b)(5).

The NAS Sigonella DDC network system was installed over a period of 12 years using TREND devices through a variety of building Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning (HVAC) system repairs, upgrades and modernization. Additional TREND systems have been installed as part of completed Military Construction (MILCON) projects. The TREND system formed the basis for NAS Sigonella advance controls system required under a reduced manning level environment for maintenance personnel. Currently there are 70+ buildings on the NAS Sigonella DDC network system, including 33,000 hardware points and over 1,000 TREND programmable controllers with internet TCPIP and one (1) DDC network workstation. The DDC devices will be procured through the Military Construction (MILCON) programs; Multiple Award Construction Contracts (MACs) and Job Order Contracts; Special Projects; and ESPC.

NASSIG requires that programmable controllers be TREND brand name in order to:

a. Continue to utilize existing government-owned TREND software to configure and program the controllers. Other vendor products do not offer programmable controllers that can be configured or programmed with existing DDC system in NAS I and II. Although BACnet or ModBus open protocol will be the only allowable communications protocol for the TREND software, it only allows for different vendors’ equipment to share basic point data. It does not allow for configuration and programming functions to take place between different vendors.

You cannot use vendor A’s software to program vendor B’s controller. Each vendor’s proprietary software tools are used to configure or change the program within a controller.

b. Maintain a single, area-wide, integrated energy management system so that all controllers can be programmed from a single central station versus a hybrid system composed of many different controllers and associated configuration/ programming software. This will further operational efficiency and decrease installation, maintenance, repair, and energy costs. Utilizing hardware products from the same vendor that produced the configuration/programming software eliminates multi-vendor arguments regarding conflicts, standards, protocols, or performance characteristics should the controller not function as required.

c. Avoid the significant burden of having maintenance and engineering staff become proficient with the configuration, programming, commissioning, operation, and maintenance of equipment from different manufacturers. This would also require additional personnel training costs and the procurement of additional equipment, maintenance and updating contracts for another manufacturer’s hardware and software, as well as the maintenance of an additional parts inventory.

Maintaining multiple solutions is inefficient and creates unnecessary work and unproductive or low-value-added overhead which increases the total costs of ownership and manpower costs. Additional manpower is not authorized at this time for maintenance personnel.

i. Each time a new brand other than Trend is entered into the DDC network, a new computer station with software license needs to be purchased; average cost is $5,000. Full training must be provided to the incumbent/client who will work on the new system; estimated cost, including travel, is $6,000. This results in increasing the equipment that the incumbent/client is required to work. Furthermore, there will become a requirement for new work space, estimated at $10,000. For OCONUS installations, this is a very difficult to accomplish due to limited work space. In addition, increasing the number of brands used in the installation will become nearly impossible for one incumbent to manage all of the different systems (presently limited to four), thus NAVFAC would have a perpetual new requirement to create another position (FTE), estimated at $30,000 to $50,000.

ii. Since FY2005, NAS Sigonella was able to reduce the energy consumption by 30% (energy intensity based on FY2003 base line). The largest energy project up to FY2014 was the DDC implementation which has resulted in a savings of up to $3,000,000 per year. Incorporating more DDC brands now significantly impacts all of the achievements accomplished in the previous years. More importantly, it may also create huge obstacles in accomplishing the new Execute Order 13693 provided by the President of United States in March 2015 challenging all DoD installations to reduce energy consumption by 25% in the next decade.

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

FAR 6.303-2(b)(6)

Two building renovations have been completed using a different brand for DDC system (Kieback-Peter) which is a competitor to TREND. However, the Kieback-Peter DDC system failed to properly connect with the controller interface. The only capability the controller could accomplish was the ability to see if a building system was on or off. It could not change any settings of the buildings’ Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning (HVAC) system whatsoever. There are currently over 70 buildings that have the TREND system. Section 10 below discusses the synopsis provided to TREND’s competitors which encouraged responses to see if company has the capability to interface with TREND. However, there were no responses.

Continuous commissioning strategy is one of the three pillars NAS Sigonella is basing the energy efficiency plan for the next 10 years. According to the E.O. 13693, all Navy installations have to reduce the energy usage by 2.5% every year. Continuous adjustment of the HVAC strategy is the most effective and cheapest action to accomplish this goal.

Without the full remote control of the TREND DDC system the whole Energy Reduction plan runs the risk of failing.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost: FAR 6.303-2(b)(7).

The Contracting Officer has determined the anticipated cost to the Government of the supplies/services covered by this J&A will be fair and reasonable based on published pricing lists available through the manufacture, enclosure (1). Furthermore, the

Government conducted market research comparing pricing between Trend and two of its primary competitors, Schneider and Siemens, concerning the primary DDC components required for Sigonella bases. The current price catalog for Siemens, enclosure (2), and current price catalog for Schneider, enclosure (3), was compared with the current pricing catalog for Trend. The result of the comparison identified eight of the primary DDC componentry in which Trend pricing was either lower or significantly lower than its competition, enclosure (4). This demonstrates the contractor has already determined competitive price points among its competition.

8. Description of Market Research: FAR 6.303-2(b)(8).

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 5, NAVFAC EURAFSWA does not intend to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document.

NAVFAC EURAFSWA will continue to monitor the controls industry to determine if a universal controller configuration becomes available and if another potential source emerges, NAVFAC EURAFSWA will continually assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible. As discussed, TREND provides competitive market pricing via its published price list.

9. Other Facts: FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)

None.

10. Interested Sources: FAR 6.303-2(b)(10)

Publication was made available globally via EuroNECO, an on-line portal which is the Navy’s point of access to contractors world-wide.

On May 5, 2015 a Notice of Intent to Award a Sole Source Brand Name, FAR 6.302-1(c) was posted to EuroNECO, enclosure (5). The Notice of Intent was published world-wide until May 19, 2015; 15 days per FAR 5.203. No communication was received in response to the J&A Notice.

11. Steps to Foster Competition: FAR 6.303-2(b)(11)

NAVFAC EURAFSWA has competitively awarded significant numbers of Contracts that do not require brand name, but use salient characteristics. The previously awarded contracts have fully met the requirement for competition by including non-brand name products. However, salient characteristics aren’t feasible when supporting the base-wide requirement for DDC for compatibility purposes; as previously discussed.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance which are included in this Justification and its supporting acquisition planning documents, except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

_____________________ Alison Mumper___ 39-095-86-5669 Signature Name (Printed) Phone No.

LOCAL CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance which are included in this Justification and its supporting acquisition planning documents, except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

_____________________ Scott Blair 39-095-86-6276 Signature Name (Printed) Phone No.

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW

I have determined this Justification is legally sufficient.

Signature Name (Printed) Phone No. Date

ECHELON IV CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE CERTIFICATION

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

Signature Name (Printed) Phone No. Date

APPROVING OFFICIAL

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve the solicitation of the proposed procurements described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1).

Signature , CO Date

Kenneth.Rich Typewritten Text

Kenneth.Rich Typewritten Text

Kenneth.Rich Typewritten Text

RICH, KENNETH DSN 626-275

Kenneth.Rich Typewritten Text

Kenneth.Rich Typewritten Text

Scott.Blair Typewritten Text

Scott.Blair Typewritten Text Laura Haverlock

Scott.Blair Typewritten Text

DSN 626-7713

Michael.Oestereicher Typewritten Text

Michael.Oestereicher Typewritten Text 23 Sep 2015

PART 6 - ATTACHMENTS

NAVFAC ICS Requirements

NAVAFAC INDUSTRIAL CONTROL SYSTEMS

REQUIREMENTS

The following requirements facilitate accreditation activities of NAVFAC Industrial Control Systems:

General Requirements:

All technology systems must comply with certification and accreditation requirements as required by U.S. Navy Information Assurance Policies.

- Hardware and Software is approved for use on U.S. Navy systems.

- All hardware shall be new and shall have at least 3 years of manufacturer warranty. The manufacturer warranty shall cover replacement of defective parts.

- All software versions shall have at least 5 years of full vendor support. Vendor support shall include fixes to software bugs and security vulnerabilities.

- It is the supplier’s responsibility to ensure all proposed hardware and software is approved for use on Navy systems.

Specifically, all IT systems shall be configured according to ALL applicable Security Technical Implementation Guide (STIG).

- For each software and hardware component, the supplier shall identify ALL applicable STIGs and configure each component according to its corresponding

STIG.

- The list of STIGs can be found here: http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/Pages/index.aspx

Deliverables:

The supplier shall deliver an IT system configured per ALL applicable STIGs. An IT system shall be considered acceptable when:

- All Category 1 STIG items are closed or mitigated to Cat 2.

- All Category 2 and 3 STIG items must be closed or vendor documentation supporting the need to maintain the configuration item open.

- The Government accepts all mitigated STIGs.

Artifacts:

1. Test Plan

2. System Architecture / Boundary Diagrams

3. Hardware & Software Lists

4. Ports and Protocols:

5. Installation Locations

6. STIG Scans

7. STIG Checklists

8. Incident Response Plan