JA Brand Name Justification - ARMS EMD INC3 BLK2_RAAF_final.pdf

J&A Number: 25-0236

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAINING SYSTEMS DIVISION

12211 SCIENCE DRIVE

ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32826-3224

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF BRAND NAME JUSTIFICATION

1. Contracting Activity.

Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWC-TSD) Orlando, FL

2. Description of the Action being Approved.

NAWCTSD Orlando has a requirement to procure spare parts to support the P-8 training sys-tem. These spares will support training systems for the P-8 aircraft platforms, providing real-istic training events and qualification exercises for pilots, aircrew and maintainers.

This procurement is partially brand name restrictive, limited to specific components where deemed necessary. Any vendor capable of supplying the attached commercial parts is considered an acceptable source. Competition will be sought leveraging the System for Award Management

(SAM.Gov).

The anticipated contract type is Firm Fixed Price.

3. Description of the Supplies or Services

The contractor shall procure, inspect and deliver three complete P-8 training system spares pack-ages to the following locations: Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL (ARMS INC3 BLK2 spares package), Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (EMD INC3 BLK2 spares package) and Royal

Australian Air Force (RAAF INC 3 BLK 2 spares package). Delivery is required within 180 days of contract award. Partial deliveries are not authorized. Early delivery is encouraged and authorized.

*See Attached Parts List*

ARMS & EMD INC3 BLK2 Parts List

Of the total estimated value, the estimate for brand name only items is $310,251.14:

Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL (ARMS INC3 BLK2): $39,399.75

Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (EMD INC3 BLK2): $216,734.96

Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Edinburgh, Australia (EMD INC3 BLK2): $54,116.43

Estimated Dollar Value

FY2025

Total

RDT&E N/A

OPN N/A

O&MN N/A

APN $310,251.14

Total $310,251.14

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

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

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority

The P-8 training devices utilize Boeing proprietary Common Simulation Framework (CSF), as the underlying software architecture, and Insight as the Instructor Operator Station (IOS). Addition-ally, P-8A training system devices utilize the aircraft operational flight software, Tactical Opera-tional Mission Software (TOMS). American Systems Corporation and The Boeing Company have identified and communicated to the Government required spare components to sustain the up-graded devices.

Out of the total line items, 6 of 17 for Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL (ARMS INC3 BLK2), 39 of 58 for Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, WA (EMD INC3 BLK2) and 14 of 46 for Royal

Australian Air Force (RAAF EMD INC3 BLK2) are specified as brand name only, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components obtainable through Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) resellers. The In-Service Engineer (ISE) reviewed and verified the parts list, identifying parts that require specific brand-name as using alternative parts for these spares could negatively impact hardware integration, cyber security requirements, system cold starts and overall performance. The specified brand-name components have proven compatibility through engineering analysis, testing and evaluation. During the trainer’s Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and Critical Design Re-view (CDR), these spares underwent detailed analysis to confirm inter-component functionality.

Some components rely on specific resources from other hardware for proper operation at the next higher assembly. Extensive trainer testing validated this functionality. Substituting the brand-name parts could place an undue burden, due to the duplication of costs, on the Government to attempt to redesign some portion of the overall P-8 training system, then subsequently repeat all System

Engineering Technical Review (SETR) events which include comprehensive testing to ensure compatibility and prevent performance degradation.

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

The required spare items were determined at the Provisioning Item Selection Conference

(PISC) for Naval Air Station Jacksonville, FL (ARMS INC3 BLK2), Naval Air Station Whid-bey Island, WA (EMD INC3 BLK2) and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF EMD INC3

BLK2) efforts. The P-8 Supply Support Specialist (SSS), and ISE identified both brand-name-only and equal suitable components that meet form, fit, function requirements for these up-grades by comparing part numbers, nomenclatures, and specifications to the existing training system configuration. The SSS, in collaboration with a GSA Representative, issued two Re-quest for Quotes (RFQs) on the GSA marketplace on separate occasions. Both RFQs, which included 71 potential vendors, yielded no bids. To further assess the market, the SSS conducted online market research, searching for the parts using their respective part numbers. This re-search identified over 20 unique vendors identified carrying the requested parts. A combined synopsis/solicitation will be publicized in accordance with the procedures found at Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 12.603.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost

The Contracting Officer has determined the anticipated cost to the Government of the supplies covered by this J&A will be fair and reasonable.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Future Competition

For the reasons stated in paragraph 5, NAWCTSD does not plan to compete future require-ments for these supplies. The Government will continue monitoring the market for alternative sources that meet P-8 training systems requirements for reliability, supportability and perfor-mance, particularly as new technologies emerge. However, given the current system configu-ration, deviating from the established standard would be detrimental to cost, schedule, and resources considerations.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION

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

Technical Cognizance:

Signature Name (Printed) Phone No. Date

Requirements Cognizance:

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW

I have determined this Justification is legally sufficient.

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

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