J&A_Redacted.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

CORONA DIVISION

PO BOX 5000

CORONA, CA 92878-5000

J&A No: FY17-50001

Code: 022 PR No:

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Activity

The Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Corona Division, Acquisition Department, Code 022.

2. Description of the Action Being Approved

Award a Firm Fixed Price contract on a sole source basis for the purchase of Mikel Beacon Assembly and Recovery Deckset in support of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Training Office Program Management Air (PMA) – 205 Systems Replacement and Modernization (SRAM) Program. The Justification and Approval (J&A) of these items shall be effective from the date of approval to the end of the contract term.

3. Description of Supplies/Services

NSWC Corona, Range Systems Engineering Department RS31 has a requirement for the below equipment.

QTY BRAND PART # PART DESCRIPTION

3 Mikel SANSB-G4-001 SANS Gen 4 Beacon Assembly 3 Mikel SANS-DS-001 Beacon Iridium Recovery Deckset

The total estimated value of this acquisition is and will be funded with FY16 Other Procurement, Navy (OPN) funds.

APPROPRIATION FY16 TOTALS

OPN

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

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 requirement, as implemented by FAR 6.302-1.

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority

The Portable Underwater Tracking Range (PUTR) system was designed to deploy seven transponders to the ocean bottom in a hexagonal array. Each transponder can hear range pingers installed in torpedoes, targets, and submarines. The transponders reply acoustically to each ping, allowing a surface ship above to triangulate the acoustic uplinks into underwater tracks for display. The system supported Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) training for Forward Deployed Naval Forces. The PUTR system is currently owned, operated and maintained by the Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF). As Western Pacific (WESTPAC) training requirements continued to increase, Commander US Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT) directed PMRF to pursue replacing the transponders with a new transponder (beacon) that can be integrated into the PUTR shipboard system. This will considerably reduce Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs associated with

J&A No. 50,015 supporting Guam and Japan based naval forces by eliminating the need to recover, ship, re-deploy, and survey the old transponders.

Mikel Inc. has developed a

Between 2014 and 2016, approximately $2.4 million was expended by Program Management Sea (PMS) – 245 to design and build 14 beacons, giving PMRF two in-water systems that could be deployed in different areas and left on the bottom for up to two years. The Mikel’s beacons were direct replacement for the obsolete PUTR transponders and were designed to interface to the PUTR shipboard system.

The requirement for this procurement is for direct replacements (spares) to the existing Mikel’s beacon units, in case of failure. The integration of any product other than the Mikel’s beacon would require the non- Mikel’s beacon vendor to design and release a compatible software interface that would replicate the behavior and functionality of the Mikel’s beacon. This would create interoperability issues that would disrupt mission and training operations and increase labor requirements to identify possible solutions and/or corrections to interoperability-associated problems.

Purchasing non-Mikel’s beacons would require the Government to redesign the PUTR software to accommodate a new design resulting in substantial duplication of cost increases and delays with mission requirements. The Government estimates that it would cost a minimum of 18 months of labor to test and qualify the revised PUTR software with a new beacon. The estimated cost of a redesigned would be approximately $2 million. The estimated cost is based on

a. Identifying a new source for the beacon.

b. Developing new interface specifications for the new beacon.

c. Develop a contract package.

d. Test the software before fielding.

In addition, even if another vendor could deliver a replacement spare at a reasonable cost, the spare would not have the same form, fit, and function as the Mikel’s beacon; as such, the 14 beacons currently in-use would have to be replaced, incurring additional cost. To allow competition for this effort would increase the lead time and incur substantial duplication of cost to the Government, which is not expected to be recovered through competition.

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

A Sources Sought Notice expressing the Government’s interest for the purchase of Mikel Beacon Assembly and Recovery Deckset was posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FEDBIZOPS) website on 7 October 2016. The Sources Sought Notice closed on 17 October 2016 12:00 pm Pacific Standard Time.

There were no responses to the Sources Sought Notice.

The Government contacted the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) on 4 October 2016 requesting a list of their authorized distributors or resellers for the items identified in Section 3. The OEM replied on 7 October 2016 stating they do not have distributors or resellers.

J&A No. 50,015

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Costs

The Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated costs to the Government for the items covered by this J&A will be fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer will use price analysis, including commercial price lists and historical information to determine that the final price to the Government is fair reasonable.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 5, NSWC Corona has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NSWC Corona will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.