16036.0_J A_9_22_2016_12_59_32_Redacted.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NA VY

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARF ARE CENTER DIV ISION

I I 76 HOWELL STREET

NEWPORT RI 0284 I- I 708

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

JUSTIFICATION

IN RFPL Y REFER TO

J & A #:16036.0 Control#: 162619

PR#: 1300574433

The following facts support contracting for commercial items without full and open competition, using the procedures in FAR 13 .5 - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items, in accordance with 41U.S.C.1901.

1. Contracting Activity

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Newport, RI (NA YUN SEA W ARCENDIVNEWPORT), Contracts Department, Code 02.

2. Description of Action Being Approved

Request approval to award a five (5) year, Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, on a brand name basis, to Amplifier Research (AR), for ninety (90) (Base and Options) amplifiers at six different frequency ranges, in support of the Enhanced Radio Direction Finding Test Set (ERDFTS) at the Shipboard Electronics Systems Evaluation Facilities (SESEF) sites.

3. Description of Supplies/Services

Estimated Dollar Value

This contract is for the purchase of varying frequencies and quantities of the Amplifier Research amplifiers. As shown below, the requirement is for one Base year and four (4) Option years, for the purchase of 90 amplifiers:

CLIN Item QTY Estimated Cost 0001 (Base Year) 500A250CM6 5

125A400M3 3

100WIOOOCM3 3

1 OOS I G2z5AM3 3

300T2G8M7 5 250TR7z5G18 5

Option 0002 (Year 2) 500A250CM6 3 125A400M3 3

100WIOOOCM3 3

I OOS 1 G2z5AM3 3

300T2G8M7 3 250TR 7z5G 18 3

500A250CM6 2

Option 0003 (Year 3) 125A400M3 2

100W1000CM3 2

1OOS1 G2z5AM3 2 300T2G8M7 2

250TR7z5Gl8 2 Option 0004 (Year 4) 500A250CM6 3

125A400M3 3

100WIOOOCM3 3

1OOS1 G2z5AM3 3 300T2G8M7 3

250TR7z5G18 3 Option 0005 (Year 5) 500A250CM6 3

125A400M3 3 100WlOOOCM3 3

1OOS1 G2z5AM3 3 300T2G8M7 3

250TR7z5G18 3

Total: 90

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)(5): Brand-Name Commercial Item for Authorized Resale.

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority

The Shipboard Electronic Systems Evaluation Facilities (SESEFs) are land based test sites, established to facilitate testing and certification of ships' electromagnetic transmitting and receiving equipment. Currently there are eight such facilities in service at various geographic locations. The SESEFs are used to detect and isolate shipboard system deficiencies leading to increased ship material readiness at the completion of construction, delivery availabilities, during routine ship operations, and prior to deployment. The various SESEF sites perform in excess of 600 tests per year in maintaining compliance with US Navy Preventative Maintenance System (PMS) requirements, and provide the surface Fleet with troubleshooting assistance. An integral requirement of the SESEF sites is to provide consistently uniform testing at each site. This requirement for uniform testing is necessary to ensure that vessels can be tested at any SESEF without a concern for variability in test results from site to site. Uniformity in testing is achieved by maintaining commonality of design, configuration, equipment and procedures across all of the SESEF sites. Therefore maintaining commonality among the various SESEFs necessitates using the same brand name commercial amplifiers across all of the SESEF sites.

Each of the SESEF has a Radio Direction Finding Test Set (RDFTS) to test, evaluate and certify Ship Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE) systems fitted to surface combatants per class Preventative Maintenance Schedule (PMS) requirements (NA VSEAINST 4 790.8 Series). Each RDFTS across all of the SESEFs are designed, configured and equipped in the same way. A test set variant with greater frequency range, the Enhanced RDFTS (ERDFTS) has been designed to test ships with the updated SSEE Increment E/F and SSEE MODS systems. The ERDFTS is an upgrade to the existing RDFTS and will be implemented at the various SESEF sites in stages. All of the SESEF sites fitted with RDFTS will require upgrading to the ERDFTS standard to meet the Fleet-wide rollout of Ship's Signal Exploitation Equipment (SSEE) Inc E/F and SSEE-MODS systems. Once again, to maintain commonality among the various SESEF sites, the same brand name commercial amplifiers will be implemented across all of the SESEF sites to upgrade the RDFTS to ERDFTS.

A further consideration in the decision to maintain the same brand name commercial amplifiers is the need to conform with existing certifications by The MCEB JF 12 certification allows SESEF to apply to the Navy Marine Corps Spectrum Office (NMCSO) for permission to radiate (i.e., transmit radio frequency signals). NMCSO allocates frequency assignments based on the MCEB's approved JF12. If for any reason the MCEB authorization is invalidated (e.g., by not adhering to the approved SESEF system configuration) NMCSO frequency allocations would be revoked, and the associated SESEF T &E system rendered inoperable. This would result in an unacceptable loss of the Navy's ability to support critical fleet operations.

If brand name commercial amplifiers are procured for use in the SESEFs that are not authorized as part of the MCEB's JF 12-9873/2, then the SESEF facility will have to undergo, at a minimum, an 11 month recertification process, to include a JF12 resubmittal, software upgrades and re-write, validation, verification and accreditation (VY &A), regression testing, and testing with live assets. There are many dependencies in the recertification process (e.g., time for software re-write, VY &A, scheduling with MCEB), therefore, it is possible that the time to complete a recertification could take up to 18 months. A best case scenario recertification process, taking 11 months, is included below, in Table 1.

Months

MCEB

M CEB Processing

MCEB Review

Pre SW Develop Plan

Manual Review

Design Plan

Pre SWDevelopment

Code 70 CCB

DraftlCR

Board Review

Equipment D e livery

SWTesting

Bench Test

Regression Testing

Documentation

Travel

TRR

Test Plan svo

Test & Int

Hardware Integration

SOVT

Table 1: Timeline

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Live Testing '--~---if--~--t~~-+~~-t-~~-+-~~;--~~-;--~~1--

9 10 11

The overall cost to modify the ERDFTS amplifier set with new ampl ifier models is estimated at The following breakdown of the incurred costs is detailed in Table 2:

Table 2: New Amplifier Model Cost Breakdown

For six amplifiers

MCEB

Submit 1494

Arrive at MCEB

MCEB Review

Weeks

13-26

Remarks

Approval is assumed

Preliminary Software (SW) Develop Plan

Manual Review 3

SW Design Plan 2

SW Development ____ 6"--___ 2 persons, 3 weeks each

Code 70 Configuration Control Board

Draft ICR 0.6 Infrastructure Change Request

Verify cos ts

---~"----Approval assumed

Board Review

Review

Equipment Delivery

SW Testing

Bench Test

Regression Testing

Documentation

Travel

6.5-13

0.2

0.8

Legacy and new equipment

SOP, Drawings, etc.

36.0 ========= 1.5 persons

Code 70 Test Readiness Review

Test Plan 3

SVD ____ l ____ System Verification Document

Test and Integration

Hardware Integration

SOVT

2 lnterna I System Opertiona I Verification Test

Live Testing ____ 4 ____ 2 persons

Software Updates

Total

Cost $

90.8

(6) weeks annual over 5-Year contract;

man-weeks per equipment set

As stated above, all eight SESEF sites need to maintain commonality in order to ensure consistency of test results. Therefore, if a new brand of equipment is incorporated into one site, that new brand of equipment would need to be purchased for and incorporated into the remaining seven sites even if their current systems are still in working order. The government estimates this would cost an approximately based on the estimated prices of the amplifier sets under this requirement needing to be replaced at eight sites concurrently rather than one or two at a time due to routine maintenance. Furthermore, loss of a common configuration management baseline across all sites would add to sustainment costs by necessitating complex tracking of different equipment variants and associated software versions across different sites. This will also incur multiple man-weeks of additional effort to perform annual software updates over a 5-Year contract.

Critically, the negative impact of an approximately 11 month delay (best case) to SESEF operations due to transitioning to another manufacturers' amplifier set would have a highly detrimental effect on Fleet operations throughout the world due to ships being unable to verify the operational status of their mission essential electronic surveillance systems.

The dollar costs outlined above, cannot be offset by contracting for amplifiers using full and open competition. Market research has determined that brand name commercial amplifier equipment comparable to Amplifier Research brand amplifiers are within the same price range, plus or minus 3-5%, depending on frequency. There are no alternative brand name commercial amplifiers at significantly lower cost that could provide an offsetting cost saving. Therefore in order to avoid the additional dollar costs and the negative impact to Fleet operations, it is in the Government's best interest to award this contract on a brand name basis.

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

For the reasons set forth in paragraph 5, the Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division Newport can only procure the required amplifiers manufactured by AR. The proposed brand name contract action will be synopsized via posting on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website in accordance with FAR 5.2.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Costs

In accordance with FAR 15.404-l(b) price analysis of the Contractor's proposal will be conducted to ensure that the final agreed-to price is fair and reasonable.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

The Government's requirement for AR amplifiers, in support of the ERDFTS, does not allow for substitution of another manufacturer's amplifiers. To meet the needs of the Navy in supporting and performing the required testing of critical EW systems for the Fleet, the SESEF sites must maintain the current configuration of the ERDFTS, currently employing AR amplifiers. Therefore, in the event that any future acquisition of AR receivers is required, and the information in section 5 above remains true, the procurement will again be processed on a brand name basis. However, at the time of preparation of any future requirements packages the information contained in section 5 will be validated to confirm the brand name requirement still exists. Consideration will be given to moving this requirement to full and open competition in the future if feasible.

Type or Print Name Tirle Code Phone

IV. APPROVAL SIGNATURES:

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

B. TECHNICAL AND REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION REQUIRED BY FAR 6.303-2(c) I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting data, including Acquisition Plan (No. NI A) except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(2) REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE

C. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (NM CARS 5206.303-90)

I have determined this 'ustific · · ·

D. COMPETITION ADVOCATE REVIEW AND APPROVAL (FAR 6.502 AND 6.304)

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve, the solicitation of the proposed procurement(s) using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 1 O U.S.C.

2304( c )(I).

Denise Abraham Type or Print Name

Department Head Tille

02 401-832-6973 Code Phone