Justification_and_Approval_-_Redacted.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER DI VISION

1176 How<ll Street

NEWPORT .RI 02841-1708

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

JUSTIFICATION

1. Contracting Activity

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Code 02, Newport, RI (NUWCDIVNPT).

2. Description of the Action Being Approved

This action is for award of a 5-year Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract sole source award to L-3 Communications MariPro (L-3) under Cost Plus Fixed Fee provisions for engineering, manufacturing and production, installation, and operation and maintenance services to sustain U.S. and Allied Navy Training and Test and Evaluation ranges around the world.

3. Description of Supplies/Services

The contractor shall repair or replace original equipment manufacturer (OEM) systems from L-3. Services and associated deliverables shall include the design, production, and installation of both shore electronic systems and ocean sensor system hardware assemblies; operation and maintenance of the delivered hardware to support operational test events of the delivered system; and data products identified in the contract data requirements list. Other services under this requirement shall include operating, maintaining, repairing, performing logistic support, refurbishing, modernizing, upgrading, revising, improving, performing information assurance and expanding of range hardware, software, and its performance. Operation is for the purpose of demonstrating the work completed meets task order requirements. The contractor is not tasked with ongoing operation of the ranges.

Since - supports a wide range of programs and customers, there are many different types of funding that are applicable to the tasking under this requirement.

• Capital Investment Program (CIP)

NCH 53.6-2 (MAR 2013)

J&A Number:llllllll

• Foreign Military Sale (FMS)

• Major Range and Test Facility Base (MRTFB)

• Operation and Maintenance (OMN)

• Other Procure111ent, Air Force (OPAP) (e.g., 3020)

• Other Procurement. Navy (OPN)

• Otl1er Proctrrement, Defense Agencies (PDA)

• Researcl1, Developn1ent, Test & Evaluation, Defense Agencies (RDDA)

• Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT &E)

• Service Cost Center/Overhead (SCC/O H)

• Special Deposit (SPDP)

• Weapons Procurement, Navy (\iVPN)

The Goverhment's esti1nate is as shovm i11 the table below.

FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Totals

CIP

FMS

MRTFB

OMN

OPAF/OPN

PDA

RDDA

RDT&E

SCC/OH

SPDP

WPN

Total Note: Estimated Do

The Government's minimum needs have been verified by the ce1tifying technical and requirements personnel.

4. Statutory Authority Pe1mitting Other Than Full and Open Co111petition

10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1); there is only one responsible source and no other supplies or se1'\fices will satisfy agency require1nents.

5. Rationale Justifying Use of'Cited Statutory Authoritv

Since 2001, L-3 has been awarded the last 3 competitively awarded contracts•••••• 2838 [Jacksonville Shallow Water Training Range (JSWTR)].

l

J&A Number' 11111 [Southern California Anti-Submarine Range - Barking Sand Undenvater Range Expansion (SOAR-BSURE)], and [AUTEC Hydrophone Replacement Program (AHRP)]), associated with contractor suppo1t for NUWCDIVNPT- ranges. 11le second and third listed confracts are the most active ranges requiring the largest percentage of sustainment effort and funding. The first contract is the Jacksonville range which is planned to achieve final operating capability during the ordering p_eriod of this requested IDIQ contract. The Government has invested worth ofNon-Recurring Engineering (NRE) costs under these three contracts. L-3 successfu1ly delivered and installed the SOAR BSURE, JSWTR,_ and AHRP contract deliverables. Given that L-3 is _the OEM for all instrumentation systems currently operating on undersea training ranges delivered under these 3 competitive contracts, it has a unique capability to meet the Goverrunent's requirements to a company that can adeq11ately perform the requirements with acceptable schedule impact and at a fair and reasonable price as detailed below.

Each of the 3 range contracts had different sponsor requirements for technical data packages (TDP). Some TDPs exclude manufacturing routings to assemble components and subassemblies. Of those, some items were developed by L-311sing independent funds so tl1at the Gover11ment wo11ld not have rights to them even if it 11ad the TDPs. Other TDPs excluded source code based on tl1e sponsor's acquisition strategy. The Go\'emment lacks the expertise to modify software source code and the ability to inan11facture components and subassemblies. It would take significant effort in order to grow that organic capability.

Thus, the Govern1nent detennined that it would need to expend significant effo1t and funds in order to reverse engineer or purchase an adequate competitive TDP fiom L-3, or that significant rework would be necessary for any company other than L-3 to adequately perform this requirement. A schedule and cost analysis that identifies tl1e anticipated impacts of open competition for this requiren1ent is sho\VIl below.

The Government detennined that the_ following duplicative efforts would be necessary for any other contractor wit/1out access to a TDP to gain proficiency si1nilar to L-3's in perfonning this requiren1ent:

a) A new contractor awarded the follow-on contract would incur significant duplicative effort and cost including NRE and knowledge-building regarding interfaces for both legacy and current builds. NRE would include review and developi11g an understanding of OEM part design. capabilities in support of obsolescence resolution, and underlying designs and processes necessary to adequately perform the Statement of Work. The Goverrunent estimates that perfor1ning this effort would take 48 i11onths. The scl1edule i111pact estimate is based upon 2 years of design effort (1 year to perform a preliminary design review (PDR) and a second year to perfor111 a critical design review (CDR), and 2 years for productio11 (6 tnonths of material acquisitioi1, 1 year production and assembly, and 61nonths production testing). Historically, these are typical durations for range projects of a similar nature. For example, the SOAR BSURE con,tract was awarded in September 2006. Its PDR was perfonned in March 2007 and the CDR in April 2008. The incumbent completed the NRE in roughly 18 inonths using its corporate knowledge from historical range projects. Production began with Govermnent approval of the CDR ruJd was co111pleted in July 2009. The

NCH 53 .6-2 (MAR 2013)

J&A Number: 180'04.0 approximate 18 months of production was co1npleted in this period because the Government approved the ptrrchase of long lead items at the PDR. Approval of long lead items is higl1ly dependent on the contractor's experience and sufficient detail at thePDR.

b) A new contractor would also have to write new sofuvare source code and integrate it into tl1e existing system hardware. The Government estimates this wo11ld also take 24 months, but could be performed concurrent with item a) above.

c) The Government further estiinates that a) and b) above would cost the Government an additional This estimate is based on market research, histotical data and subject matter expert analysis.

The Government also considered th~ alternative of buying a complete TDP with associated software coding and proprietary rights from L-3 in order to compete the require1ne11t. Doi11g so would cost above and beyond the duplicative costs detailed above. This - •••estimate is -based 011 an engineeri11g estimate using the most recent inforn1ation from the SOAR and BSURE programs

The 11egati\1e effect on the program of a delay of this duration is the following:

a) Inability to operate a range at full capability in t11e event of a failure, jeopardizing 1"est and Evaluation and Fleet traini11g, and tl1e NUWCDIVNPT RDT &E objective.

b) Inability to perform tasks required of the current Information Assurance Vulnerability Management program as required by the Defense I11fo1mation Systems Agency, putting the ranges at a cybersecurity risk. Delivery of cyber non-co1npliant prodlicts intQ ranges puts the NUWCDIVNPT and sponsor RDT &E-missions and objectives at risk to access by our adversaries.

c) Obsolescence resolution becomes more challenging because electronic and computer l1ardware and software are changing as frequently as every 6 months.

Based on the above, the potential savings fro111 co1npetition to develop a co1nplete TDP cannot offset the duplicative costs and negative schedule and potential program impacts necessary to bring another contractor to the point at which L-3 is today. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Governn1ent to award this contract on a sole source basis to L-3.

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

The proposed contract was synopsized via posting on the Federal Bl1siness Opportunities website on 13 October 2017 in accordance with FAR 5.2. That synopsis stated tl1e intentio11 ofNUWCDIVNPT to award a contract on a sole source basis to L-3. The synopsis stated that all responsible sources could submit a capability state1nent for consideration by the Govermne11t. No responses were received within 15 days of the posting of the sources sought synopsis. If a responsible source sub1nits a capability statement for consideration by the Gove1mnent through the date of contract award, it will be bro11ght to the attention of the Designee of the Head of the Contracting Activity.

NCH 53.6-2 (MAR 20131

J-&A Number: -

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Costs

The Contracting Officer has determined tl1at the anticipated cost to the Government for the supplies/services covered by this J&A will be fair and reasonable. The Contracting Officer will use a series of techniques to make a f3.ir ru1d reasonable determination. Examples include: historical rate escalation, review of substantiating information, regression analysis, as well as historical price analysis. DCMA pricing assistance and/or DCAA audit of the contractor's proposal will be requested along with L-3 's certificate of current cost and pricing to support tl1e fair and reasonable cost determination. Significant (or similar) quantities of this requirement have been purchased from L-3 in tl1e past and cost information Was received on those past procure1nents.

8. Actions to Remove Bai·riers to Competition

For the reasons set forth in pru·agraph 5, NUWCDIVNPT Code 0211as no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the equipment and services covered by this document. The Government will perform contint1al market researcl1 and if ru1other potential source emerges, NUWCDIVN-PT Code 02 will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

The above stateme11t applies to the current ranges covered by this J&A. However.••• has several initiatives underway in order to foster enhanced competition on new ranges.

These include:

a) Application of a "Product Lines" approach to software associated with the ranges. Under this approach a common software structure, developed b)' tl1e Govennnent, would become the baseline sofuvare in1plernented on all ranges. This would lessen a current barrier to competition and provide the Navy savings in tem1s of training, operation, and maintenance costs due to interchangeability.

b) Increased require1nents for data deliverables associated with the purcha·se and installation of new ranges including co1nplcte TDPs (drawings, manuals, etc.). The goal is to have sufficient infor1nation available to the Government to provide industry an opportrn1ity to compete wl1ile mini1nizing the duplicative cost and schedule impacts which form the basis for this sole source J&A identified in Sections·.

Based on the above. the gover:riinent is taking reasonable steps to maxi1nize co1npetition on future related requirements.

J&A Number:

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

CONTRACTING NEGOTIATOR IDENTIFICATION:

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION (FAR 6.303-2(b) (12))

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

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.

(MO PAS 18004.1 ), except as i1oted herein, are co1nplete and accurate to the best of my knovvledge and belief.

TECHNICAL COGNIZANCE:

REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE:

NCH 53.6-2 {MAR 2013)

J&A Number:

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (NMCARS 5206.303(90))

ADVOCATE FOR COMPETITION CONCURRENCE

I concur with the justification for solicitation of the proposed procurement(s) described herein using other than full and open competition.

NCH 53.6-2 (MAR 2013>