Name Brand JandA_document.FA930223FQ0093.redacted.pdf

Justification and Approval (J&A) for Other Than Full and Open Competition

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 10August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 10

(See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" after item XII below.)

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

The Air Force Test Center (AFTC), Directorate of Contracting, Enterprise Acquisition Division, Test Engineering Contracting Branch (PZZZF), 5 S. Wolfe Ave, Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1185. The Contracting Officer on this Brand Name Justification is Wendell W. Brown Jr, The purchase request number is F1S0AZ3261A001.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

This approved action is for a new commercial, firm-fixed price, commercial, brand name acquisition for Universal Switching Corporation (USC) hardware in support of legacy system configurations at AFTC, Edwards AFB, CA.

Currently the Modular Mission Control Room within the 412 RANS utilizes Universal Switching Systems (USWI) switches. USWI switching systems are installed in Mission Control Rooms (MCRs) within the range, these systems employ the USWI RouteWarePro Graphic User Interface (GUI) software and utilize USWI language protocols to communicate with each other. No other switching systems employ the USWI GUI and therefore are not inter-operable with currently installed system configurations.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

Synchronous 192x192 (384x384) switching system, expandable to a synchronous 256x256 in the field:

QTY 12 AP256-32BI-700 Panel-Input-Adaptive-Signal-Active:

QTY 1 S512FX-66-2 System Switch-Digital-Differntial "422" QTY 48 CA2560-006 Cable Assembly: SCSI II to SCSI II six-foot multi-conductor cable QTY 24 CA134-002 Assembly-Connector: 100-pin SCSI2 to Dual 50-pin SCSI2 Y-adapter QYT 1 Shipping and Handling

Total $246,445.00

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited above.

In accordance with FAR 6.302-1(2)(ii)(A), supplies may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof, when it is likely that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

These switching systems, language protocols, and RouteWarePro GUI software are proprietary to USWI and there are no authorized re-sellers. Only USWI offers switching systems compatible with GUI software and language protocol currently installed within Range Mission Control Rooms.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 10August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 10

V. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under

FAR 5.202 applies.

Contracting Directorate shall post requirement on sam.gov for no more than five (5) as sources are limited. In turn, a synopsis contract will not be posted in accordance with FAR 5.202(a)(13), the Contracting Officer determined that the proposed contract action- (i) Is for an amount not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold; (ii) Will be made through a means that provides access to the notice of proposed contract action through the GPE; and (iii) Permits the public to respond to the solicitation electronically.

VI. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

Fair and reasonable determination in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a)(2)(i), (iii) and (iv), market research, current price lists, and comparison to similar items in a related industry.

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

Vendor products were reviewed through Internet searches, discussions with subject matter experts and review of offerings from GSA and NASA SEWP. Vendor offerings were reviewed and considered based on interoperabilty with current software and protocols of legacy systems already installed within Range MCRs.

These services are not provided by the AbilityOne program (www.abilityone.gov) nor FPI-Unicor Services Business Group (www.unicor.gov). A search of “Telescope Interface Units (TUI)” and “Woodward” had no results. Additionally, TUIs or anything similar were not options on this supply and service type lists.

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

It is not feasible to acquire switching systems other than USWI as this would require that all switching systems within Range MCRs be replaced with the new system as currently installed switching systems are only compatible with USWI RouteWarePro GUI software and language protocol. This would incur a duplication of effort and additional costs of at minimum $1,478,670.00 to replace the entire system with products not compatible with legacy systems already installed.

IX. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

Universal Switching Corporation and Elotek Systems, Inc, small businesses, expressed interest in writing regarding this requirement.

X. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

Subject matter experts(SMEs) and program Managers will continue to gauge the market for solutions in addition to the vendor identified above. Efforts will include vendor outreach, attendance at symposiums and conferences, and collaboration with other SMEs in the field.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by my signature above, I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 10August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 10

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

As evidenced by my (our) signature(s) above, I (we) certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my (our) responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 10August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 10

Specific Guidance for Completing this Template

I. Agency and Contracting Activity. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1))

Self-explanatory

II. Nature and description of the action being processed. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2))

An individual J&A is for a single contract. State whether the action is a new contract or a modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the contract type(s) planned (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee). If exception 2 is cited (unusual or compelling urgency), include the date of UCA/contract/modification issuance and amount.

An individual J&A cannot be used to support more than one contract action irrespective of the quantities or the dollar value stated therein. If a proposed contract will contain unpriced options (including NTE prices), those options must be supported by a separate J&A prior to option exercise. Stoehner Security Services, Inc., 248077.3, Oct. 27, 1992, 92-2 CPD ¶ 286 at 6. This principle applies with equal force and effect whenever a contracting officer seeks to exercise FAR 52.217-8 (Option to Extend Services) if the contract that incorporated that clause by reference is not a Service Contract Labor Standards-covered contract, as such contracts do not include wage determinations that establish “prevailing labor rates provided by the Secretary of Labor.” FAR 52.217-8. See Major Contracting Services, Inc., B-401472, Sep. 14, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 170 at 6, mot. for reconsid. den., Department of the Army --Reconsideration, B-401472.2, Dec. 7. 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 250 at 5-6. In the alternative, the J&A supporting the basic contract must be a Class J&A.

Although a Class J&A may be written for multiple awards to a single source, or multiple awards to various sources, it must describe each proposed contract action separately so it is clear that each such action is within scope of that Class J&A. FAR 6.303-1(d).

III. Description of the supplies/services required to meet agency needs. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3))

Describe the supplies, services, or supplies and services to be acquired. Identify the quantities of each item, the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance, the type of appropriation(s) that will acquire those supplies/services, the total estimated value of the acquisition (including options), and the methodology used to arrive at that total estimated value. Provide sufficient information to demonstrate to the approving official that the acquisition of intellectual property (IP) and associated IP rights will satisfy the program's requirements, acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan.

The program's requirements for IP and IP rights in the Request for Proposals (RFP) must be consistent with the program's acquisition strategy, life cycle sustainment plan, systems engineering plan, and test and evaluation master plan. Accordingly, approving officials will ensure this section of the J&A:

(1) States whether the CLIN structure will include separately-priced CLINs for intellectual property (IP) and IP rights. Once the DFARS is revised to implement 10 U.S.C. § 4236, Air Force contracting officers will be required to negotiate a fair and reasonable price for IP and associated IP rights. Air Force contracting officers must start thinking now how they will do so during sole-source and competitive negotiations and how the resulting contract will reflect the results of those negotiations. Otherwise, they may be caught flat-footed if the RFP did not include such separately-priced CLINs and the Director of Defense Pricing and Contracting issues the final rule implementing 10 U.S.C. § 4236 --the effective date of which occurs one day prior to the award date. See also FAR 7.105(b)(14)(iii) and DFARS 215.470(a);

(2) Lists the titles of all such IP (including digital models) to be to be acquired contained in Exhibits A-N of the draft Request for Proposals; and

(3) Identifies the type of IP rights to be acquired to those deliverables (including the IP rights to be acquired to contract administration information since the standard DFARS clauses do not grant the Air Force any license rights to that type of IP).

Mission-focused business leaders are encouraged to engage early in the acquisition life-cycle with industry regarding the subjects of IP and IP rights. They are also encouraged to consult with approving officials, designees, or both, regarding those subjects well in advance of submitting a draft J&A to the appropriate approving official.

For Class J&As, identify each contract action (contract, modification) to be authorized by the proposed J&A for each potential offeror. If the same information applies to more than one contract, it need only be stated once.

For ID/IQ or requirements contracts, use the maximum dollar value of the total estimated orders as the total estimated value of the

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 7 of 10August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 7 of 10 of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements.”

“The __[insert program office name]__ has determined that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Government's requirements.”

The purpose of this opening sentence is to direct the approving official's attention to which specific words in FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) will be the basis for going sole-source.

Next, when the rationale for going sole-source is based upon substantial duplication of cost, this sub-subsection must include an estimate of the amount of cost that would be duplicated (e.g., training required so that another source could acquire the skills necessary to perform the work, equipment, facilities) less the estimated cost to run a competition. (For example, the development costs the Government incurred under the existing contract or similar programs may provide insight into the amount of cost duplication were the proposed acquisition to be competed.) This sub-subsection should also identify the organization(s) that/who performed the analyses that supports those estimates, and describe the analysis that/those organization(s) performed to arrive at both estimates. The methodology must account for inflation during the projected remaining life cycle of the acquisition. (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(A) and (iii)(A); FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(ii)).

When, however, the rationale for going sole-source is based upon unacceptable delay, this sub-subsection must state how long it would take someone else to obtain this capability (in months/years) and why, and provide a detailed explanation of the impact or problem caused by the delay. When describing the impact or problem caused by the delay, the rationale must identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III and the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in that section, and the reduction (or frustration) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions.

The explanation provided must be commensurate with the delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance identified in Section III (e.g., longer delivery date(s)/period(s) of performance necessitate a more detailed explanation). (FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(B) & (iii)(B)).

Although the existence of IP rights retained by the developer make the supplies and services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Therefore, if the program office will use that rationale to justify going sole-source, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the program office performed sufficient due diligence to validate the developer retains such IP rights that require the use of this authority to acquire the supplies and services described in Section III. Specifically, this sub-subsection must explain:

(1) What IP rights the Government acquired to what IP deliverables under predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section and why those rights are insufficient to compete acquisition of the supplies or services described in Section III;

(2) What IP clauses (include the month/year of issuance) or applicable commercial computer software licenses were included into all of those predecessor contracts described in Subsection 1 of this section;

(3) Whether those predecessor contracts included the Deferred Ordering clause (DFARS 252.227-7027) and if so, why the program office did not exercise its rights to acquire needed IP deliverables by exercising its rights under that clause;

(4) Why the Government did not acquire sufficient IP deliverables and IP rights under that/those predecessor contract(s) that would have precluded the need to go sole-source for the proposed acquisition (e.g., acquisition strategies for those predecessor contracts were based upon the Total System Performance Responsibility (TSPR) initiative);

(5) What IP deliverables did the program office acquire under that/those predecessor contract(s) and what restrictive markings did the developer affix to those deliverables;

(6) What pre-challenge requests for information or formal challenges the program office initiated in response to a developer's assertions of development at private expense (DFARS 252.227-7019, DFARS 252.227-7037) and what analysis the program office performed of the information it received in response to that request or formal challenge;

(7) What investigation the program office conducted to determine whether the IP deliverables provided under that/those predecessor contract(s) was/were developed in whole or in part at Government expense (e.g., reviewing the developer's IR&D project approvals and accounting records, reviewing earned value management data and integrated program management reports);

(8) Assuming the results of that investigation validate the developer's assertion of development at private expense, what if any steps did the contracting officer take to request the developer propose a price to furnish the IP deliverables and IP licenses

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 9 of 10 exception IAW FAR 5.202. If a NOCA was or will be publicized provide the dates or expected dates of publication of the NOCA. Address any other actions taken or planned to facilitate competition for this acquisition.

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-1, an RFI or Sources Sought Synopsis is mandatory. (DFARS PGI 206.303-2(b)(i)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-2, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances unless the Government would be seriously injured if the agency complied with the time periods specified in FAR

5.203. (FAR. 5.202(a)(2); FAR 603.2-2(b)(2)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-3, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action is for utility services other that telecommunications services and only one source is available. (FAR 5.202(a)(5)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-5, no synopsis is required if the proposed contract action results from acceptance of a proposal under the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program. (FAR 5.202(a)(7)).

When using the authority granted by FAR 6.302-6, agencies must request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-6(c)(3)). The fact that a proposed solicitation or contact action contains classified information, or that access to classified information may be necessary to submit a proposal or perform the contract does not, in itself exempt that proposed contract action from the synopsis requirement. (FAR 52.202(a)(1)). Under such circumstances, this section must identify what alternatives the program office used to compete this requirement (e.g., accessing the National Reconnaissance Office's (NRO) Acquisition Research Center's Central Contractor Registry database or the National Security Agency's (NSA) Acquisition Resource Center's Business Registry database to identify potential cleared offerors and summarize what outreach the program office conducted with those potential cleared offerors to determine their interest in the proposed acquisition).

If qualifying country sources have expressed interest, but will be excluded, provide supporting rationale.

VI. Determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7))

Include the following text, suitably tailored: “Based upon (1) certified cost or pricing data provided in the offeror's proposal, (2) the program office's technical analysis of the offeror's Basis of Estimates (BOE), and (3) inputs from the Defense Contract Management Agency, including from the Administrative Contracting Officer, the contracting officer expects they will be able to determine that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.”

VII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(8))

Discuss any market research conducted pursuant to FAR Part 10 (in addition to any actions described in Section VI above) and describe the results of that research. When other exceptions from the requirement to obtain full and open competition are relied upon, the market research might be limited to an examination of the acquisition history and experience with the marketplace under previous acquisitions for the same or similar items. Discuss what relevant documentation the contracting officer provided to respondents in a bidders library (e.g., capability development document, system engineering plan, system requirements document, statement of work/ performance work statement, technical data package, compliance documents). Discuss how the contracting officer shared the Government's analysis of each respondent's response with that respondent.

If market research was not conducted, so state and provide the rationale.

VIII. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(i))

Provide any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition, including an explanation of why technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed or are not available. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(i)).

IX. List of sources, if any, that expressed interest in the acquisition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(10))

If all interested sources are identified in Section V, it is acceptable to state, “See Section V above.”

X. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before making

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 10 of 10 subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(11))

Describe any actions taken or to be taken to foster competition for future acquisitions of the supplies or services being acquired.

Describe potential actions the program office will take to remove existing barriers to competition identified in the justification and include a milestone schedule for accomplishing those actions. For example, if the barrier to competing acquisition of the supplies and services described in Section III is the lack of IP deliverables or sufficient IP rights to those deliverables, identify and analyze what possible steps could be taken to:

(a) Acquire those IP deliverables and associated IP rights,

(b) Implement a modular open system approach consistent with the program's capability development document, acquisition strategy, and system engineering plan (10 U.S.C. §§ 4401-4403), or

(c) Reverse engineer subsystems or components of the end items described in Section III.

IAW DFARS PGI 206.304(a)(S-70)(ii), for a non-competitive follow-on acquisition to a previous award for the same supply or service supported by a J&A citing the authority at FAR 6.302-1, include a copy of the previous J&A and include a discussion of the actions planned to overcome barriers to competition established in the previous justification, the status of those actions, and the results of those actions. The approval authority shall determine whether the planned actions were completed. If the planned actions were not completed, the justification for the follow-on acquisition shall be approved by the approval authority one-level above the approval authority for the previous justification. If the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) approved the previous justification, the approval remains at the SPE level.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(12))

As evidenced by their signature, the contracting officer certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel. (FAR 6.303-2(c))

As evidenced by their signatures, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein, which is their responsibility, is both accurate and complete.