Redacted JA.pdf

J&A: 2 -0 8

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and OpenCompetition:

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority:

Sikorsky Support Services is the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the H-60 and H-53 aircraft and the only source capable of performing this effort to meet Fleet needs. Sikorsky Support Services is the only firm that possesses or can access the requisite knowledge of the aircraft and its unique airframe, avionic, and electronic systems. These efforts cannot be performed by any other source than the OEM and without these services NATEC’s Fleet customers would experience mission failure. The Government did not procure a complete Level III Engineering Technical Data Package (TDP) on the aforementioned aircraft modifications and upgrades. Based on the original acquisition strategy, the OEM is not required to relinquish proprietary engineering and technical data or their rights. This requirement is to provide CETS to the Fleet based on the state of the TDP and is intended to fill the gap between the technical capabilities of Government personnel and the proprietary engineering and technical data necessary to maintain the aircraft and weapon systems in a high Ready-for-Tasking (RFT) state. In order for any other vendor to accomplish the CETS CFS, they would require access to Sikorsky Support Services’ TDP for the aircraft. Sikorsky Support Services is not willing to sell the TDP and no other contractor possesses the requisite knowledge and expertise to satisfy this requirement.

The acquisition of engineering and technical data is beyond the scope of the NATEC organization.

Thus it would require each platform level Program Management Activity (PMA) or a third party to procure a complete level III TDP, which would result in unacceptable and insurmountable delays in meeting the government’s requirements. Due to the nature of the circumstances surrounding the absence of Government-owned technical data, even a small lapse in OEM CETS support will impact Fleet Readiness by grounding aircraft covered under this requirement, resulting in mission failure.

As a result, only Sikorsky Support Services has the engineering data, software, capability, resources, and technical expertise to complete the various efforts required under this contract in order to support the fielded aircraft and meet NATEC’s fleet customers’ CETS requirements in a timely manner.

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

As required by DFARS PGI 206.302-1, a Sources Sought announcement was posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) website on August 25, 2020, and no responses were received. In accordance with and FAR 5.201(b)(1) a synopsis was published to FBO on Sept 2, 2020, and no responses were received.

J&A:

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost:

In accordance with FAR 15.402, the Contracting Officer shall ensure that all supplies and services provided under this contract are procured at a fair and reasonable price. The Contractor shall submit a formal price proposal with certified cost or pricing data and sufficient information to support the accuracy and reliability of the estimate. Sikorsky Support Services’ proposal will be reviewed by experienced technical analysts and contract specialists with the aid of necessary field pricing support. The Contracting Officer will utilize cost and price analysis as the basis for negotiating a fair and reasonable price.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Future Competition:

For the reasons set forth herein, NAVAIR has no plans at this time to award future competitive contracts for these types of supplies and services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NAVAIR will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

As this effort is a follow-on for supplies and services previously awarded on a non-competitive basis, in accordance with DFARS PGI 206.304(a) (i), the prior J&A was provided to the approval authority for review. Approval of this J&A signifies the approval authority has made the determination required by DFARS PGI 206.304(a) (ii).