Redacted Limited Source Justifications - Part 8_47QFSA21F0137_Aug 27 2021.pdf

Limited Source Justification FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C)

General Services Administration

Federal Acquisition Service Southeast Sunbelt Region

1. Requiring and Contracting Activity

a. Requiring Activity: AFLCMC/WIG RQ-4 Global Hawk Program Office

235 Byron Street Suite 19A Robins AFB, GA 31098

b. Contracting Activity General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service Assisted Acquisition Services Division 77 Forsyth ST, SW Atlanta, GA 30303

c. Contracting Officer: Amber C. Bryant

d. Task ID: TBD

e. Estimated Value of This Action:

f. Contract Vehicle 47QRAA18D00A2/TBD

g. Period of Performance: 03 Jun 2021 – 02 Jun 2026

2. Nature and/or Description of Action:

Historically, the Product Support Integrator (PSI) for the RQ-4 Global Hawk has been Northrup Grumman Corporation (NGC) via a Contractor Logistic Support (CLS) contract. However, the Global Hawk Program is now utilizing a Government/NGC hybrid approach where the Global Hawk Program Office is now the PSI with some functions historically performed by NGC being reduced or completely removed from the CLS contract for increased organic management. Additionally, in August 2015, the United States Air Force (USAF) developed a standard process to define maintenance requirements and to support their execution. This method is called Logistics Requirements Determination Process (LRDP) and Engineering Requirements Review (ERR) process per AFMAN 63-143, Centralized Asset Management Procedures.

In order to effectively comply with AFMAN 63-143, and in order to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness of the RQ 4 Global Hawk scheduled maintenance program, a new and improved maintenance strategy, identified as Maintenance Steering Group-3 (MSG- 3), was selected by the Global Hawk Program Office to provide a holistic assessment.

MSG-3 is a system-driven, top-down, task-oriented methodology used to streamline field and depot maintenance actions and incorporates proactive inspection methods.

As the life of aging aircraft is extended, reliability and availability are reduced, which in turn causes additional structure and system related problems that result in increased burdens on maintenance programs. Maintenance and SPO requirements must still be met, with increasing mission requirements. By incorporating MSG-3 methodology into the current and future maintenance programs for the fleet, a reduction in total life cycle maintenance cost, an improvement in program efficiency and an increase in aircraft mission readiness will be achieved as evidenced by commercial and other military aircraft that have adopted the MSG-3 methodology. Empirical data gathered from maintenance systems, engineering actions, and other sources is used to conduct the MSG- 3 analysis. Results of MSG-3 analysis identify potential solutions to repetitive failures discovered, provide analysis of the maintenance data to improve forecasting of maintenance requirements, and provide recommendations to support RQ-4 fleet-wide reliability issues and implementation of maintenance transformation through MSG-3 philosophy. Implementation of solutions will be via the LRDP and ERR process.

Acquisition History

In 2018, the Air Force requested GSA award a contract to apply the MSG-3 methodology to the RQ 4 Global Hawk platform. MSG-3 Phase I was awarded as a FAR Part 8 Best Value competitive acquisition. Two offers were received via GSA eBuy (Hexagon US Federal (Hexagon) and Strategic Technology Institute, Inc.); however, only Hexagon was given award consideration based on technical approach and past performance. Award was made to Hexagon, 301 Cochran Road, Huntsville, AL 35824 on the GSA Multiple Award Schedules program on 29 January 2019. The contract/task order numbers are 47QRAA18D00A2 / 47QFSA19F0013/ID04180123 with a 24-month period of performance beginning 29 January 2019 and ending 28 January 2021. As Phase I is foundational to the Phase II effort and in the interest of economy and efficiency, a logical follow-on under the Multiple Award Schedules program as allowed by FAR Part 8.405- 6(a)(1)(i)(C) is the proposed acquisition strategy. Phase II was not contemplated in the original award for Phase I due to the uncertainties of inspection/maintenance tasks which would have greatly affected the amount of work that needed to be performed in Phase II.

Further, it was also unknown during award of Phase I what the Air Force’s plans were for the aircraft regarding divesture and the aspects of analysis needing implementation given the fleet size and planned utilization of the aircraft.

3. Description of Supplies or Services:

The primary objective of this Phase II effort is the development and implementation of an MSG-3 based maintenance program in accordance with (IAW) the Depot Maintenance Activation Planning established in Air Force Material Command Instruction (AFMCI) 21-101 to support Depot Maintenance Transformation (MT) goals established by Air Force Material Command (AFMC) and Expeditionary Logistics for the 21st Century (eLOG21). The foundational elements of this effort include the generation, delivery, implementation and sustainment support of a complete scheduled maintenance program including final generation and delivery of Aircraft/Missile Requirements Document (AMRD) work specification and brochure for depot and Work Card source data for field and depot intervals to meet intent of AFMAN 63-143. Included within implementation support is the generation of bridge maintenance packages tailored to each aircraft which is essential in transitioning the EQ/RQ-4 fleet away from the current scattered scheduled maintenance to full implementation of an MSG-3 based Scheduled Maintenance Program

(SMP).

The estimated total value of this performance-based acquisition is with a twelve (12) month base period and four (4) twelve (12) month option periods. This effort is anticipated to begin on 03 June 2021.

4. Authority:

FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) requires the order to be in the interest of the economy and efficiency and the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures. The original order (47QFSA19F0013/ID04180123) was not previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures.

5. Rationale:

As detailed in the MSG-3 Analysis Phase I Performance-based Work Statement (PWS), Phase I is foundational to Phase II. Phase I was an ongoing, exhaustive MSG-3 analysis of data including empirical knowledge gathered from maintenance systems, engineering actions, maintainers and other sources. Phase I also included an MSG-3 assessment for the RQ-4 platform, which substantiates that the Global Hawk will see significant improvements throughout its remaining lifecycle from transitioning to an MSG-3 based SMP and thereby substantiates the need for MSG-3 Phase II. In addition to the data analysis and the MSG-3 assessment, Phase I also included a top to bottom MSG-3 analysis of all aircraft systems, structures, zonal and Lightning/High Intensity Radiated Fields resulting in hundreds of maintenance tasks.

The MSG-3 Phase II effort will utilize the deliverables from the Phase I effort to generate the Aircraft/Missile Requirements Document (AMRD) brochure data, work specification and technical data including work card source data and Work Control Documents and Job Standards during the Base and Option Period I. The Phase II Base will utilize the deliverables from Phase I in the generation of transition bridge packages unique to each aircraft which will be needed to transition each aircraft within the fleet away from the current maintenance program into the new MSG-3 based SMP. The Phase II Option Periods 1 and 2 will utilize deliverables from Phase I and the Phase II Base Period and will result in the validation and verification of the SMP technical data and final source data delivery. The Phase II Option Periods 2, 3, and 4 will utilize deliverables from Phase I and Phase II Base Period and Option Period 1 and will generate implementation assessments and non-standard repair packages to refine the SMP.

An implementable MSG-3 SMP transition package, a deliverable from the MSG-3 Phase II effort, is critically needed by mid calendar year 2022 in order to meet the USAF's goal of transitioning to a MSG-3 based SMP by the fourth quarter of calendar year 2023.

Hexagon is the only contractor that can economically and efficiently perform and deliver the requirements of the MSG-3 Phase II effort as a logical follow-on to the Phase I contract as allowed by FAR Part 8.

By pursuing a natural follow-on, multiple economies and efficiencies will be obtained by going sole source to Hexagon for the follow-on task order. The elimination of a learning curve that a new vendor would face ensures that the methodical and efficient pace of the current work will continue and provides the Government with a high confidence that the new SMP plan and bridge packages will be delivered on time and will meet the Government’s goals of transitioning to a MSG-3 based SMP by fourth quarter of 2023.

The Phase I analysis effort was of high complexity requiring the collection, collation, investigation and assessment of multiple sources of data including input from working groups, Service Bulletins, engineering analysis, and maintenance and configuration history of each aircraft in the fleet. Much of the RQ-4 data was scattered in multiple standalone systems either on Government SharePoints, Shared Drives, and database repositories or Original Equipment Manufacturer data systems that resulted in numerous errors, omissions and inconsistencies being identified through labor intensive “detective type” investigations to map out and draw meaningful and useful conclusions on the configurations of the Global Hawk fleet. A complete understanding of the data sources, how the investigations and analysis were conducted, and how assumptions were made is essential for the success of the Phase II effort. A new vendor would significantly delay the progression of Phase II by requiring months of review and assessment to obtain the knowledge and understanding from Phase I conducted by Hexagon. The use of a new vendor would also introduce inefficiencies and add significant risks that critical safety inspections recommended through the analysis may be missed by a new vendor.

Additionally, the new MSG-3 SMP is expected to yield more than tasks with a highly complex phased hierarchical construct. The phased hierarchical construct is essential in ensuring that the new SMP is a streamlined maintenance program that eliminates duplicative maintenance which in-turn increases economic efficiencies. The construction of a phased hierarchical SMP requires a complete and thorough understanding of the Phase I analysis effort, which only Hexagon can provide. Due to the complexity of the program, there is substantial risk that a new vendor would not effectively incorporate the hierarchy into the SMP, thereby eliminating the economies and efficiencies expected to be gained through implementing the new SMP through Hexagon.

Additionally, Hexagon has established excellent lines of professional communication and access with RQ-4 System Program Office (SPO) engineers, equipment specialist, and logistics specialist, Air Force maintainers, and other Government contractors within the RQ-4 support team, including the OEM. Hexagon has also established full cooperation within Working Group members, which are made up of engineers and field technicians.

Additional risk will be incorporated into the SMP schedule if the Government is to go to a new vendor as the Government will need to provide a new vendor access to systems for parts data, reliability data, drawings, and technical data sites. Continuity with SPO engineers, the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) Manager, Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program (MECSIP) Manager, maintainers, and other contractor support entities in Phase II will be key in working towards a timely and successful implementation of a fully integrated MSG-3 SMP.

Further, the development of transition packages is a critical part of Phase II. Bridge packages are required for implementation of new SMPs due to significant changes in the legacy scheduled maintenance intervals. With the new MSG-3 based SMP, Global Hawk will be transitioning from the scattered scheduled maintenance approach that utilizes numerous intervals from number of flights, flight hours, and calendar days. The various intervals within each interval category create a challenging plans and scheduling task for field maintainers. Under the new MSG-3 re-baselined SMP, the entire aircraft will

The development of unique bridge packages for each aircraft will be complex and requires a full understanding of the exact nature and extent of the current legacy maintenance and a full understanding of the new MSG-3 SMP. An additional layer of this complexity is that each aircraft, to a certain degree, is essentially a unique configuration due to various modifications and production changes.

A new vendor would be extremely pressed to gain an expert understanding of both the legacy maintenance to include maintenance history of each aircraft and an understanding of the new phased hierarchical MSG-3 SMP in order to develop the bridge packages in an efficient and cost-effective manner. In fact, based on the complexity and inconsistencies of the raw data, a new vendor would require an

; assessing several hundred tasks in the current legacy maintenance program; reviewing and accessing the thousands of lines of data generated in Phase I; and reviewing and assessing the hierarchical requirements for the new SMP before generation of the work cards and development of the bridge packages could begin; resulting in inefficiencies, significant delays in the schedule and risk to the program.

Ultimately, Hexagon is the only contractor that can economically and efficiently perform and deliver the requirements of the MSG-3 Phase II effort. The learning curve that a new vendor would have to overcome is too multifaceted to be achieved with economies and efficiencies. A conservative estimate is that a new vendor would require a fully dedicated to reviewing and assessing the complex and vast results of the

MSG-3 Phase I Analysis effort, to include reviewing and assessing the legacy maintenance program, in order to have a bare minimum understanding required to even begin the Phase II effort. Using the monthly cost average of the current MSG-3 Phase I effort, the learning curve of a new vendor would increase the Phase II cost estimate by an additional Due to the complex nature involved with the Phase II effort, there is a very high risk that a new vendor would not be able to gain the understanding and knowledge to the depth necessary . The delay caused by the learning curve would also push out the PDM implementation at least 6 months, if not more due to potential missed annual deadlines for submissions of PDM workload through the Logistics Requirements Determination Process in AFMAN 63-143.

Due to the huge volume of information and complex nature of both the Phase I and Phase II efforts, there is a high degree of risk that a new vendor even with a would not be able to generate the Phase II results required for successful and timely implementation of the new MSG-3 SMP by 2023. Hexagon is the only contractor that can economically and efficiently perform and deliver the requirements of the MSG-3 Phase II effort.

5. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

A Request for Information (RFI) was posted to eBuy on 03 March 2021 with the intent to award a Sole Source contract to Hexagon U.S. Federal, Inc. The RFI contained a description of the requirement, a DRAFT PWS and known constraints demonstrating that Hexagon U.S. Federal, Inc. is currently the only known source due to the interest of economy and efficiency IAW FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C). Vendors were invited to submit company and product literature stating their capabilities to meet the Government's requirements taking into consideration the information provided in the notice. The RFI closed on 7 March 2021 and no responses were received.

6. Contracting Officer Determination – Fair and Reasonable Cost:

The Contracting Officer will ensure the items identified for procurement are negotiated at fair and reasonable prices to the Government. The task order will be awarded IAW with FAR Part 8 procedures. Price analysis will be performed based on comparison with competitive published price lists, comparison to recent historical prices paid by the Air Force for the same or similar items, evaluation of the proposed material, hours, and labor categories and comparison to the IGE.

7. Market Research:

Market research has continuously been conducted, in accordance with FAR Part 10, since the inception of the MSG-3 program in 2018. The Global Hawk Program Office, AFLCMC/WIG at Robins AFB GA reviewed the previous Market Survey dated Feb 2018. The previous report is titled “Market Research Report for RQ-4 Global Hawk

Phase I MSG-3 Analysis (FY19 thru FY20),” dated 31 May 2018. The techniques employed in that market research include engineering experience and knowledge of the RQ-4 aircraft and Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM) processes, review of the MSG-2/3 processes, a review of available technical data and personal contacts within both industry and Government. An extensive survey of the marketplace was conducted using internet searches, the Small Business Administration (SBA) Dynamic Small Business Search (DSBS) website, GSA Library and Acquisition Gateway. The previous report was updated using the same techniques on 11 February 2021 and is titled “Market Research Report for EQ-4/RQ-4 Global Hawk Phase II MSG-3 Implementation.”

The updated Market Research Report (Attachment 1) validates that the MSG-3 Analysis Phase I Market Research Report remains current, accurate, and relevant to this effort. The GSA PSS 871-3 SIN remains an excellent representation of the general marketplace for the MSG-3 Phase II effort. While the market research resulted in companies with MSG- 3 engineering analysis capabilities there were numerous differences of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) analysis and MSG-3 that would not be cost effective nor efficient for the Government. Due to the complex and variable nature of the Phase II effort, a vendor will require at the outset a complete understanding of Phase I. Only the incumbent Hexagon US Federal, Inc. is capable of performing the Phase II requirements in an economical and efficient manner as discussed above. AFLCMC/WIG recommends pursuing a logical follow-on with Hexagon US Federal as allowed by FAR Part 8 on 47QRAA18D00A20 Schedule task order vehicle.

8. Other Supporting Facts:

For the reasons cited herein, award of this task order to any vendor other than Hexagon US Federal, Inc. would not be in the best interests of the Government. The additional cost necessary to overcome a new vendor’s learning curve is not expected to be recovered through competition. Additionally, the Government would expect a 6-month impact to schedule should another contractor be contemplated.

9. Statement of Actions to Overcome Barriers to Competition:

No actions are planned to remove or overcome barriers. At the conclusion of the MSG-3 Phase II effort, the Government will have a fully implemented MSG-3 based SMP. Any future task order actions to sustain the new SMP will be competitive.

10. Listing of Sources:

Hexagon US Federal, Inc.

14291 Park Meadow Drive STE 350 Chantilly, VA 20151-4253 DUNS: 963395368CAGE Code: 63CL1

11. Requiring Agency Certification:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which form the basis for this justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Client Signature Lt. Joe Farnsworth, RQ-4 MSG-3 Program Manager Date

11. Contracting Officer Certification:

The undersigned has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government for this acquisition will be fair and reasonable. Further, I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Contracting Officer Signature Date Amber C. Bryant, GSA

12. Approval:

Based on the above facts, it is the approving official's determination that the above referenced justification for other than full and open competition is required, and in the Government's best interest, to fulfill the required acquisition.

Thomas D. Merion Date Regional Commissioner Federal Acquisition Service U.S. General Services Administration Southeast Sunbelt Region

4/14/21