RedLAN J and A 17JUNE 2025 (HCA signed).pdf

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

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 7

Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A? Yes No

! ! Attach the preceding J&A in the staff package for this J&A. The preceding J&A will be used as a reference document.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document? New Amended ( Prior to Award Only! )

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at DAFFARS 5302.101? Yes No

Dollar Value of this Acquisition: < $750K > $750K and < $15M > $15M and < $100M > $100M

Contracting Activity: Space Systems Command (SSC), Enterprise Product Support (PKL), 1050 E. Stewart Ave, Bldg. 2025, Peterson AFB, CO 80914

Purchase Request (if available) / Local ID Number: 25-23

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Enterprise Red LAN System Sustainment Support

Program Type (PEO, Enterprise, of Operational): PEO

Authority:

6.302-1 – 10 USC 3204(a)(1), Only One Responsible Source - No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $ 31.5M J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) Sign and Save Procedure

** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Date

10 Apr 2025

Project Lead / Program Mgr / Requiring Activity Captain Brandon Nguyen

SSC/BTCD 310-648-4126

Signature

X

Date

15 Apr 2025

Contracting Officer James T. Delay, NH-03

SSC/PKL 719-750-8062

Signature

X

Date

15 Apr 2025

Local Legal Reviewer Jillian-Leigh Li, NH-04

SSC/JAQ 310-653-3941

Signature

X

Date

11 Jun 2025

Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO) Douglas F. Smith, NH-04

SSC/PKL 719-640-5779

Signature

X

Date

17 Jun 2025

Competition Advocate Brian V. Ucciardi, NH-04

SSC/PK 310-906-6250

Signature

X

APPROVAL ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a))

Date

17 Jun 2025

Head of Contracting Activity

NATALIE R. RIEDEL, SES, DAF

SSC/PK 310-653-1014

Signature

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 7

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

Requiring Activity:

Space Systems Command (SSC) Global Mission Data Dominance (BCTD) 1050 E. Stewart Ave Peterson AFB, CO 80914

Contracting Activity:

Space Systems Command (SSC) Enterprise Product Support(PKL) 1050 E. Stewart Ave, Bldg. 2025 Peterson AFB, CO 80914

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

This individual Justification and Approval (J&A) authorizes a non-competitive follow-on extension contract to sustain the Red Local Area Network (Red LAN) system. Under the contemplated contract, Boeing will provide 24-hours a day, 7 days a week satellite operations support, maintenance, anomaly resolution, continued operations and maintenance of the Red LAN System and Red LAN System Data Provider/Data Recipient (Customer) additions to the Red LAN System. The Red LAN Sustainment extension will provide continued operations and sustainment support services to the Red LAN system which is comprised of equipment suites located at Schriever SFB, an alternate site and the Boeing Mission Operations Support Center (BMOSC). The current scope encompasses all current Red LAN sustainment efforts and excludes any SBSS only related tasks.

The planned period of performance for the Red LAN follow-on contract is 21 June 2025 through 20 June 2026 with a one-year base period, and, if required FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services for six-months. The current contract utilizes Cost Plus Incentive Fee and Cost Plus Fixed Fee for the above identified requirements. The Red LAN support extension contract will be Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) for core operations, sustainment support, client additions, and Other Direct Costs (ODCs).

Additionally, the contract will incorporate Cost Reimbursement (CR) only CLIN for Travel.

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

The Government is seeking the incumbent, Boeing, to provide all personnel, tools, materials, transportation, supervision and other items or services necessary to sustain the Red LAN system's current configuration, resolve anomalies, hold technical interchange meetings with mission partners, and provide enhancements based off emerging warfighter needs.

Background: The Red LAN was originally conceived and created as part of the Space Based Space Surveillance (SBSS) Block 10 Sustainment contract, which was awarded to Boeing via sole source contract number FA8819-15-C-0007.

The initial SBSS Block 10 Sustainment sole source contract’s J&A covered performance from 18 June 2015 through 17 June 2022 since the projected system end-of-life was estimated to not to exceed June 2022. However, due to the 2019 update of the SBSS End of Life Study (Aerospace Report No. TOR-2019-01212) the system was projected to operate through 2025.

Therefore, the program office requested contractual coverage from 21 June 2022 through 20 June 2025 via another sole source contract extension due to the system exceeding the expected useful life.

The second extension was accomplished via sole source J&A, dated 22 Oct 2021. In this extension, the requirement included two main parts: 1) Sunset operations and sustainment services to decommission the SBSS system; and 2) Enterprise Red LAN Support. Since the extension, the Red LAN took on the critical roles of distributing vital U.S. space surveillance capabilities fulfilling Space Domain Awareness (SDA), Orbital Warfare (OW), and Command and Control (C2) needs of the warfighter. Red LAN incorporates numerous sensors (classified and unclassified) and clients which provides the Cross-Domain Solution (CDS) service for the SDA data delivered by those sensors. On July 2021, Gen Raymond confirmed funding for the Red LAN beyond the FY24 SBSS retirement date. The Red LAN will continue to operate as a distinct capability separate from SBSS. The USSF anticipates operating the Red LAN until June 2030.

Current System Details: The Red LAN is a secure data processing and distribution enclave used to receive and distribute SDA data. The Red LAN system is an operational platform with capabilities for integration, and operational testing of sensor

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 7 mission data. The Red LAN is a critical component that supports data processing, correlation, filtering, and distribution in support of SDA, OW, Intelligence Community (IC) requirements. The Red LAN system consists of operationally redundant strings that provide data dissemination to multiple organizations who use SDA data.

The Red LAN system is configured to provide continuous 24-hour a day receipt, processing, and distribution of data from SDA providers, without loss of data during maintenance periods due to the ability of switching operations between the primary and secondary suites of equipment. The Red LAN suites of equipment located at the depot are used for testing and integration of software and hardware changes or in support of customer addition activities with minimal impact to operations.

The Red LAN system sustainment support services consist of the following:

Red LAN Contractor Logistics Support (CLS), including system administration, database administration, software/hardware engineering, and materials necessary for sustainment. The estimated cost for this effort is $12.1M

Red LAN Alternate Site Sustainment Labor is estimated to cost $3M

Red LAN client additions necessary for sustainment will be performed. The contractor will ensure that sensor mission data external sensors flows through secure, accredited interfaces to the Red LAN. The estimated cost for this effort is $3.6M

Red LAN material and OCS is estimated to cost $2.3M.

The total estimated cost for the base year is $21M

Red LAN 6 month Option to Extend services is estimated to cost $10.5M

The total estimated cost for Enterprise Red LAN support is $31.5M

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

Sub-section 1. Authority

Title 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), and as implemented by FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A), Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements. This contract action is an extension to the existing contract FA8819-15-C-0007 awarded to Boeing on a sole source basis for highly specialized services as the original equipment manufacturer of the Space Based Surveillance System. The original period of performance was 18 June 2015 to 17 June 2022 and extended to 20 June 2025 via a sole source contract extension.

Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on extension for the continued provision of highly specialized services.

Sub-Section 2. Unique/Highly Specialized Capabilities

Boeing is the only source with a team of qualified/certified cybersecurity personnel familiar and experienced with the Red LAN intricacies and requirements. They already possess the necessary clearances and facility security clearance to maintain and operate the Red LAN system, and they have the experience integrating new sensors and adding new clients. They have a proven logistics supply chain that supports the network's sustainment to include secure communications such as SGN and

AF7.

There are a number of specific mission impacts if the contract were awarded to another company at this time. The Red LAN is not a static system and there are many on-going development activities including the Integrated Operational Support System (IOSS), expansion to an alternate location site, numerous client addition and other activities would create a prohibitive cost burden if there was a change of contractors. There is an end of year 2025 deadline tied to RedLAN Developmental activities that will support closure of specific gaps in USSF killchains - competing this extension would directly prevent this from occurring.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 7

The specific mission impacts that would be incurred include some of the integration of anticipated new clients, finalization of the fielding of the alternate site which is needed by 1 October 2025 and mission critical development work with the FFRDCs would be halted.

Funding concerns also exist if there were a delay in the execution of the contract award. Significant impact would be felt if a new contractor were to take over the fielding of the alternate site since the effort is considered development which was budgeted for with 3620 funds.

Sub-Section 3. Duplication of Cost/Unacceptable Delays

The Global Mission Data Dominance program office 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.

Duplication of Cost IAW FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A). Award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition for these highly specialized services.

These costs include: the price to compile source code into a usable bidders library ($2M); 6 month dual personnel transition ($10.5M); obtaining software licenses ($1M); tailoring and integrating software for interoperability with the existing ground system infrastructure ($1.8M). Based on various Government studies, competitions may yield a 10-15% savings over the incumbent. Therefore an estimated savings of 12.5% would yield a cost reduction of ~$4M verses the estimated duplication of costs totaling ~$15.3M. This assumes the new contractor has all cleared personnel ready on day one and that a facility clearance is obtained during the 6 month transition which is highly unlikely.

Schedule Impact IAW FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(B). Award to any other source would result in 24 months of unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Government's requirement because the Government needs at least 1 year to compile the requisite data rights for competition.

Data Rights Background. The Red LAN was initially developed by the Government as an SDA sensor interface exclusive to the SBSS system. The Government granted Boeing use of the Red LAN for SBSS sustainment and maintenance under the MOR contract. Over the course of 10+ years of Red LAN development and sustainment, the Red LAN has been expanded to connect a litany of SDA sensors across the United States Space Force (USSF) enterprise. Today, the Red LAN operates independently from the SBSS Block 10 system however, Red LAN sustainment and maintenance has always occurred under the SBSS Block 10 sustainment contract. Despite substantial software modifications over 10+ years of sustainment, the Government has retained Unlimited Data Rights to the Red LAN. Boeing has exclusively maintained and updated the Red LAN during 10+ years of Red LAN sustainment and maintenance.

Although the Government has Unlimited Data Rights to the Red LAN, the Government never acquired deliverables that will enable full and open competition because: (1) the Government did not reasonably anticipate that the Red LAN would be modified for use across the USSF SDA enterprise, and (2) the SBSS program was originally intended as a pathfinder, rather than an operational program.

In order to enable future full and open competition for enterprise Red LAN support, the Government is in the early stages of conducting a feasibility study to ascertain the cost (approximately $2M) and time (approximately 1 year) for compiling the necessary data for competition. These data deliverables will be an output of the 12-month Red LAN extension with Boeing.

Assuming the effort to compile the data rights starts today, a competition is conducted, and Boeing wins the ensuing competition, the program office estimates a “best case” schedule delay of 12-18 months.

Table 2: Enterprise Red LAN Schedule Impact

Best Case Worst Case Activity Delay (months) Delay (months)

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 7

Compile Code 12 18 Gov't Source Selection 6 18 Personnel Transition 6 Obtaining Software (s/w) 1* Tailoring/integrating s/w 3* Obtain accredited facility 6* Subcontracts with vendors 3* Travel and formal training 1* Total 18 42

* The “best case” delay of 18 months exceeds the Red LAN need date of 21 June 2025. It is in the Government's best interest to sole source enterprise Red LAN sustainment for a period not to exceed 18 months while the Government compiles the required source code for a follow-on full and open competition.

Sub-Section 4. Conclusion

Accordingly, Boeing is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.

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.

In accordance with (IAW) FAR 10.002(b)(2) and DFARS PGI 206.303-2(b)(i), the Government posted a Sources Sought on sam.gov on 3 May 2024. See Section VII regarding the program team’s sources sought request for information (RFI).

Additionally, the Government must publish a Notice of Proposed Contract Action on SAM.gov announcing the team’s intent to award a sole source contact.

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

The contracting officer anticipates the cost for this effort will be considered fair and reasonable based upon the program office’s technical analysis of the contractor’s Basis of Estimate (BOEs) and comparison to historical actuals. The contractor will be required to provide a BOE with supporting hours and dollars. In accordance with FAR 15.403-4, ("Requiring Certified Cost or Pricing Data"), certified cost and pricing data will be required for this contract. The contracting officer will require contractor submission of cost or pricing data in the format prescribed in FAR 15.408, Table 15-2, Instructions for Submitting Cost/Price Proposals When Cost or Pricing Data are Required. The contracting officer will determine the reasonableness of costs based on any form of the following recommendations, but not limited to: Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Audit Reports, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) recommendations, technical evaluations, and past history.

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

The Government posted to SAM.gov a Sources Sought RFI on 3 May 2024 which contained the specifications and requirements of the system sustainment. The RFI requested that interested companies to provide a detailed statement of capabilities (SOC) and received responses from four companies: Boeing, Peraton, Ashire Technology, and A&B Foundry.

The Government’s assessment of the submitted SOCs is summarized below.

Boeing: As the incumbent, Boeing was able to provide the minimum capabilities required.

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 7

Peraton: while the MRR concludes that Peraton may be a viable vendor, there is a high risk that there will be a unacceptable loss in critical mission support during transition and significant regression in integration with the labs on the development of the Red LAN primary image processing application given the timeframe to transition and learn the mission requirements.

Ashire Technology: From the SOC, the assessment showed that Ashire only provides a cybersecurity expertise services, while the Red LAN system requires a full hardware, software, systems engineering, operational management, and contractor logistic support team. Ashire Technologies did not provide any evidence of their understanding or experience of the Red LAN mission.

A&B Foundry: The company did not provide sufficient information in their SOCs for the government team to determine whether they could truly meet the minimum requirements. A&B’s SOC focused on the provision of hardware manufacturing solutions only and showcased their specialization in custom manufacturing of weapon system components, while all of the Red LAN system hardware is procured COTS.

The Government did not provide any responses to the prospective respondents regarding the Government’s assessments of the SOCs.

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

The Government was preparing for a full and open competition for the accomplishment of this contract action but was informed on 6 January 2025 by the newly appointed Senior Material Leader (SML), Col Little, that the acquisition strategy needed to be amended due to SSC/BC PEO inputs to the program teams briefing on the Red LAN system’s future.

System Scalability: A major portion of the Red LAN system development has been the inclusion of additional clients. The upgrades and enhancements developed under the initial contracts have allowed the system to be used on a larger scale but requires the intimate working knowledge of the entire Red LAN ecosystem.

External User Reliance: Given the age and current state of the Red LAN system, failure to obtain the SDA and OW support with the unique knowledge of the proprietary systems and sub-systems designs could potentially result in the failure to recover from an anomaly which would lead to unacceptable communication interruptions and delays that would affect joint operations worldwide and detrimentally impact mission requirements.

Given the direction from leadership, the program team immediately revised the strategy to ensure that the team has enough time to execute a contract action that allows the system to continue operations while future requirements are compiled from the wide selection of mission partners. On top of the new programmatic direction, there are many current development activities and new partners needing interfaces with Red LAN to risk a disruption in service.

The current RedLAN effort is being evaluated for an expanded role as an enterprise solution beyond its current mission requirements. This extension will grant the team and stakeholders time to clarify what that enterprise solution will look like, properly research market capabilities and capable vendors, and eliminate unnecessary risks that would impede these capabilities.

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

The Boeing Companny, Peraton, Ashire Technology, and A&B Foundry

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.

The program office is working to fully define requirements of the enterprise solution RedLAN will become. Consideration is being given to market capabilities, market availability, and potential vendors as the requirements are being drafted to remain as unrestrictive as possible while enhancing and building upon the capabilities already being delivered.

As previously stated in Section IV, the Government is currently ensuring that the requirement for any future efforts will be

August 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 7 of 7 appropriately scoped which will help the team in understanding the industrial base’s capabilities. The Government will continue to conduct market research to ascertain if there are changes in the marketplace that would enable future actions to be competed. Actions to increase future competition will be developed for the services required by this extension through the further definition of the different elements supported by the Red LAN system. Before any subsequent acquisition of the same required services, the Government will synopsize the requirement on the governmentwide point of entry so any interested party may submit a capability statement, proposal, or quotation, which shall be considered by the agency in determining the appropriate competitive strategy for the requirement. In the event the program team becomes aware of another potential vendor that can satisfy the requirements, a competitive acquisition will be conducted to determine the best value to the Government.

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.

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.

Remove the Guidance pages below.

Untitled

August 2023 Page of International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR) Page of 13 May 2022 Was a J&A approved for the preceding acquisition where that acquisition required a J&A?

!! Attach the preceding J&A in the staff package for this J&A. The preceding J&A will be used as a reference document.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document?

Is this a Bridge Action as defined at DAFFARS 5302.101?

Dollar Value of this Acquisition:

J&A Type:

!! Provide estimated cost of all contracts.

COORDINATION ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

APPROVAL ( DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) NOTE 1: A signature block will appear here (replacing these notes) based on the "Dollar Value of this Acquisition" selected above. Since most digital signatures that include date/time-stamps are redacted before they are made publicly available, always insert the date in the “Date” cell when affixing a digital signature to this document.

NOTE 2: Some types of acquisitions awarded under circumstances where full and open competition is not required by statute do not have to be supported by a written justification and approval. See 10 U.S.C. § 3204(e)(7); FAR 6.302-5(c)(2). For Class J&As, all contracts within the class must fall within the same statutory authority.

NOTE 3: Users of this template are directed to SAF/AQC Policy Memo 22-C-02, or latest issuance, which provides detailed instructions on how to complete each section of a J&A. The memo will be posted at the following location:

https://usaf.dps.mil/sites/AFCC/KnowledgeCenter/Documents/Contracting_Memos/Policy/22-C-02.pdf (See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" after item XII below.)

I. Agency and Contracting Activity.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

XI. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

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 acquisition.

IV. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)) Provide detailed facts sufficient to justify the use of the particular authority cited. Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of a lack of advance planning or concerns relating to the amount of funds available (e.g., expiring funds). (FAR 6.301(c)).

Check the applicable box below. Checking a box will display the text for that section.

In the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment, the rationale must first justify the supplies/services as either associated with a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment”. It must then justify either “substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition” or “unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements”, whichever situation applies. If both of those situations apply, the rationale can be based upon either or both of those two situations. This authority shall not be used when any of the other authorities apply.

Sub-subsection 1. FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) require that the J&A demonstrate that specific conditions have been satisfied. Therefore, this sub-section must deconstruct the specific words in those provisions and demonstrate to the appropriate approving official how the proposed acquisition satisfies those words.

For example, this sub-subsection must demonstrate the proposed acquisition is a “follow-on contract” by identifying the current contract number of the contract the intended awardee of that “follow-on contract” is currently performing, the basis of award for that contract (competitive, sole-source), the purpose of that contract, the date of contract award, and the date that contract will expire. PTC, Inc., B-416863, Dec. 20, 2018, 2019 CPD ¶ 48 at 6-7. This subsection must also demonstrate the proposed acquisition will continue “development” or “production” of a “major system” or “highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof” or provide “highly specialized services.” In the case of the former, this subsection must either identify the ACAT I or II program --since the legal definition of a “major system” includes ACAT I and II programs --or explain why the equipment sought to be acquired is “highly specialized” for which the proposed acquisition will “continue[ ] development or production”. In the alternative, this subsection must explain why the services sought to be acquired are “highly specialized”.

If the planned acquisition will result in a “bridge” contract that contains options, this subsection must explain why options are necessary. If significant lead time is required prior to approval of the J&A in order to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III, this subsection should mention that fact and explain why that is the case.

Next, this sub-subsection should add a concluding sentence to the end of this subsection, suitably tailored; e.g., “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of a major system.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of a major system.”, “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of highly specialized equipment.”

“Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued provision of highly specialized services.”

The purpose of that sentence is to bring the approving official back to the regulatory requirements the preceding paragraphs of this section of the J&A have discussed to demonstrate the J&A satisfies those requirements.

Sub-subsection 2. Thoroughly describe the contractor's unique/highly specialized capabilities and qualifications (e.g., facilities, personnel, special tooling acquired), (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)), and why no other type of supplies or services will satisfy the agency requirements.

Sub-subsection 3. This subsection should begin with the following sentence, suitably tailored:

“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.”

“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 needed to compete the proposed acquisition; and

(9) The extent to which the program office considered reverse engineering any subsystems or components of the end item described in Section III (and summarize the estimated cost to reverse engineer those subsystems or components and the time it would take to complete such reverse engineering activities); or considered use of a modular open system approach to acquire those subsystems or components consistent with the program's capability development document, acquisition strategy, and system engineering plan. (DFARS 207.106(S-72)(2)(v); DFARS 227.7103-5(d)(2)(iii)).

Although the control of basic raw material makes the supplies or services available from only once source, the mere existence of such rights or circumstances does not in and of itself justify the use of this authority. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(2)). Under such circumstances, this sub-section must identify how the intended source acquired a monopoly on those raw materials.

When acquiring utility services, circumstances may dictate that only one supplier can furnish the service, or when the contemplated contract is for construction of a part of a utility system and the utility company itself is the only source available to work on the system. (FAR 6.302-1(b)(3)).

When the agency head has determined in accordance with the agency's standardization program that only specified makes and models of technical equipment and parts will satisfy the agency's needs for additional units or replacement items and only one source is available, (FAR 6.302-1(b)(4)), this sub-section must identify the relevant standardization program.

Notwithstanding FAR 6.302-1(c)(2), a justification and approval is required in order to use brand name or equal descriptions or the use of proprietary specifications or standards. (DFARS 206.302-1(c)(2) and (S-70)).

Sub-subsection 4. When using the rationale described in sub-subsection 3 above, conclude this subsection by including one of the following sentences, as applicable:

“Accordingly, ___[insert company name]___ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be recovered through competition.”, “Accordingly, __[insert company name]__ is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

“Accordingly, __[insert company name]__, is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the Government experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

The purpose of this sentence is to restate for the approving official's benefit which rationale(s) is/are the basis for going sole-source, thereby sensitizing them to the fact the author will now turn to discussing a different topic.

Contracting Officers must notify SAF/AQC as soon as practicable when contemplating the use of this authority for a J&A requiring SPE approval.

Provide an explanation why the supplies or services are needed at once due to, e.g., fire, flood, explosion, other disaster, emergency) or essential equipment or repairs to that equipment are needed at once to facilitate meeting critical mission needs of the Government. Identify the nature of the urgency, the reasons for it occurring, and the extent of the anticipated serious injury to the Government -- thereby demonstrating why the Government's need for the supplies or services described in Section III is of “unusual and compelling urgency” to preclude adverse impact to military readiness. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(iii)). In other words, identify all nodes on the critical path between the failure to acquire the supplies or services described in Section III and the reduction (or elimination) of the warfighter's ability to accomplish specific missions. Merely citing a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON), Force Activity Designator (FAD) rating, Program Management Directive (PMD)/Program Action Directive (PAD) guidance, or DX priority rating is not in and of itself sufficient reason to use this exception from the requirement to obtain full and open competition. Note that only the minimum quantity required to satisfy the unusual and compelling urgency qualifies for this exception. In addition, the period of performance CANNOT exceed one year, including all options unless the head of the agency determines that exceptional circumstances apply (FAR 6.302-2(d)(ii)); thus, the inclusion of options when using this authority is not advised.

Note: This statutory authority requires that agencies request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. (FAR 6.302-2(c)(2)).

Justifications citing this authority must demonstrate the need to maintain a facility, producer, manufacturer, or other supplier available for furnishing supplies or services in case of a national emergency or to achieve industrial mobilization; to establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center; or to acquire the services of an expert or neutral person for any current or anticipated litigation or dispute. If the proposed contract will require the contractor to keep vital facilities or suppliers in business or make them available in the event of a national emergency, train a supplier in the furnishing of critical supplies or services, prevent the loss of a supplier's ability and employees' skills, or maintain active engineering, research, or development work, maintain properly balanced sources of supply, create or maintain the required domestic capability for production of critical supplies, or continue in production where there would otherwise be a break in production, or divide current production requirements among two or more contractors, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(1)). If the proposed contract will establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an education or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center for theoretical analyses, exploratory studies, experiments in any field of science of technology, or engineering or development work calling for the practical application of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)). If the proposed contract will acquire the services of an expert to use in any litigation, dispute, or alternative dispute resolution proceedings involving the Government, this section must provide facts sufficient to justify the use of this authority (FAR 6.302-3(b)(3)).

Identify the applicable statute explicitly authorizing other than full and open competition. (FAR 6.302-5(b); DFARS 206.302-5(b)). The following is a non-exclusive list of statutes lifted from FAR 6.302-5(b) that authorize acquiring supplies and services from specified sources or through another agency:

(1) Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) (18 U.S.C. § 4124 (see FAR Subpart 8.6).

(2) Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind or other severely disabled (41 U.S.C. Chapter 85) Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled (see FAR Subpart 8.7).

(3) Government Printing and Binding (44 U.S.C. §§ 501-504, 1121 (see FAR Subpart 8.8)).

(4) Sole source awards under the 8(a) Program (15 U.S.C. § 637), but see FAR 6.303 for requirements for justification and approval of sole-source 8(a) awards over $25 million. (See FAR Subpart 19.8).

(5) Sole source awards under the HUBZone Act of 1997 (15 U.S.C. § 657a)(see FAR 19.1306).

(6) Sole source awards under the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 (15 U.S.C. § 657f).

(7) Sole source awards under the WOSB Program (15 U.S.C. § 637(m)(see FAR 19.1506).

Note: Some statutes do not require a written J&A.

Full and open competition need not be provided for when the disclosure of the agency's needs would compromise the national security (e.g., would violate security requirements) unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals. Accordingly, if this authority is used, this section shall explain how these conditions are satisfied.

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 FAR 5.2 and, if not, indicate which exception under FAR 5.202 applies. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(6); FAR 6.303-2(b)(8); FAR 6.303-2(b)(10)) The contracting officer shall issue a sources sought synopsis or an RFI, provide the date the synopsis was issued, the synopsis number, and a brief description of its content.