SEIC II_NAVY JIBE Justification and approval_FINAL_redacted_21Jan2020.pdf

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY13 Sep 2017

NOTE: If a Justification and Approval was approved for the preceding acquisition, a copy of the approved J&A for the predecessor action must be included in the staff package for approval of the instant J&A. This applies to J&A staff packages that are submitted for review and approval at a level above the contracting officer. The predecessor J&A will be used as a reference document by the approving official.

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

Funding level for this acquisition: < $700K > $700K and < $13.5M > $13.5M and < $93M > $93M

Contracting Activity: AFLCMC/HBMK Airspace Mission Planning Division

Purchase Request / Local ID Number: N.A

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): Systems Engineering & Integration Contract (SEIC) II

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): PEO

Authority: 6.302-1 – 10 USC 2304(c)(1), Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements

Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $75,000.00 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION (AFFARS 5306.304(a) )

Date

21 Jan 2020

Program Manager

Signature

Date

21 Jan 2020

Local Legal Reviewer

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a) )

Date

21 Jan 2020

Contracting Officer Anthony David Suarez, GS-13

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY13 Sep 2017

I. Contracting Activity.

Airspace Mission Planning Division Hanscom AFB, MA

01731, AFLCMC/HBMK

Contracting Officer: Anthony David Suarez, II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed.

This contract action will result in a modification to the previously competed Systems Engineering & Integration Contract (SEIC) II program Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. This action will modify the Statement of Work (SOW) and the scope of the current IDIQ to add the following work: integrate Navy specific Unique Planning Components (UPCs) with Joint Mission Planning System (JMPS), JMPS Integrated Build Environments (JIBEs). This action is estimated at $75,000 ($15K per year to the end of the period of performance in December 2026) and will not increase the established ceiling of $350,000,000.00 to the SEIC II IDIQ.

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

At a total estimated value of $75K (RDT&E funded) between CY20 and CY26, the Government has a requirement to increase the work under the contract, specifically: integrating Navy UPCs with Navy JIBEs.

While this has been done by the Navy Mission Planning Program Office (PMA-281), PMA-281 has experienced skillset challenges at their Government developer locations. Due to the similarities of the Air Force and Navy Mission Planning Environments (MPEs), the Navy has requested the Air Force assist in integrating Navy UPCs into Navy custom JIBEs (F-18, V-22, and other aircraft). This integration work will allow mission planning software to talk to Navy aircraft, which then produces a Navy MPE (allows crew members to detect and avoid threats, plan for weather, air refueling, weapons, and perform other mission planning capabilities).

IV. Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) - FAR 6.302-1 Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements

V. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above (applicability of authority).

Leidos, Inc. has Mission Planning domain expertise, which it has acquired after providing more than ten

(10) years of Systems Engineering and integration/test support to the Mission Planning Program Management Office (PMO). Currently, the contractor produces over thirty (30) JIBEs per month (both USAF and Navy), which involves integrating over thirty common components (for example, Weather, Electronic Warfare) per JIBE. The additional work/scope involved in adding a Navy UPC into a custom JIBE is projected to be minimal in relation to the overall contract effort but similar to the work involved in building a custom JIBE. The Airspace Mission Planning Division conducted market research in the form of a Request for Information (RFI) on 2 May 2019 for agile software development (that included

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY13 Sep 2017 integration and testing). The results from various GSA pools such as OASIS, Alliant 2, and IT Schedule 70 showed other sources may be capable of doing this effort. However, a competition under a GSA IDIQ would take at least 6 months. During this 6 months of delay, the integration of Navy UPCs with Navy JIBEs would not be accomplished, and the Navy would not be able to field updated operational software to its mission planners. As a result, Navy crew members could experience vulnerabilities and limitations in their MPEs, such as the detection or avoidance of threats, planning for weather, conducting air refueling, and releasing weapons, which would lead to negative operational impacts.

For these reasons, the 6 months delay is unacceptable. Accordingly, Leidos Inc. is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.

VI. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable.

The Airspace Mission Planning team is constantly reviewing new and emerging competitors for all Government requirements. While many contractors reviewed in the May 2019 market research have integration and engineering support service capabilities, the incumbent contractor has unique and immediate capabilities due to their understanding of the complexities involved in integrating components within a custom JIBE.

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

This action will not increase the ceiling. Each Delivery Order and Engineering Change Proposal will be negotiated and evaluated against Forward Pricing Rate Recommendations/Agreements negotiated by DCMA and other price negotiations conducted by Government agencies, and, therefore, the anticipated cost will be considered fair and reasonable price.

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

See Section VI.

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

As referenced in Section V, a competition for these specific requirements would cause a delay of approximately 6 months, during which time, the Navy would not have its UPCs integrated with its JIBEs, resulting in a negative impact to the Navy's operational capabilities.

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

While no source has expressly-sought interest in this particular program requirement, within the 2 May 2019 Market Research Report, referenced their abilities for integration support.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY13 Sep 2017

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

The Mission Planning enterprise continues to reduce barriers to competition before making acquisitions for supplies or services by conducting market research every 12-16 months. The most recent market research reached both large and small businesses. The Airspace Mission Planning Division released an RFI in May 2019, which captured a broad range of Mission Planning capabilities, including integration.

The SEIC II IDIQ was competitively awarded in 2016 and will again be a competitive acquisition when the PoP ends in Dec 2026. Note that fair opportunity competition activities will begin during 2024 in order to have a new contract in place prior to Dec 2026.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by my signature above, I have determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

XIII. 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.