SPRBL1-19-Q-0078-ZL0092.4-for_OPSEC-PAO_Redacted_031.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION & SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104

5. Reason for Authority Cited

The only known manufacturing source of supply for the hardware item described above is Elbit Systems of America, subsidiary EFW, Inc., (Elbit/EFW), CAGE 0WEC9, 4700 Marine Creek Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas, 76179. Elbit/EFW owns the technical data package (TDP) for the ISDC, and possesses the expertise to produce

it. Elbit/EFW is the only contractor with past history manufacturing the ISDC for the Government.

Elbit/EFW has demonstrated that it has the proprietary design, data, production facilities, and technical skills to produce the required hardware items. This company has successfully passed all U.S. Army Air Worthiness Release testing and certification, which is a required and mandatory certification within the Army. Additionally, Elbit/EFW is the only source with the facilities, including a test bed, and the technical expertise required to assemble, fabricate, and test the required system.

The Government has made various attempts to buy the TDP but the Elbit/EFW was not willing to sell it.

Without the TDP, any source other than Elbit/EFW would need to perform engineering design effort, followed by test validation. Design and test validation by any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Government requirements. The Army Technical Expert estimated that these design and test validation efforts would exceed 20-24 months. Also additional time is required for air worthiness release testing and certification. Furthermore, as part of an alternate source qualification, costs estimated in excess of $9.5 million would be required to verify that any alternate could be used with legacy displays, and to rebuild and qualify platform software products that would be compatible with the existing AN/AVS ANVIS HUD. The Army Technical Expert concluded that design, test, air worthiness certification, software rework, and compatibility verification costs would not be recovered through anticipated reduction of prices due to competition.

As a final point, the Army Technical Expert advised that a reverse engineering effort would be high risk, because the existing system would require re-engineering, which would include changes in function operations that are integral to the existing system. Any re-engineering could result in decreased system reliability, increased operational costs, downgraded system performance, accessibility, and software functionality.

The Acquisition Method Reason Code (AMRC) for the spare part is 3R. The assigned value “3” means that the part is to be acquired, for the second or subsequent time, directly from the actual manufacturer. The assigned value “R” means that the data or rights to use the data needed to purchase this part from additional sources are not owned by the Government and it is uneconomical to purchase them.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition

Market research was conducted, the details of which are in the market research section of this document. In accordance with FAR 5.201, this action will be synopsized in a combined synopsis/solicitation on FedBizOpps.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION & SENSITIVE- SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104

APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS

( ) Up to $700,000 Contracting Officer ( X ) $700,000 to $13,500,000 Competition Advocate ( ) $13,500,000 to $93,000,000 Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) ( ) Over $93,000,000 Senior Procurement Executive (AQ)