Tab 1 JA - F-16 WBR.pdf

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

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 1 of 9

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 all 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! )

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan? Yes No

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

Contracting Activity: AFLCMC/WWMK

Purchase Request / Local ID Number:

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): F-16 AESA RADAR PROGRAM (27133F) / Wide Band Radomes

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): PEO Program

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): $375,000,000 J&A Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION (AFFARS 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

22 May 2020

Contracting Officer Deanna J. Kerkhoff AFLCMC/WWMK Comm: 660-864-6821

Signature

X

Date

22 May 2020

Project Lead / Program Mgr / Requiring Activity Paul M. Wojtowicz

AFLCMC/WWMA DSN: 713-6493

Signature

X

Date

27 May 2020

Local Legal Reviewer James P. Kennedy

AFMCLO/JANA DSN: 674-5561

Signature

X

Date

09 Jun 2020

Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO) Dennis L. Lovejoy

AFLCMC/WWK DSN: 713-6240

Signature

X

Date

16 Jun 2020

Competition Advocate Christopher J. Kirbabas

AFLCMC/PK DSN: 785-3741

Signature

X

Date Senior Contracting Official (SCO or SCCO) Thomas D. Robinson

AFLCMC/PK-PZ DSN: 785-3741

Signature

X

Date

18 Jun 2020

PEO/Commander (Requirements Cognizance) Brig Gen Heath A. Collins

AFLCMC/WW DSN: 713-6500

Signature

X

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 2 of 9

Date

14 Aug 2020

CAMERON G. HOLT, Maj Gen, USAF

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting)

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)

Signature

X

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a) )

Date

23 Aug 2020

William B. Roper, Jr.

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)

Signature

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 3 of 9

I. Contracting Activity.

Department of the Air Force Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Fighters/Bombers Directorate F-16 Program Office USAF Contracting Division (AFLCMC/WWMK) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH 45433-7205

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

A. Upon approval to use other than full and open competition procedures, the United States Air Force (USAF) will enter into a contract with General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) for the production of non-commercial Wide Band Radomes (WBR).

The contract will be awarded to:

General Dynamics Mission Systems 150 Johnston Road Marion, VA 24354 Cage Code: 04DG4

B. Contract Type and Structure: The Air Force will issue an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to GDMS. The contract scope will include production of up to 781 WBRs - plus spares - for F-16 block 30-52 aircraft, as well as sustainment support. Estimated contract award date is 31 August 2020.

In accordance with AFFARS 5316.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1) and SAF/AQC Contract Policy Memo 19-C-11 dated 17 December 2019, and in congruence with FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(D)(1)(ii) and (iii), the award of a task/delivery order contract in an amount exceeding $112M (including all options) is approved for award to a single source. The contract will provide only for firm-fixed price task or delivery orders for products for which unit prices are established in the contract, as well as services for which prices are established in the contract for the specific tasks to be performed. The full-scope IDIQ will contain quantity-specific pricing for the basic ordering period, and quantity-specific pricing for the option ordering period will be negotiated prior to its exercise. Additionally, only GDMS is qualified and capable of performing the work at a reasonable price to the Government. See additional details in Section V below.

The use of an IDIQ is prudent, as ample flexibility in ordering schedule and quantities is necessary to accommodate fluctuations in funds availability and production line alignment with AN/APG-83 installs. Logistical complexities on both programs, coupled with various other F-16 development efforts for which the Government is acting as the integrator, demand contractual elasticity. Additionally, although the total quantity of WBRs is anticipated to be 781 plus spares, delivery order quantities and timing are unknown, and actual overall quantities ordered may change. The WBR is intended for installation on F-16 aircraft outfitted with AN/APG-83 radars, for which the United States Air Force is currently only slated to receive a quantity of 372 - 72 Joint Emergent Operational Need (JEON) and 300 Phase III Production. However, the maximum 781 quantity and $375M ceiling afforded through the use of this IDIQ enable growth from 372 in alignment with potential increases in AN/APG-83 radar install quantities which are undergoing coordination.

C. Approval for more than one fiscal year requirement is needed as the installs are occurring over multiple years and it would be too costly and time consuming to create a new contract every year.

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

A. Narrative Description: A contract will be awarded to acquire, by negotiations with GDMS, operational WBRs for the F-16.

This includes production and sustainment support such as (but not limited to) unit repair and depot stand-up support.

B: Total Estimated Value: The total estimated value for this IDIQ is no more than $375M.

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 4 of 9

C. Period of Performance: The expected ordering period is 31 August 2020 - 30 August 2025, with optional ordering period 31 August 2025 - 30 August 2030. Contract period of performance is expected to be 31 August 2020 - 30 August 2032. Final deliveries are to be completed by this time. In accordance with DFARS 217.204(e)(iii), the period of performance is approved to extend more than one year beyond the 10-year limit at DFARS 217(e)(i)(C) due to the lead time associated with asset production.

D. Contract Type: The contract type is anticipated to be Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

E. Background: The F-16 AN/APG-83 AESA FCR effort was initiated as the F-16 Radar Modernization Program (RMP) under the Combat Avionics Programmed Extension Suite (CAPES). In December 2012, Lockheed Martin Aero was awarded an Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA) to integrate an AESA FCR for F-16 RMP. At this time, and in anticipation of future needs, General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) chose to develop a WBR that would enhance the AESA FCR capabilities using Internal Research and Development (IR&D) funds. CAPES was later unfunded, but in 2015, NORAD-NORTHCOM (N-NC) maintained a requirement for AESA and submitted a Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON) that was later reclassified into a Joint Emergent Operational Need (JEON) in order to meet the requirement.

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated the N-NC JEON in April, 2017. In order to meet the AESA requirement for JEON, and prepare for Full Rate Production (FRP), AFLCMC/WWMA has conducted Milestone B and JEON Milestone C activities.

On 31 May, 2017 WWMK awarded a UCA to Northrop-Grumman (NG) for the AN/APG-83 AESA radar based on limited competition and a J&A citing FAR 6.302-1, Only One Responsible Source and 6.302-6, National Security. The AN/ APG-83 AESA is being developed, produced and fielded in 3 phases. AN/APG-83 AESA JEON Phase I and II will be fielded on ANG F-16 Blocks 30/32/40/42/52 which will conduct N-NC's Homeland Defense Mission. Phase III, the Full Capability Development Document (CDD) phase, will field USAF/ANG F-16s (Blocks 40/42/50/52) conducting the full range of specified F-16 missions globally. In February 2020, the F-16 Program Office received pre-Delta Milestone C approval to procure 90 Phase III radars. The WBR will be fielded in support of the Phase III effort which is a requirement to fully realize combat effectiveness of the system. Also as part of Phase III, NG is required to integrate and qualify a WBR on the F-16. NG entered into a subcontract with GDMS in order to fulfill this requirement. EMD radomes are scheduled to undergo testing and qualification efforts in conjunction with the AESA radar on the F-16 in August 2020.

Note that the EMD radomes are currently being utilized to create the corresponding AN/APG-83 boresight configuration tables by NG under the AESA contract. If any WBR other than the GDMS solution were to be selected for award, this process would require complete rework.

Additionally, because GDMS developed this WBR using IR&D funding, the Government does not retain rights in data to support competition on a design-to-specification basis. The F-16 Program Office performed an analysis and validation of GDMS' assertions of Limited/Restricted rights in technical and computer software data by reviewing supporting documentation verifying the establishment of the IR&D project and applicable funds allocability to ensure contractor-only funding was utilized to support the program in its entirety. Furthermore, the F-16 Program Office performed a "gap" analysis to determine the minimum required data to support a competition considering data acquired under other Government contracts. This analysis revealed that radome uniqueness across each platform and aircraft configuration yields virtually no crossover of data utility among programs. Therefore, the data acquired by the Government under other contracts would not be useful in supporting a competition and any potential competitors would need to start the design and development process from scratch. This provides GDMS a significant, fair competitive advantage.

F. Requirement: Based on the operational requirements outlined in the Radar Modernization Program's classified CDD (approved for the AN/APG-83 radar by Air Combat Command and the Joint Requirements Oversight Council), the WBR is a necessary component of the F-16 upgrades that will enable realization of the specified capabilities in support of operational mission sets and critical national security objectives. These capabilities are required to be available for the operational fleet in time for fielding the advanced AESA radar capabilities in 2022 along with the aircraft core Operational Flight Program (OFP) software changes. Timely fielding with OFP version M7.3 late in 2021 is critical to meeting this schedule, a delay to which is unacceptable based on the risks to national security delineated in the classified CDD. The AN/APG-83 will not meet the required national security objectives and capabilities without the addition of the WBR.

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 5 of 9

In order to meet the Government's performance requirements, the WBR solution must meet the minimal bandwidth requirements and attenuation levels described in classified F-16 AESA Radar System Requirements Documents (SRD).

The WBR shall be configured so that electrical tuning per specification 16ZB002A is electrically identical (bending coefficient and attenuation levels) to allow for one fleet-wide set of AN/APG-83 AESA FCR tuning coefficients, look up tables, etc. The WBR must fit within the existing F-16C/D structural requirements and support AN/APG-83 radar volume, Environmental Cooling System (ECS) capacity, and meet SWAP requirements. It must also meet all applicable F-16C/D airworthiness and safety of flight standards and requirements, and production asset delivery must align as closely as possible with the AESA radar production and fielding schedule (estimated 10 units per month). Because AESA radar production assets have already begun delivery, it is imperative that WBRs be delivered as soon as possible to enable full CDD capability requirement realization.

The WBR is required to conform to the mechanical and structural specifications listed in USAF specifications documents 16ZB002 and 16VB008 for the legacy Narrow Band Radome, with Wide Band modifications that enable threshold requirements of improved detection, tracking, and identification of airborne and ground targets by the AN/ APG-83; improved AN/APG-83 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) ground mapping capabilities; and improved AN/APG-83 Electronic Protection capabilities.

The Air Force requires the following equipment and/or systems to be integrated into the WBR, in order to seamlessly interface with F-16 avionics and structural connections:

1. Outer Mold Lines (OML) contour

2. Lightning Protection System

3. Air data interface hardware fittings and locations

4. Angle of Attack (AoA) mounts

5. Misc. brackets and fittings, locking pins, and hinge hardware

6. Instrument Landing System (ILS) antenna

7. Pitot Tube mount with heater

8. MIL STD coatings/finishings

The WBR must also conform to Northrop-Grumman's electrical specifications defined for the AN/APG-83 SABR AESA.

The contractor's ability to meet United States Department of Defense security protection requirements is vital, as the same level of insight into the AESA radar program (which was awarded under limited competition based on FAR 6.302-6, National Security) and classified requirements and specifications is required for WBR production. In order to preserve the integrity of data release in the interests of national security, the F-16 SPO did not release the classified specifications to vendors as part of market research and analysis conducted. However, it is anticipated that the classified requirements associated with this procurement would add a significant amount of complexity that would impact vendors' assessments of cost, schedule and performance capabilities to meet the full need.

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

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by 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).

The WBR is a crucial structural component and integrated subsystem which enables the AN/APG-83's full spectrum of capabilities and alignment with the program's operational requirements as dictated in the corresponding CDD. GDMS is the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) for the F-16 nose radome, including all blocks from the Full-Scale Development FSD through Block 70. GDMS has produced over 5,300 F-16 nose radomes to-date and has repaired numerous F-16 radomes for both the USAF and international users. GDMS initiated F-16 WBR development efforts independently in 2010, and is currently on subcontract qualification and software characterization under the AN/ APG-83 AESA radar contract (FA8615-17-C-6047). GDMS began delivering Engineering and Manufacturing Design (EMD) radomes in July 2020, which are being utilized to create the corresponding AN/APG-83 boresight configuration tables by NGMS. As stated in Section III above, because GDMS invested independently in the development of the WBR

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 6 of 9 technology, the Government does not retain rights in data for specifications that would enable the use of competitive procedures to award a design-to-specification production contract. Therefore, any other source would be required to initiate development efforts from scratch, and would also have to replicate the activities that GDMS has already accomplished as a subcontractor under the AN/APG-83 AESA radar contract. As a result, GDMS is the only source available for the highly specialized equipment and services required by the Government without an unacceptable delay in fulfilling the Government's requirements and substantial duplication of costs to the Government that are not expected to be recovered through competition.

SCHEDULE:

Award to any other source for the F-16 WBR would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements, as it is estimated that the program schedule would delay nearly 4 years.

As a proven provider leveraging a vast expanse of prior experience producing similar radomes, GDMS estimated 12-14 months for WBR development. This estimate is based on similar-scale development efforts for programs such as F-35, F-15 RMP, F/A-18 E/F and EA-18G, as well as the previously proposed F-16 CAPES. Other interested parties identified 12-18 month development estimates, with the exception of one vendor which identified a 4-month development period. Based on Government Subject Matter Expert (SME) analysis and comparison with historical development efforts carried out on projects of similar complexity, this 4-month period is not practicable for the requirements at hand.

Additionally, based on the current AN/APG-83 AESA Radar contract WBR qualification and integration schedule, an estimated 27 months is required to complete tool design and fabrication, programming, structural, environmental, lightning and vibration EMD WBR production and qualification testing, mandrel production, flight unit production and boresight table configuration and OFP release. This process started in September 2019 on the AN/APG-83 AESA Radar contract and would require complete rework if pursuing other than the GDMS WBR solution for integration with the radar.

GDMS identified a 14-month production delivery lead time from qualification testing. This is based on time required to procure custom-machined parts such as manifolds, manifold connectors and ball lock pins. The need for these parts occurs at assembly, following qualification. Procurement prior to testing in order to decrease lead time is risky, as there is potential that the qualification units will not perform adequately during test and will require rework or modifications. Because these are composite materials, this additional time prior to use runs the risk of shelf life limitations if procured in advance of production needs. Alternatively, other interested parties identified 6-month production delivery lead times supporting capacities of 4-6 WBRs per month.

Moreover, in addition to the delays identified above, a competitive source selection process would add at least another 12-month period prior to contract award based on Acquisition Strategy Panel (ASP) approval projections, F-16 Program Office capacity and in alignment with Air Force Installation Contracting Center (AFICC) Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) 5307.104-92 for purposes of comparison.

Based on these schedule estimates, the shortest feasible timeline from contract award to production deliveries (regardless of throughput quantities) given award to any source other than GDMS is 4 years, including the 4-month development schedule deemed impractical. The longest identified timeframe is 5 years 11 months, for a high-low average of 5 years. The F-16 Program Office's anticipated most-likely schedule based on the above, however, is 5 years 7 months. This places production deliveries for any source other than GDMS at around February 2026, or 3 years 10 months following GDMS's initial production delivery capability. First delivery would occur after the totality of currently projected (372 quantity) AN/APG-83 radars are installed. Should the 372 radar quantity increase to 781, thereby driving WBR maximum contractual quantity requirement, GDMS is projected to complete final delivery November 2028. Assuming 10 WBR per month capacity starting February 2026, estimated final delivery given award to any source other than GDMS would occur August 2032. Therefore, both initial fielding and final fleet installation would delay nearly 4 years if any source besides GDMS was selected. This fielding delay would result in significant, unacceptable operational and national security risks described in Section III above. For this reason, GDMS is the only contractor capable of fulfilling the Government's requirements without an unacceptable delay.

COST:

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 7 of 9

Additionally, award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of costs to the Government, which are not expected to be recovered through competition. Increased costs due to Government-funded development are also anticipated.

To date, the Government has spent $29.1M on EMD WBRs, AN/APG-83 integration and qualification under the AESA contract. Award to any supplier other than GDMS would require duplication of these costs and efforts. This duplication alone constitutes 7.76% of the overall anticipated GDMS price ceiling.

Furthermore, award to any supplier other than GDMS would likely result in additional development costs to the Government. GDMS funded these costs independently, but another vendor would likely seek recovery of any development costs from the Government. Based on similar development efforts on programs of comparable complexity and scope, this development cost is estimated at $14M.

The cumulative anticipated cost increase to the Government based on award to any vendor other than GDMS is therefore $43.1M, or 11.5% of the overall anticipated WBR price ceiling. Because GDMS is a proven provider leveraging a vast expanse of prior experience producing similar radomes, and based on the program's classified nature and complexity, it is anticipated that these costs would not be recuperated through competition. Even if the development costs are not included (i.e., if it was assumed that another vendor would fund the development effort at no cost to the Government), it is unlikely that another vendor would be in a position to offer a nearly 8% discount on the expected cost of this requirement (especially if it already provided a nearly 4% discount by providing the development effort at no cost to the Government).

In summary, for the reasons stated above, it is likely that award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the agency's requirements, as well as substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Thus, GDMS is the only capable source for provided the highly specialized equipment and services required by the Government.

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

In order to facilitate thorough market research and capture industry capabilities, the F-16 Program Office released an unclassified Sources Sought Synopsis (FA8615-17-X-6058) for this requirement on the Government Point of Entry on 23 August 2019. Additionally, the Program Office hosted a virtual Industry Day event on 13-14 April 2020. Individual vendors that the F-16 Program Office believed might be interested (including Lockheed Martin) were contacted individually via email to invite them to participate in the discussions.

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

The Contracting Officer anticipates costs to the Government will be fair and reasonable based on market analysis and targeted research, access to acquisition data on comparable programs driving Independent Government Cost Estimate, thorough analysis of the contractor's cost data and accompanying certification, and collaboration with the Defense Contract Management Agency and Defense Contract Audit Agency. The following processes will also aid in determining price fair and reasonable prior to award: technical team evaluation, AFLCMC/PZF pricing support for an in-depth cost, price and realism analysis, as well as Legal and clearance reviews and approvals.

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

Thorough market research was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 10 by contacting knowledgeable individuals in Government and industry regarding market capabilities to meet requirements, reviewing the results of market research undertaken to meet similar or identical requirements, querying the Government Point of Entry by way of Sources

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 8 of 9

Sought Synopsis, participating in an interactive virtual Industry Day event, and holding interchange meetings to involve potential offerors early in the acquisition process.

During the virtual Industry Day event, the F-16 Program Office provided a list of topics and questions to help guide the discussion with each vendor. Targeted discussions were held based on each vendor's expressed capabilities, interests and concerns. Several vendors expressed confidence in their ability to develop a suitable solution to meet the Government's need. However, during the course of discussions, several limiting factors were identified. Among these were limited access due to the sensitive nature of the classified requirements, estimated time to develop, costs associated with development, AN/APG-83 boresight configuration table rework, accounting system adequacy determinations to support acceptable development contract types, and incomparable historical contract and requirement complexities.

Note that the fact that GDMS had already independently developed the WBR solution to meet the Government's needs and was on subcontract to perform integration and qualification with the AN/APG-83 radar was not disclosed to vendors until this event was conducted, after GDMS verified the absence of conflict with identification. The F-16 Program Office believes that this lack of awareness caused some of the vendors to express interest where they otherwise may not have, based on GDMS's perceived fair competitive advantage.

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

N/A

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

GDMS and the following additional sources expressed interest in the acquisition: AdamWorks, Meggitt Baltimore, Inc.

(Meggitt), and Starwin Industries (Starwin). The Government's market research report provides a detailed assessment of these vendors' capabilities, including the Government's assessment that none of these sources were capable of fulfilling the Government's requirements as the prime contractor. Although Meggitt, AdamWorks and Starwin expressed to have the capability to produce the WBR, they have not shown development or production of complex and integrated wide band nose radomes for a high performance jet aircraft, nor quantities required.

Additionally, once these parties were made aware during the virtual Industry Day event of the GDMS WBR solution, they either acknowledged that that they were better suited to seeking subcontracting opportunities with GDMS, or they failed to further engage with the Government regarding this acquisition. Specifically, AdamWorks stated during the Industry Day discussion that the company would be interested in working as a prime contractor, but that it "may be more appropriate for [them] to pursue subcontract opportunities" for the WBR effort. And in addition to the Government's concerns with AdamWorks' capabilities, the Government was also unable to ascertain through a post- Industry Day Request for Information (RFI) whether or not AdamWorks contains the appropriate security clearance to support this requirement. Following the virtual Industry Day event, the F-16 Program Office did not receive any further correspondence from the company despite the follow-up RFI email. With respect to Meggitt and Starwin, both responded favorably to a presolicitation notice posted on the GPE on 23 May 2020 by the F-16 SPO in anticipation of making a sole source award to GDMS based on the market research conducted and in order to meet production schedule needs based on long-lead special tooling and capital equipment manufacturing. Both companies stated that they were thankful for the communications and opportunity to discuss their capabilities, but neither company expressed any further interest in pursuing this opportunity as a prime contractor. AdamWorks did not respond to the presolicitation notice.

In addition to these three interested vendors, NGMS also participated in the Industry Day event, but stated that the company did not intend to develop a WBR. Rather, NGMS offered to assist as a prime contractor if it would benefit the Government, but acknowledged that the arrangement would entail a significant amount of passthrough costs.

HP Composites Inc. and Micro Sales also expressed interest in the Industry Day event, but were only interested in

March 2018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page 9 of 9 supplying specified materials and equipment to support a prime contractor.

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.

Fleet standardization is critical to the ability to provide maximum system effectiveness to enable the warfighter. Due to the uniqueness of each radome configuration and development process, emerging technologies and current F-16 end of life projections, the Government does not anticipate competing subsequent acquisitions for the supplies and services required under this contract.

In an effort to overcome barriers to competition, the Program Management office (PMO) will consult with SAF/AQCC Intellectual Property Cadre to discuss strategies the office may consider to obtain IP. If this discussion leads to the identification of an approach to overcome the IP-related barriers to competition, because this effort will be accomplished using an IDIQ contract, the SPO will be able to not exercise further task orders and instead compete the remaining requirements, assuming that is in the Government's best interest.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

(U) The Contracting Officer's signature on the Coordination and Approval Document evidences that they have determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief (FAR 6.303-2(b) (12)).

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

(U) As evidenced by their signatures on the Coordination and Approval Document, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein, which is their responsibility, is both accurate and complete (FAR 6.303-2(c)).

Remove the Guidance pages below. Remove the IACR pages below.

March 2018 Page of International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR) Page of March 2018 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 all 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?

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan?

Funding level for this acquisition:

J&A Type:

COORDINATION (AFFARS 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 (AFFARS 5306.304(a)) NOTE: A signature block will appear here based on the funding level selected above.

(See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" below.)

I. Contracting Activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

Specific Guidance for Completing this Template ( For general guidance, refer to the J&A Preparation Guide. )

I. Contracting Activity.

Fully identify the contracting agency and organizational activity responsible for the proposed contracting action.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2))

State whether the action will be awarded as a new contract or by modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the type contract planned (e.g., firm-fixed-price, cost-plus-incentive-fee, etc.). If exception 2 is cited (unusual or compelling urgency), state date of UCA/contract/modification issuance and amount.

An individual J&A cannot be used to support more than one contract 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 or the J&A supporting the basic contract must be a Class J&A. For Class J&A situations (covers more than one contract) where the number of contracts in the class can be identified: (1) Provide a brief general description of actions; (2) identify the supplies and services that are being acquired; and (3) for each contract in the class identify the contractor, estimated value, type of contract and rationale for contract length, and estimated award date. Where the same information applies to more than one contract within the class, it need only be stated one time.

III. Description of the supplies/services required to meet agency needs. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3))

Specifically describe the supplies and/or services to be acquired, the total estimated value of the acquisition - including options (provide cost estimate by year and, for class J&AS, by contract action), and the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance If commodities are being procured, provide quantities. All contract line items (CLINs) e.g., technical data, support equipment, support services, etc., should be listed. If all of the ancillary requirements associated with a particular item are not specifically described in the J&A, those ancillary requirements cannot be included in the resulting contract and would require a second J&A. Also, state the type of appropriation (e.g., 3600, 3010, and 3400) that will be used to fund each requirement listed.

If approval for more than one fiscal year requirement is needed, give the rationale for this request. Generally, the scope of these actions is limited to current requirements only, so that actions may be taken to facilitate competition for out-year requirements.

In some cases, there are no feasible actions that could develop future competition, and it is reasonable to seek approval for more than one fiscal year's requirements.

For ID/IQ or requirements contracts, use the maximum dollar value of the total estimated orders as the estimated J&A dollar value.

IV. Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(4))

10 USC 2304(c)(?) (see Note 1 below), as implemented by FAR 6.302-? (see Note 2 below), and required by FAR 6.303-2(b)(4).

Note 1: Complete the 10USC 2304(c) citation with the statutory subparagraph cited in the (a) Authority (1) Citations portion of the Competition exception used for your J&A.

Note 2: Complete the FAR citation with the appropriate subparagraph.

Note 3: For class J&As, all contracts within the class should fall within the same statutory authority. Where a different authority must be used for any contract action, a separate J&A should be prepared.

V. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above (applicability of authority). (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5))

Provide, in narrative form, a detailed explanation supporting and clearly relating to the conditions described by the FAR for using the particular authority cited. This section is normally the most detailed part of the justification as the essence of the justification is presented here. For acquisitions that include both supplies and services, separately justify the use of the authority for the services and supplies.

Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of lack of advance planning by the requiring activity or concerns related to the amount of funds available (e.g., funds will expire) (FAR 6.301(c)). To assist you, the following information is provided:

A. Only One Responsible Source (FAR 6.302-1)

When using this authority, thoroughly describe the contractor's unique/highly specialized capabilities and/or qualifications (e.g., facilities, personnel, special tooling acquired), and why no other type of supplies or services will satisfy the agency requirements. This authority shall be used, if appropriate, in preference to the authority in FAR 6.302-7. This authority shall not be used when any of the other authorities apply.

This authority also applies to the use of restrictive brand name descriptions in requirements documentation. An acquisition that uses a brand name description or other purchase description to specify a particular brand name, product, or feature of a product peculiar to one manufacturer does not provide for full and open competition regardless of the number of sources solicited. If a brand name will be used, you must justify it and clearly explain why a specific brand produced by a single company is required, as opposed to allowing full and open competition. The justification should indicate that the use of such descriptions in the acquisition is essential to the Government's requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company. (FAR 6.302-1(c)) Brand-name or equal descriptions do not require justifications and approvals to support their use.

In the case of a follow-on contract for continued development or production of a major system or highly specialized equipment/services, the rationale must first justify the supplies/services as being a “major system” or “highly specialized.” The rationale 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 these situations apply, the rationale can be based on either of these two situations, or both. Justifications for follow-on contracts should be organized as below:

Subsection 1

(a) Describe the system or support element to which supply/service to be procured under the contemplated acquisition relates in terms of its purpose and its capabilities. Describe how the contemplated acquisition relates to that system or support element. Describe the previous acquisition history, to include a description of the work the contractor has been performing. Additionally, include the current contract number, basis of award for that contract (competitive/sole source), when the contract was awarded, and when the contract will expire. If the work the contractor will perform under the contemplated acquisition is being done under an ACAT I or II program, state that designation. If the work will not be done under an ACAT I or II program, provide a detailed explanation from a technical perspective as to why the supplies/services to be procured are “highly specialized.” This section must summarize your justification by including the main point(s) of the justification.

(b) If the planned acquisition is a “bridge” effort, which contains options, so state and explain why options are necessary.

(c) Add a concluding sentence to the end of this paragraph, suitably tailored; e.g., “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of a major system,” or “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued development of highly specialized equipment,” or “Therefore, this acquisition will be follow-on contract for the continued development of a major system,” or “Therefore, this acquisition will be a follow-on contract for the continued production of highly specialized equipment,” or “Therefore, this acquisition is for continued performance of a highly specialized service.”

Subsection 2

Begin with the following sentence, as applicable: "Award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition” or “Award to any other source would result in unacceptable delays in fulfilling the Air Force's requirements” or “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 Air Force's requirements.” Then, discuss either or both of the following situations (although only one of these situations is needed; if the facts exist to support both, then provide that information):

(a) When the rationale is based on substantial duplication of costs, estimate the amount of duplicated costs and offset that by the amount of cost savings that are likely to be generated by competition, if feasible. Include the rationale for the amount of cost that would be duplicated (e.g., training required so that another source could acquire the skills necessary to perform the effort, equipment, facilities) and how the estimates were derived (e.g., development costs incurred by the Government under the existing contract or similar programs). (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(ii))

(b) When the rationale is based on unacceptable delay, provide the length of the anticipated delay, state how long it would take another source to obtain this capability (e.g., months, years) and why (if applicable), provide a description of exactly what is being delayed, and provide a detailed explanation of the impact or problem caused by the delay. For example, the impact of not adding additional quantities of launch support services staff-hours to an existing contract might cause a launch to not occur as scheduled, thus delaying the operational use of a spacecraft, thus reducing the constellation's operational availability - and thus reducing (or precluding) the ability of the war fighter to accomplish specific missions.

Subsection 3

Include one of the following sentences, whichever is applicable:

(a) “Accordingly, XYZ Corporation is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition.”

(b) “Accordingly, XYZ Corporation 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.”

(c) “Accordingly, XYZ Corporation is the only firm capable of providing the supplies and services described in Section III above without the U.S. Air Force experiencing substantial duplication of cost that could not be expected to be recovered through competition and unacceptable delays in fulfilling its requirements.”

B. Unusual and Compelling Urgency (FAR 6.302-2, DFARS PGI 206.302-2)

Contracting Officers shall contact SAF/AQC at usaf.pentagon.saf-aq.mbx.saf-aqc-workflow@mail.mil as soon as practicable when contemplating an award under the authority cited in FAR 6.302-2 for J&As requiring SPE approval. Provide an explanation why (1) the supplies or services are needed at once because of fire, flood, explosion, or other disaster, or (2) essential equipment or repairs to that equipment are needed at once, e.g., to preclude impairment of launch capabilities or mission performance of missiles or missile support equipment, eliminate imminent grounding of the XX fleet crucial to what mission of the USAF and Defense of the Nation. In other words, identify the anticipated serious injury to the Government, the nature of the urgency, the reasons for it occurring and why it is “urgent and compelling” to preclude adverse impact to military readiness. 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; thus, this exception might not suffice to justify option quantities. For example, a JUON covering an entire program may not necessarily warrant a class J&A for all program requirements. The inclusion of future “unknown” requirements in class J&As proceeding on this basis is disfavored. In addition, actions covered by a relevant JUON should, a) cite the JUON, b) describe the nature of the need covered by the JUON, and c) describe the relationship between the JUON and the requirements contemplated under the J&A (e.g., whether the J&A includes requirements not covered by the JUON, whether the J&A covers just a portion of the JUON's scope, etc.). JUONs can provide important support for the J&A; however, the J&A is a stand-alone document and should not rely solely upon the fact that a JUON has been issued as a basis for approval. Activities are under a continuing duty to ensure maximum competition practicable under the circumstances, and JUONs do not automatically provide relief from that duty.

The exception for “unusual and compelling urgency” does not authorize a sole source contract. This exception only authorizes limitation to the greatest number of potential sources that can fulfill the requirement in the time needed. Therefore, the J&A should also describe the method and rationale for identifying the sources to which the solicitation will be limited. If the solicitation is to be limited to only one source, the J&A must be based on an exception that authorizes selection of a single source.

C. Industrial Mobilization; or Engineering, Developmental, or Research Capability (FAR 6.302-3)

The most important part of justifications citing this authority is demonstrating the need to maintain the capability possessed by the identified source(s). Some form of market survey may be critical in demonstrating the uniqueness of this capability.

D. Authorized or Required by Statute (FAR 6.302-5)

It is imperative to identify what is being acquired and the applicable statute authorizing other than full and open competition. Note: Some statutes do not require a written J&A.

E. National Security (FAR 6.302-6)

Provide the minimum essential information needed to establish validity of the justification. This information will make the J&A a classified document. Special handling procedures are required for processing such documentation to the approval authority. Only parties with a “need to know” and the proper level of security clearance should be permitted access to the documentation. Such acquisitions are also exempt from synopsis under FAR 5.202(a)(1).

This statutory authority requires that agencies shall request offers from as many potential sources as is practicable under the circumstances. This exception may be utilized to authorize limited competition in certain narrow circumstances; however, contracting officers may not authorize sole-source contracts solely through use of the national security exception unless disclosure of the agency's need to more than one source would compromise national security.

F. Public Interest (FAR 6.302-7)

(NOTE: Requires D&F in lieu of J&A.) This authority may only be used when none of the other authorities is appropriate and may not be made on a class basis. Provide detail addressing the reasons full and open competition is not in the public interest and why no other authority is appropriate for use.

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

(FAR 6.303-2(b)(6))

Describe all efforts taken (or to be to be taken) to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances. Although Market Research is covered in Section VIII, the information in Section VI should correlate with the Market Research described in Section VI. The following issues should be addressed in this paragraph:

Sources Sought Synopsis (utilized as part of market research). If a sources sought synopsis was issued, state the date the synopsis was issued and a brief description of its content.