TAB B - JA (Appian) REDACTED 30DEC2025_Redacted 30DEC25.pdf

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

Control Number:

• Utilization of In-House Resources: The PEO Enterprise lacks the specialized expertise and capacity to independently maintain, support, and enhance the Appian platform. Developing and retaining such expertise would require substantial investments in training, personnel, and infrastructure, far exceeding the cost of direct procurement from Appian. Additionally, relying on in-house resources would divert personnel from core mission functions, further reducing operational efficiency.

• Conducting a Competitive Acquisition: A full and open competitive acquisition would be excessively time-consuming and would not yield the cost savings achievable through direct procurement from Appian Corporation, the OEM. This is based on historical prices that were competed as compared to the pricing Appian is offering through direct engagement. The Appian platform’s proprietary technology and unique capabilities are not readily replicable by other vendors.

Even if viable alternative solutions were identified, which is unlikely—they would lack the necessary functionality, integration capabilities. Furthermore, Appian’s direct OEM pricing structure provides tiered discounts and volume-based reductions unavailable through a competitive process involving resellers or intermediaries. Competing this requirement would only allow for competition between resellers as Appian is not currently part of any IDIQ contract, which increases the cost by , as there is only one OEM of Appian software licenses and support.

• Extension of the Current Contract(s): Extending the current contracts is not a feasible option as it does not provide access to the latest Appian platform features, security updates, or the direct support benefits offered by Appian Corporation. Consolidation under a new sole-source contract ensures the Government receives the most up-to-date technology, enhanced security, and improved performance, while also leveraging cost savings through Appian’s direct pricing structure.

• Establishing a Noncompetitive Contract with a Different Vendor: Establishing a noncompetitive contract with an alternative vendor is not viable due to the lack of comparable solutions. No other vendor offers a platform with the same level of compatibility, scalability, functionality, and proven performance within the Government. Attempting to implement a different platform would necessitate significant and costly system modifications, data migration, and user retraining, resulting in substantial duplication of costs and operational risks.

Continuing the current disparate procurement of Appian licenses across the Army is not a viable alternative. This approach would necessitate multiple contract awards for individual PEOs, perpetuating siloed networks and systems. Maintaining separate contracts would require significant manpower, resulting in redundant efforts as independent teams address identical Appian development and integration requirements without leveraging shared insights into potential discounts or efficiencies. Each contract would also demand individual data validation, ensuring disparate systems correctly ingest data to meet mission requirements – a costly and inefficient process.

Furthermore, the Army would forgo the benefits of volume licensing, standardized processes, and Army-centric terms and conditions achievable through a consolidated

Control Number: JA-25-Rock Island/ EIS-0043

7. Efforts to Obtain Competition: In compliance with Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) 5139.101-90(a)(1), efforts were made to assess the potential for competition (discussed in paragraph 9). However, the substantial cost savings achievable through a direct award to the OEM, Appian Corporation, demonstrably outweigh any benefits from a competitive acquisition. Proposals from distributors and resellers would include pass-through costs, offering no added value to the Government.

a. Effective competition: N/A – Direct Sole Source to the OEM, Appian Corporation.

b. Subcontracting competition: Market research indicates that no Small Business Concerns currently offer the complete range of Appian products and services necessary to fulfill the requirements of this effort. Therefore, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9) will not be included in the resulting contract. The prime contractor will still be encouraged to pursue subcontracting opportunities with qualified small businesses where applicable, but the specialized nature of this requirement limits those opportunities.

Small Business Participation

This determination to consolidate is in the process of being coordinated with the applicable Small Business office. The Small Business office will ultimately review the consolidation determination and the Acquisition Strategy, thus meeting the requirements of FAR 7.107-2(a)(3).

Appian is a large business, direct service provider, offering a proprietary solution exclusively through its own platform. The consolidation to an EA with Appian is designed to streamline the administrative workload across multiple Army Contracting Command (ACC) office locations and reduce the contract support burden on individual Army Commands. This EA allows any DoW Program to place Delivery Orders against the contract, enhancing efficiency and accessibility.

Segmenting this requirement to include small businesses would negatively affect the Army and DoW’s ability to meet its requirements effectively and efficiently, reducing transparency and significantly increasing the acquisition burden. This action supports the DoW’s strategic initiative to establish direct relationships with OEMs through EAs, maximizing cost efficiency and avoiding potential reseller markups. This approach is further supported by an upcoming memorandum authorizing direct acquisition from providers when the prime contractor does not function as an integrator or consultant.

Additionally, the Government has taken steps to try and include small businesses in the acquisition strategy, however, the state of the market makes this challenging. In this regard, none of the current consolidated contracts are with a small business as most of the current reseller market, with the exception of one company, is a large business.

Further, the Government will continue to conduct market surveillance to identify emerging small business solutions that may offer comparable functionality in the future.

This proactive approach ensures that small businesses remain integral to the maximizing profit margins through reselling, with limited investment in specialized Government consulting or solution development. These resellers lack the in-house expertise to provide dedicated Government support, perform necessary customizations, or offer value-added services beyond basic product resale. This reliance on reselling significantly limits their ability to address the Government’s unique requirements and introduces substantial implementation risks. Achieving a comparable level of functionality with these alternatives would necessitate significant customization and integration efforts, incurring substantial costs and potentially delaying deployment.

Furthermore, the lack of a direct relationship with the OEM through these resellers could hinder timely resolution of technical issues and limit access to critical product updates and roadmap information, ultimately increasing the total cost of ownership and potentially impacting mission effectiveness.

Overall, the market research confirms that Appian’s software remains the only currently available solution demonstrably capable of meeting the Government’s stringent requirements with minimal disruption and risk. Ongoing market surveillance will continue to monitor emerging technologies and potential shifts in the vendor landscape, with a particular emphasis on identifying solutions that may offer comparable functionality at a lower total cost of ownership.

10. Interested Sources: To date, no other sources have written to express interest.

11. Other Facts: Procurement history includes the following awards:

a. Procurement history: This effort constitutes the Army’s first attempt in creating an

Enterprise Agreement for Appian. There is no procurement history applicable to the establishment for this EA.

b. Other facts. N/A

12. Technical Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

13. Requirements Certification: I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

14. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated price/cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. This determination will be made using price analysis utilizing the IGE and historical pricing data of similar items. Certified cost or pricing data will not be required based on the fact that the commercial exception under FAR 15.403-1(b)(3) applies.

Nathan B Bowers Contracting Officer

15. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Nathan B Bowers Contracting Officer