J ARedacted.pdf

Control Number:

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Program/Equipment: Persistent Threat Detection System (PTDS} Technical Support Services and Material

Authority: 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) and FAR 6.302-1

Pre

Procu

Amount: $306.5M

DSN:

Date Reviewed:

18 Ap r 201 3

DSN: -

Date Reviewed:

/.01-f.,, .. ., .. f'}.

t) ,ff 1L 1:?

DSN:

Date Reviewed:

Reviews: I have reviewed this justification and find it adequate to support other than full and open competition.

Product Manager Meteorological and Target Identification Capabilities:

DSN:-

Date: 15 Af'k!. I 3

DSN: -

Control Number: -

OSN·-

Date :

DS: -

1"1"" /J j) Date: v<~---7.-

DSN:-

Date: NAY 0 9 2013

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Activity: United States Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground

CCAP-CCC

6001 Combat Drive Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005

2. Description of Action: This action is for a new Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Cost-Plus Incentive-Fee (CPIF), and Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (I DIQ) Contract, Solicitation Number W15P7T-13-R-C116, to Lockheed Martin (LM) for PTDS aerostat technical support services and material in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). The period of performance for this contract is thirty-six (36) months and is estimated to be awarded Au st 2013 with an orderi ceilin of $306.5M.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: The PTDS is an Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance aerostat system that provides Commanders with a responsive, dedicated , day/night netted sensor capability that enables United States and Coalition Forces to detect, locate, characterize, identify, track, and target forces in their battle space and it is managed by PM MaTIC. The PTDS is a combat that is de and successful rformin missions This requ resses e acqu on ae suppo ces and material unique to PTDS that only the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) can provide: Engineering Services ; Sub System, Component, Repair Parts, and Spares Procurement; Above User-Level Maintenance; Train ing Services; Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) Operations, where capabilities required by JUONS/ONS are added to the PTDS system and tra ining occurs; Test and Evaluation (T&E) Support at YPG of the newly integrated capabilities mandated by JUONS/ONS; Logistics Support; Root Cause and Repair Studies and Ana · · Data Rights Procurement; and Post-FY15 Support for Operations in the or Customer-Funded Requirements in That Time Frame. The sup services and material are required to maintain system operational ava ilability in order to provide continued reconnaissance and surveillance ca bilities at Forward rati Bases and combat areas throughout the

The total estimated price M.

4. Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. § 2304(c)(1) and FAR 6.302-1 , Only One Responsible Source.

5. Reason for Authority Cited: The source for this action is LM , 1210 Massillon Road Akron , Ohio 44315. LM is the original PTDS designer and developer and has been producing, operating, and sustaining PTDS for the United States Army in response to Quick Reaction C · RC demands from multi theaters of ration since 2004.

to award a new sole source IDIQ contract to cover aerostat technical support services and materials unique to PTDS that only the OEM can provide.

As the OEM, LM has been supporting PTDS for over eight (8) years and has the technical data to support these requirements with an established supply chain able to provide the needed spares/repairs parts required to maintain operational system readiness. LM retains proprietary technical data for the PTDS aerostat, mooring station, and tether technology, including detailed drawings, engineering notebooks, and system testing and acceptance procedures. As a result, the Government does not possess the necessary technical data that would enable competition for this effort. As a QRC effort, PTDS procurements were completed under urgency for the number of systems identified in the validated requirement, as well as associated spares/repair parts for the first year of operation , and each requirement was anticipated to be the final request for additional PTDS. Therefore, the procurement of techn ical data was not included as part of any urgent requirements and no resources were provided . Therefore, LM retains proprietary technical data for the PTDS aerostat, mooring station, and tether technology, including detailed drawings, engineering notebooks, and system testing and acceptance procedures. As a result, the Government does n

'"A""'''~r , when PTDS combines with to become a Program of Record (POR), acquisition ofthe PTDS data rights and/or TOP may not be applicable.

LM is the only source with the detailed knowledge and technical capability to produce the required spares/repairs parts and provide the necessary technical support services.

In order to deliver the required spares/repair parts, any source other than LM would have to conduct reverse engineering efforts, validate the design, test the design , perform system integration and checkout, develop a training program, and achieve DOD Information Assurance Certification and Accreditation Process DIACAP . Government experts estimate this will take a minimum of to complete . Reverse engineering efforts on entire system configuration to sustain the PTDS ability is estimated by Government to take a minimum of The source would also take at least to nt efforts, including system reqUireme s revtew, system preliminary/critical design review, payload integration , system integration and checkout, and training program development. Additionally, the system is required to go through the DIAC!iiiiP and testin . Assuming the best case scenario, it is estimated that an additional would be requ ired to complete these requirements . Without the ec ntca ocumentation and knowledge LM has gained, there is significant risk of systems being unable to perform up to mission standards if any other source would attempt to develop and field spares/repair parts that are not identical to those currently fielded .

Executing this contract with any source other than LM will result in sign ificant risk of systems becoming non-mission capable and issues associated with developing new spares/repair parts necessary to sustain the PTDS and will result in an increased risk of injury or loss of life to deployed Warfigl1ters. Operational profiles indicate that when PTDS are rendered unserviceable, enemies more heavily engage and more frequently setup lEOs in surrounding areas, while Warfighters' battle awareness and target confirmation capability for nearby radar detections and other target data is severely diminished.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition : Market research was conducted , details of which are in the market research section of this document.

establi shed as a POR in 2015, and this will~ an opportunity for PM MaTIC to release a full and open competition to meet- requirements.

8. Market Research : PM MaTIC, through the Army Contracting Command - Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG ), released a Sources Sought Announcement (SSA) on 4 October 2012 to identify potential sources capable of providing PTDS Operations Manage · Su satisfy PTDS support requ irements. LM is currently executing all of the requiremenfS identified and presented a strong technical strategy, supporting details, and the necessary sources for continued execution.

sa sensor er recon ssance orms. The response demo would act as a ~m manager more than a hardware and software integrator. stated that ·- believes that the Army would be best served with a hardware contractor, overseen the Government in trusted rtnership with a comp~xperienced in and "We propose - to be that trusted p ner. a con capable of performing technical PTDS integration and engineering and not technical management. The response addressed each requ irement in the SSA generically or in abstract terms, proving little or no detail on specific roles, processes, and level of complexity. - did not demonstrate capabil ity to meet any of the PTDS requirements specified, show its resources to complete the requirements, or substantiate adequate technical and manufacturing capabili ty for spares/repair parts and satisfactory past performance.

ident an er with to support the aerostat requirements pa to operate and complete User-Level Maintenance , but did not indicate a higher level technical capability to epot level maintenance on PTDS that was being sought in the SSA. • did not demonstrate capabil ity to meet any of the PTDS requirements specifred, show its resources to complete the requirements, or substantiate adequate technical and manufacturing capability and satisfactory past performance.

The LM response included detailed supporting data, including current resources and strategy as basis for its claims. Based on the detailed analysis in the Market Research Results Analysis, LM is the only source that demonstrated capability to satisfy the PTDS requ irements. LM is currently executing all of the requirements identified and presented a strong technical strategy, supporting details, and the necessary resources for continued execution.

9. Interested Sources: This action will be synopsized on the Federal Business Opportunities Page in accordance with FAR 5.201 and any proposals received shall be considered .

Control Number:-

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History: The table below provides the previous acquisitions for the PTDS and associated spares.

Multiple sole source procurements were required in validated requirements for PTDS as listed in the The competitive contracts provided operations and sustainment (O&S) support for the

PTDS.

Control Number:-

* Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems is the previous name of the LM MS2 business unit.

** Locktleed Martin Integrated Systems subsequently subcontracted to LM MS2 for the effort.

*** The PTDS O&S support was initially competed under the Communications Electronics Command (CECOM) Rapid Response (R2) contract , which is a multiple award IDIQ Task Order Contract. Al l R2 prime contractors were given a Fair Opportunity to be considered for the Award of T0-0243 .

...... The PTDS O&S support was subsequently competed under the CECOM Strategic Services Sourcing IDIQ contract , which is a multiple award Task Order Contract.

b. Acquisition Data Availability : The Government possesses a broad based Performance Work Statement for this effort. The Government is planning to procure the Levell II TOP for PTDS. However, since the Levell II TOP does not include the cost for data rights , the Government has requested a ROM from LM to determine if procuring data rights is feasible .

c. Subcontracting Competition: FAR 52.244-5, Competition in Subcontracting, will be included in the solicitation and resultant contract .

d. Only One Responsible Source : The basis for this requirement is that all PTDS to date in OEF have been developed , produced, fielded, operated, and sustained by LM. LM maintains the TOP for these systems and has the complete dra~e.

technical data and Authorized Stock age Level necessary to maintain an Without continuity in PTDS support, Army m1ss1ons m support eopardized and will result in loss of life, serious injury, and comprom m1ssion effectiveness due to increasing insurgent activities in Afghanistan , including Improvised Explosive Device (lED) emplacement, lED networks, and other ground-based threats against US and Coal ition Forces. Operational profiles indicate that when PTDS are rendered unserviceable , enemies more heavi ly engage and more frequently setup lEOs in surrounding areas, while Warfighters' battle awareness and target confirmation capability for nearby radar detections and other target data is severely diminished. Due to the reduced battle space surveillance capability, there are increased ground patrols, at grave risk to the Warfighters' life .

Forces without a superior persistent threat detection and surveillance capability are extremely vulnerable to continued enemy attacks, resulting in high risk of loss of life.

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

12. Requirements Certification: I certify that my cognizance, which are included in this justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my ... nC~\AIH"'-ni"U::O and belief.

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination: I hereby determ that the anticipated cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. Certified cost and pricing data will be provided prior to contract award. Determination of fair and reasonable cost will be based on the proposal received, a technical evaluation of that proposal, a Defense Contract Audit Agency audit, cost/price analysis, historical data, comparison to independent government estimates, and negotiations.

April 2013

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

Date: 18 April 2013

Contro l Number: -

APPROVAL

Based on the foregoing justification , I hereby approve the award of a Firm-Fixed-Price , Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee and Cost-Plus-Incent ive-Fee contract for a period of performance of 36 months, for techn ical support and material for the Persistent Threat Detection System in the amount of $306.5 million on an Other Than Full and Open Competition basis pursuant to the authori ty of Title 10 United States Code Section 2304(c)( 1), as implemented in Federal Acquisition Regulat ion subject to the 6.302-1 (a)(2)(ii)(A) . '· Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requi rements and Substantial Duplication of Cost to the Government that is Not Expected to be Recovered Through Competition ," subject to the ava ilability of funds .

and prov1ded that the services and property described herein have otherwise been authorized for acquisition

Date