JA,_Recommended_Final_W56HZV-18-D-0023.pdf

4. Authority Cited: The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1) as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1, “Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.” Specifically, FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii)(A) states that “supplies may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of a follow-on contract for the continued development or production of a major component thereof, when it is likely that award to any other source would result in – (A) Substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.”

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. Award of this contractual action on a sole-source basis is justified because Laibe is the only responsible source that can fulfill this requirement without causing a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Laibe is the developer and Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the WWDS; and, it owns the Technical Data Package (TDP) required to produce the WWDS. As a result, the Government does not have the rights to the data that would be required to allow for competition.

Considering these facts, in order for the Government to have a competitive acquisition, it would have to reverse engineer or fund the design and development of a new system to meet the WWDS requirement. Additionally, the Government would have to fund the completion of the test program to verify the system safety and suitability and the development of the logistics package to support the system over its lifetime.

b. Substantial Duplication of Cost: After reviewing the historical costs for the WWDS (See contract history in Paragraph 10.a. below) and in conjunction with the market research results (Paragraph 8), PM CE/MHE Subject Matter Experts estimate award to any other source would cause a duplication in costs estimated at $7,150,000. This estimate is based on the following:

i. Design, development, and integration of all necessary hardware design changes required to deliver a prototype system. Based on the actual costs incurred under contract W56HZV-12-D-0075 with Laibe, this is estimated at a cost of $650,000. This cost includes all of the necessary effort to meet the military specific requirements detailed in ATPD 2389, to include transportability, fording, NATO slave receptacle, operation using JP8 fuel, blackout lighting, and the application of Chemical Agent Resistant Coating (CARC) paint as well as the development of drawings required to manage the configuration of the system through its lifecycle.

ii. Completion of the test effort to ensure that the system is safe and suitable for Army operations at a cost of $2,000,000. This testing is necessary to obtain Full Materiel Release (FMR) on the system and is required to be completed before equipment can be fielded to the soldier. Furthermore, the testing is

Based on the information above, award to any source other than Laibe would result in substantial duplicated costs estimated at $7,150,000. The duplicated costs equate to 63% of the expected cost of the total procurement ($7,150,000/$11,301,377).

Additionally, the Army intends to only procure the three remaining WWDS on the Army’s AAO over a relatively short period of performance (approximately three years). Due to the extremely small AAO and the short period of performance, it is unreasonable and highly improbable that a new source would or could reasonably compete for this item or in the event it did compete that the Government could achieve a cost savings of greater than the 63% duplication of costs.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

a. Effective competition. Competition will not be pursued for these acquisitions for the reasons stated in paragraph 5 above.

b. Subcontracting competition. The current contract contains FAR Clause 52.244-5 entitled “Competition in Subcontracting”, which ensures that the prime contractor competitively subcontracts the efforts to the maximum extent possible. The new production contract will also include this clause.

7. Actions to Increase Competition: As the OEM, Laibe owns all of the technical data rights to the WWDS. The Government has inquired with Laibe about purchasing the TDP on multiple occasions. Most recently during a site visit conducted on 12 July 2017, the Government asked Laibe if it would be willing to sell the TDP for the WWDS.

Laibe declined. As a result, the Government does not have the rights to the data that would be required to allow for competition. In order for the Government to have a competitive acquisition, it would have to fund the design and development of a new system to meet the WWDS requirement, the completion of the test program to verify the system safety and suitability, and the development of the logistics package to support the system over its lifetime. Funding these requirements would result in a substantial duplication of cost as described in paragraph 5. It is expected that this action will satisfy the system AAO. If any future requirements arise after expiration of the requirements contract, these will be posted to the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website to facilitate competition and seek out potential vendors.

8. Market Research: On 3 April 2017, the requirements office conducted Market Research in the form of a Sources Sought questionnaire posted to FedBizOpps to investigate potential WWDS suppliers capable of meeting the Army’s requirement. The survey included questions regarding the ability of contractors to acquire proprietary parts, and whether any contractors have detailed knowledge of the original assembly specifications, interface requirements, and tolerances required to meet Government requirements. On 18 April 2017, the posting closed and the Government received only one response. The response was from a non-OEM vendor, Atlas Copco Mining and Construction USA, LLC of Commerce City, Colorado (CAGE: 8AMX9).

FOIA #4 Contractor Proprietary Information

14. Contracting Officer Certification:

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance which are included in this J&A are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

NAME: SHANE C. STREHLER DATE: 8 August 2017 TITLE: Contracting Officer SIGNATURE: //SCS//