Redacted_W58RGZ-24-R-0061 HUD JA FINAL 12 March 2024.pdf

Control Number: ARC-J&A24-1625 Contractor: ElbitAmerica, Inc.

Program/Equipment: Air Soldier/HUD

Table 1. Estimated Quantities

ITEM NO.

Est.

Min Qty

Est.

Max Qty

Estimated Total Cost

FFP CLINs LRU Part Number NSN

X001 ASDC MB1919A-00 5895-31-016-8476

X002 CDIU MB1254B-01 7025-01-673-8194

X003 AMTU MB484D-00 1680-01-609-9416

X004 BRU-S MB205B-00 1680-01-645-1376

X005 BRU-M MB205C-00 1680-01-645-0010

X006 MCCU 011623W-00 1680-01-609-9420

X007 HTK 10020B-02 TBD

X008 WCDDM MB1402A-00 TBD

X009 WCNDM MB1403A-00 TBD

X010 WCDDM Carrying Case

118474A-00 TBD

X011 FACT MB559AW-00 7035-31-016-9071

CPFF

CLINS

PPS

X012AA Teardown & Inspect (FFP)

N/A N/A

X012AB Repair and Return

(CPFF)

N/A N/A

X013 Post Production Support (CFPP)

N/A N/A

X014 Travel (Cost No Fee) N/A N/A

Travel Handling (or G&A)

N/A N/A

Materiels Handling (or G&A)

N/A N/A

X015 CDRLs N/A N/A NSP

Total Cost

Costs are based on the the IGE data.

NOTE: Costs are based on the estimated escalated average Unit cost over the IDIQ period

Table 2. Estimated Costs per Ordering Period

NOTE: Costs are based on estimated escalated Unit cost per each ordering period and the number of units procured in that ordering period.

4. AUTHORITY CITED: The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 United States Code (USC) 3204(a)(1) invoking "Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements” as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1, (a)(2)(iii)(A)

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED: The proposed contractor for this effort is ElbitAmerica, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Elbit Systems of America (ESA), 4700 Marine Creek Parkway, Fort Worth, Texas 76179-3598, CAGE Code: 0WEC9, who is the Original Equipment Manufacturer and is the only source presently capable and approved to provide the identified items. Since ElbitAmerica owns the proprietary design and technical data for the current HUD and will not provide or sell this proprietary technical data (based on a 2 Aug 2022 email from ESA to the U.S. Army Contracting Officer), the Government is unable to establish a secondary manufacturing source without initiating a full integration and qualification program of an alternate solution. The three primary barriers to pursuing the qualification of an alternate source are (1) the significant Army investment that has already been made in the current Elbit HUD, (2) the cost and schedule required to approve an alternate source, and (3) the significant logistics cost/impacts of having duplicative capabilities in the field for an extended period of time.

The total Army investment on the current and preceding Elbit contracts alone totals approximately and excludes the additional investments made in platform integration, aircraft modification kits, and platform installation cost across the cargo and utility fleet. Another consideration with developing an alternate source is the time involved with the development and qualification of comparable software/functional capabilities. Based on previous efforts to qualify a comparable capability with an alternate source, it would take at least 12 to 24 months at an estimated cost of . Activities would include build of hardware and software prototypes, development of aircraft modification/installation kits, completion of qualification testing, and development and approval of the Airworthiness Release authorizing the system for flight.

During this time, the Government would need to continue a contract with ElbitAmerica to provide HUD systems to aircraft production lines and aircraft deployed in the field, further increasing the Army’s investment in the current system, and further reducing the reasonable likelihood of experiencing savings resulting from the qualification of the second/alternate source. Finally, there is the logistics cost of maintaining and sustaining two functionally similar, but different, capabilities in the field for an extended period, which causes unnecessary duplication of supply system, publications, and manpower/training cost that are estimated to account for up to two-thirds of the program life cycle acquisition cost. Using this factor, the sustainment cost of the alternate source, even if limited to ten years (half the typical program life cycle) is in the range. Assuming current program funding levels could support the simultaneous development of a second (or alternate) source while continuing to support the current HUD program, which they do not, the cost savings that could reasonably be expected to result from competition on this contract would only be approximately , a small fraction of the additional investment that would be required to develop a second/alternate source.

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION:

a. Effective Competition. The competitive award of the prior IDIQ contract (W58RGZ-10- D-0050) to EFW, Inc. resulted in a savings > . Prior to the competition for the new Improved Signal Data Converter (ISDC), a predecessor to the current ASDC, under contract W58RGZ-10-D-0050, the Government bought the Advanced Symbol Generator (ASG), sole-source from BAE Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc. (BAE), of Austin, Texas, using the Contract W58RGZ-07-D-0026. The ASG was BAE's commercial hardware version of an ISDC. The average price paid for the BAE ASG was each. Beginning in 2008, PdM AW worked with EFW, Ft. Worth, Texas to achieve an Air Worthiness Release (AWR) certification for the EFW version of the ISDC. After qualification of EFW, Inc. for the AWR in 2009, PdM AW proceeded to initiate competition for a new 5-year IDIQ contract for the ISDC. The winner of the competition was EFW, Inc., and in January 2010 the Government began buying ISDC hardware at an average 5-year unit price of . Over a 5-year period, the Government paid for 1,000 ISDCs from EFW, versus the cost if the previous sole-source contract had been used. The competition for ISDCs resulted in a savings of more than 50% over the previous sole-source price. The ISDC subsequently evolved into the current ASDC through a series of Government and Contractor initiated Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) required to address component/material obsolescence issues and/or in response to emerging platform/program requirements. While the prior BAE ASG is no longer available as a viable candidate for this requirement, this effort demonstrates PdM AW’s early commitment to fostering competition across the HUD product line.

b. A second initiative to further promote competition resulted in the award of the Common Helmet Mounted Display (CHMD) production IDIQ contract, contract W58RGZ-19-D- 0035 in FY 2020. The original HUD HMD solution was part of the sole source HUD capability previously being procured from Elbit. Beginning in FY2013 with contract W58RGZ-13-C-0045, PdM AW pursued the ability to break out the HMD portion of the HUD requirement under full and open competition. A CHMD performance specification and associated Interface Control Document (ICD) resulted from the 2013 contract resulting in the ability to solicit and award the subsequent production IDIQ contract (contract -0035) under full and open competition. The performance specification and ICD are being maintained to support competition in all future/follow-on HMD procurement and sustainment actions related to the current HUD system.

c. Subcontracting Competition. All previous sole source HUD contracts with Elbit have included applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) provisions ensuring competition in subcontracting, including FAR 52.244-5, “Competition in Subcontracting”, FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”, and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 252.219-7004, “Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan Test Program”.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION:

a. Effective Competition. This requirement and any in the future will be synopsized on the SAM.gov website prior to execution to identify any viable commercial alternatives capable of satisfying agency requirements, and all identified sources will be provided due consideration as prescribed by the law. Under a related effort, PdM AW is working with the Command, Control, Communications, Computer, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Center (C5ISR) of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC) on a Technology Maturation Initiative (TMI) program, to develop a functional performance specification and ICD for HMD and Line of Sight (LoS) capabilities (or head tracker solutions) against the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) fleet requirements. As a transition partner under the TMI program, PdM AW intends to utilize these specifications and ICDs to support future competitive actions for next generation displays and head tracker solutions to support Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) and Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) fleet. While these future solutions will be evaluated from a cost perspective for potential application in the enduring fleet, for the reasons previously stated in this J&A, it is unlikely that they will replace the current Elbit HUD solution, unless warranted by future requirement changes or due to obsolescence issues that cannot otherwise be overcome.

b. Subcontracting Competition. The contract will include applicable FAR provisions ensuring competition in subcontracting, including FAR 52.244-5, “Competition in Subcontracting”, FAR 52.219-8, “Utilization of Small Business Concerns”, and DFARS 252.219- 7004, “Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan Test Program”.

8. MARKET RESEARCH: Market research is an ongoing process by PdM AW HUD senior project analyst, Mr. Mark Salverson, and by PdM AW Tech Chief, Mr. Kent Wieter in accordance with FAR Part 10 and DFARS 210.001. Basic market research was performed for the ASDC requirement using internet research, personal knowledge, applicable aviation-based trade shows and contact with knowledgeable persons in Government. In addition, in accordance with DFARS 205.205-71, DFARS 206.302-1(d), and DFARS Procedures, Guidance and Information (PGI) 206.302-1(d), a new Request For Information (RFI) was posted to SAM.gov on 18 May 2023 for 30 days. By 19 Jun 2023, ElbitAmerica was the only respondent. A previous RFI posted on 7 Mar 22 for 30 days received a response from ElbitAmerica, Inc and Thales Defense and Security, Inc. Thales responded to the RFI with an entirely alternative system to the AN/AV-7(V)11 (a.k.a. HUD) requirement. Thales did not provide data as to the qualification status of their system, a Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost and schedule estimate to complete qualification, a ROM for the production lead time, or how their components were compatible with or equivalent to the AN/AN-7(V)11 system as requested by the RFI. For reasons previously stated in this J&A and based upon the lack of relevant program information indicating otherwise, it is not anticipated that the Thales response is a viable candidate for replacement of the legacy Elbit system. PdM AW will continue to monitor the identified Thales capabilities, including any additional information provided in response to the synopsis associated with this pending solicitation for any additional information that may warrant reconsideration of this initial determination.

Personnel contacted as part of PdM AW’s market research included other members of the HUD Tri-Service IPT, The MH-60 and V-22 PMOs in the Navy and Air Force, their staff and matrix support personnel. Mr. Salverson conducted internet searches using Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge, as recent as, early Apr 2023. In addition to internet searches, PdM AW personnel used trade shows (i.e., The International Society for Optics and Photonics Symposium, and the Army Aviation Association of America (Quad-A) Mission Solutions Summit) and trade publications such as, Janes Defence Weekly, for additional information. The PdM AW orchestrates and organizes any contractor efforts to obtain AWR for AW equipment and is therefore aware of any planned or ongoing efforts to obtain AWR by other potential vendors.

9. INTERESTED SOURCES: The pre-award notification of this proposed contract was published on SAM.gov on 18 May 2023, closed 19 June 2023 (58RGZ-22-RFI-HDTS-PN-AN- AVS-7V11) in accordance with FAR 5.201. ElbitAmerica, Inc., was the only vendor capable of satisfying the Army’s requirements for this effort. No other vendors expressed any interest;

however if anyone had they would have been given due consideration under the law

10. OTHER FACTS: Other factors supporting the use of other than full and open competition are as follows:

a. Procurement history:

(1) Contract: W58RGZ-10-D-0050 Contractor: EFW, Inc.

Award Date: 07 January 2010 Quantities: 338 ASDCs, 669 CDIUs, 18 AMTUs, 20 HTKs, 7 BRUs, 7 BRU-Ms, 7 sets of associated cables for qualification testing and Post-Production Support.

Dollar Value:

Limited Competitive Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, “Only One, or a Limited Number of Responsible Sources and No Other Supplies or Services will Satisfy Agency Requirements”

The solicitation for contract W58RGZ-10-D-0050 included both ElbitAmerica, Inc. and BAE Systems Inc, who were both qualified sources at the time. Since the contract award to ElbitAmerica, interface changes have occurred due to the Army’s transition to a newer generation flat panel display. Only ElbitAmerica has continued to upgrade its original hardware to maintain compatibility with the new generation of flat panel displays. In addition, BAE’s original product, which is no longer produced, is not compatible with upgrades in the symbology software used on signal data computers; nor is it certified as airworthy for use with aircraft upgrades. Previous actions to increase competition can be summarized by stating that PdM AW continues to monitor the market for compatible systems. If a potential source is identified, they would be considered for suitability for the US Army’s aviation mission requirements. To date, no other source has expressed an interest in writing.

(2) Contract Number: W58RGZ-15-D-0049 Contractor: EFW, Inc.

Award Date: 31 Mar 2015 Total Quantity: 355 ASDCs, 709 CDIUs and Post-Production Support.

Dollar Value:

Sole Source Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, “Only One,

(3) Contract Number: W58RGZ-16-D-0029

Contractor: EFW, Inc.

Award Date: 26 Sep 2016 Total Quantity: 271 AMTUs, 135 BRUs, 135 BRU-Ms, 271 HTKs, 1118 IMRUs, 245

MCCUs and 8 FACT Tools.

Dollar Value:

Sole Source Authority Cited: 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, “Only One,

(4) Contract Number: W58RGZ-19-D-0035

Contractor: EFW, Inc Award Date: 22 Jan 2019 Total Qty: To date 1 each First Article Set (Day/Night), 4 each First Flight sets

(Day/Night), 1037 each Production sets (Day/Night) (U.S. Army, SOA and FMS) Dollar Value:

Competitive.

A Set is comprised of a Day Display and a Night Display. Originally, they were procured as a set (a single Line Item), the contract was subsequently modified to give each display type its own line item.

(5) Contract Number: W58RGZ-13-C-0045

Contractor: Raytheon Technical Services Company LLC

Award Date: 15 Jan 2013 Total Qty: Engineering/Management Support, 2 each CDR Prototypes w/Helmet

Mod, 1 each, Non-Functional Mock-up w/Helmet Mod, 8 each Safety of Flight Bench Testing Units, 20 each Developmental/Operational Test Units, 47 each Modified Helmets, and 25 each CDRL documents.

Dollar Value:

Competitive.

b. Other Facts. Not Applicable.