J ARedacted.pdf

Control Number:

Justification Review Document For Other Than Full And Open Competition

Program/Equipment: University Affiliated Research Center/Institute for Soldier Nanatachnol~les

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (3) (B) and FAR 6.302~3(a) (2) Amount: $80M

Prepared By: Procuring Contracting Officer Ms. Jessica E. Leach Contracting Officer, ACC-APG-RTP

Technical Representative:

Dr. Douglas Kiserow Director, Physical Sciences Directorate

Requirements Representative:

Dr. John PeUegrino Acting Director, Army Research Laboratory

DSN: 832-4387

DSN; 832-4213

OSN: 290-1600

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

Program Manager:

Dr. Robert uyv ~ Signature: -l~r----:tF=--.....;..__-__

DSN: 832-4342

Date: 2l Av, l..(Jc '-

Legal Counsel:

Mr. Edward Beauchamp

Signature:~ £'jk,+

OSN: 832-4292

Date: 2,) 1{7' /l.

f f

DSN: 848-5087

Date: ~ c:;;,-Pf 1 ~

Justification And Approval For Other Than Full And Open Competition

1. Contracting Activity:

U.S. Army Contracting Command Aberdeen Proving Ground (ACC-APG) Research Triangle Park Division P.O. Box 12211 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211

2. Description of Action:

Request approval to negotiate and authorize a new Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract in support of the U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Commands's (RDECOM) Institute for soldier Nanotechnolgies (ISN) University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) , located at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The MIT/ISN was designated in 2002 as a Department of Defense (DoD) University Affiliated Research Center (UARC) by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering , Office of the Secretary of Defense. All work performed at the MIT/ISN, under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (3) (B), shall be consistent with the UARC DoD mission, its core competencies, and consistent with provisions of the UARC Management Plan dated, July 2010.

The award for this requirement is in response to the Chief of Staff of the Army's initiative to create and maintain a future Objective Force which is equipped with smaller, smarter and lighter systems. The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition , Logistics and Technology has conducted a comprehensive review in October and De~ember 2011of the performance of the MIT/ISN UARC. This review of the past five

(5) years of performance resulted in a recommendation to maintain the DoD Strategic relationship with MIT/ISN and award a new contract.

The basic and applied research effort will be funded with FY12 through FY17 Research Development Test and Evaluation Budget Activity 1 and 2 (formally known as 6.1 and

6.2 Science and Technology [S&T] funds) , as well as funding from DoD Agencies seeking to leverage MIT/ISN's research to meet their ific lication needs in the estimated amount of $80,000,000.

3. Description of Supplies/Services:

MIT/ISN was established by the DoD to maintain essential research , development and engineering "core' capabilities; and to maintain long-term strategic relationships with its

DoD sponsors. In order to maintain those essential engineering, research , and development capabilities for the Army, MIT/ISN focuses primarily on nano-scale material capabilities and discoveries for soldier survivability. MIT has applied several of their technical capabilities to the ISN, and those capabilities support ISN core competencies under the MIT/ISN contract. Those core competencies are as follows:

• The study, development and creation of nano-scale materials to provide a broad range of protective capabilities including sensing, communications, night vision, electronic devices and visibility management.

• The development of nano-scale diagnostics and treatment technologies that can provide rapid far-forward and remote-area medical care for the Soldier including drug delivery systems, methods for treating wounds, and neuromedicine applications.

• Modeling and nano-engineering of lightweight materials that can provide protection against blast, ballistic, and blunt trauma threats and an understanding of the biological responses and outcomes of blast-induced injury.

• Nanotechnologies that provide sensing , recognition and protective capabilities against hazardous and toxic environmental hazards.

• The ability to effectively integrate nano-scale and nano-enabled materials and devices into systems that address needs in sensing and communications, and are capable of operating in complex environments.

The critical Army need for this R&D has its genesis in the Chief of Staffs plan for the transformation of the Army into an objective force which is more responsive , deployable, agile, versatile , - · survivable and sustainable than the legacy or interim force . The individual soldier will be at the center of the objective force and will require systems that are revolutionary in their capabilities. Such soldier systems can only be developed by the application of sufficient resources to the Army's science and technology program in the emerging nanoscience arena. These essential R&D core capabilities must be maintained through basic and applied research with a capability to rapidly transition the developed technologies to Army and industrial partners.

The overall objective of the collective technology to be developed under this contract is to lighten the soldier's load through development of innovative new technologies and ~ntegration , while increasing his battlefield sustainability, survivability.

- Research solutions that respond to, supplement, or augment the soldier's performance level are required and should be characterized realistic utational models redictin the soldier's

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology OASA (AL T) is the requiring authority.

This requirement is for the issuance of a new contract to continue the Army's MIT/ISN UARC in the area of nanoscience for the soldier, with linkages to the industries which would harness the university research breakthroughs and rapidly apply them to prototype soldier systems. The MIT/ISN UARC has grown, matured, and evolved over the past 1 0 years to the point that essential research and development capabilities are being delivered, and significant cutting edge technology transition opportunities are being leveraged by DoD agencies. In accordance with the Department of Defense UARC Management Plan dated July 2010, a comprehensive review of the MIT/ISN UARC was completed in October and December 2011 by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, and it resulted in a recommendation to maintain the essential DoD Strategic relationship with MIT/ISN and award a new contract.

Options will be evaluated on an annual basis by an Army Technical Assessment Board (TAB) and Executive Steering Board (ESB). The TAB is co-chaired by the Director of the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), and the Director for Research and Laboratory Management from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition , Logistics and Technology (OASA(AL T)) , and consists of Directorate Directors from the ARL and Chief Scientists of the various Army Research , Development and Engineering Centers (RDECs). The TAB reviews the research projects within the UARC to evaluate program accomplishments, technical quality and relevance to Army needs, long-term strategy, and collaborative efforts with Army laboratories; evaluates whether the UARC research and mission are consistent with the requirement for a continued strategic relationship with the DoD and ultimately provides technical assessments and recommendations to an Army Executive Steering Board (ESB). The ESB is co-chaired by the Director of the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), and the Deputy Assistant Secretary from OASA(AL T) , and consists of various Directors from Army Program Executive Officers, Directors from the various RDECs and the TAB co-chairs . The ESB reviews UARC execution, accomplishments, plans and the TAB reports and recommendations, and provides guidance, direction and approval of the annual UARC program.

4. Authority Cited:

The authority cited is 10 USC 2304 (c) (3) (B) as implemented by FAR 6.302-3(a) {2) (ti): "To establish or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit institution or a federally funded research and development center."

5. Beason for Auth2fltv Clt§d:

The statutory authority for the Federal Acquisition Regulation (10 U.S.C 2304 (c) (3) as Implemented by FAR 6.302-3(a) (2) (ii)) indicates it is appropriate to use when establishing or maintaining an essential capability for theoretical analyses, . exploratory studies, or experiments in any field of science or technology, or for engineering or developmental work calling for the practical application of investigative findings of a scientific or technical nature. This requirement Is to maintain essential research and development capabHities related to nanoscience. Thi$ was documented in a oomprehensive ·review and report dated June 2012 that 'resulted In the recommendation by the Army's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research & Technology thatthese essential capabilities be maintained. MIT, Building NE47, 4th Floor, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139 is uniquely qualifted to fuffi-11 these :contract requirements, as MIT is the only institution that has the breadth and depth of capabilities, expertise and experience to ad~ress all of the required core capabilities with a focus that is diracted to specffic Army needs.

a. Bad<:ground .

The MIT /ISN UARC was established in 2002 based on a competition limited to universities. In 2007, the essential efforts were continued wtth the issuance of a new contract for the MIT/ISN UARC using the authority of 10 USC 2304 (c) (3) (B) as Implemented by FAR 6.302-3(a) (2) (ii): "To estabUsh or maintain an essential engineering, research, or development capability to be provided by an educational or other nonprofit Institution or a federally funded resea,~h and development center."

In 2011, a comprehensive review was conducted that addressed the perfonnance of the MIT/ISN UARC over the past five years, and the new proposed research pfan for the MIT/ISN UARC for a new fNe (5) year period. On 5-6 October 2011, an Army Technical Assessment Board (TAB) concluded that the MIT/JSN is (1) an essential S&T component providing research output of high tectmieal quality that specifically addresses Warfighter needs; (2) is at the International frontier of work associated with the ISN core capabilities and competencies; (3) is well-Integrated and highly collaborative within MIT, with the MIT/ISN industrial partners, and with Army laboratories with a strategy to support UARC goals and objectives; and (4) is well connected to the outside community and effectively transitions to Army programs.

The TAB review board also approved a new flve (5} year research plan of the MITitSN. On 14 December 2011 , these conclusions and recommendations were presented to the Army's UARC Executive Steering Board (ESB) recommending that the DoD continue the current strategic relationship through this nanoscience UARC with MIT/ISN by issuing a new two (2) year contract with three (3) one year options.

b. Alternatives Aside from the Justification & Approval for a new contract for other than full and open competition, there are three other possible alternatives, none of which will satisfy the requirement to maintain essential R&D capabilities in nanotechnology:

(1) Use of In-House Resources: The use of intramural DoD-funded laboratories is unrealistic. DoD laboratories do not have the breadth across technical disciplines nor the depth within each discipline in the area of nanoscience that a well-endowed research university would provide. Beyond that, the primary reason for funding any UARC is to maintain essential research capabilities and know-how at a university that addresses existing technology gaps within the DoD lab infrastructure and that complements the capabilities at DoD labs. (2) Suspension of Services: Since current requirements stipulate the necessity to maintain current R&D capabilities in nanoscience, this alternative was not considered. (3) Recompetition of the New Contract: As indicated in section (c) "Justificatiorl' below, it is determined that MIT has unique qualifications for fulfilling the contract requirements.

c. Justification In order to fulfill the Army's needs for a UARC in nanotechnology and to ensure that the return on the Army's investment in this enterprise is maximized, it is essential that the contractor for this UARC be sufficiently capable to address all of the core competencies listed in paragraph 3 . While it is recognized that most comparable institutions have the capabilities and knowledge base to reliably address a number of these core competencies often with competing technical approaches, MIT is the only institution that has the breadth and depth of capabilities, expertise, and experience to address all of these core co ncies and with a focus that is directed to needs.

• MIT actively collaborates with Army scientists and engineers to transition the results of their research to both Army and industrial partners who leverage these partnerships to integrate nanoscale and nano-enabled materials and devices into more complex systems useful in both military and commercial venues.

Peer universities engaged in nanotechnology-based research typically have existing programs that have programmatic direction funded through other federal agencies (e.g. Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Security Agency, National Institutes of Health, intelligence communities, and other DoD services) and through industrial partnerships. While these efforts can be leveraged by the Army, these programs would not provide sufficient and timely focus to all of the Army-directed needs addressed through the prescribed core competencies.

MIT is the only university in the United States that works with all of the relevant Army laboratories (ARL, RDECs, Medical Command, Army Corps of Engineers) in collaborative ventures that transition research findings in nanotechnology within the full range of the prescribed core competencies. Furthermore, it is not realistic to have individual components (i.e. individual tasks driven by one of the core competencies) competitively acquired. The tasks are interrelated and interdependent such that a centrally located research center having the concentrated manpower, management and research infrastructure is what is required to most effectively drive the research and the transition of the research to meet Army needs.

d. Impact If the requested J&A is not approved, delivery of essential R&D services that directly address the needs of the Soldier will be halted. Since the UARC has established a number of close significant working collaborations and relationships with the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) and the various Army Research Development & Engineering Centers (RDECs), the effect of a loss of basic and applied research output at the UARC would significantly hamper progress made in over fifty (50) individual research initiatives within Army laboratories with a concomitant reduction in return on investment from both UARC and intramural fundi

In addition, the UARC has attracted significant outside investment from a number of DoD S& T agencies (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers, Natick Soldier RDEC, Office of the Air Force Surgeon General) to support various DoD technology needs. Failure to approve this J&A would halt research progress supported by these investments as well.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition :

When the ISN UARC was originally competed in 2002, twenty (20) research universities competed for this award. The criteria for selection included technical merit focused on the area of Soldier protection, as well as plans for outreach to the Army and other Army sponsored research activities, proposed internal UARC organization structure, UARC management outreach, technology transition management and the commitment from the university and potential industrial partners. Based on the judgment of an Army Subject Matter Expert (SME) technical review panel assembled in a body called the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) with further review provided by Army senior personnel comprising the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), MIT was selected for the ISN award . Based on information in paragraph 5 above, re-competition for this UARC is not justified . This justification is a result of Market Research that analyzed capabilities within the market as outlined in paragraph 8.

7. Actions to Increase Competition:

An option period will commence two (2) years after the start of this proposed contract.

During the base period of this contract, market research addressing capabilities in nanotechnology will continue as outlined in paragraph 8.

The MITIISN continually offers opportunities for additional partners who share its vision for the Soldier. The ISN Industry Consortium is o en to com es who rovide a critical core competency for ISN research Industry, with its expertise in manufacturing commercial products, is critical to turning laboratory innovations into soldier equipment. The ISN currently has- industrial partners participating in its Industry Consortium. The ISN consortium companies bring to the ISN valuable core competencies in research and development, as well as an enthusiasm for improving the survivability of the Soldier of the future.

8. Market Research:

The mission of the Army's MIT/ISN Program Office is to extend soldier survivability by harnessing basic research in nanotechnology and to help the Army create unique protective systems enabled by integrated nanotechnology science and engineering. The Army's MIT/ISN Program Office continually performs market research to ensure that MIT/ISN is still uniquely qualified to perform the research and development under the MIT/ISN UARC contract. This Program Office relies on the frequent and current feedback by SMEs from the Army S&T community (specifically, ARL, Army RDECs and the Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (MRMC)) to make these assessments. The procedures for maintaining this capability include annual SME program reviews of the ISN basic research portfolio, continual analysis of competitors capabilities gathered through web-based information, annual attendance at national technical conferences (e.g . Materials Research Society, American Chemical Society) , and continual searches of technical/scientific journals to maintain awareness of scientific output of potential academic competitors. A more fo!TTlalized procedure tor assessing uniqueness is through a questionnaire sent to members of the ISN Technical Assessment Board {TAB) that addresses the performance of the ISN as part of the ISN five (5) year comprehensive review. This questionnaire, which was solicited in July 2011, specifically includes the question "Do you believe that the JSN currently has unique capabilities in each of its Core Competencies?" The results of this market research as it addresses the unique capabilities that MIT brings to the ISN are discussed in paragraph 5.

9. Interested Sources:

To date, no other sources have expressed an interest jn this requirement.

Interested parties are encouraged to participate in the MIT/ISN annual Consortium meetings, receive copies of ISN publications, and meet with ISN researchers and students.

10. Other Facts:

The decision to award a new contract for an additional two (2) years with three (3) one year options noncompetitively is supported by the folloWing factors:

a. Procurement history

(1) Contract DAAD19-02~0~0002 was issued 25 April 2002 for the establishment of the MlTIISN UARC. Contract W911NF·07-0...0004 was subsequently awarded 31 July 2007.

(2) Contract DAAD19-02-D..0002 was awarded through a competition limtted to universities while contract W911 NF-07 -0-0004 was awarded noncompetitively.

(3) Authority used for Jess than full and open oompetition: 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (3) (b).

{4) Prior to issuance of contractW911NF-07·0 -0004 in 2007, OASA (ALl) conducted a comprehensive review of the performance of the MlT/ISN UARC for the five (5) years of performance from 2002-2006. This review resulted in a recommendation to matntaln and renew the DoD strategic relationship with MIT by issuing a new contract for the ISN/MIT UARC. The possibility of competition was considered, but it has been concluded that no other source possesses the requisite experience, technical expertise and capabilities to be considered a viable alternative.

The necessity to maintain these essential functions and tl'te fact that MIT uniquely possesses the requisite capabilities make use of this authority appropriate.

(5) No previous award was accomplished via fu11 and open competition.

(6} No unusual patterns are revealed In the procurement history.

(7) See para 5(a) above for a discussion of the previous justification. There are no significant changes to the justification.

l i ' i I

b. Acquisition Data Availability.

This requirement is for research and development, and thus there are no acquisition packages, technical data packages, specifications or engineering descriptions for this effort.

c. Unusual and Compelling Urgency.

N/A.

d. Subcontracting Competition.

FAR 52.244·5, Competition In Subcontracting, will be Included in 1he Contract and is applicable to this action.

Each year the MIT/ISN is required to present to the TAB & ESB new research projects from subcontractors as part of the UAR C's Research Development Test and Evaluation Budget Activity 2 requirements. These proposals are technically reviewed by SME's from the Army and DoD and competitively selected for funding based on those reviews and available funding. A subcontracting plan is required for this effort and shall be approved by the Small Business Administration prior to award of the new contract. Suboontracting competttlon for supplies, materials and non-technical services will be maXimtled by the PCO as a function of negotiations. MIT's purchasing system was reviewed and approved by ithe Administrative Contracting Officer per Office of Naval Research.

l :?;

1 X

11 . Technical Certification:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the J&A, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. The proposed effort has been reviewed to ensure that it falls within the special C!)re capabifrtles of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies as descnbed in Paragraph 3 of this justification and in accordance with AFARS 5108.302- 3( c) in order to maintain essential research and development capabilities by the UARC.

Name: Dr. Douglas Kiserow Title ~ Director, Physical Science Olrector~te, Army Research Office

Date: . ?,;_ .i. 1 "--

Signature: ~~ ~

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the J&A, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. The proposed effort has been reviewed to ensure that it fafls within the special core oapabllltles of the Massachusetts Institute ofT echnology, Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies as described in Paragraph 3 of this justification and in accordance with AfARS 5106.302,.

3( c) in order to maintain essential research and development capabilities by the UARC.

Name: Dr. Robert Kokoska Trtte: ISN Program Manager, Physical Science Directorate, Army Research Office

~m [,M;t~ Stgnature: .PF7J"""·- · ..,·,.., . .f..L ..... ~--"="-----

12. Reguireroonts Certification:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the J&A, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. The proposed effort has been reviewed to ensure that it falls within the special core capabnitles of the Massachuse1ts ln!ltitute ofT echnology, Institute for Soldier Nanotech.nologies as described in Paragraph 3 of this justfficatlon and in accordance with AFARS 5106.302~ 3( c) in order to maintain essential ·research and develOpment capabilities by the UARC.

Name: Dr. John Pellegrino Trtle: Acting Director, Anny Research Laboratory

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination:

I hereby detennjne that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. This determination will be ~ased on formal technical evaluations, and certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR Part 15.403.

Name: Ms. Jessica E. Leach Title: Contracting Officer, ACC-APG-RTP

Date: q .. 5- \J Signature: ~ C.. ~

14. Procuring Contractina Officer QertiftCation:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Ms. Jessica E. Leach Trtle: COntracting Officer, ACC-APG-RTP

Date: Cf-5-\l

Signature: ~ (. ~

J::= f·~ l / J

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the award of a five-year, Cost, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract for res-earch conducted by the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at the Massachusetts lnstitute of Technology, for a total amount of $80,000,000.00. This action is authorized on any other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (1), subject to the availability of funds, and provided that the property herein described has otherwise been authorized for acquisition. .

Date: ~6 Sty< ;l-CJ/2 r

:c-.,._

J::.

ft "".:i·

'I~-..

·r: ...

r. .. ~: .