A03_-_Redacted_Simplified_Acquisition_Sole_Source_Justification_over_ 150K_(FAR_13_5).pdf

Control No. _JA-Adel-16-332

JUSTIFICATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

FAR PART 13 SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR OTHER THAN

FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Supply/Service: Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Assemblies

Authority: 41 U.S.C. 1901(e)(2), implemented by FAR 13.501(a) -- Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

Amount:

Prepared By:

Typed Name: DSN:

Title: Mechanical Engineer Date: 1 April 2016

Procuring Contracting Officer:

Typed Name: Fatimata Diallo DSN:

Date Reviewed: 19 April 2016

Technical Representative:

Typed Name: DSN:

Title: Mechanical Engineer Date Reviewed: 1 April 2016

Requirements Representative:

Typed Name: DSN:

Title: Branch Chief Date: 1 April 2016

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

DSN:

Legal Counsel:

6/24/2016

X Rebecca Clark

Legal Counsel Signed by: CLARK.REBECCA.FRANTZ

Advocate for Competition:

X Special Competition Advocate (SCA)

Justification and Approval For Other Than Full and Open Competition

1.a. Contracting Agency -Army Contracting Command – Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Adelphi Contracting Division, 2800 Powder Mill Road, Adelphi, MD 20783-1138

1.b. Requiring Agency –United States (U.S.) Army Research Laboratory (ARL), Sensors and Electron Devices Directorate (SEDD), Signal & Image Processing Division (SIP), Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Technology Integration Branch (RDRL-SES-S).

2. Description of Action:

Approval is requested to solicit for and negotiate with Screaming Circuits, a division of Milwaukee Electronics, for a new single award contract in support of the US Army Research Laboratory on the basis of other than full and open competition. A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type contract is contemplated for this procurement. Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) funds will be utilized for this effort.

3. Description of Supplies/Services:

The ARL requires various amounts (provided below) of five (5) different Printed Circuit Board (PCB) assemblies, which will be incorporated into M17A1 and M85A1 Remote Activation Munition System (RAMS) receivers. The commercial PCBs will be acquired through a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), single award contract utilizing Fiscal Year (FY) 16 6.2 Research Development Testing & Engineering (RDT&E) funding.

The ARL designed the M17A1 ( ) and M85A1 ( ) RAMS receivers as part of a recently-completed Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) program for the Project Manager – Close Combat Systems (PM-CCS), an office of Program Executive Office Ammunition (PEO Ammo). The designed receivers include the five (5) types of PCB Assemblies. ARL developed full Technical Data Packages (TDPs) for each of the boards. These boards are components of the M/MK152 RAMS

Currently, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (MOA #PMCCSARL001) exists between ARL and PM-CCS for ARL to produce the Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) quantities of the M17/85A1 Receiver. This proposed acquisition is for the fabrication of the five (5) types of PCB Assemblies and consists of the following:

(a) ‘Radio Frequency’ (RF) PCB Assembly, PN# , 1,860 PCB Assemblies.

(b) ‘M17A1 Controller’ PCB Assembly, PN# , 1,660 PCB Assemblies.

(c) ‘M85A1 Controller’ PCB Assembly, PN# , 260 PCB Assemblies.

(d) ‘M17A1 Fire’ PCB Assembly, PN# , 1,660 PCB Assemblies.

(e) ‘M85A1 Fire’ PCB Assembly, PN# , 260 PCB Assemblies.

The contract’s estimated value is $1,700,000.00.

4. Authority Cited:

41 U.S.C. 1901(e)(2), implemented by FAR 13.501(a) -- Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

As stated above, ARL designed the M17A1 and M85A1 RAMS Receivers as part of a RDT&E program and produced two (2) hardware builds: an ‘Engineering Build’ of approximately 20 Receivers and a Production Qualification Test (PQT) build of approximately 45 Receivers, which include the aforementioned Screaming Circuit PCBs. The fabrication of the PCB assembly for the receivers was procured from Screaming Circuit using the small Purchase Request (PR) method (Government Purchase Card). {PR #2101066782, dated 2/27/2015;

PR#2101079954, dated 3/10/2015; PR#2101079956, dated 3/10/2015;

PR#2101081196, dated 3/11/2015} The subject procurement is deemed to be available from only one responsible source because of the specific subtest requirement listed below in Tables 1 and 2. The Government has deemed these testing categories mandatory where these specific RAM Receivers have been developed to fulfill agency requirements. The main purpose of having these unique receivers is because they allow proper control of .

Using a different vendor (other than Screaming Circuits) to fabricate the required components would result in a full re-test of specific categories which would result in a substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. Additionally, there has already been significant Government progress in creating proper test procedures which determined successful operation of the existing PCB assemblies.

The following information below provides an outline of the rigorous testing performed on the PCB assemblies fabricated by Screaming Circuits.

Hardware from the Engineering Build went through a series of successful safety and environmental tests at ARL resulting in approval to proceed to Phase-2 of the RDT&E program during which the PQT hardware was produced. The PQT hardware was subjected to significant safety, environmental, performance and operational tests & evaluations at ARL, White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), and at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). The tests/evaluations performed at YPG are listed and described in Table 1. Furthermore, the tests/evaluations performed at WSMR are listed and described in Table 2.

Table 1: Yuma Proving Ground Tests / Evaluations Subtest Objective(s)

Initial Inspection

Physical Characteristics

Sequential Safety Series -Secure Cargo Tests -2.1-meter Packaged Drop Test -Loose Cargo Test – Bare -Transit Drop (4-ft(1.2-m)) Test – Bare

Adverse Environments -Solar Radiation -Salt/Fog -Humidity Test -Dust Test -Thermal Shock -Icing/Freezing Rain

System Safety 12-meter Drop

Performance Test

System Reliability

System Safety and Health

Table 2: White Sands Missile Range Tests / Evaluations Subtest Objective(s)

Initial Inspection

Test Item Control and Data Management

Salt Water Immersion

Radiated Emissions (RE) 102

Intra-system Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)

Radiated Susceptability (RS) 101

External Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Environment (RF

EME)

Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO)

High-altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP)

Near Strike Lightning (NSL)

Helicopter Electrostatic Discharge

(HESD)

Personnel Electrostatic Discharge

(PESD)

The testing and evaluation performed at both locations required the unique facilities of YPG and WSMR to properly perform the evaluations. Each location is uniquely suited to perform the designated testing and evaluation on the receivers. Both locations employed a mix of uniquely skilled contractor, military, and civil service employees to perform each of these tests. The combination of having the highly skilled and trained workforce along with the utilization of the various facilities enabled the evaluation of the Receivers to be conducted to a very high reliability required by PM-CCS.

The PQT hardware successfully passed all Qualification tests listed in tables 1 and 2 and was approved for Production and subsequent Fielding to the U.S. Army. As stated in section 3, ARL is responsible for producing the LRIP Receivers. As the program manager responsible for complete oversight of future production of the receivers, PM-CCS has indicated that any significant change in the design, manufacturing process or source of major component/subassembly would require re-qualification of the Receiver.The Qualification tests conducted at WSMR and YPG, based on the approximately 45 assemblies tested and evaluated, cost approximately

1 and took approximately twelve (12) months to schedule, plan, conduct and document.

If a vendor other than Screaming Circuits were to fabricate the PCB Assemblies, most if not all of the Safety and Performance tests would need to be conducted again. Without previous testing of other devices, this procurement action cannot be awarded through full and open competition as the risk is too great. As the RAMS device utilizes explosive devices in its mission, the risk for loss of life (both military and civilian) is clearly present. If a PCB installed in the RAMS device or a component of the PCB did not function as expected, the device could either detonate at an unexpected time or not detonate at all. Estimated monetary costs to the Government on prior tests conducted is approximately 2 and would require an additional twelve (12) months to re-test new receivers and complete analysis of detonation operation thus significantly delaying the production schedule and ultimately the units scheduled for fielding. Currently ARL, PM-CCS and the ARDEC are performing New Equipment Training and fielding of the M/MK152 RAMS to include the transmitter.

1 Initial Testing of the 45 units cost at YPG and at WSMR totaling .

2 Hardware costs for the 45 units is estimated at . Technical Test Support by ARL and ARDEC (i.e.

Manpower) is estimated to be another . The amount of ] conveys the cost of the Government for Testing and Evaluation. represents the total dollar investment at the start of the evaluation phase [ ]

For the M/MKK152 system to be fielded, it is required that both the M17A1 ( ) and M85A1 ( ) RAMS Receivers be built on time, on budget, and be produced under the same quality assurance and performance measures as used in the initial builds.

Quality control and Safety measures need to be maintained at the same high levels (or higher) as was used in the initial build. Any less could risk life, property, and the military mission.

The risk associated with utilization of another source or vendor to obtain the necessary components is divided into three areas: time to execute this procurement, the estimated monetary cost assessed in choosing another vendor, and added steps to the overall production process that necessitate the further evaluation of the products that are manufactured.

Related to the choice of a new vendor is the requirement to repeat tests and evaluations at Yuma and WSMR with new Receivers containing other vendor PCB assemblies. These repeated tests would be necessary to requalify the Receivers containing different PCB Assemblies. These additional units would require more time to produce and would come at an additional expense to the program (estimated at an expense of , if not more). Utilization of either the YPG or WSMR sites also comes with additional expense and time requirements.

Both test sites work from scheduled appointments for the evaluation and testing of other advanced military hardware. An opening in the field support schedule would have to be found and then funding provided for the labor and equipment used on and during the testing. Coordinating and performing the testing and evaluation is estimated to last a minimum of twelve (12) months.

The importance of meeting mission requirements set by the PM-CCS is based both on performance measures and the time required to field the new hardware.

Proceeding with a new vendor (other than Screaming Circuits) would require an additional twelve (12) months for fabrication & assembly of the components. A further twelve (12) months would be required to perform the testing & evaluation phase, effectively delaying the fielding of the required RAMS units to the military by as much as two years (24 months).

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

A synopsis of the requirement and a Request for Information (RFI) was posted to FedBizOpps on 4 April 2016, notifying the commercial market place of the Government’s intent to solicit and negotiate with Screaming Circuits. One (1) vendor, Shellback Industries, indicated that they could manufacture the parts listed in the RFI. The Contract Specialist, Allison Murray, responded that the required PCBs had to have already been through a series of successful safety, environmental, performance, and operational tests and evaluations for use as components in a larger system, which was included in the synopsis. The vendor verified that their PCBs have not been through this testing, therefore they could not provide the requirement.

7. Actions to Increase Competition:

In efforts to obtain maximum competition, companies who were potentially capable of fabricating the PCB assemblies to the requirements were identified by performing market research (See Market Research document). The synopsis/RFI that was posted to FedBizOpps on 4 April 2016 provided the commercial marketplace with a description of the subject PCBs. Government TPOCs will continue to explore any options or any new technology that becomes available and have been provided with the contact and product information for the company who responded to the synopsis. Furthermore, the Requesting Activity will continue to survey and assess different vendors capable of meeting the Government’s requirements. However, testing will always be required to assess a vendor’s capabilities. Currently, PM-CCS has no intention to expand the current program and procure additional PCBs, however if the current PCBs were found to no longer meet the overall program requirements, additional companies would be contacted and products meeting the salient characteristics would go through the same testing as the subject PCBs.

8. Market Research:

Market Research was conducted in March of 2016 by a Mechanical Engineer with thirty-two years of engineering experience, who serves as a for the ISR Technology Integration Branch. The following market research techniques were utilized:

Querying Government-wide databases of contracts and other procurement instruments intended for use my multiple agencies resulted in nine (9) companies listed when entering “printed circuit board assembly” into the search field. Five (5) of the companies had orders through a Navy Crane Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA). Navy Crane was contacted in regards to ARL’s requirement; Navy Crane can produce PCBs, however they do not include Screaming Circuits on their BPA.

Furthermore, searches on the General Supply Schedule (GSA) website were conducted and yielded no results for printed circuit board assembly.

Discussions with Government and Industry Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) (Electrical Engineer, RDRL-SES-S) and (Electrical

Engineer, Contractor supporting RDRL-SER-M) were also used to supplement querying databases and searches through the GSA website.

had previously utilized Screaming Circuits through small purchases to produce complex PCB assemblies and indicated that the quality of the product received was good.

Based on market research efforts, there are other sources of PCB Assemblies. However given the requirement that “any significant change in the design, manufacturing process or source of major component/subassembly would require re-qualification of the M17/85A1

Receiver,” it would be cost and time prohibitive to the program if another source produces the PCB Assemblies.

9. Interested Sources:

A synopsis of the requirement and an RFI was posted to FedBizOpps on 4 April 2016, notifying the commercial market place of the Government’s intent to solicit and negotiate with Screaming Circuits. The synopsis response period closed on 11 April 2016. One (1) vendor, Shellback Industries, indicated that they could manufacture the parts listed in the RFI. The Contract Specialist, Allison Murray, responded that the required PCBs had to have already been through a series of successful safety, environmental, performance, and operational tests and evaluations for use as components in a larger system, which was included in the synopsis. The vendor verified that their PCBs have not been through this testing, therefore they could not provide the requirement.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement history.

(1) Contract numbers and dates of the last several awards.

Simplified Purchase Request (SPR) #2101066782; dated 2/27/2015 SPR # 2101079954; dated 3/10/2015 SPR #2101079956; dated 3/10/2015 SPR #2101081196; dated 3/11/2015

(2) Competitive status of these actions. Simplified purchase requests were placed using Government credit card. Orders were placed based on limited internet searches for capable vendors and knowledge of previous performance of identified vendors from past practices of procurement actions placed at the US Army Research Laboratory.

There are no earlier J&A documents prepared prior to the existing document.

b. Acquisition Data Availability:

Currently, PM-CCS has no intention to expand the current program and procuring additional PCBs; however, if the current PCBs were found to no longer meet the overall program requirements, the TDPs would be provided to other vendors who indicated that they were capable of providing PCBs with the same characteristics. If any changes to the TDP are made due to the use of PCBs under this contract, the TDPs will be updated and provided to Potential Vendors if additional procurement is necessary. Due to the sensitive nature of the TDPs, they cannot be posted to FedBizOpps or another public acquisition website.

11. 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.

Signer’s Title: Mechanical Engineer

James Mechanical Engineer US Army Research Laboratory

12. 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.

Signer’s Title: Branch Chief

7/5/2016

Requirements Certifier Signed by:

13. Fair and Reasonable Cost Determination:

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. Fair and reasonable price will be determined through price analysis, to include price reasonableness. Pricing data will not be required since a commercial item is being procured (FAR 15.403- 1(b)(3).

This determination will be made using the following:

__ Cost analysis _X_ Price analysis __ Should-cost

__ IGCE

__ Audit:

__ Other:

As a part of this basis, certified cost or pricing data:

__ will be required.

7/5/2016

X Technical Certifier (Tech) Signed by:

_X_ will not be required and the following exception applies (FAR 15.403):

__ Prices that will be agreed upon are based on adequate price competition.

__ Prices that will be agreed upon are based on prices set by law or regulation.

_X_ A commercial item is being acquired.

__ A waiver has been granted by the head of the contracting activity (HCA) in accordance with DFARS PGI 215.403-1.

__ The contract action is a modification to a contract or subcontract for commercial item(s).

__ The estimated cost of the contract action is less than the threshold for certified cost or pricing data.

7/6/2016

X Fatimata Diallo

Contracting Officer (KO) Signed by: DIALLO.FATIMATA.1403809434

14. Procuring Contracting Officer Certification:

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

APPROVAL

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Assemblies on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) FAR 13.501(a) , subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

7/6/2016

X Fatimata Diallo

Contracting Officer (KO) Signed by: DIALLO.FATIMATA.1403809434

If the proposed contract action is not completed within 180 days from the below date, this Justification and Approval shall be returned to the Special Competition for Advocate (SCA) for revalidation. Additionally, if any changes to the requirements, basis for the justification, market conditions, or increases in the estimated value of the proposed action occur at any time, the Contracting Officer shall document these changes in a memorandum and obtain review/concurrence from the Competition Advocate.

Date: _____________________

X Dennis Longo Special Competition Advocate

REVIEWS

7/6/2016

X Fatimata Diallo

Contracting Officer (KO) Signed by: DIALLO.FATIMATA.1403809434

7/7/2016

X Catherine K. Abbott (Acting)

Associate Division Chief – Contracting (ADC) Signed by: ABBOTT.CATHERINE.KYLE.1289107807

7/6/2016

X Christi L. Winkler

Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO) Signed by: WINKLER.CHRISTI.L.1229383511

12 July 2016

LONGO.DENNIS.P

AUL.1229314129

Digitally signed by

LONGO.DENNIS.PAUL.1229314129

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, ou=DoD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=LONGO.DENNIS.PAUL.1229314129 Date: 2016.07.12 07:00:39 -04'00'

X Special Competition Advocate (SCA)