JA FY24 Light Weight Mine Roller - Redacted.pdf

CMO Control No: 2024-045

Department of Army Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and

Open Competition Justification

1. Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Contracting Command-Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) is the procuring activity for this action.

2. Description of Action: ACC-DTA proposes to award a new three-year Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Requirements contract to Pearson Engineering Limited (Pearson), Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) K0824, for an estimated total quantity of 70 each Light Weight Mine Rollers (LWMR), Part Number (PN) PE31880, using Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (WTCV) funds.

3. Description of Supplies/Services: Under the proposed new contract, the Program Manager Stryker Brigade Combat Team (PM SBCT) will acquire the LWMR. The LWMR provides mine proofing of a cleared route for the Infantry Carrier Double V-Hull Vehicles (ICWA 1) and Engineering Squad Vehicles (ESWA 1 ). It provides a path width of at least 120 percent of the vehicle. It provides the capabilit to detonate mines while maintaining momentum at an operational vehicle s eed . When operated with standard pre-load, it exerts a downward force on each individual roller. This force is designed to detonate simple pressure use mines including anti tank mines. The contract value is estimated at $20,128,430 per the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) developed by PM SBCT, dated 08 February 2024.

4. Authority Cited: The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition for this effort is 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1 ), as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1 (a)(2) - "Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements". This authority applies when supplies or services required by the agency are available from only one responsible source, or, for DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, from only one or a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements, full and open competition need not be provided for.

5. Reason for Authority Cited:

a. Background: The LWMR is designed by Pearson, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). A total of 70 each LWMRs have been rovided on Presidential Drawdown (PD) 30, 34, 40 and 41 . This re uirement is to replenish the Government's L s a were provided II

. At this time, PM SBCT received funding for 20 each LWMRs.

e remaining O each will be procured when funding becomes available. Only

Pearson possesses the complete and detailed Technical Data Package (TOP) required to produce the LWMR. The Government does not possess Pearson's

Distribution Statement A.

Approved for public release:

Distribution is unlimited.

complete and detailed TOP or the rights to the TOP required for competitive procurement. On 06 February 2024, the Government sent an email request to Pearson, requesting to enter negotiations, to obtain a Specifically Negotiated License to obtain the TOP with rights sufficient for competitive re-procurement for the LWMR. In response, on 06 February 2024, Pearson declined the Government's request to negotiate a license or sell their rights or the TOP.

b. Duplication of Cost: Pearson is the only contractor with the expertise necessary to produce the LWMR without incurring a substantial duplication of cost. As mentioned above, the Government does not own the TOP for the LWMR. To competitively procure the LWMR, the Government would need to reverse engineer the LWMR to develop a TOP. Table 1 below shows the efforts and estimated costs to reverse engineer the LWMR. The estimated total cost for all these efforts is $7.8M.

Table 1: Stryker LWMR Reverse Engineering Cost

Effort Total

Non-Recurring Development

• Develop new TOP ($2.8M) $3.5M

• Provision new TOP ($0.3M)

• Update Technical Manuals per new TOP ($0.4M)

Prototype Build $1.1M

Safety, Integration, and Operational Testing

• Safety testing ($0.3M)

• Performance testing ($0.4M) $3.2M

• System integration testing ($0.4M)

• Live exercises ($2.0M)

• Test support ($0.1 M)

Total $7.SM

The duplication of costs associated with competition are described as follows:

i. Non-Recurring Development (NRE) ($3.5M): This includes the engineering effort that would be required to re-develop the TDP, including developing all Computer Aided Design (CAD) models, drawings, specifications, standards and performance requirements. NRE also includes provisioning the LWMR per the new TDP. Finally, NRE includes updating and authenticating the existing Technical Manuals with any newly provisioned parts and assemblies. These NRE costs are based on similar systems engineering and logistics efforts in PM SBCT.

ii. Prototype Build ($1.1M): This includes the cost to manufacture three LWMRs for simulation and testing. This effort will include using ICVVA1 and ESVVA1 as production representative vehicles on which the LMWR would be installed. The estimated cost for prototype build is based on similar design activities in the PM SBCT.

iii. Safety, Integration, and Operational Testing ($3.2M): This includes safety testing to ensure the LWMR does not pose any unintended safety hazards; performance testing to ensure the functionality of the LWMR is correct and meets performance requirements; integration testing to ensure the LWMR integrates with the ICVVA1 and ESVVA1; and live exercise testing to ensure the whole system works together while the vehicle is operational. This section also includes test support costs for maintenance and engineering support required to ensure vehicles and equipment remain operable during testing. These estimated testing costs are based on similar test efforts in PM SBCT.

Per this contract, an estimated 70 each LWMRs are being purchased at an estimated unit cost of $287,549 for a total estimated cost of $20,128,430.

Assuming a 15% savings is achieved through competition via reverse engineering, the unit cost could be $244,416.65, or a potential savings of $43,132.35 per unit. The Government would need to competitively procure an additional 180 each LWMRs above the estimated 70 units being procured on this contract to offset the development cost of $7.8M.

Over the last four (4) years, the average yearly demand for LWMR is two (2) each per year. At this rate it would take over 90 years to offset the development cost of competitive procurement. In addition, the Government does not anticipate needing to purchase more LWMR after the three-year requirements contract because they will be meeting their requirement for LWMRs in inventory. Based on this information, it is not in the Government’s best interest to competitively procure the LWMR.

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition:

a. Effective Competition: This effort will not be competed due to the reasons stated in Section 5. Notices required by FAR 5.201 will be published and any proposals received shall be considered.

b. Subcontracting Competition: To ensure the contractor competitively awards subcontracts to the maximum extent possible, the resultant contract will contain all applicable FAR and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARs) subcontracting clauses. Pearson will also be required to submit a subcontracting plan for review and approval in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 "Small Business Subcontracting Plan."

7. Actions to Increase Competition: The Government does not anticipate procuring the LWMR in the future and is taking no further action to increase competition, due to the information provided in paragraph 5. Only Pearson owns the TDP and has the knowledge and expertise necessary to satisfy these requirements.

8. Market Research: In order to solicit interest for the LMWR, on 06 September 2023, PM-SBCT and ACC-DTA posted a Sources Sought Notice to SAM.gov that was open for 13 days. The Government received one (1) response from LC Industries (LCI). Upon review of the Sources Sought response, PM-SBCT determined the vendor would not be suitable to perform the requirement. The vendor, LCI, verbally stated that they cannot develop the LWMR without the TDP. PM-SBCT does not possess the TDP or rights to the TDP sufficient for competitive re-procurement and Pearson does not intend on selling the TDP or rights to the TDP sufficient for competitive re-procurement. In addition, PM-SBCT determined the vendor did not understand the requirement, as the vendor provides services related to office/safety/medical/janitorial supplies, medical kitting/assembly, technology services, tactical equipment, miscellaneous mission support equipment, mattresses, and furniture. LCI was deemed unqualified.

ACC-DTA also conducted internet searches in January 2024, utilizing Google for other sources that could potentially perform this effort using the terms, “Light Weight Mine Roller,” “PE31880 (P/N for LWMR)”, and “Flat Bottom Mine Roller”. No contracts or other sources were found using the search criteria. The same search terms were used to search contractdirectory.gov and did not result in locating additional sources for the requirement.

9. Interested Sources: To date, besides the source mentioned above no other sources have written to express an interest in supplying the LWMR to suitable, fit, form, and function.

10. Other Facts:

a. Procurement History: The Governments most recent procurement history, as it pertains to the requirements contained herein, is provided below:

1) Contract Number: W56HZV-07-D-M112 Delivery Order: 0026 Contractor: GM GDLS Defense Group, L.L.C.

Award Date: 30 January 2008 Contract Value: $1,311,152,062.00

2) The action listed above was non-competitive and sole sourced to GDLS on the production contract. GDLS procured the LWMR from Pearson in 2011 and 2012.

3) The contract listed above was sole source to GDLS and was awarded under the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition. Title 10 U.S.C., Section 3204(a)(1) as implemented by FAR 6.302-1, “Only One Responsible Sources and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements.

4) No J&A was found for W56HZV-07-D-M112.

5) No prior awards were accomplished using Full and Open Competition.

6) No unusual patterns have been revealed by the procurement history.

7) There have been no significant changes since the most recent award. The previous justification was non-competitive in nature.