PLEASE NOTE THAT BETA.SAM GENERATED THE INCORRECT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. THE CORRECT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS N0018921R0048 This procurementwas solicited as a Sole Source direct award to Conflict Kinetics. The authority under FAR 6.302-1(a)(1) is applicable because the Governments need can only be satisfied by the current contractor, Conflict Kinetics Corporation. NECC-HQ-HQ and NECC-HQPAC both own TORA Weapons Simulators manufactured by Conflict Kinetics Corporation. NECC-HQ has owned the Conflict Kinetics TORA Weapons Simulators since 2015 and Conflict Kinetics Corporation has proprietary rights to their equipment, eliminating support from other Vendors. The authority FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(iii)(A) cited in paragraph 4 above is applicable because services may be deemed to be available only from the original source in the case of follow-on contracts for the continued provision of highly specialized equipment, including major components thereof, when it is likely that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition. If another Vendor were to provide new equipment with hardware/software modifications and updates; along with training support and warranty, this would substantially duplicate the cost, as there is already an infrastructure in place. The training software owned by Conflict Kinetics Corporation is content updated to teach military personnel how to react in live fire situations in various scenarios, so they are prepared when they deploy and encounter same/similar situations. The training not only includes live fire simulation training, but it also includes various combat skills for self-defense, small arms qualifications (including CAT III and IV small arms, Crew Served Weapons training, and shoot/no shoot interactive scenarios). This training also shows a military members weaknesses prior to deployment; allowing those weaknesses to be resolved through additional training. The Government first considered whether it was possible to replace the software on the systems. Currently, as discussed, Conflict Kinetics Corporation has proprietary rights to their software licenses, eliminating support from other Vendors. In order to have another vendor work on the equipment, the software would have to be replaced. The Government found that replacement of the equipments software in this case would not be possible. Here, each simulator system has a unique operating system that includes connection to the peripherals (cameras, projectors, and in some cases weapons). The software system is designed around video cards and optics to allow for accurate depiction and grading of responses. The servers used for each simulator require very specific configurations to support the operating system. One operating system cannot simply be removed and replaced with another. In market research, the Government found that were the requiring activity to pursue changing out the operating system, a vendor would quote the cost for the complete system. In the past, the requiring activity met with industry to determine whether it was possible to cross utilize the systems or have side-by-side servers that could switch between operating systems. However, industrys response was that systems could not be mixed. Market research revealed that if the Government were to seek replacement of the operating system, the Government would have to essentially repurchase the entire simulator base. Next, the Government considered just thatentire replacement of the simulators. Currently, all existing simulators are functional; however, procuring new simulators and providing training would create an undue delay causing a lapse in services and a waste of taxpayer funds. The Customer reviewed the costs to procure new simulators. The Government has currently invested the following into their simulator systems: (6) PAN 220 crew served systems ($879,800 per system), with one additional coming online: totaling approx. $6,158,600 (12) TORA small Arms systems (various, between $355,100 and $1,134,200 per system): totaling approx. $5,559,150 In total, considering just the simulator systems themselves, the Government has currently invested approx. $11,750,100. The Government considered replacing the simulators with new infrastructure. In addition to the costs detailed above to procure new systems, the Government would also still require the support, software licenses, etc., that are the subject of the instant requirement. Based on the Government estimates for this contract, those support costs would include: -Annual Cyber-security monitoring: Approx. $230K/yr for a total of $1.15M -On site FTE support at 12 sites (average FTE fully burdened $120K): $2.7M/yr for a total of $13.7M -Software Licenses: $2.8M/yr for a total of $14.3M -Installation Cost of Simulators: $187K/per Simulator for a total of $3M When added to the costs to procure new simulators, the Government estimated that replacement of the existing infrastructure with comparable systems (provided they even exist), could cost over $43M, or over 37% higher than the cost of this contract. In addition to the approx. $11.75M already invested into the systems, the Government also considered the expected lifetime of the existing simulators. The oldest simulator currently in operation was procured in 2015, with the newest purchased in 2019. The estimated lifetime of the simulators is approximately 12 years. The Government can expect to utilize the existing simulators until at least 2027 (for the oldest), and up to 2031, before the newest systems reach the end of their usable lifetime. Since even the oldest system should remain useable for at least 6 more years, the Government finds that it would be both inefficient and duplicative to replace the infrastructure at this point in its lifecycle. In addition, based on Market Research, if the Government was to utilize a new Vendor, not only would there be an increase in costs, but there would also be multiple, unacceptable delays. First, the Government has already invested upwards of 3 years in achieving an ATO (authority to operate) for the current system, a DoD cybersecurity requirement for IT systems. An ATO is granted under the Risk Management Framework (RMF), pursuant to DoDI 8510.01, which is the process by which the DoD ensures the security of their information systems. The RMF process identifies how much risk each system introduces to the Global Information Grid, or GIG. That risk is identified by determining compliance with security controls (mandated by CNSSI 1253), by reviewing vulnerability scans, and by determining how well the system has been hardened implementing Security Technical Information Guides (STIGs). When a system has been determined to be of minimal risk to the GIG, it is issued an Authority To Operate (ATO). Until an ATO is achieved (or showing progress towards an ATO), items such as IT Purchase Request cannot be approved and the requiring activity will lose funding for the simulator systems. The ATO process is a lengthy onefor each simulator, the requiring activity has had to submit 28 control polices, a software list that must be registered in DADMS, a hardware list registered in DITPR DON, engineering drawings outlining the entire system and have 5 checkpoint meetings with the Department of the Navys Chief Information Officer (DON CIO) for approval. NECC-HQs current simulator systems are in checkpoint 5 of the process with multiple stakeholders currently overseeing it through this process, to include the Navy Authorizing Official (NAO) and the US Fleet Forces Command Cyber Security Team. This process began in June 2018, and the Government finds that beginning this process again with a new system would be excessively burdensome, inefficient and duplicative in both costs and man-hours wasted. Other Navy simulators are tied into a DOD network so the scanning process and testing is much easier. However, in this case, the requiring activity has had to work with NAO on validating standalone simulators, a process which is not defined in the current RMF, which has increased the timeframe for approval, as repeated test results have required reconfiguring the system according to the Cyber Security guidelines which can change almost quarterly. Second, there would be an approximate 2.5 year delay in having procurement funding approved. All new purchases of this type would require OPN funding which has to come through the POM process. The POM process is a 2.5 year lead for submission. There is no guarantee that the POM input would be approved. NECC-HQ cannot support a contract that calls for replacing their simulator systems unless they had OPN funding in hand.