1.13 Sole Source - Brand Name Justification HP Fortify (REDACTED).pdf

1 | 7

☒ BRAND NAME/SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION (FBO)≤ SAT

☐ LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION (GSA)≤ SAT

☐ JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

(ID/IQ TAKS ORDER/DELIVERY ORDER)≤ SAT

1. Description of Supplies/Services.

Part # DESCRITION QTY

H7S62AAE HPE Sec For Prem Ed Ste 24x7 1Y SW ELTU 1

SUAA000 SW Enterprise Standard/Basic 1M Updates 1

SUAA001 SW Enterprise Standard 1M Technical Support 1

SUAA014 SW 1M Rules Subscription Support 1

The requested ☒ supplies ☐ services represent the minimum requirements of the government, which have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

2. Regulatory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

FBO

☐ FAR 13.106-1(b)(i) Soliciting from a single source

☒ FAR 13.106-1(b)(ii) Particular brand-name item

GSA

☐ FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(A) An urgent and compelling need exists

☐ FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(B) Only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized

☐ FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(C) In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures (the original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures).

☐ FAR 8.405-6 (b) Items peculiar to one manufacturer (brand-name item)

ID/IQ Task Order/Delivery Order (e.g. NASA SEWP or ARMY CHESS)

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized

2 | 7

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. [When utilizing this exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value).]

☐ FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

3. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Regulatory Authority.

a.) ☒ The Items Described in Paragraph 1 Must Be Compatible In All Aspects

(Form, Fit And Function) With Existing Systems Presently Installed.

b.) ☐ A Patent, Copyright, or Proprietary Data Limits Competition.

c.) ☐ The Items Described in Paragraph 1 are “Direct Replacements”

Parts/Components for Existing Equipment.

d.) ☐ Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Supported By A Case Letter.

The brand name of the requested items is HPE and was procured in fiscal year 2017 under contract no. N64267-17-P-0065, and in fiscal year 2018 under contract no.

N64267-18-F-0258. The requested items are used as a required DISA STIG tool to test in house code developed. Testing covers security vulnerabilities such as buffer overflow, SQL injection, integer arithmetic issues, improperly formatted strings, command injection, cross site scripting, improper canonical representation, hidden fields, race conditions, XML injection, CSRF vulnerabilities, and testing active/live web applications from the front end. The qualities/features of the requested HPE licensing includes improved scan times as well as supporting a wide variety of development environments, languages, platforms, frameworks to enable security review, identifying and prioritizing security vulnerabilities in running applications, as well as interactively communicating security knowledge needed to reproduce and fix discovered issues.

Other brands investigated include IBM Ounce, IBM Appscan, SonarSource, and

KlocWork. These other brands were not acceptable since they lacked the integrated

DISA STIG reporting capabilities required, does not support all the coding languages used at NSWC Corona, and are not approved applications for use on the Navy network(s). The HPE Applications will reside on the Navy NMCI network. Local developers will have a client software component that communicates with the hosting security center server.

3 | 7 e.) ☐ Unusual and Compelling Urgency.

f.) ☐Other: If required, discuss any other rationale that supports the use of a brand name/sole source for this effort.

4. Implication of Procuring another Brand/Manufacturer.

a.) ☐ Unacceptable Delays in Fulfilling the Agency’s Requirements.

b.) ☒ Substantial Duplication Of Cost To The Government That Is Not Expected

To Be Recovered Through Competition.

c.) ☐ Other: If required, discuss any other implication of procuring another brand/manufacturer.

The requested HPE licensing and maintenance was procured in fiscal year 2017 under contract no. N64267-17-P-0065, and in fiscal year 2018 under contract no.

N64267-18-F-0258. If open to competition, the impact of deploying a new application would entail administrative, research/training, setup/configuration/testing, and accreditation. This would cost the government an estimated $42K that could not be recouped through competition.

TABLE 1

EFFORT HOURS LABOR RATE COST

Administrative 40 $125.00 $5,200

New Application

Testing/Approval for

Navy Networks

120 $125.00 $15,600.00

New Application

Configuration/Deployment

40 $125.00 $5,200.00

New Application

Research/Training

80 $125.00 $10,400.00

Accreditation --- $5,000.00 $5,200.00

Total Cost $41,600.00 elizabeth.groncki Highlight

4 | 7

5. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition.

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting data/documentation, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

CUSTOMER:

Mark Pavlak 951.393.5942 25 February 2020

Name, Title, Code Phone No. Date

APPROVALS

I certify that the Customer representations above have been verified, and are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the processing of this brand name/sole-source justification precludes the use of full and open competition.

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR/SPECIALIST:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that completing this purchase as a brand name/sole source is in the best interest of the government.

CONTRACTING OFFICER:

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 3&4 above, NSWCCO has no plans at

This time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NSWCCO will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

elizabeth.groncki Highlight elizabeth.groncki Highlight

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER, CORONA DIVISION

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

5 | 7

☐ BRAND NAME/SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION ≤ SAT

☐ LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION ≤ SAT

INSTRUCTIONS

☐ JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

(ID/IQ TAKS ORDER/DELIVERY ORDER)≤ SAT

Select the appropriate header above. If the item will be procured through FBO (a.k.a. Open

Market) select “Brand Name/Sole Source”. If the item will be procured through GSA select

“Limited Sources”. If the item will be procured through ID/IQ Task Order/Delivery Order (e.g.

NASA SEWP or ARMY CHESS) select “Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity”

1. Description of Supplies/Services.

Complete the table; add rows and columns as necessary to accurately reflect the requirement.

Make the appropriate checkbox selection (i.e. supplies or services)

2. Regulatory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

Select the appropriate authority for restricting competition

3. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Regulatory Authority.

Select the appropriate rationale and substantiate the rationale as required.

a.) ☐ The Items Described in Paragraph 1 Must Be Compatible In All Aspects

(Form, Fit And Function) With Existing Systems Presently Installed. Substantiate by providing the following information:

i. Describe the equipment you have now and how the new item/service must coordinate, connect, or interface with the existing system:

ii. Provide example(s) of how other brand(s)/manufacturer(s) cannot meet the

Governments minimum requirement:

iii. Select the appropriate “Implication of Procuring another

Brand/Manufacturer”, in paragraph 4, below. For instance, detail what the time/cost would be to implement a new system.

b.) ☐ A Patent, Copyright, or Proprietary Data Limits Competition. Substantiate by

6 | 7

i. Brand/manufacturer product literature describing the patent, copyright, or proprietary data or by describing it in your own words, in detail:

ii. In either case (i.e. brand or manufacturer ) explain, in detail, why the uniqueness of the product is essential in order to fulfill the Governments minimum requirement:

iii. Provide examples of how other brand(s)/manufacturer(s) cannot meet the

Governments minimum requirement:

iv. Select the appropriate “Implication of Procuring another

Brand/Manufacturer”, in paragraph 4, below. For instance, detail what the time/cost would be to implement a new system.

c.) ☐ The Items Described In Paragraph 1are “Direct Replacements”

Parts/Components for Existing Equipment. Substantiate by providing the following information:

i. Identify and briefly describe the existing equipment:

ii. Provide examples of how other brand(s)/manufacturer(s) cannot meet the

Governments minimum requirement (e.g. if the item is the only authorized brand/manufacturer to be included in the existing system, state that and provide the authorization letter):

iii. Select the appropriate “Implication of Procuring another Brand/Manufacturer”, in paragraph 4, below (paragraph 4 is not required when supported by an authorization letter). For instance, detail what the time/cost would be to implement a new system.

d.) ☐ Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Supported By A Case Letter. Substantiate by

i. Case Letter (paragraph 4 is not required) e.) ☐ Unusual and Compelling Urgency. For guidance on the ONLY circumstances under which use of this authority may be appropriate, see DFARS PGI 206.302-2(b).

Substantiate by providing the following information:

i. The estimated cost, data or other rationale to demonstrate the extent and nature of the harm the Government would suffer or would have suffered, if the contracting http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/pgi/pgi_htm/PGI206_3.htm

7 | 7 activity could not limit competition (when substantiating here, paragraph 4 is not required).

f.) ☐ Other: If required, discuss any other rationale that supports the use of a brand name/sole source for this effort.

4. Implication of Procuring another Brand/Manufacturer.

a.) ☐ Unacceptable Delays in Fulfilling the Agency’s Requirements. Substantiate by

i. An estimate of the length of the delay and an explanation of how the estimate was derived and why a delay of this length is unacceptable. Intent is to indicate if the time frame is prohibitive and would not support the program requirements. This rationale does not apply when there is a lack of advance planning by the requiring activity.

Example:

The Requiring Technical Activity (RTA) would need approximately 84 days to retest other DVRs and revise existing user manuals and system diagrams (See Table 1).

Prior to deployment, scoring support personnel must train and recertify which takes place over a 180 day timeframe. Retesting other DVR’s and personnel recertification would take 264 days (180+84). The current deployment is scheduled to commence

200 days from the date of this justification. Using a product other than the specified brand name would directly impact the ability to train personnel prior to deployment and does not facilitate program support requirements.

TABLE 1

EFFORT

MAN

HOURS

PERSONNEL DURATION

Revise existing user manuals 480 2@ 40HRS/WK 6 WEEKS

Revise existing system diagrams 480 2@ 40HRS/WK 6 WEEKS

Total Duration 12 WEEKS b.) ☐ Substantial Duplication Of Cost To The Government That Is Not Expected

To Be Recovered Through Competition. Substantiate by providing the following information:

i. An estimate of the cost to the Government that would be duplicated and an explanation of how the estimate was derived. The estimated cost can be based on the initial set-up costs, past actuals or estimates. The intent is not a detailed analysis but a track-able basis for drawing the conclusion that the estimated cost is so high that it will not be recouped through competition.

8 | 7

Example:

Using a product other than the specified brand name would cost the government a total of $151,200 due to required WISS software rewrites. These additional costs are based on the need to develop new interface specifications (nonproprietary) for recording, redevelop scoring algorithm, develop device driver, interface driver with algorithm and scoring software, and testing the software before fielding. These costs would not be recovered through competition (See Table 1).

TABLE 1

EFFORT HOURS

LABOR

RATE

COST

Develop new interface specifications

(nonproprietary) for recorder 480 $90 $43,200

Redevelop scoring algorithm 480 $90 $43,200

Develop device driver 80 $90 $7,200

Interface driver w/ algorithm and scoring software 320 $90 $28,800

Test software before fielding 320 $90 $28,800

Total Cost $151,200 c.) ☐ Other: If required, discuss any other implication of procuring another brand/manufacturer.

5. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition.

Discuss any actions the activity plans to take to change conditions that preclude the use of full and open competition for acquiring the same or similar supplies or services in the future.

OR

If there is currently no reasonable likelihood of future competition, use the following or similar language:

“For the reasons set forth in Paragraph XYZ (choose from above), NSWCCO has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NSWCCO will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.”

CERTIFICATION/APPROVALS

Fill-in the applicable information and sign as appropriate.