36C26318Q9759-002.pdf

VHAPM Part 813.106 Page 1 of 2 Original Date: 08/30/17 Revision 01 Eff Date: 04/23/2018

VHAPM Part 813.106 Simplified Acquisition Procedures: Soliciting from a Single Source Attachment 1: Single Source Justification for SAP under the SAT

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Justification for IAW FAR 13.106-1 For

Over Micro-Purchase Threshold but Not Exceeding the SAT ($250K)

Acquisition Plan Action ID: VA263-18-AP-5184

1. Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs, Network Contracting Office 23, 1303 5th

Street Suite 300, Coralville IA 52241 Requesting Activity: Des Moines VA Medical Center, 3600 30th Street, Des Moines IA 50310

2. Brief Description of Supplies/ Services required and the intended use/Estimated Amount:

2 Laryngoscope sets for Laryngoscopy procedures.

3. Unique characteristics that limit availability to only one source, with the reason no other supplies or services can be used:

Background: The customer currently uses a brand-name system of laryngoscopy equipment. All of their equipment is of the same brand-name and has been for many years. A part of that brand-name system, the part that uses Ethylene Oxide sterilization, is being discarded because that particular VA station is doing away with Ethylene Oxide sterilization procedures to be current with a recent policy, VA Directive 1116(2).

The equipment that is requested is described by the customer and the manufacturer as meeting, in full, the standards of the VA Directive 1116(2). Additionally, any new equipment must be guaranteed to reliably work interchangeably with the existing brand-name system of equipment to avoid confusion and disruption of care in a clinical/surgical setting.

Our market research compels us to believe that the best way to ensure that we both meet the standards of the VA Directive 1116(2) and the need to have equipment that is guaranteed, in the best manner, to work with the existing brand-name system is to procure equipment of the same brand-name.

Additionally, the cost of changing out the whole existing system of equipment to change brand-names in an effort to maintain uniformity or to gain a guarantee of pieces working well together would exceed the cost of replacing part of the existing brand-name system.

4. Description of market research conducted and results or statement why it was not conducted:

Calls to customer to clarify the requirement.

Calls to the manufacturer of the brand-name. (documented in the Market Research Report).

Calls to two Surgical Equipment Outlets. (documented in the Market Research Report).

VHAPM Part 813.106 Simplified Acquisition Procedures: Soliciting from a Single Source Attachment 1: Single Source Justification for SAP under the SAT

VHAPM Part 813.106 Page 2 of 2 Original Date: 08/30/17 Revision 01 Eff Date: 04/23/2018

FPDS, SAM, Vetbiz.

Summary: We have confidence in our customer’s statement that the brand-name items requested meet the VA Directive 1116(2). That brand-name is not the only brand-name that can.

Conversations with our customer, two brand-name Representatives and multiple Representatives of companies other than the brand-name requested revealed many statements that reflect a lack of complete confidence that using equipment of dissimilar brands would come with guarantees of ease of use, efficiency or long-term reliability.

In one case we were told by a Representative of a surgical equipment outlet who sold multiple brands, “it’s better to replace everything and stick with one brand. Having multiple brands can lead to problems that you’ll end up spending money on later.” We were told by a Representative of a different surgical supply outlet who sold multiple brands, that she, “wouldn’t recommend mixing brands. There is no way to guarantee that everything will work well together.” She further stated that her firm’s equipment seen online, “are all tested with each other, but not with other equipment from other brands.” (documented in the Market Research Report).

These statements represent the overall tone of our conversations with Representatives regarding having a system of dissimilar brands.

As stated above, the cost of changing out the whole existing system of equipment to change brand-names to maintain uniformity or to gain a guarantee of pieces working well together would exceed the cost of replacing part of the existing brand-name system.

5. Contracting Officer's Certification: Purchase is approved in accordance with FAR13.106-1(b). I certify that the foregoing justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name Date Title

Chris E. Skaggs 306689

Digitally signed by Chris E.

Skaggs 306689 Date: 2018.06.27 10:20:38 -05'00'