5_BN FOR SMPG redacted.pdf

1 | 7

REV 11-2023

BRAND NAME/SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION (SAM)≤ SAT

LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION (GSA)≤ SAT

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

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

1. Description of Supplies/Services.

PART # DESCRIPTION QTY

SMPG CIDC Storage & Audio-Visual Equip Order

To provide up-to-date audio/visual equipment for the Corporate Instructional Design Center (CIDC).

Items

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.

SAM

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.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E) For orders exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, a statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F) In accordance with section 1331 of Public Law 111-240 ( 15 U.S.C.

644(r)), contracting officers may, at their discretion, set aside orders for any of the small business concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3). When setting aside orders for small business concerns, the specific small business program eligibility requirements identified in part 19 apply.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(G) For DoD, NASA, and the Coast Guard, the order satisfies one of the exceptions permitting the use of other than full and open competition listed in 6.302 ( 10 U.S.C.

3406(c)(5)). The public interest exception shall not be used unless Congress is notified in accordance with 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(7).

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.

Naval Shipyard Support Office (SEA 04X3) has a current and recurring need to provide robust and comprehensive Instructional Design content and services for the Naval Shipyards. SEA04X3 is aiming to procure expansive and modernized computing, media storage, and audio/visual equipment for the Corporate Instructional Design Center (CIDC) at the Naval Shipyards. CIDC currently utilizes a specific hardware and software ecosystem, and introducing any other brand would break compatibility, require expensive custom programming, disrupt operator muscle memory, and create redundant maintenance pipelines.

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 CIDC Division already owns an inventory of specific lenses, batteries, and memory media, as listed on the IGCE. Purchasing a different brand would render existing government-owned equipment useless, requiring the costly replacement of the entire hardware ecosystem to maintain compatibility.

Using equipment other than the specified brand name would cost the Government a total of $55,480 due to required system re-engineering and reprogramming. These additional costs are based on the need to retrain current CIDC staff (10 GS-13) on new hardware, pay for certified engineers to reprogram the existing control systems, purchase physical hardware adapters, and conduct extensive system integration testing. (See Table 1).

The CIDC Team is already trained on their existing hardware ecosystem, its control interface, and maintenance procedures. Switching to a different system would require significant technical labor and adaptation, reducing mission readiness during the transition period.

EFFORT QTY HOURS LABOR RATE COST

Re-train Staff 10 20 $50.40 $10,080 System Re-engineering & Programming 1 400 $50.40 $20,160 Hardware Adapters & Converters 1 0 $5,080 $5,080 System Testing & Integration 1 400 $50.40 $20,160

Total Cost $55,480

4 | 7

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:

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:

Name, Title, Code Phone No. Date

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:

Name, Title, Code Phone No. Date

5. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition.

For the reasons set forth in the compatibility and duplication of cost sections of this document, the CIDC has no plans to compete the immediate requirement. However, as new technologies emerge and existing systems reach their end-of-life cycles, the CIDC will continuous assess whether full and open competition for future system-wide replacements is technically and economically feasible.

BEVERLY.TASHA.R

ENE.1245756220

Digitally signed by

BEVERLY.TASHA.RENE.124575622

Date: 2026.08.26 12:50:18 -04'00'