SATPC0016205_Brand_Name_Justification_Redacted.pdf

Page 1 V2.0 3-15-2017

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER

RECOMMENDATION AND DETERMINATION TO SOLICIT FROM ONE SOURCE

OR BRAND NAME

PICK ONE

Sole Source:

☐I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with Vendor Name only for Enter Supply or Service to be procured. The total estimated cost of this effort is Enter Dollar amount and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is Date.

OR

Brand Name Justification:

☒I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject brand name from Eaton/Cooper for switchgear and transformers. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 4-6 Months.

This recommendation is for the acquisition of supplies or services determined to be reasonably available from only one source/only one manufacture. Competition is impractical for the following reasons (please answer the questions below):

1. What are the reasons for soliciting only the suggested source/suggested brand name? Please provide the unique characteristics of the items or services along with the supporting rationale and the market research performed to substantiate your reason for the suggested source/brand name.

The National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage (NCCIPS) is planning install one

(1) Cooper 15 kV Pad-Mounted Switchgear and two (2) 1500 kVA Pad-Mounted Transformers at the NCCIPS Complex as part of our Intelligence Community Customer project. The current electrical infrastructure is inadequate to support the ICC requirements and will require additional infrastructure to be installed to maximize long-term power consumption. The manufacturer for current NCCIPS Switchgear and Transformer Infrastructure is Eaton/Cooper. NCCIPS utilizes a power monitoring system and equipment that is maintained by a third party vendor. Ordering switchgear and transformer equipment from a another manufacturer would require engineering evaluation and confirmation to guarantee the capabilities of the equipment by NCCIPS and power monitoring maintenance provider.

Due to the critical nature of the equipment being upgraded, it would be both cost effective and prudent to award Eaton/Cooper as the manufacturer.

2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.

Cooper/Eaton equipment recommended in this procurement have been reviewed, tested, or verified to support all requirements of this project and the full intentions of the implementation of the project. Any changes to any piece of equipment and/or software would require that the project be reevaluated and reconfigured to provide spec’s capabilities as outlined in the design. This evaluation and approval process would delay the NCCIPS tenant’s project schedule and cause critical impacts to other tenant’s projects that are extremely time-sensitive and high priority. Any delays in this project or associated procurements could cause additional delays that prevent other tenant’s from relocating their data center equipment into the NCCIPS Facility. The current Eaton/Cooper Switchgear and Transformer Infrastructure is an estimated $6.2M. NCCIPS maintains a stock of on-hand materials in order to support 24x7 operations. NCCIPS would also need to maintain a stock of on-hand materials/spares for any additional third party brands for this request and future requests which would result in additional

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017 personnel time required for maintaining inventory as well as additional storage space which would cause increased costs associated with the maintenance and storage footprint of the NCCIPS Facility. Since this equipments power monitoring system is under an existing maintenance contract, awarding this to a manufacturer other than Eaton/Cooper would require an engineering evaluation of the capabilities and compatibilites for integration into the existing power monitoring system. Engineering analysis of alternate equipment would require a T&M contract, the hourly rate of a Electrical or Mechanical Specialist/Engineer would be $183 (current contract rate); not including travel, overhead, and other fees.

To conduct an engineering analysis on each piece of equipment is an average 4 hours per piece of equipment and would be approximately $1,464, which does not include travel, overhead, and other fees that may apply. There would also be additional requirements after receipt of equipment to modify the existing power monitoring system to integrate the new equipment. System modifications would require an approximate16 – 24 hours and would be approximately $2,928 - $4,392.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

__________________________________ 10/15/2019 Technical User Name Date

Title NCCIPS Project Office Office

Page 2 V2.1 3-21-2017

****FOR NSSC SAT USE ONLY***

The above justification in pursuant to one of the following (only select one):

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): Pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(1), the proposed contract action will be placed on FedBizOpps.

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): Pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(1), the proposed contraction action was not placed on FedBizOpps as oral solicitation will be used to solicit quotation.

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): Pursuant to FAR 5.202 (a)(2), the proposed contract action is exempt from publication on FedBizOpps because the government would be seriously injured if the Agency complies with the time periods specified in 5.203.

☐ - Brand Name Justification (BNJ): Pursuant to FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified. (Under $25,000)

☐ - Brand Name Justification (BNJ): Pursuant to FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified. Pursuant to FAR 5.201, any contract action over $25,000 shall be synopsized in the Government wide Point of Entry (GPE) and the brand name justification must be attached.

☐ - Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Sole Source: Pursuant to FAR 8.405-6 (a) (1) (i) (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. Action will be performed against GSA Contract .

☐ - Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Brand Name: Pursuant to FAR 8.405-6(a)(2), the item is peculiar to one manufacturer. A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer.

☐ - Fair Opportunity Wavier (FOW): Under the authority of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) and Pursuant to FAR 16.505(b). Exemption under FAR 16.505(b)(2) used is the following:

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

☐ (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.

☐ (D) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

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

☐ (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

I hereby accept the above stated recommendation and determine that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available.

X Contracting Officer