SATPC0036724 Tab 10 BNJ 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

Brand Name Justification:

I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject band name from Integra Biosciences for a Viaflo 96 automated pipetting instrument.

The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is September 30th .

This recommendation is for the acquisition of supplies or services determined to be reasonably available from 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.

Although there are multiple automated pipetting instruments available, only the Viaflo96 meets all of our requirement: it supports multichannel pipetting compatible with transferring liquids between 96-well (including deep 96-well plates) and 384-well sample plates, supports transfer of volumes from 0.5 microliters to 300 microliters, pipettes volumes with an accuracy of <10% for volumes under 10 microliters and <5% for volumes greater than 10 microliters, it pipettes volumes precisely with a precision of <5% for all volumes, it can also move and pipette on its own (hands-free) for automated performance, and it includes an option for a 3-position stage for multi-well plates for efficient plate manipulation. My market research uncovered no other instrument that meets all our requirements, excluding instruments far outside our price cap (there are instruments that could in principle meet our requirements with prices >$100k, but we only have $32k available). The instrument closest to meeting comparable specifications is the epMotion96 instrument; however, the epMotion96 includes only a single stage in the base unit with an option for two. Having three stages is critical because it will increase the efficiency of liquid transfers and will limit the potential for cross-contamination between samples.

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

Instruments available from other companies do not meet all our requirements. One instrument comes close, as mentioned above, but does not fully meet our needs. We also already have an instrument from Integra Biosciences that uses the same consumables, so using an instrument from a different company would also place an extra burden on ordering separate consumables. Failure to procure this specific instrument would cause harm to NASA’s current and future research efforts.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

None

12/2024

Technical User Name Date

Page 2 V3.0 01/18/2023

****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): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(1), the proposed contract action will be placed on SAM.gov under the authority of FAR 13.106 - 1(b)(1)(i).

- Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(2), the proposed contraction action was not placed on SAM.gov as oral solicitation will be used to solicit quotation under the authority of FAR 13.106-1(c).

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

- Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For open market purchases, 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): For open market purchases, 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.

SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.505(4)(i)(ii), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. (under $30,000)

SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.505(a)(4)(i)(ii)(iii)(A), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. Any action over $30,000 the brand name shall be posted on the agency website used to solicit offers for orders.

- Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Sole Source: For GSA orders, 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: For GSA orders, pursuant to FAR 8.405-6(b), 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.

- Exception to Fair Opportunity (EFO): For SEWP orders or orders placed against other IDIQ contracts, 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 based on 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.

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