A13-ServiceNow-Brand Name Justification CO signed 24 Jul 2025.pdf

Template for a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

Completion Instructions: HHS has established a standard template for the preparation of a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity pursuant to FAR Subpart 16.5 for orders valued at greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, including all options. This template is only applicable when requesting an acquisition as an exception to the fair opportunity process for task-and delivery-order contracts awarded against multiple-award contracts, such as indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts.

This template is not for use (i) with small business set asides in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), nor (ii) for Federal Supply Schedule contracts awarded pursuant to FAR 8.4. See FAR Subpart 16.5 for additional guidance.

Tailor all aspects of this template to the individual acquisition. Consult FAR 16.505 for guidance. An addendum may be added in case additional space is needed.

When this document is printed, the blue italic instructions are automatically deleted on the printed version.

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Acquisition Title: ServiceNow Enterprise Licenses

Agency: CDC

Acquisition Year (FY): 2025

Author: David Ausefski

2. Description of Action:

Nature: New Requirement Follow-on Order

Modification to Existing Delivery/Task Order/Contract Number:

Order Against: Multiple Award ID/IQ Contract Number:

Pricing: Firm-Fixed Price Time & Materials Cost Type

Funds: OMA Other Funds: Funds available upon award

3. Description of Applicable Contract Provisions:

Summarize all contract provisions relevant to this determination.

There are currently no contract provisions relevant to this determination.

4. Description of Supplies or Services:

The estimated value of the proposed action, including all options, is: $ 6,571,433.00

Briefly describe the supplies or services to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate.

• Indicate whether the item to be procured is peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer).

• If applicable, include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services. Provide information for any options included in the order.

• If the action is a modification to an existing order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification; provided that if the action is to extend an existing order utilizing the -8 extension of services clause, this must be discussed.

The purpose of this procurement is to procure FY25 ServiceNow software licensing as the follow on of FY19, FY20, FY21, FY22, FY23, and FY24 ServiceNow licenses purchase to provide the Government with the automated workflows that will provide operational support for CIO cloud as well as the web page “Portal” for customer cloud engagement.

5. Authority and Rationale:

The Contracting Officer shall give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery/task order exceeding the micro purchase threshold unless one of the following statutory exceptions applies. FAR 16.505(b)(2). Mark the applicable exception:

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)(A)];

Factually establish the urgent need, provide the required performance/delivery schedule, address the lead-time involved, address why other contractors cannot fulfill the government’s needs, and explain the harm/serious injury that will come to the government if the justification is not approved.

Only one awardee 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 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B)];

Explain what is unique or highly specialized about the supply or service, what level of quality is required and why only the specified contractor can meet the requirement. If the requirement is an item peculiar to one manufacturer, justify the restriction to the item peculiar to one manufacturer.

Sources are available to provide this brand-specific product, ServiceNow software through authorized re-sellers. However, OCIO is seeking this brand name justification in accordance with FAR 16.505(a)(4)ii) and 13.501, as Carahsoft Technology Corp is the awardee of the interagency HHS’s mandatory single source BPA 47QTCA22A0008 award, and the only authorized distributor of ServiceNow licenses.

At the time of award, the BPA was competed and awarded as a single award BPA to Carahsoft. The BPA allows OCIO to offer a single vehicle for ServiceNow license purchases at a 15% minimum discount off the GSA list price, as shown in its quote in response to the RFI posted on GSA. The Enterprise agreement allows HHS customers to access better discounts than if they were to purchase the required ServiceNow supplies independently. Carahsoft has previously awarded six (6) of the same and similar contracts to the CDC’s OCIO OBO offices. This Exception to Fair Opportunity Memorandum does not provide an option for a brand name-type procurement. As such, this option is being checked as it is the closest option to a brand name justification. The FAR Provision 52.211-6, Brand Name or Equal was also included for the ServiceNow software in the solicitation prior to award.

The software being procured under this order is critical to achieving seamless operations and preventing voids in existing warranties.

These licenses are so integrated into the existing IT infrastructure that introducing another software licensing would require redeveloping all these services and process which would be costly. All licensing updates must be tested prior to putting them into production and the addition of another software would require maintaining a duplicate testing environment, significantly increasing the cost of testing updates which is done several times a year.

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 [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C)];

Provide the original order number and explain why it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, for example, in terms of scope, period of performance or value. Describe the process by which all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. Specify how recent the previous competitive order was and the number of times this exception has been used; discuss why the specific requirement continues and why it is to the benefit of the Government for the particular contractor to continue this work.

It is necessary to place the order to satisfy a minimum guarantee [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D)]; or When citing exception to the fair opportunity process under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(iv), identify the contract clause and language that specifies the minimum guaranteed amount.

A statute expressly authorizes or requires that the purchase be made from a specified source. [FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(E)].

Provide a citation to the statutory authorization and a brief description of its content, or identify the specified source or other agency.

6. Agency Actions to Take or Remove Barriers That Led to Fair Opportunity Exception (If applicable):

Describe the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration prior to any subsequent acquisition for the supplies of services is made. If no such actions have been taken, explain why.

Future procurements may be required to refresh outdated modules/components or enhance functionality due to technological advances. These procurements will be competed among a community of resellers in the open market increasing competition and offering fair opportunity. Market research has already indicated that these products are available on existing GWAC schedules and an HHS BPA, ensuring optimal competition for this brand specific procurement.

7. Fair and Reasonable Price/Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated price/cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Insert a description of the techniques and applicable FAR provisions (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(b)) used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable cost. For example, did the Contracting Officer use a comparison of industry cost for similar work? The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will primarily be an analysis of the contractor’s proposed cost. Additionally, the techniques identified at (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii)) will be used to further ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. In addition, specify whether or not Certified Cost and Pricing Data will be obtained.

The price will be evaluated and determined to be fair and reasonable by comparing historical data, using the IGCE, or doing a price analysis. One of the techniques thats described will be used as a basis. In addition, the breakdown will be provided in the price negotiation memo and we will obtain certified cost or price analysis.

Signature: Date: Jul 24, 2025

Name: Sheena Delaine

Title: Contracting Officer

8. Any other facts supporting the justification:

9. Technical / Requirements Certification: By my signature below, I certify that the supporting data under my review which is included in this Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity is accurate and complete.

Program Manager

Name: David Ausefski

Position Title: BAB Branch Chief

Email address: add7@cdc.gov

Phone: 412.386.6758

Program Manager Supervisor (or one level above Program Manager)

Name: Melissa Johnson

Position Title: DSO Director

Email address: am09@cdc.gov

Signature:

Date:

10. Contracting Officer's Approval (Required for proposed contract not to exceed $700,000 (value calculated including all options)): I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I approve this sole source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

11. Legal Review:

All J&As greater than $68 million must have a legal review from the General Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel prior to sending it to the Department.

12. OPDIV Competition Advocate Approval (Required for proposed contract over $700,000 but not exceeding $13.5 million value calculated including all options)):

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

13. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

14. OPDIV HCA Approval (Required for proposed contract over $13.5 million but not exceeding $68 million value calculated including all options)):

Name: Phone:

Signature: Date:

15. Department Competition Advocate:

Concur: Non-Concur:

(The below approval paragraph is required if the cumulative contract value, including all options, exceeds $68 million.)

16. HHS Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval:

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of stated supplies/services being procured on the exception to the fair opportunity basis pursuant to the authority of paragraph 5, 41 U.S.C. 4101, as implemented by FAR 16.501-2.

State supplies/services being procured:

The purpose of this procurement is to procure FY25 ServiceNow software licensing as the follow on of FY19, FY20, FY21, FY22, FY23, and FY24 ServiceNow licenses purchase to provide the Government with the automated workflows that will provide operational support for CIO cloud as well as the web page “Portal” for customer cloud engagement.

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304:

Template for a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity

Completion Instructions: HHS has established a standard template for the preparation of a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity pursuant to FAR Subpart 16.5 for orders valued at greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, including all options. This template is only applicable when requesting an acquisition as an exception to the fair opportunity process for task- and delivery-order contracts awarded against multiple-award contracts, such as indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts. This template is not for use (i) with small business set asides in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), nor (ii) for Federal Supply Schedule contracts awarded pursuant to FAR 8.4. See FAR Subpart 16.5 for additional guidance.

Tailor all aspects of this template to the individual acquisition. Consult FAR 16.505 for guidance. An addendum may be added in case additional space is needed.

When this document is printed, the blue italic instructions are automatically deleted on the printed version.

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

2. Description of Action:

Nature:

Order Against:

Multiple Award ID/IQ Contract Number:

Pricing:

Funds:

3. Description of Applicable Contract Provisions:

Summarize all contract provisions relevant to this determination.

4. Description of Supplies or Services:

Briefly describe the supplies or services to be provided, including make & model number where appropriate.

· Indicate whether the item to be procured is peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand name, product, or a feature of a product, peculiar to one manufacturer).

· If applicable, include quantities of supplies or period of performance for services. Provide information for any options included in the order.

· If the action is a modification to an existing order, distinguish clearly between the work covered by the basic order and the work to be obtained by the proposed modification; provided that if the action is to extend an existing order utilizing the -8 extension of services clause, this must be discussed.

5. Authority and Rationale:

The Contracting Officer shall give every awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for a delivery/task order exceeding the micro purchase threshold unless one of the following statutory exceptions applies. FAR 16.505(b)(2). Mark the applicable exception:

Factually establish the urgent need, provide the required performance/delivery schedule, address the lead-time involved, address why other contractors cannot fulfill the government’s needs, and explain the harm/serious injury that will come to the government if the justification is not approved.

Explain what is unique or highly specialized about the supply or service, what level of quality is required and why only the specified contractor can meet the requirement. If the requirement is an item peculiar to one manufacturer, justify the restriction to the item peculiar to one manufacturer.

Provide the original order number and explain why it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, for example, in terms of scope, period of performance or value. Describe the process by which all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. Specify how recent the previous competitive order was and the number of times this exception has been used; discuss why the specific requirement continues and why it is to the benefit of the Government for the particular contractor to continue this work.

When citing exception to the fair opportunity process under FAR 16.505(b)(2)(iv), identify the contract clause and language that specifies the minimum guaranteed amount.

Provide a citation to the statutory authorization and a brief description of its content, or identify the specified source or other agency.

6. Agency Actions to Take or Remove Barriers That Led to Fair Opportunity Exception (If applicable):

Describe the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration prior to any subsequent acquisition for the supplies of services is made. If no such actions have been taken, explain why.

7. Fair and Reasonable Price/Cost Determination: I hereby determine that the anticipated price/cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Insert a description of the techniques and applicable FAR provisions (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(b)) used to ensure award will be at fair and reasonable cost. For example, did the Contracting Officer use a comparison of industry cost for similar work? The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will primarily be an analysis of the contractor’s proposed cost. Additionally, the techniques identified at (e.g. FAR 15.404-1(c)(2)(iii)) will be used to further ensure award will be at fair and reasonable prices. In addition, specify whether or not Certified Cost and Pricing Data will be obtained.

Signature:

Date:

Name:

Title:

Contracting Officer

9. Technical / Requirements Certification: By my signature below, I certify that the supporting data under my review which is included in this Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity is accurate and complete.

Program Manager Name:

Position Title:

Email address:

Phone:

Program Manager Supervisor (or one level above Program Manager) Name:

Position Title:

Email address:

Signature:

Date:

10. Contracting Officer's Approval (Required for proposed contract not to exceed $700,000 (value calculated including all options)): I hereby certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. I approve this sole source justification subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

11. Legal Review:

All J&As greater than $68 million must have a legal review from the General Law Division of the Office of the General Counsel prior to sending it to the Department.

12. OPDIV Competition Advocate Approval (Required for proposed contract over $700,000 but not exceeding $13.5 million value calculated including all options)):

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

13. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization:

I have reviewed this justification and find that it adequately supports an exception to fair opportunity.

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

14. OPDIV HCA Approval (Required for proposed contract over $13.5 million but not exceeding $68 million value calculated including all options)):

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

15. Department Competition Advocate:

Concur:

Non-Concur:

Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

(The below approval paragraph is required if the cumulative contract value, including all options, exceeds $68 million.)

16. HHS Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval:

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of stated supplies/services being procured on the exception to the fair opportunity basis pursuant to the authority of paragraph 5, 41 U.S.C. 4101, as implemented by FAR 16.501-2.

State supplies/services being procured:

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304:

State the full statutory authority and FAR cite and title, consistent with paragraph 4, e.g. 41 U.S.C. 3304 Name:

Phone:

Signature:

Date:

11.0.0.20130303.1.892433.887364 Justification & Approval - Exemption to Fair Opportunity Health and Human Services Justification & Approval - Exemption to Fair Opportunity

The software being procured under this order is critical to achieving seamless operations and preventing voids in existing warranties. These licenses are so integrated into the existing IT infrastructure that introducing another software licensing would require redeveloping all these services and process which would be costly. All licensing updates must be tested prior to putting them into production and the addition of another software would require maintaining a duplicate testing environment, significantly increasing the cost of testing updates which is done several times a year.