AITC PITC JnA Redacted.pdf

AITC PITC Brand Name Cisco Switches VA-26-00074579

SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION

1. Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Procurement, Acquisition, and Logistics Technology Acquisition Center 23 Christopher Way Eatontown, NJ 07724

2. This requirement will be accomplished via:

[ X ] New Purchase Order [ ] Modification No.

[ ] Purchase Card

Purchase Order will be:

[ X ] Firm Fixed Price [ ] Cost Type Contract:

[ ] Time and Materials [ ] Other (Specify):

Type of Funds (e.g., Supply Fund, Franchise Fund, IT, etc.):

[ X ] IRP Funds

3. Description of Supplies or Services.

[ X ] Supplies Item name: Brand name Cisco switches with appropriate software, management licenses, and power supplies, as well as Axiom Small Form-factor Pluggable (SFP) transceivers.

Part of or used with: The devices will be integrated into the VA network under an existing Baseline.

Estimated total cost (including option quantity, if any):

4. Authority Cited.

[ X ] RFO 12.102(a) For acquisitions valued at or below the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), document the decision that only one source is available and the basis for the decision.

[ ] Other FAR Authority _________________

5. Reason for Authority Cited.

The proposed sources for this action are Cisco and Axiom.

[ ] The supplies are urgently needed for the following reasons:

[ ] Explain exclusive licensing agreements:

[ X ] Explain need for brand name:

Non-availability of the item in a timely manner will have the following impact: The existing network infrastructure at both facilities consists exclusively of Cisco switching, and network management hardware and software. Austin Information Technology Center (AITC) currently operates over 260 Cisco switches; the Philadelphia Information Technology Center (PITC) operates over 150 Cisco switches. Introducing non-Cisco equipment into these environments would create significant interoperability failures incompatible with the current architecture and mission requirements. The technical basis for this determination is detailed across six distinct areas. The AITC and PITC switching environments utilize proprietary stacking and chassis aggregation technologies. The Cisco StackWise and Virtual Switching System (VSS) technologies to aggregate multiple physical switches into a single logical switching unit. These technologies allow distributed switch stacks to appear as a single management and forwarding entity, enabling non-disruptive software upgrades, sub-second failover, and unified spanning tree and routing domains. StackWise uses a proprietary backplane interconnect and ring topology with dedicated stacking cables and ASICs that are unique to Cisco hardware. VSS similarly relies on Cisco-specific control plane logic implemented in Cisco Catalyst and Nexus silicon.

No competing manufacturer replicates StackWise or VSS at the protocol or hardware level. Multi-Chassis Link Aggregation (MLAG) implementations from alternate vendors (e.g., Juniper Virtual Chassis, Arista MLAG) are architecturally distinct, use different control plane messaging, and are not interoperable with Cisco stacking technologies. Connecting a non-Cisco switch into an existing StackWise or VSS domain is not technically possible; the new switch would operate as a standalone device outside the stack, eliminating the unified management, failover, and forwarding benefits that the current architecture depends upon. Expanding the existing stacks with non-Cisco hardware would require dissolving and rebuilding affected switch stacks — causing extended downtime across the services those stacks support.

There are clear operating system and control plane incompatibilities. The AITC and PITC environments run Cisco IOS, IOS-XE, and NX-OS operating systems, each of which uses Cisco-proprietary command syntax, configuration schema, and internal data models. Network configurations — including access control lists (ACLs), Quality of Service (QoS) policy maps, Virtual LAN (VLAN) databases, Spanning Tree Protocol (STP) bridge priorities, and routing protocol parameters — are written in IOS/NX-OS syntax and are not portable to any other vendor's operating system.

Routing protocols such as EIGRP (Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol), which is Cisco-proprietary, are in use within these environments. Alternate vendors do not support EIGRP natively; replacing or adding non-Cisco equipment would require migration away from EIGRP to an open-standard alternative (e.g., OSPF or BGP), requiring a redesign of the routing architecture, re-addressing of route summarization boundaries, and extensive regression testing — all at significant cost, risk, and operational disruption. Additionally, Cisco's implementation of industry-standard protocols such as RSTP, OSPF, and 802.1Q trunk negotiation (via Cisco's Dynamic Trunking Protocol, DTP) includes vendor-specific extensions and default behaviors that differ from alternate vendor implementations, creating interoperability edge cases that require engineering remediation.

There is a unified network management platform dependency. The AITC and PITC data centers are managed through Cisco DNA Center (now Cisco Catalyst Center) and Cisco Nexus Dashboard, which serve as the single pane of glass for network provisioning, monitoring, policy enforcement, and software lifecycle management.

In FY2025, the VA renewed its licensing for Cisco Nexus Dashboard Data Broker specifically to support monitoring and flow management in these environments.

Cisco DNA Center and Nexus Dashboard communicate with network devices exclusively via Cisco-native interfaces: NETCONF with Cisco-specific YANG data models, Cisco's proprietary southbound APIs, and telemetry streaming formats tied to IOS-XE and NX-OS. These platforms do not support management of third-party switching hardware. Introducing non-Cisco switches would create unmanaged network segments — devices that fall outside the existing inventory, policy, and monitoring framework — resulting in gaps in visibility, configuration drift, and degraded incident response capability. Managing those devices would require procurement of a separate, parallel management platform with its own licensing, training, and integration costs, and would eliminate the unified operational model that underpins VA network operations at both sites.

VA’s network security posture at AITC and PITC relies on Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) for network access control (NAC) and Cisco TrustSec for software-defined network segmentation. These two systems work in conjunction with the Cisco switching infrastructure at the hardware and protocol level and cannot function equivalently with non-Cisco equipment.

Cisco ISE enforces 802.1X port-based authentication, MAC Authentication Bypass (MAB), and posture assessment by communicating directly with Cisco switches via RADIUS Change of Authorization (CoA) and Cisco-specific RADIUS vendor-specific attributes (VSAs). While 802.1X is an open standard, Cisco ISE's advanced enforcement features — including dynamic VLAN assignment, downloadable ACLs (dACLs), and Security Group Tag (SGT) propagation — depend on Cisco-specific RADIUS extensions that non-Cisco switches do not support. Deploying non-Cisco switches would reduce ISE enforcement capability to basic 802.1X only, eliminating dynamic policy enforcement and posture-based access control for devices connected to those ports.

Cisco TrustSec assigns Security Group Tags (SGTs) to traffic flows at ingress and enforces access policy at egress using Security Group ACLs (SGACLs). SGT propagation across the switching fabric uses Cisco Meta Data (CMD) frames embedded in 802.1Q Ethernet headers — a Cisco-proprietary mechanism. Non- Cisco switches cannot read, propagate, or enforce SGTs, meaning any traffic transiting a non-Cisco switch would have its SGT classification stripped, bypassing TrustSec segmentation policy and creating a security gap that would place the VA out of compliance with its approved security architecture and applicable NIST SP

800-53 controls, specifically AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and SC-7 (Boundary Protection).

The AITC and PITC networks enforce end-to-end QoS policies to prioritize mission-critical traffic — including VoIP, video conferencing, and real-time clinical data — over lower-priority bulk traffic. These QoS policies are implemented using Cisco Modular QoS CLI (MQC), a Cisco-proprietary configuration framework that defines traffic classes, policy maps, and service policies in a syntax and structure that is not portable to non-Cisco hardware.

QoS enforcement on Cisco Nexus and Catalyst switches uses hardware-based queuing implemented in Cisco's proprietary ASICs (e.g., Cisco UADP — Unified Access Data Plane). The number of hardware queues, the scheduling algorithms (WRR, CBWFQ, LLQ), and the DSCP-to-queue mappings are tuned specifically for the Cisco hardware in use. Non-Cisco switches implement QoS using different hardware queue architectures and different configuration frameworks, meaning existing QoS policy maps could not be migrated without a full re-engineering effort.

A mismatch in QoS behavior at the boundary between Cisco and non-Cisco switches would result in inconsistent traffic prioritization, potentially degrading the performance of latency-sensitive clinical and administrative applications that Veterans and VA staff depend upon.

The data center switching fabric at AITC and PITC is built on a Cisco spine-and-leaf architecture using Cisco Nexus switches and leverages Cisco's Virtual Port Channel (vPC) technology for redundant, loop-free Layer 2 multi-pathing. vPC is a Cisco-proprietary feature that allows two Cisco Nexus switches to present a single logical port channel to downstream devices, providing both link redundancy and active-active forwarding without the convergence delays of traditional Spanning Tree Protocol.

vPC peer links, keepalive links, and the associated vPC domain configuration are Cisco-proprietary constructs. A non-Cisco switch cannot participate in a vPC domain as either a peer or a downstream member. Connecting a non-Cisco leaf switch to an existing Cisco vPC spine pair would require falling back to a single uplink or standard Link Aggregate and Control Protocol (LACP) port channel with active-standby behavior, eliminating the active-active redundancy and sub-second failover that the current fabric design guarantees. In a mission-critical data center environment supporting Veterans Health Administration (VHA), National Cemetery Administration (NCA), and Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) workloads, the reduction in redundancy and increase in failover time introduced by non-Cisco equipment represents an unacceptable operational risk.

Axiom transceivers are required to meet the VA's minimum needs based on the following government-verified, cost-substantiated rationale. Axiom transceivers have undergone rigorous VA testing and certification confirming reliable, standards-compliant operation across multiple original equipment manufacturers' (OEM) switching platforms currently deployed within the VA enterprise network, including, Cisco and Juniper. This certified interoperability stands in contrast to OEM-locked transceivers, which are frequently coded or firmware-restricted to function only with a single manufacturer's switch hardware, and gives the VA a device that is fully portable across its heterogeneous switch environment. Because Axiom transceivers are not tied to a single switch OEM, the VA avoids the operational and financial risk of vendor lock-in associated with proprietary, OEM-branded optics, preserving its ability to competitively procure switching hardware in the future without being constrained by transceiver compatibility and without exposure to sole-source pricing leverage from any single switch manufacturer. This standardization also simplifies technician training, installation, and troubleshooting, since VA network and biomedical IT staff can support one qualified product line across facilities rather than maintaining familiarity with multiple OEM-specific optics that each carry different part numbers, coding, and compatibility restrictions.

This same multi-vendor interoperability directly improves the efficiency of VA spare parts inventories, since a single Axiom unit can be redeployed to support any compatible switch in the VA's inventory regardless of manufacturer, allowing a smaller, consolidated stock of Axiom transceivers to cover a wider range of hardware than an equivalent stock of OEM-locked optics tied to individual switch brands. VA currently maintains an established inventory of Axiom-compatible accessories, batteries, and spare parts across the VA enterprise, reflecting prior VA testing, certification, and procurement decisions already made at government expense. Introducing a new or OEM-specific transceiver brand at this stage would create a parallel logistics tail, requiring the VA to stock, track, and manage duplicate sets of spare optics, accessories, and batteries for functionally equivalent equipment, and would increase sustainment costs through both duplicate procurement and the added burden of managing multiple part numbers, vendors, and warranty channels. It would also reduce spare parts commonality across facilities — raising the risk of stockouts or delayed repairs where the newly introduced brand is not stocked — and would require redundant technician training and documentation updates, adding further cost and schedule impact. Continued use of Axiom transceivers avoids this unnecessary duplication of investment, preserves the VA's existing certification and logistics posture, and results in a lower total cost of ownership than introducing an alternate, less interoperable product line.

For the technical reasons stated above across operating system compatibility, proprietary stacking protocols, management platform dependency, security architecture integration, QoS policy enforcement, and high availability fabric design, only Cisco brand network switches are capable of meeting the Government's minimum requirements for this expansion.

Any alternate brand of switching equipment would be technically incompatible with the existing infrastructure at AITC and PITC and would result in unacceptable risk to interoperability, security, operational continuity, and the delivery of benefits and healthcare services to Veterans.

[ ] This is a follow-on contract. Awarding this contract to a new source will result in $_____ of duplication of cost as follows:

[ ] Other rationale for not promoting competition, as follows:

6. Efforts to Obtain Competition.

[ X ] There is only one responsible source for this item. Efforts made to locate additional sources are described under the “Market Research” paragraph of this document. There is no competition anticipated for this acquisition. Procurement data does not include any unnecessary requirements that may inhibit competition.

[ ] The sources proposed above are the only sources that can meet the urgent requirements for the reasons given above. Procurement data does not include any unnecessary requirements that may inhibit competition.

7. Actions to Increase Competition.

[ ] A competitive technical data package (TDP) is being prepared by______________.

It will not be available for this procurement; however, it is forecast to be available by

[ ] The solicitation will contain requirements for the acquisition of a competitive TDP that will allow for future full and open competition.

[ X ] Other actions that will be accomplished to increase competition: The Government will continue to conduct market research to ascertain if there are changes in the marketplace that would enable future actions to be competed. All future requirements will be handled on a case-by-case basis to determine any future acquisition strategy.

8. Market Research.

Market research was conducted by VA Technical Personnel during the time of May 2026 and July 2026. The methods used and results are as indicated below:

[ X ] A notice soliciting additional sources of supply was published in the Contracting Opportunities Page on July 15, 2026.

On July 15, 2026, the Contract Specialist (CS) posted a Request for Information (RFI) on Contract Opportunities at SAM.gov under NAICS code 541519. The RFI closed on July 22, 2026, with eleven (11) responses received. Nine (9) were SDVOSBs, one Small Business, and one Large Business. Of the 11 submissions, the Government technical experts evaluated each submission for capability and found that nine (9) of the eleven (11) submissions were technically capable; seven SDVOSBs, one Small Business, and one Large Business. The two submissions that were not technically capable were Axiom Group and semperMade LLC. Axiom Group is not a reselling partner to Cisco and Axiom; and semperMade LLC is a software engineering firm that does not sell hardware. Details of the results of the technical evaluation of the RFI submissions are included in the following table:

Company Name Company Size Contract Vehicles

Capability of Meeting Government Requirement

Axiom Group VOSB, SDVOSB Open Market

No, not a reselling partner of Cisco

ZigTech LLC HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB

NASA

SEWP Yes semperMade

LLC

HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB

Open Market

No, as this company is a software engineering firm that does not sell the hardware listed in the PD.

Cluster

Technology Group, LLC

HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB

Open Market Yes

Better Direct, LLC

HUBZone, VOSB, SDVOSB

SEWP,

GSA Yes

World Wide Technology N/A SEWP, GSA Yes

Wolex Technologies

LLC

VOSB, SDVOSB Open

Market Yes

MITSTRIKE LLC VOSB, SDVOSB Open Market Yes

StoneVeil Advisory, LLC N/A GSA Yes

Questivity, Inc. N/A GSA Yes

Mize Solutions

LLC

WOSB, VOSB,

SDVOSB

SEWP,

GSA,

Open

Market

Yes

[ ] No response was received.

[ ] _______ companies expressed interest, but did not submit any data supporting that they can supply the item.

[ ] The following companies submitted data claiming that they can supply the item.

However, the government evaluation of the data resulted in a negative determination.

[ ] The following companies were contacted by telephone and each one stated they did not make a product that would be interchangeable in form, fit and function with the item being procured.

[ X ] The market research consisted of the following:

The Government’s technical experts conducted extensive market research beginning in May 2026. Specifically, the Office of Strategic Sourcing (OSS) issued a Market Research Request (MRR) on May 4, 2026, which closed on May 11, 2026, via the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Solutions for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP) V Government Wide Acquisition Contract (GWAC) website to ascertain if there were any other sources that could meet the Government’s requirements. Responses were received from six (6) sources, however, three (3) (MicroTech, NewTech, and Westwind) of these sources did not demonstrate any capabilities to meet the Government requirements. Both MicroTech and NewTech provided partial quotes that did not include the SFP transceivers per the requirement. Westwind provided a comparable Juniper quote, but due to the brand name requirements of this acquisition, the provided quote would not integrate with the existing datacenters equipment The three (3) remaining sources are Abba, Alvarez and Techanax, which all met the Governments’ requirements. Details of which are included in the following table:

Company Name Company Size Contract Vehicles

Capability of Meeting Government

Requirement Abba Small Business SEWP Yes

Alvarez VOSB, SDVOSB SEWP Yes

Microtech VOSB, SDVOSB SEWP No, does not meet

SFP

NewTech VOSB, SDVOSB SEWP No, does not meet

SFP

Techanax VOSB, SDVOSB SEWP Yes

Westwind VOSB, SDVOSB SEWP

No, provided a Juniper quote which does not meet specifications

The CS conducted additional market research, in July 2026, by identifying 125 contract holders that are resellers of brand name Cisco for AITC PITC by utilizing the NASA SEWP V GWAC Market Research Tool. Of these 125 resellers, 29 are verified SDVOSBs, 3 are VOSBs, 27 are Woman-Owned Small Businesses, 6 are HUBzone Small Businesses, 30 are Small Businesses, and 30 are Large Businesses. Furthermore, NASA SEWP V has a dynamic catalog where line items can be added based on customer requests provided that the required item or service is within the scope of the NASA SEWP V contract suite and therefore additional competition may be achieved.

[ ] Market research was not conducted because:

[ ] Other, as follows:

9. Interested Sources.

[ ] No other source has expressed written interest in supplying this item.

[ X ] The following companies have expressed written interest in supplying this item and/or service. However, they are not being considered for this procurement for the reasons given below:

Please see Section 8 for the list of companies that have expressed written interest in supplying this procurement but are not being considered. Explanation is also above.

[ X ] Solicitation covering this procurement will be synopsized in the Contracting Opportunities Page and any bids/proposals received shall be evaluated.

[ ] Solicitation covering this procurement will not be synopsized in the Contracting Opportunities Page pursuant to FAR 5.202.