Attachment 3 - Brand Name JA NetApp Filer Replacement.pdf
PDF 581 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- FA303026Q0031
About this file
This is a Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction document submitted by the 17th Contracting Squadron at Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas, on behalf of the Air Education and Training Command (AETC).
The 17th Training Range Squadron (17 TRSS) requires acquisition of a NetApp FAS 2820 Storage Appliance to replace the current NetApp storage filer on the JWICS Tier 2 network. The current hardware has reached End of Life (EOL) and End of Support (EoS) status, necessitating replacement to maintain critical mission capability for the Junior ROTC Integrated Computer Systems (JWICS) Tier 2 secondary data storage infrastructure. The requirement is designated as an Individual brand-name justification under FAR 16.505(a)(4)(i), with a Purchase Request/Local ID Number of F1Z50X6042A001. The brand-name justification identifies the NetApp FAS 2820 Storage Appliance as the only product capable of meeting requirements at the required quality level because it is the only Department of Defense Information Networks Approved Products List (DODIN APL) approved storage solution on the JWICS network baseline. NetApp's solution uniquely provides integrated cybersecurity features, Machine Learning technologies for threat detection and prevention, and compatibility with existing NetApp Tier 2 storage devices and SnapVault backup technologies. The justification emphasizes that alternative brand storage appliances would require network baseline configuration changes, independent backup software modifications, or complete Tier 2 hardware replacement, creating incompatibility with current infrastructure. The Contracting Officer determined the anticipated cost to be fair and reasonable using Lowest Price Technically Acceptable methodology. Actions to overcome barriers in future acquisitions include engineering research into alternative products and solutions that may successfully integrate into the TRSS infrastructure. The justification was certified by Daniel L. Majkowski (17 TRSS/TSXP) on 28 May 2026 and approved by Mouhamed Sarr, Senior Contracting Officer, 17 CONS, on 18 June 2026.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction
CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATIONCONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION
v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 4v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 4
Instructions for Completing the Template IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B)
(2) State whether the action is a new order or a modification to an existing order. Identify the basic multiple award contract number and the order number for the current action. Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g., Firm Fixed price, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, etc.).
(3) Specifically describe the supplies/services to be acquired including the price/cost and quantity of each item in the order and the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether services are performance-based, and if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. State the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order. Explain how the requirement/order fits under the scope of the basic multiple award contracts.
(Note: The Contracting Officer must ensure that the order is issued within the period of performance and within the maximum value of the contract).
(4) Include the appropriate exception from FAR 16.505 (b)(2) and the supporting rationale. FAR16.505(b)(1)(i) requires the Contracting Officer to provide each awardee under a multiple award contract, a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $3,000 unless a statutory exception applies. The specific exception that precludes the fair opportunity process for this acquisition is FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(__) [Insert A,B, C, D, or E]. If a brand name product description is being justified, use this section to explain why the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and why other companies' similar products/services do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.
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”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the mission impact if awarded to any other contractor. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements of urgency are not acceptable.
FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B): “Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized”. When using this exception provide a detailed justification, with supporting documentation, as evidence of the “unique or highly specialized” nature of the procurement. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.
Supporting documentation may be attached to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable.
FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C): “The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency as 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 using this exception provide information on the previously competed order under this contract and detail the economies and efficiencies that will be obtained by going sole source for the follow-on order. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.
General statements are not acceptable.
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.”
Discuss the market research that was conducted by the user/technical team/contracting officer among the supplies/services of all awardees that resulted in the conclusion that a fair opportunity exception applied. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of FAR 16.505(b)(1) and DFARS 216.505-70 could not be met. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale. If any other awardee expressed interest in fulfilling the requirement, but was not considered a potential source, explain why that awardee cannot provide the required supplies/perform the service.
Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction
CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATIONCONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION
v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 4v 18 Jan 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 4
If the use of a brand name purchase description is being justified, the market research should include an analysis of any industry proposed alternative products or approaches to meeting the requirements. Additionally, the Government's efforts to identify as many potential sources as practicable offering the required brand name item(s) should be addressed.
(5) This paragraph needs to be tailored based on the types of CLINs in the order and the pricing arrangements on the basic multiple award contract. If the contract did not establish the price for the supply or service, the Contracting Officer must establish prices for each order IAW FAR 15.4. The paragraph needs to describe the steps that will ensure that the prices/estimated cost of the order will be fair and reasonable. For example, even if firm-fixed prices were obtained under adequate price competition in the award of the multiple award contract, the Contracting Officer still needs to consider market conditions and other factors that may have changed since contract award and explain the basis in the determination that prices/costs are fair and reasonable prior to award of the order.
(6) Provide any other facts supporting the use of exceptions to the fair opportunity process.
(7) Include a statement of the actions, if any, to be to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .