BNJ_for_WCH_Relocation_Redacted.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY March 2018 Page 2 of 3

(4) Justification for restricting consideration to a brand-name item:

FAR 16.505(a)(4)(i) states that requirements must be justified and approved when restricting consideration to an item particular to one manufacturer. Brand name items shall not be used unless the particular brand name, product, or feature is essential to the Government's requirements and market research indicates other companies' similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs. Furthermore, the exception to the fair opportunity process at FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) states 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.

The DCGS is a weapon system comprised of several cores and hub sites. The WCH is one of those hubs and is thus part of the DCGS. The hardware listed in the BOM for this effort is required to support the systems capabilities that we intend to move to the new MILCON. This exception to the fair opportunity process is necessary because the current Router/Switch employed under DCGS-16-002 Network Enterprise Transition Mod (NetMod) has been approved as the data-center high speed DCGS Network Enterprise switching solution. This same brand-name equipment is required for use based on the requirements of the

480th Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Wing's transition of the DCGS Operation Center (DOC), DCGS PED Operation Center-West (DPOC-W) and WCH to New MILCON as these particular brand-name products or features are essential to the Government's requirements and market research indicates other companies' similar products or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's needs.

Use of other products would add complexity and increased risk to delivering a robust product to the warfighter. Use of products other than already utilized in the design would also add cost and complexity to the sustainment of the weapon system, extending the logistics tail, and therefore resulting in additional weeks of engineering redesign, testing, and certification by both the integrating contractor and the Government in an already tight schedule. Ultimately, due to these detriments, restricting consideration to brand-name items will be advantageous to the WCH Relocation effort and to DCGS in regards to reducing schedule risk and future cost risk.

As a result of these brand-name items already having been evaluated by other DCGS programs, they have gone through approval by security, are on the government's approved items list, and have passed tests required for fielding with the DCGS system. Generic, non-brand-name items would have to go through recertification which would cost . Also, these items would be unavailable for use during the time periods needed for re-training. This estimate is based on the certification costs for AF DCGS Version 10.2 (and later). Under 10.2, when new baseline software had to be certified, this involved a lengthy process of testing at the Contractor's plant followed by field testing at a DGS Site. This retraining, testing, analysis, discussion, reporting, and decision making would usually involve about two years' time and would typically cost at least acquisition is through September 2020 and therefore falls within the NETCENTS-2 NetCentric Products performance period.

(5) Contracting Officer's determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

Quotes will be requested from all twenty-four (24) NETCENTS-2 NetCentric Products contract holders under the NETCENTS-2 contract vehicle, giving each a fair opportunity to provide the brand-name products included in this Request for Quote (RFQ).

Adequate price competition exists, which will ensure that the Government pays a fair and reasonable price. Additionally, a price analysis will be performed in order to ensure that the overall price being paid is fair and reasonable to the Government.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

The brand-name products are part of the many commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) products that make up or support the AF DCGS. In accordance with FAR 10.002(b)(2), the Network Communications Division performs continual market research on current, new, and emerging cyber technology for the AF DCGS. This research is accomplished through product evaluation, meetings with industry, attendance at technology conferences and trade shows, review of industry publications, and internet searches. Online industry documentation has shown that the product support required to keep the software and hardware in the AF DCGS current and operational is only available from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and their authorized resellers. Market research validated that the brand-name product support covered by this justification is required to satisfy the information assurance requirements levied by the DoD certification and accreditation process. Market research found that only the brand-named products, which are part of the current AF DCGS Baseline, could be fielded without the need to re-certify the

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Justification for an Exception to Fair Opportunity or to Use Brand-Name Restriction baseline.

(7) Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to decreasing the use of brand-name items before any subsequent acquisition of the supplies or services:

The brand-name products are part of the many COTS products that make up or support the AF DCGS. In accordance with FAR 10.002(b)(2), the Network Communications Division performs continual market research on current, new, and emerging cyber technology for the AF DCGS. This research is accomplished through product evaluation, meetings with industry, attendance at technology conferences and trade shows, review of industry publications, and internet searches. Online industry documentation has shown that the product support required to keep the software and hardware in the AF DCGS current and operational is only available from the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and their authorized resellers. Market research validated that these brand-name products are required to satisfy the information assurance requirements levied by the DoD certification and accreditation process. Utilizing these various forms of market research would allow the Government to identify qualified vendors and their capabilities that would aide the Government in removing or overcoming any barriers to decreasing the use of brand-name items before any subsequent acquisition of the supplies or services.

(8) Program Manager's certification that supporting data is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

(9) Contracting Officer's certification that the justification is accurate and complete:

As evidenced by my signature below, I certify that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

(10) Approving Official's determination that FAR16.505(a)(4)(i) applies to the order:

As evidenced by my signature below, I hereby determine that the use of brand-name restriction applies.