BNJ-Signed-redacted.pdf

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

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

16 Jun 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 5

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

Specific Dell Laptops, such as the Precision 7560 that was once on the mandatory purchase list QEB2022B, require more power than generic or universal docking stations can offer. They accomplish this by using two USB-C connectors to deliver twice the power of a standard dock. The additional power makes Dell laptops faster and warmer than their competition. are using additional docks to facilitate their PACE plan, making the alternate duty locations ready for plug-and-go operation. Since they use Dell Precision 7560, they will need the appropriate equipment that will ensure standardized performance specifications.

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

This is a commercial product in accordance with FAR 2.101 "Commercial Item" definition therefore FAR Part 12 procedures will be used. This product requirement will be a competitive delivery order off of the GSA2gIT contract, therefore, FAR Subpart 16.5 will also be used. Additionally, a brand name justification will be utilized to justify limiting sources to only Dell and its authorized resellers. Lastly, per FAR 13.003(b)(1), the price of this acquisition falls between the Micro Purchase Threshold and the SAT, therefore it shall be set aside for small business concerns.

Based on the market research performed for this acquisition there is a reasonable assurance that adequate price competition exist. In addition, this office has procured similar Dell Docking Stations in the past which gives the Contracting Officer confidence that the quotes received will be fair reasonable.

(6) Other facts supporting the justification:

We do not believe there are any suitable third-party options that include the 240W power supply or the 210W power available at the dock, other than the WD19DC and the WD19DCS from Dell. The WD19DC has audio input/playback features that are not required to perform standardized operations which makes the WD19DCS model more justifiable to fulfill our MP requirement. Additionally, other manufactures do not supply the same power supply in continuity with the computers that the uses. According to market research from a previous procurement of Dell Docking Stations, other manufactures can not ensure that their Docking Stations will be compatible with all Dell products which would create a problem with liability and responsibility. If the competitors products should cause hardware malfunctions such as components being overloaded, the damage to the equipment would be costly and not covered by those manufacturers. The WD19DCS is fully compatible and meets the specifications of the equipment being used by our MP.

(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 Mission Partner and Contracting Office will perform market research to identify other solutions to meet this need for future acquisitions.

16 Jun 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 5

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.

16 Jun 2022 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 5

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.