Brand Name Justification_Redacted.pdf

1 | 4

BRAND NAME/SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION (FBO) SAT

LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION (GSA) SAT

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

(ID/IQ TAKS ORDER/DELIVERY ORDER) SAT

1. Description of Supplies/Services.

Part # DESCRIPTION QTY H2005-LR-IFB-ZP3C Hitachi Long Range Camera System 1

The requested supplies services represent the minimum requirements of the government, which have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

2. Regulatory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

FBO

FAR 13.106-1(b)(i) Soliciting from a single source

FAR 13.106-1(b)(ii) Particular brand-name item

GSA

FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(A) An urgent and compelling need exists

FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(B) Only one source 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 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(C) In the interest of economy and efficiency, the new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures (the original order or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures).

FAR 8.405-6 (b) Items peculiar to one manufacturer (brand-name item) ID/IQ Task Order/Delivery Order (e.g. NASA SEWP or ARMY CHESS)

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.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) 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

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) 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. [When utilizing this exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship

2 | 4 between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value).]

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

3. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Regulatory Authority.

a.) The Items Described in Paragraph 1 Must Be Compatible In All Aspects (Form, Fit And Function) With Existing Systems Presently Installed.

b.) A Patent, Copyright, or Proprietary Data Limits Competition.

c.) The Items Described in Paragraph 1 are “Direct Replacements” Parts/Components for Existing Equipment.

d.) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Supported By A Case Letter.

e.) Unusual and Compelling Urgency.

f.) Other: If required, discuss any other rationale that supports the use of a brand name/sole source for this effort.

4. Implication of Procuring another Brand/Manufacturer.

a.) Unacceptable Delays in Fulfilling the Agency’s Requirements.

b.) Substantial Duplication Of Cost To The Government That Is Not Expected To Be Recovered Through Competition.

c.) Other: If required, discuss any other implication of procuring another brand/manufacturer.

Hitachi is the top camera brand and has proven its reliability. Hitachi is currently used in multiple deployed systems and has proven its reliability in various environments and situations.

3 | 4

5. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition.

CERTIFICATION

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting data/documentation, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

APPROVALS

I certify that the Customer representations above have been verified, and are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the processing of this brand name/sole-source justification precludes the use of full and open competition.

The tactical area safety surveillance system (TASSS) is a tested and certified system. All components of the TASSS system, including the Hitachi HD cameras, have been through a rigorous testing procedure and has been deployed on various ranges. Other cameras have been tested only to find that Hitachi is what works best with our customer's requirements.

If a different brand named camera is selected, these are a few tasks that need to be completed, costing the government more money in time and labor. Testing: Each new product must be tested then integrated into the TASSS system before deployment. And since we build the TASSS system only when it's ordered, we don't store complete systems in house. We would have to buy more unnecessary components to properly test a new camera. (At least 45 60 days, not including procurement) Documentation: We would need to write new test procedures, new maintenance processes, and new system diagrams to properly document a new camera. (60 90 days) Spares: Since we have so many already deployed units, getting the same brand name would allow for easy replacements.

For the reasons described in Paragraph 3f, NSWC Corona Division has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NSWC Corona Division will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

4 | 4

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that completing this purchase as a brand name/sole source is in the best interest of the government.

CONTRACTING OFFICER:

Name, Title, Code Phone No. Date

NGUYEN-TU.THUY-

TIEN.N.1561468024

Digitally signed by NGUYEN-

TU.THUY-TIEN.N.1561468024

Date: 2022.07.26 09:42:39 -07'00'