Brand Name Justification_Redacted.pdf

2 | 4

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 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.

This procurement is required at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Calibration Center in Norfolk, VA. This standard is used in conjunction with Liquid Flow Calibrator PN:

CFP400 and utilized in two (2) Instrument Calibration Procedures (ICPs) to calibrate a wide variety of Turbine Flowmeters coming in from Navy Fleet Ships and Shore Sites.

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.

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.

If any other model is procured, the cost of modifying these ICPs is estimated at $35,565.60

This requirement is included in two (2) ICPs.

The real-time delay is estimated between 6-10 months to complete the ICP modifications at each step for the required research, reviews, and approvals throughout the technical, financial, and leadership chain.

Procurement of a model other than the one listed would impact the readiness on ships and submarines, causing ships to remain docked at ports awaiting mission readiness status.

For the reasons set forth in section 3 and 4, the Corona Division has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the type of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges the Corona Division will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.