Brand Name-Sole Source Form_ISRG Furniture_KO SIgned.pdf

Decision for Brand-Name or Sole-Source Requirement (Acquisitions < SAT)

Authority: Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) RFO 12.102(a)

Instructions: This form must be completed by the requiring activity to document their decision on the use of a brand-name description or a single source for an acquisition at or below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). The information must clearly explain why the specified product is the only one that can meet the Government’s minimum need. Lack of advanced planning or funding availability are not acceptable reasons.

Section 1: Acquisition Details

Requirement / Project Title:

Short Description of Supply/Service:

Brand Name or Vendor:

Estimated Cost:

Section 2: Basis for Restricting Competition

Please select the primary reason for this restriction and provide a detailed explanation. The explanation must address the unique features of the requested item and why they are essential.

A. Unique Capability / Essential Characteristics:

The requested brand-name product has a unique feature or specific characteristic that is essential to the Government’s requirements, and no other product can satisfy this need.

B. Compatibility / Interoperability:

The requested item is the only one compatible with existing equipment, systems, or services. Using a different brand would result in unacceptable duplication of cost, loss of warranty, or mission degradation.

Section 3: Reasoning for Restricting Competition

Demonstrate, in detail, why this specific item or service, is the only one that meets your requirement:

Section 4: Requiring Activity Certification

As the Technical Representative, I certify that the information provided in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name:______________________________ Signature:______________________________ Date:_____________

Section 5: Contract Findings

Section 6: Contracting Certification

As the Contracting Officer, I certify that the information provided in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name:______________________________ Signature:______________________________ Date:_____________

The 151st Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Group (151 ISRG) currently utilizes HON brand modular furniture across Buildings 302 and 304. This existing infrastructure was established to support the dynamic workspace needs of the organization and its personnel.

2.0 Brand Name Justification

Maintaining the HON brand for this procurement is imperative to ensure strict physical and functional compatibility with the currently installed systems. The 151 ISRG mission requirements are subject to rapid and frequent changes, necessitating the regular reconfiguration of workspaces to keep pace with operational demands.

Procuring the HON brand ensures immediate interoperability, allowing personnel to connect new components to existing ones efficiently. Introducing an alternative brand would result in incompatible hardware and mounting systems, rendering the new and existing furniture incapable of being interconnected.

3.0 Mission Impact

The Government has previously executed substantial contracts to establish the current HON furniture footprint, investing $78,000 in Building 302 and $84,000 in Building 304 (a combined prior investment of $162,000).

Procuring a different manufacturer's system would fragment the workspace and severely hinder the unit's ability to reconfigure layouts as 151 ISRG mission requirements dictate. Furthermore, introducing an incompatible system would fail to leverage these previous investments, forcing the government to maintain multiple, incompatible furniture inventories and resulting in a duplication of costs. Standardizing on the HON brand ensures operational continuity, prevents waste, and maximizes the utility of the existing $162,000 investment.

The requiring activity has demonstrated that the requested furniture must be compatible and inter-operable with existing HON modular office systems currently installed throughout buildings 302 and 304. Use of another manufacturer would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that is not expected to be recovered through competition, including removal and replacement of existing infrastructure, reconfiguration costs, workstation incompatibility, and mission disruption.

Based on the information provided, the Contracting Officer finds that limiting competition for this requirement is justified and that no other source can satisfy the Government's requirement without unacceptable delays, additional costs, or degradation to mission capability.