C14 - Redacted BNJ.docx

Subj: BRAND NAME JUSTIFICATION TO PROCURE PELICAN SHIPPING CASES (Purchase Request 1301052421)

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Brand Name Justification.”

This is a brand name justification. Contracting activity is NSWC-PCD, Code 024, 110 Vernon Ave., Panama City, FL, 32407.

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved.

This action will award a firm fixed price contract to authorized vendors of the items listed in Section 3 of this document.

3. A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs (including the estimated).

This acquisition will be conducted using simplified acquisition procedures with a total estimated value less than $25,000. The Government’s minimum needs have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel. This memo does not authorize acquisition for other requirements. This acquisition will be conducted using simplified acquisition procedures with a total dollar value above micro-purchase levels, but not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000.00. The contract action will be funded through Navy Working Capital funds.

4. Identification of the justification rationale and, if applicable, a demonstration of the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications to provide the required supply or service.

10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1). Application for brand name description FAR 6.302-1(c).

The Naval Surface Warfare Center Panama City Division (NSWC PCD) HELM project has an immediate need for the cases listed in Section 3 of this document to support project proto-typing efforts. The project has purchased different cases to test and have selected this case as the case that fits their current need for particular pieces of equipment. As such, the project has utilized this case in their system designs. If another case were to be selected, the case would have to be evaluated, both for functionality and logistically (palletization), resulting in project delays and cost over-runs.

As such, the Government does not expect significant savings through competition and does expect significant and unacceptable delays that will negatively impact this requirement.

Therefore, it is in the Governments’ best interest to acquire the Pelican-Hardigg brand as listed in Section 3.

5. A determination by the ordering activity contracting officer that the order represents the best value consistent with FAR 13.106-1(b).

The Contracting Officer has determined that the order represents the best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (such as considering price, special features, administrative costs) to meet the Government’s needs.

6. A description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

For the reasons specified in paragraph 4 above, Pelican-Hardigg is the only brand that can meet the Government’s needs.

7. Any other facts supporting the justification.

None.

8. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made.

As stated in paragraph 4 above, less is the only brand that can meet this requirement.