01-H4WM04 Brand Name Justification 2023 11 29 1345 hrs.pdf

Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 5March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 1 of 5

NOTE: If a Justification was approved for the preceding acquisition, a copy of the approved Justification for the predecessor action must be included in the staff package for approval of the instant Justification. This applies to Justification staff packages that are submitted for review and approval at a level above the contracting officer. The predecessor Justification will be used as a reference document by the approving official.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document? New Amended ( Prior to Award Only! )

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan? Yes No

Funding level for this acquisition: >SAT and < $750K > $750K and < $15M

Contracting Activity: Maintenance Contracting Branch (AFSC/PZIMC), Tinker AFB, OK

Purchase Request / Local ID Number: None/H4WM04

Program / Project (and PE, if applicable): MTS Fatigue Test System

Program Type (PEO or Other Contracting): Other Contracting

Authority: AFFARS 5313.501 - 10 U.S.C. 3572, Implementation of Simplified Acquisition Procedures (41 U.S.C. 1901)

AFFARS 5313.501 - 10 U.S.C. 3403, Special Emergency Procurement Authority (41 U.S.C. 1903)

Estimated Contract Cost (including options): $749,677.26 Justification Type: Class Individual

COORDINATION ( AFFARS 5306.304(a)) Sign and Save Procedure

** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

Date

04 Dec 2023

Brandon Blesi, Materials Engineer

76 MXSG/MXDTAC-1; 405-582-9600

brandon.blesi.1@us.af.mil

Signature

X

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a) )

Date

05 Dec 2023

Marc J Kreienbrink, Contracting Officer

AFSC/PZIMC; 405-739-5799

marc.kreienbrink.1@us.af.mil

Signature

Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items

March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 5March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 5

I. Contracting Activity.

Department of the Air Force Maintenance Contracting Branch (AFSC/PZIMC) Tinker AFB, OK

Purchase Request # is not yet assigned

II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed.

This individual justification authorizes the use of Brand Name procedures per FAR 11.105 to solicit and issue a firm-fixed-price (FFP) commercial purchase order a Fatigue Test System manufactured by MTS Systems Corporation (MTS) of Eden Prairie, MN. MTS' Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code is 34145.

This is for a new contract and is not a bridge action.

The estimated dollar value of this contract will be $749,677.26.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

The contractor will provide us with an MTS Fatigue Test System. A complete list of the required items is below with a projected cost of $749k. Estimated delivery date is April 2024 with a period of performance three months from date of delivery.

Requirement Summary:

a. Two 250 kN Servohydraulic Fatigue Load Frames with Extended Height and Tie Bars

b. One 100 kN Servohydraulic Fatigue Load Frame with Extended Height and Tie Bar

c. Extensometers for strain-control, low-cycle fatigue testing, KIC and JIC crack growth testing

d. Specimen grips (collet and high-temperature)

e. Alignment system package used to align grips per ASTM E1012 standard

f. Direct Potential Drop (DCPD) system for fatigue crack growth rate measurement

g. Software, controllers, CPUs - compatible with currently-owned MTS software in use (includes local networking options capability to remotely control multiple MTS frames from a single computer workstation)

h. All other tools, kits, cables, hoses, adapters, plugs, and other equipment required to use/operate the FTS

The projected price for this system is $749,677.26, and the estimated delivery time for this system is nine months after receipt of the purchase order.

IV. Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.

AFFARS 5313.501 - 10 U.S.C. 3572, Implementation of Simplified Acquisition Procedures (41 U.S.C. 1901)

V. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above (applicability of authority).

Fatigue testing is required to validate additively manufactured material (powder), builds, and printers for air worthiness. It is also utilized by Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) and System Program Office (SPO) organizations to determine allowable damage tolerance (crack growth rate). This data is used to predict service life of weapon systems. Testing systems must meet performance requirements listed in the following engineering test standards (but not limited to) ASTM E8, ASTM E21, ASTM E466, ASTM E606, and ASTM E1012.

Fatigue tests are inherently long-duration tests and may take several weeks to complete. Therefore, in order to keep up with the increasing demand for fatigue testing, additional frames are required to complete testing in a reasonable time frame.

Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items

March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 5March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 3 of 5

The Government currently owns fatigue test systems manufactured by MTS. Requiring this brand name system will establish equipment standardization for MXSG's rapidly-growing fatigue test program. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the Government to standardize this equipment to avoid substantial cost duplication for the Government by ensuring machine availability, parts supportability, and maintenance support. Substantial duplication of cost can be avoided by leveraging the common physical, functional, theory of operation, and hardware/software through the acquisition of an MTS fatigue test system.

There are several benefits to purchasing additional MTS systems over other brand name systems:

- Networked Controlling - all owned MTS test frame computers are networked to a single monitoring computer, and are also interconnected through MTS-branded signal processor/controllers to each test frames that only functions with MTS software/hardware. Other vendors cannot be added to this local network.

- Software - each vendor has proprietary test software. Tests performed on one company's frames cannot be viewed or processed on another station from a different vendor. If multiple fatigue tests from one test program are being ran concurrently (the objective of the CIP procurement), a fatigue test from one vendor frame would not be identical to a fatigue test ran on a different frame. This would then require brand-specific test programs (multiple fatigue tests only ran on one frame) adding additional burden to the lab and defeating the objective of this procurement.

- Actuators - the actuators are finished with a trademarked coating (owned by MTS) which increases actuator life up to 10 times over conventional chrome plated actuators.

- Compatible Power Unit - we currently own an MTS power unit which is capable of powering additional test frames and is compatible with MTS' remote power shut-off safety feature: purchasing another manufacturer's fatigue testing system will require an additional power supply which requires additional floor space, redundant components to facilitate its use, and the elimination of MTS's power shut-off safety feature.

- Elimination of Additional Training - currently, all five Metrology Lab operators have undergone over 100 hours of training and hands-on learning/operation prior to become fully capable users of the testing equipment/software.

Much of that initial training of Lab employees has already been accomplished on MTS testing equipment/software/ hardware. If alternate vendors are allowed to compete in this CIP acquisition and someone other than MTS wins the bidding process then additional training will be mandated for the other brand equipment/software/system causing delays to accomplish FOC and beginning service to our mission partners, and increasing training time to over 200 hours per employee, or approximately double the original time, requiring approximately 1,000 hours total time at a current laboratory labor rate of $220.13 totaling $220,130.00 in training hours, from the original $110,065 estimated training cost.

- Possible duplication of RM/PM service contracts and increased annual costs - it is not possible for the current MTS testing software to be updated/altered/programmed by other vendors (such as Instron). Passwords used to edit/ modify/program the testing software are maintained by the manufacturer. It has been shown with alternate laboratory equipment RM/PM service contracts that bundling pieces of same brand name under a single RM/PM contract reduces the total costs per item, thereby reducing the total RM/PM contract costs annually with a sole-source CIP acquisition to complete the original FY22 CIP purchase package of the MTS fatigue system.

Purchasing additional MTS products will guarantee compatibility, allow us to maintain efficient and continuous workflow, eliminate time lost due to additional training of non-MTS systems, and curb unnecessary expenditures trying to adapt other products to use with our MTS products.

VI. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable.

An announcement will be posted on SAM.gov, informing the public of this brand name requirement. Interested parties may respond.

VII. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

The Contracting Officer will use competition to justify the price. If competition is not achieved, price analysis IAW FAR 13.106-3 will be used in order to determine the contract price to be fair and reasonable. Since this is a commercial item requirement as defined by FAR Part 2, we may request other than certified cost or pricing data will be requested, if necessary, to determine the price to be fair and reasonable.

Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items

March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 5March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 5

VIII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

Market research from the past two years revealed that there is only product - which is made by MTS Systems Corporation - that meets all of the Government's requirements based on the results:

1. Internet Searches - Several companies were found using internet searches via Google and GSA. However, product brochures for two vendors (Shimadzu and Testek) indicated they did not offer fatigue frames that meet load and/or size requirements listed in Section B. These vendors do not offer alignment fixtures or extensometers to complement their fatigue frames.

2. Vendor Outreach - During vendor outreach with MTS, it was discovered that none of the Government's currently-owned MTS fatigue systems are compatible with other vendors. Software provided with the Instron system can only control one frame and is not standalone, and the actuator does not have a life-extending coating. Live system demonstration provided by Instron revealed the fatigue software lacked many tuning and testing functionality required for custom test programs. A phone call in Nov 2023 revealed that MTS allows resellers to resell their products, but they don't give them any discounts for doing so.

3. Subject Matter Experts - Ubiquitously, all SMEs used and recommended MTS Systems for fatigue testing due to their long stating relationships and overall positive experiences with this vendor. It became very apparent that MTS is the leader in fatigue testing systems.

4. Sources Sought Synopsis (SSS) - Four companies responded to the SSS with details of the equipment they offered, including brochures and equipment quotes. Two companies offered equipment that could meet some or all of our SOW requirements: MTS (met all requirements) and Instron (met some of the requirements).

IX. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

There are no other factors to be considered at this time.

X. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

MTS Systems Corporation 14000 Technology Dr Eden Prairie, MN 55344-2247 UEI PVMFSLG6GFF7/CAGE Code 34145 (Large Business) Bob Barton, Sales Manager - 469-352-0976/bob.barton@mts.com

Instron (A Division Of Illinois Tool Works, Inc) 825 University AVE Norwood, MA 02062-2643 UEI CM3YHLY12DF5/CAGE Code 80160 (Large Business) Mark Shorey; - 617-571-1995/mark_shorey@instron.com

Testek LLC 28320 Lakeview DR Wixom, MI 48393-3157 UEI KJWFZGACBL59/CAGE Code 06659 (Large Business)

The Contracting Officer is convinced - based on his experience - there is no shortage of vendors who would like to provide a quote on an MTS Fatigue Testing Sytem for this requirement if this was posted online at SAM.gov.

XI. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before making subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

In an effort to identify and remove barriers to competition, the Government will continue to monitor the marketplace for source development and continue discussions with the OEM regarding additional approved source

Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items

March 2023 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 5

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

As evidenced by my signature above, I have determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

As evidenced by my (our) signature(s) above, I (we) certify that any supporting data contained herein, which is my (our) responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

Remove the Guidance pages below.

Sole Source (Including Brand Name) Justification - Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Items March 2023 Page of International Agreement Competitive Restrictions (IACR) March 2023 Page of NOTE: If a Justification was approved for the preceding acquisition, a copy of the approved Justification for the predecessor action must be included in the staff package for approval of the instant Justification. This applies to Justification staff packages that are submitted for review and approval at a level above the contracting officer. The predecessor Justification will be used as a reference document by the approving official.

Is this a new or amended J&A Document?

Is this a Bridge Action as defined in the AF Bridge Action Reduction Plan?

Funding level for this acquisition:

Authority:

Justification Type:

COORDINATION ( AFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** The text in the signature blocks below is editable, including the title.

** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block. CAUTION: Once removed, it can only be restored by downloading the BLANK FORM again.

APPROVAL (AFFARS 5306.304(a)) NOTE: A signature block will appear here based on the funding level selected above.

(See "Specific Guidance for Completing this Template" below.)

I. Contracting Activity.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed.

III. Description of supplies/services required to meet agency needs.

IV. Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.

V. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above (applicability of authority).

VI. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable.

VII. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

VIII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or a statement of the reasons market research was not conducted.

IX. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition.

X. List of any sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

XI. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before making subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required.

XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel.

Specific Guidance for Completing this Template

I. Contracting Activity. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(1))

Fully identify the contracting agency and organizational activity responsible for the proposed contracting action.

II. Nature and/or description of the action being processed. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(2))

State whether the action will be awarded as a new contract or by modification to an existing contract (identify contract number) and identify the type contract planned (FAR 12.207 and DFARS 212.207).

An individual Justification cannot be used to support more than one contract irrespective of the quantities or the dollar value stated therein. If a proposed contract will contain unpriced options (including NTE prices), those options must be supported by a separate Justification prior to option exercise or the Justification supporting the basic contract must be a Class Justification. For Class Justification situations (covers more than one contract) where the number of contracts in the class can be identified: (1) Provide a brief general description of actions; (2) identify the supplies and services that are being acquired; and (3) for each contract in the class identify the contractor, estimated value, type of contract and rationale for contract length, and estimated award date. Where the same information applies to more than one contract within the class, it need only be stated one time.

III. Description of the supplies/services required to meet agency needs. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(3))

Specifically describe the supplies and/or services to be acquired, the total estimated value of the acquisition - including options (provide cost estimate by year and, for class Justifications, by contract action), and the estimated delivery dates/periods of performance If commodities are being procured, provide quantities. All contract line items (CLIN) -- e.g., technical data, support equipment, support services, etc. -- should be listed. If all of the ancillary requirements associated with a particular item are not specifically described in the Justifications, those ancillary requirements cannot be included in the resulting contract and would require a second Justification. Also, state the type of appropriation (e.g., 3010, 3400) that will be used to fund each requirement listed.

If approval for more than one fiscal year requirement is needed, give the rationale for this request. Generally, the scope of these actions is limited to current requirements only, so that actions may be taken to facilitate competition for out-year requirements.

In some cases, there are no feasible actions that could develop future competition, and it is reasonable to seek approval for more than one fiscal year's requirements.

For ID/IQ or requirements contracts, use the maximum dollar value of the total estimated orders as the estimated Justification dollar value.

IV. Statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(4)) V. Demonstration that the contractor's unique qualifications or nature of the acquisition requires the use of the authority cited above (applicability of authority). (FAR 6.303-2(b)(5)) Provide, in narrative form, a detailed explanation supporting and clearly relating to the conditions described by the FAR for using the particular authority cited. This section is normally the most detailed part of the justification as the essence of the justification is presented here. For acquisitions that include both supplies and services, separately justify the use of the authority for the services and supplies.

Contracting without providing for full and open competition shall not be justified on the basis of lack of advance planning by the requiring activity or concerns related to the amount of funds available (e.g., funds will expire) (10 U.S.C. 3204) VI. Description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable.

(FAR 6.303-2(b)(6))

Describe all efforts taken (or to be to be taken) to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable under the circumstances. Although Market Research is covered in Section VIII, the information in Section VI should correlate with the Market Research described in Section VI. The following issues should be addressed in this paragraph:

Sources Sought Synopsis (used as part of market research). If a sources sought synopsis was issued, state the date the synopsis was issued and a brief description of its content. If any responses were received, describe in detail the results of the screening process and the rationale for determining the unacceptability of any synopsis respondents. Reference FAR 13.105, Synopsis and Posting Requirements.

Other Actions. In this paragraph, discuss any other actions taken or planned to facilitate competition for this acquisition. The discussion should include actions tried or considered even if the actions were unsuccessful. If the efforts were unsuccessful, so state and describe why.

Qualifying Country Sources. If qualifying country sources have expressed interest, but are to be excluded, provide supporting rationale.

VII. Determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the government will be fair and reasonable. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(7))

Include a statement by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost will be considered fair and reasonable and provide the basis for this determination. The steps that will be taken to ensure the final contract price will be fair and reasonable are also described here. Describe the extent of cost or price analysis anticipated including the requirements for certified cost or pricing data, technical evaluations, and audits.

VIII. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(8))

Generally, some form of market research should be conducted. Discuss any market research conducted pursuant to FAR Part 10 and describe results of that research. Market research is any effort undertaken to determine if sources capable of satisfying the agency's requirements exist and to determine if commercial items or non-developmental items are either available or can be modified so that they will satisfy the agency's needs. Market research should be focused not only on identifying alternate sources, but also on alternate equipment or substitutes that might fulfill the Government needs with only minor modification. Regardless of the approach used, the results should provide a high level of confidence that no other qualified sources exist.

When other exceptions from the requirement to obtain full and open competition are relied upon, the market research might be limited to an examination of the acquisition history and experience with the marketplace under previous acquisitions for the same or similar items.

If no market research was conducted, so state and provide the rationale.

IX. Any other facts supporting the use of Other Than Full and Open Competition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(9)(i))

Provide any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition, including an explanation of why technical data packages, specifications, engineering descriptions, statements of work, statements of objectives, or purchase descriptions suitable for full and open competition have not been developed, are not being developed, are not being used, or are not available.

X. List of sources, if any, that expressed interest in the acquisition. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(10))

If a sources sought synopsis was done and all interested sources are included in Section VI, it is acceptable to state, “See Section VI above.”

XI. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before making subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(11))

Describe any actions taken or to be taken to foster competition for future acquisitions of the supplies or services being acquired. Describe potential actions that could be taken to remove the barriers to competition that have been identified in the justification and include a milestone schedule, where available, for accomplishing these actions. For example, if a follow-on competitive acquisition is planned, so state and provide the planned award date, or state that the Government will attempt to acquire rights in technical data and computer software sufficient to compete follow-on acquisitions as a priced option in the contract action that is the subject of this Justification, or (if applicable) state how the Government intends to challenge nonconforming markings on technical data and computer software delivered to it under previous contracts so those markings can be removed in order that the technical data and computer software may be used in support of a follow-on competitive acquisition, or describe plans to qualify additional sources.

Address efforts to ensure competition for future spare parts and maintenance in support of systems or equipment covered by the justification, even when these acquisitions will be accomplished by other organizations. Include a discussion on available breakout data.

If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons. If approval is sought for more than one year, explain why a sole source effort is required for the planned time duration.

For a non-competitive follow-on acquisition to a previous award for the same supply or service supported by a Justification citing the same authority, include a discussion of the actions planned to overcome barriers to competition established in the previous justification, the status of those actions, and the results of those actions. The approval authority shall determine whether the planned actions were completed. If the planned actions were not completed, the justification for the follow-on acquisition shall be approved by the approval authority one-level above the approval authority for the previous justification (see FAR 13.501(a)(2)). If the previous justification was approved by the Senior Procurement Executive (SPE), the approval remains at the SPE level.

[DFARS 213.501(a) and DFARS PGI 206.304(a)(S-70)(ii)] XII. Certification by the Contracting Officer. (FAR 6.303-2(b)(12))

As evidenced by his/her signature, the contracting officer has determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

XIII. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel. (FAR 6.303-2(c))

As evidenced by their signatures, the technical and/or requirements personnel have certified that any supporting data contained herein, which is their responsibility, is both accurate and complete.

Do You Need to "REDACT" Text?

This template is interactive and has special features. In its current state, it cannot be redacted. In order to redact any portion of this template, you must first convert it to a normal PDF file. Click here for instructions.

9.0.0.2.20120627.2.874785