B06_-_redacted_JA_LAN_Backbone_Cisco_FY18.pdf

BRAND NAME JUSTIFICATION

18-CIHA Capital LAN Backbone Cisco

NITYU18AV043

1. Identification of the agency and the contracting activity and specific identification of the document as a

“Brand Name Justification.”

a. Requiring/Requesting Activity DFAS-I&T Infrastructure and Production Support Attn: XXXXXXXXXXX 8899 East 56th Street Indianapolis, IN 46249

b. Contracting Activity DFAS Columbus Contract Services Directorate Building 21, Room 2B218 3990 E. Broad Street Columbus, OH 43213-1152

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

The purpose of this document is to obtain approval for a Items particular to One Manufacturer (CISCO) acquisition in accordance with FAR 16.505(a)(4). Competition is limited to vendors supplying the following brand names: Cisco.

The procurement strategy is to issue a request for quote (RFQ) on the NASA Solution for Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP), and the fair opportunity procedures set up by the SEWP will be followed. According to those procedures, a RFQ with a brand name requirement must include a justification and approval and be submitted to all applicable SEWP Contract Groups. The order at issue includes brand name requirements. Therefore, the below justification and approval will be included with the RFQ, which will be submitted to all applicable SEWP Contract Groups.

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

This procurement is for: (1) the replacement of Cisco network cards that are currently End of Life and will not be supported in the future for approximately XXXXX of DFAS’s CISCO devises that are part of DFAS’s standardized enterprise Cisco networking equipment; and (X) for XX switches to expand the existing network (by about XX). For a complete itemized listing see the attached Bill of Materials (BOM).

Based on the average of the quotes received conducting market research the estimated cost of this requirement is

XXXXXXXXXXXX.

4. Justification for procuring items peculiar to one manufacturer (see FAR 16.505(a)(4)).

FAR 16.505(a)(4)(i) provides the standard that needs to be met to procure items peculiar to one manufacturer: “The contracting officer must justify restricting consideration to an item peculiar to one manufacturer (e.g., a particular brand-name, product, or a feature of a product that is peculiar to one manufacturer). A brand-name item, even if available on more than one contract, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer. Brand-name specifications shall not be used unless the particular brand-name, product, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements and market research indicates other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs.”

For the purposes of this requirement the Cisco brand is essential to the Government’s requirement. The DFAS Network Engineering Team has performed extensive research on alternative products, and in this case other vendors do not make network cards that can be inserted and operate with the existing Cisco Operating system and software. DFAS has standardized the enterprise by using XXXX XXXXX XXXXXX. If DFAS were to introduce network infrastructure hardware into our network that is not manufactured by Cisco (instead of replacing Cisco network cards for approximately XXX of DFAS’s Cisco devises), DFAS would be required to conduct a complete network redesign, forcing replacement of all devices. With such a replacement, the Agency would incur over a million dollars in costs for all lab testing, integration tests, travel expenses, training, and other transition costs, plus a considerable amount of time.

DFAS also maintains a library of engineering documents created by Network Engineering that would need to be completely re-written in the event we were to change network equipment routers and switches. As such, this procurement is for brand name manufacturer (Cisco), which includes hardware and software licenses and is intended to integrate with the existing agency-deployed backbone components (Cisco) in order to ensure continuity of operations without interruption.

5. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.

In determining a fair and reasonable price, the Contracting Officer will evaluate the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE). Based on an RFQ issued against the NASA SEWP IDIQ vehicle it is anticipated the pricing will be fair and reasonable. The RFQ will be submitted to all SEWP contractor within Group A. Price competition is being anticipated in which the overall fair and reasonable determination will be made based upon the Lowest priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) offer.

These items are available from multiple Value Added Resellers on the NASA SEWP schedule. Based on market research, it is anticipated that NASA SEWP pricing will be lower than open market pricing.

Leveraging DFAS’ current use of Cisco products, along with open market price comparison, the contracting officer is confident in obtaining a fair and reasonable price for DFAS.

6. Any other facts supporting the justification.

Nothing to add to this section that has not already been articulated within this justification document. A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.

7. A Statement of actions, if any, the agency may take or remove or overcome any barriers that led to the exception to fair opportunity before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made:

In order to remove or overcome barriers to competition in future acquisitions for this requirement the agency will work with the program office to conduct market research to ascertain if there are changes in the market place that would enable future actions to be competed on other than a name brand basis.

Availability and pricing information was sought from the following NASA SEWP RFI# XXXXXXX:

XXXX XXXXXXXX

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

XXXXXX XXXXXXXX

Based on the average of the quotes received, the estimated cost of this requirement is XXXXXXXXX.

CERTIFICATIONS

As the technical and requirements subject matter expert, I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance which are included in this justification and which form a basis for this justification are complete and accurate.

Technical Certification:

Printed Name: XXXXXXXX______________________________________

Title: XXXXXXXXXX Org. Code: XXXXXXX__________________________

Signature: ___XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX________________________________________Phone: XXXXXXXX

Requiring Activity/Program Management Office Certification:

Printed Name: XXXXXXXXXXX ________________________

Title: XXXXXXXXXX _____________ Org. Code: XXXXXX

Signature ___XXXXXXXXXXXX____________Phone: XXXXXXX ______ Date:__XXXXX___

Contracting Officer Certification:

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost for this contract action will be fair and reasonable. I certify that this J&A is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Printed Name: XXXXXXXXXXXX

Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXX Organization Code XXXXXXXXXXXX

Signature:_____XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_________ Phone: XXXXXXXXXXX

Review For Legal Sufficiency:

Printed Name ____XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX______________

Title __XXXXXXXXXXXXX________ Organization Code ____XXXXXXXXX_____

Signature: _____XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX___________________ Phone ___XXXXXXXXXXX___

APPROVAL Activity Competition Advocate ($650,000 - $13,500,000):

Printed Name ___XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX____________

Title ____XXXXXXXXXXXXXX_______ Organization Code ___XXXXXXXXXXX__________

Signature____XXXXXXXX______ Phone ____XXXXXXXX___Date__XXXXXXXX___