A24__Redacted_JA.pdf

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

STORAGE NETAPP MAINT FY20

NITYU20RV018

1. Identification of the Requiring and Contracting Activity:

a. Requiring/Requesting Activity DFAS- Infrastructure & Production Support – Infrastructure Operations

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

8899 East 56th Street Indianapolis, IN 46249

XXXXXXXXXXX

b. Contracting Activity DFAS Columbus Contract Services Directorate Building 21, Room 2B218 3990 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43213-1152

2. Nature or Description of the action being approved:

The purpose of this document is to obtain approval for an exception of the fair opportunity acquisition in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(ii)(B). Competition is limited to the following brand name product: NetApp Insight.

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 SEWP Contract Groups. The order at issue includes a brand name requirement. Therefore, the below justification and approval will be included with the RFQ, which will be submitted to SEWP Contract Groups.

3. A Description of supplies/services required to meet the agency needs (including the estimated value):

This is the annual renewal of hardware and software maintenance and updates for the current NetApp and SnapDrive network storage management software. This software provides the engineering team with the capability to manage disk resources. The Insight software scans the entire DFAS storage infrastructure and identifies all the unavailable versus available disk space. It assists in identifying space that has been allocated and is not being used. This feature provides a cost saving to DFAS since this enables us to reclaim unused space and reallocate it for other needs.

SnapDrive & Mirror software allows the storage team to back up from Windows environments for seamless data protection.

The following is a Government cost estimate: XXXXXXXXXXXXX 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020.

4. Identification of the need for justification and approval: (See FAR 16.505 (b)(2)): FAR 16.505(a)(4). The order must be based on particular brand name: NetApp.

This justification and approval is required because this is a brand name requirement. Per FAR 16.505(a)(4):

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.

NetApp software and hardware has been DFAS’s standard storage system for over five years. All of the multiple vendors for this type of hardware/software requirement, including NetApp, run their own proprietary software that is only compatible with the hardware. Changing the maintenance purchased for the hardware and software would require changing out all of the hardware and software. DFAS conducted market research and evaluated multiple vendors to assess the effect of replacing all of the NetApp hardware and software. Replacing XXXXXXXXXXXXX worth of equipment is not a reasonable or viable option, so purchasing brand name maintenance on the currently owned hardware and software is essential to the Government’s requirements. As stated earlier, market research shows that the hardware and software are proprietary and work together and for that reason DFAS cannot purchase other maintenance products to meet this need.

DFAS has invested a considerable amount of time, effort and money into the design, and subsequent purchase of the listed equipment in order to meet the storage requirements necessary to stay in compliance with DoD directives. If DFAS were not to renew this, and opted to replace the hardware with manufacturer/like equipment, the cost would be significant in comparison with the cost to purchase brand name maintenance (XXXXXXXXXXXXXX vs. FY18 XXXXXXXXXX and FY19 XXXXXXXXXXX).

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

Market Research was performed to identify potential contract vehicles that could be used for this requirement. This research identified and compared the available items, capabilities, pricing and fees of GSA and NASA SEWP to open market pricing. The previous purchase order, which was awarded through NASA SEWP, was also reviewed. DFAS has commonly received discounts, many greater than XXXXXXXX below the NASA SEWP listed commercial prices.

Competition among the vendors is expected to result in continued discounted pricing for this requirement. NASA SEWP is determined to be the best overall contract vehicle for continuing coverage of the NetApp hardware and software maintenance and it is anticipated that it will continue to result in fair and reasonable pricing.

Based on an RFQ issued against the SEWP IDIQ vehicle, it is anticipated the pricing will be fair and reasonable, as determined under the terms and conditions of the RFQ to be submitted to all SEWP small business contract holders.

Additionally, price comparisons will also be accomplished from as many other sources as possible, including commercial as well as any Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts (GWAC) and the GSA Federal Supply Schedules.

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

Leveraging DFAS’ current use of the NetApp product and services, along with open market price comparison, the contracting officer is confident in obtaining the best value 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:

As stated in section 4 above, it is not feasible to replace the existing NetApp software and hardware. It would cost XXXXXXXXXXX to do so.

Although Netapp is the sole manufacturer and provider of the services, there are multiple distributors with the required software support. Competition will be sought among all authorized resellers for the best possible pricing. Market research has shown that NetApp products/services are available in a competitive environment under NASA SEWP.

The government received competitive market research pricing for the present requirement and the expectation is that competition will remain.

A listing of the sources that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Replacing XXXXXXXXXXXXXX of equipment is not a reasonable or viable option, so purchasing brand name maintenance on the currently owned hardware and software is essential to the Government’s requirements. As stated earlier, market research shows that the hardware and software are proprietary and work together and for that reason DFAS cannot purchase other maintenance products to meet this need.

8. Evidence that any supporting data that is the responsibility of technical or requirements personnel (e.g., verifying the Government’s minimum needs or requirements or other rationale for an exception to fair opportunity) and which form a basis for the justification have been certified as complete and accurate by the technical and requirements personnel.

Technical Certification

Printed Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Org Code: XXXXXXXX

Signature:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Requiring Activity/Program Management Office Certification

Printed Name: _XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX________________________________

Title: _XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX______ Org Code _XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Signature:__XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX___________ Date:_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_____________

9. The contracting officer’s certification that the justification is accurate and complete to the best of the contracting officer’s knowledge and belief.

Printed Name:__XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Title: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX___ Org Code XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Signature:_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_____ Date:_XXXXXXXXXXX____

10. A written determination by the approving official that one of the circumstances in (b)(2)(i)(A) through (E) of this section applies to the order.

SEE NEXT PAGE FOR APPROVALS

APPROVALS FOR JUSTIFICATION FOR AN FAIR OPPORTUNITY EXCEPTION: STORAGE NETAPP

FY20

11. Approvals (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.):

Review for Legal Sufficiency:

Printed Name: _XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Title:_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX___ Organization Code: XXXXXXXXXXXX____________________

Signature: _XXXXXXXXXXXX_________________ Phone: __XXXXXXXXXXX_____________________

Activity Competition Advocate ($750,000 – 13,500,000)

Printed Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX_______

Title:_XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX____________ Organization Code: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Signature: __XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX________ Phone: __XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX__

Date: XXXXXXXXXXXX