J A ML 24-73 P7889 Fire Alarm PRS Redacted.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING SYSTEMS COMMAND, MID-ATLANTIC

9324 VIRGINIA AVENUE

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23511-3095

J&A No. ML-24-73

JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Activity.

Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command, Mid-Atlantic (NAVFAC MIDLANT)

2. Description of the Action Being Approved.

This Justification and Approval (J&A) authorizes and approves the use of brand name commercial equipment from Siemens Industry, Inc. (Siemens) for the FireFinder-XLS Control System to install fire alarm and detection systems at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island.

3. Description of Supplies/Services.

The control panels for new fire alarm/detection/mass notification systems will be brand name.

All other new system devices, conduit, and wiring will be non-brand name for the following projects:

Project Estimated Construction Cost

(ECC)

Cost of Brand Name Equipment

% of ECC

MCON P7889

New Dental Clinic

The project will be awarded utilizing Military Construction, Navy funds and projected for award in FY25, with a construction duration of 1,110 calendar days after award.

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is Title 10, U.S.C.

3204(a)(1), as implemented by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.302-1, "Only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements."

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority.

The Fire Alarm/Mass Notification Control Panels (FMCPs) will be brand name, but the remainder of the new systems will not (speakers, strobes, conduit, wiring, etc.)

FMCPs are the brains of fire alarm/mass notification systems. Program protocols are manufacturer-specific and require certification to install, program, and maintain. Selection of a single manufacturer permits FEAD Parris Island technicians to obtain certification to maintain fire alarm systems in lieu of contracting to multiple distributors. Specifically, this allows the Installation to: (a) Increase operational efficiency by enabling government technicians to develop proficiency in programming, operating, repairing, and maintaining FMCPs from a single manufacturer; and (b) Reduce ownership costs by eliminating duplication of maintenance training, manuals, hardware/software, and spare parts inventory that would otherwise be required for multiple manufacturers.

Another benefit of standardization, and in this particular brand name selection, is the relative simplicity of the Siemens FMCPs making it easy to train firefighters to deprogram problematic devices and restore operability to fire alarm systems. According to MCRD Parris Island’s fire department, over 50% of the FMCPs at Parris Island are the Siemens brand name equipment.

MCRD Parris Island firefighters would be presented with a much greater challenge if they had to address control panels from a multitude of manufacturers. For example, having firefighters trained on a single panel allows them to restore the system to service during an emergency response, where the system might remain out-of-service until a contractor could be scheduled.

The requirement to use brand name control panels does not restrict who can install, commission, test, maintain, or operate the FMCPs, and there are several known sources who can provide such services.

Applicable United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) Comptroller General decisions have acknowledged the authority of a federal agency to use other than competitive procedures when there is a reasonable need for standardization or interoperability with existing agency equipment or software. GAO has concluded that the government may use other than competitive procedures when there is a reasonable need for standardization or interoperability with existing equipment or software, and when it is likely that award to other sources would result in substantial duplication of cost to the government that is not expected to be recovered through competition.

6. Description of Efforts Made to Solicit Offers from as Many Offerors as Practicable.

Per FAR 5.201, market research has been conducted within the last 12-months via a sources sought notice published on September 21, 2023. The only responses from industry were from installation companies to clarify that the Siemens XLS has been divided into two licenses, Desigo and Cerberus Pro Modular. This does not affect this justification, as the XLS purchased would match the regional office from the manufacturer, whichever applicable. By receiving no responses from competing manufacturers, the Government is unaware of any substitute or equivalent products that would fulfill the requirement.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost.

The Contracting Officer will determine that the price for this acquisition is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR Part 15 prior to contract award. Analysis will be performed by one or more of the following techniques: (1) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the RFP;

(2) Comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE); (3) Comparison of proposed prices with available historical information; and/or (4) Comparison of market survey results. The fair and reasonable determination will be made based on the total price of the project. This proprietary item is not an individual line-item price in the solicitation.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Future Competition.

NAVFAC MIDLANT will continue to monitor the industry to determine whether other manufacturers become available and if another potential source emerges for consideration of alternative products or technologies to meet this requirement.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION

I certify that the facts and representations under my cognizance, which are included in this justification and its supporting acquisition planning documents, except as noted herein, are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW

I have determined this justification is legally sufficient.

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

CHIEF OF THE CONTRACTING OFFICE APPROVAL (NPGI 6.304)

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve the justification for proposed contract actions described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 USC 3204(a)(1).