Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition-FAR Part 13 Acquisitions under SAT_Intellivue sign_Redacted.pdf

Justification for Other than Full and Open Competition – FAR Part 13 Acquisitions under the SAT

MEMORANDUM TO THE FILE

Subj: JUSTIFICATION FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN

COMPETITION FOR A FAR PART 13 ACQUISITION UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED

ACQUISITION THRESHOLD

I. BACKGROUND:

1. FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i) states for purchases not exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, Contracting Officers may solicit from one source if the Contracting Officer determines that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available (e.g., urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand-name or industrial mobilization).

2. As required by FAR 13.106-3(b)(i), this memorandum explains the absence of competition for this acquisition, as only one source will be solicited for this requirement (or for a portion of the requirement) and the requirement (or portion of the requirement to be sole-sourced) is not expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold.

II. DESCRIPTION OF ITEM OR SERVICE:

USNHO, the customer, requests procurement for eight (8) Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Philips IntelliVue Patient Monitors Model MX750 (part #866471) with accessories, shipping, installation, & training. The new Philips IntelliVue patient monitors serve up detailed, timely patient information in a clear, meaningful, and consistent way. The stationary, transport and mobile monitors all share the same user interface, configurability and supplies to accelerate care, help reduce the need for training, and to make it easy to scale up from vital signs monitors for general care to highly advanced systems in the ICU. This is a firm fixed-price supply only contract with no option periods.

III. THE DETERMINATION FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN

COMPETITION IS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING (select all that apply):

A. ___ ONLY ONE RESPONSIBLE SOURCE (select all that apply):

1. ___ RESTRICTIVE RIGHTS. The source has established proprietary rights, limited rights in data, patent rights, copyrights or secret processes in the item or service required.

2. ___ EXCLUSIVE LICENSING AGREEMENTS. The item or service is only available from the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), or there is only one authorized distributor or technical representative for the OEM.

3. ___ OTHER REASONS.

B. __X_ BRAND NAME

Item required must be a brand name, product, or feature of a product, particular to one manufacturer.

Currently 7 out of 9 Philips monitors in use in the ICU are in poor condition based on maintenance assessment from Biomed as well as beyond life expectancy by over 2 years. Due to poor conditions of monitors, any monitor may not function properly at any point of time, e.g., provide inaccurate vital signs. This in turn can cause a disruption in critical patient care. Eight out of nine monitors in the ICU are part of the FY 2023 5-year replacement plan as well.

Selecting Philips monitors for an ICU bedside physiologic monitoring system, which exclusively utilizes Philips brand components, necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the system’s requirements and the benefits of maintaining brand consistency.

One of the primary rationales for opting for Philips monitors lies in compatibility and seamless integration. These monitors are purposefully designed to seamlessly interface with other Philips components, ensuring efficient communication and data transfer. By adhering to a single manufacturer, the risk of compatibility issues—common when mixing brands—is mitigated. This becomes particularly crucial in an ICU environment where reliability and precision are paramount.

Notably, all existing components, as well as those slated for replacement, are also Philips brand components.

Moreover, streamlining technical support and maintenance is facilitated when all components originate from the same manufacturer. Philips offers comprehensive support for their entire system, simplifying troubleshooting and repair processes.

Dealing with a single point of contact for any issues reduces the complexity associated with managing multiple vendor relationships.

From a usability perspective, ICU staff are already familiar with Philips equipment, minimizing the learning curve associated with new devices. This familiarity translates to quicker, more efficient patient care. Additionally, Philips monitors maintain a consistent user interface across different models, enabling staff to swiftly interpret data with accuracy.

In a healthcare setting, regulatory compliance and safety are paramount. Philips medical devices adhere rigorously to stringent regulatory standards for both safety and efficacy. Opting for monitors from the same manufacturer ensures that the entire system aligns with these standards. Consistency in equipment minimizes the risk of user error, as staff are well-trained and accustomed to a standardized system. This consistency enhances patient safety by reducing the potential for misinterpreting data.

Additionally, there are advantages related to future-proofing and scalability.

Philips offers a comprehensive range of compatible products and solutions that can be easily scaled or upgraded as needed. This flexibility allows the system to evolve alongside the ICU’s requirements without necessitating a complete overhaul.

In summary, selecting Philips monitors for an ICU bedside physiologic monitoring system provides significant benefits in terms of compatibility, reliability, support, usability, safety, scalability, and overall cost-efficiency. These factors collectively justify the preference for Philips monitors over other brands, ensuring a cohesive, high-performing, and safe monitoring environment critical for patient care in an ICU setting.

C. ___URGENT AND COMPELLING. The supplies or services are of such unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured unless the agency is permitted to limit the number of sources from which it solicits bids or proposals. Urgent requirements are supplies or services that will result in a work stoppage, or are mission critical and the routine processing time would result in injury to the Government. The determination that the procurement for the above item/service is an urgent and compelling requirement is based on the following:

1. Date on which the requirement was first identified:

2. Required delivery date/period of performance:

3. Explanation of why delivery/commencement of services by the date mentioned above is required:

V. CERTIFICATIONS:

A. Technical / Requirements Certification: I certify that the facts and representation under my cognizance which are included in this justification are complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature Name (Printed) / Phone # Date

B. Contracting Officer Certification: I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signature Name (Printed) / Phone # Date

Pedro Reyes 9/3/2024

9/5/2024