LSJ_Redacted.pdf

Limited Sources Justification and Approval (J&A)

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 8April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 2 of 8

Date Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting) [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date SAF/AQ [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date [ Title ] [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date [ Title ] [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

APPROVAL (DAFFARS 5306.304(a)) ** To remove a row, click the "X" next to the signature block.

** To restore the row, click the appropriate link to the right: COCO CO CA SPEPEO Blank

Date Chief of the Contracting Office (COCO) [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date Contracting Officer [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date Competition Advocate [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date PEO [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date Senior Procurement Executive [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature X

Date [ Title ] [ Name ] [ Office Symbol / Phone Number ]

Signature

X

April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 8April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 4 of 8

VI. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted.

To award the contract to another vendor, the overall cost increase would not be cost effective to the government. Current system configuration captures over 18 years in use. Another vendor would have to replace the entire system, current system warranty would be voided and an unacceptable void in service would create safety and security non compliance. Estimated cost to replace the entire system, to provide preventative maintenance, support, update power and communication lines/ wiring for a new connecting configuration or product is estimated over $2.6M. Replacement cost does not include costs incurred due to mission loss or downtime. The basis for single source is cost effective, to maintain the current proprietary vendor with the in use operating system supports continuity, standardization and compatibility. The organization currently has over 67,195 Sq Ft of space, over $1.3M of installed in -use parts in this locations with an expiring Securadyne maintenance contract. The basis for this non-competitive acquisition is that the project scope includes the use of existing component parts and service contractor to maintain system functionality, technical support and safety/security compliance.

The scope of the project can be achieved with the use of the current proposed vendor and compatible products which support the proprietary software used by Securadyne to provide the security and safety standards required by the government.

VII. Other facts supporting the justification.

Authority Cited: 10U.S.C 2304(c) (1), FAR 6.302-1, Securadyne Systems, is the "Original Equipment Distributor" for this purchase. Therefore they are the sole source facility to provide this type of equipment, giving the Federal Government unmatched quality and pricing.

To award the contract to another vendor, the overall cost increase would not be cost effective to the government. Another vendor would have to replace the entire system, current system warranty would be voided and an unacceptable void in service would create safety and security non compliance. Estimated cost to replace the entire system, to provide pre-ventative maintenance, support, update power and communication lines/wiring for a new connecting configuration or product is estimated over $2.6M. Replacement cost does not include costs incurred due to mission loss or downtime. The basis for single source is cost effective, to maintain the current proprietary vendor with the in use operating system supports continuity, standardization and compatibility. The organization currently has over 67,195 Sq Ft of space, over $1.3M of installed in -use parts in this location with an expiring Securadyne maintenance contract. The basis for this non-competitive acquisition is that the project scope includes the use of existing component parts and service contractor to maintain system functionality, technical support and safety/security compliance. The scope of the project can be achieved with the use of the current proposed vendor and compatible products which support the proprietary software used by Securadyne to provide the security and safety standards required by the government.

VIII. Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services.

No actions to increase competition will be taken in this case. The proposed vendor is the only authorized vendor, to use an unauthorized vendor would void manufacture warranty, coverage for the existing system and would cost the government substantially for standalone non-compatible systems. This solution provides the government the best value and lowest cost.

The government continually reviews options to meet safety and security compliance to determine if new technology is more cost effective than the existing in use system. The government also conducts market research to locate vendors who may produce a more cost effective quality solution to meet the government minimum requirements. Any time a potential improved product or reduced overall cost to the government is located it is evaluated and considered. It was determined by checking product costs on FSS/GSA Advantage that to replace the total system was above and beyond the cost to continue with the existing system maintenance vendor. To replace or introduce a new system configuration verses utilizing the original vendor product configuration would present issues resulting in higher cost to the government and potential delays to mission success due to compatibility/interoperability among varying systems. The current system is backed up by an emergency power source (generator, UPS or combination of both) without causing alarm indication. Vendor will service and maintain all existing hardware/software/equipment, not all inclusive but to include: access control readers, balance magnetic switches, request to exist devices, motion detectors, video cameras and recorders, system software, door keypads, door solenoids.

April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 8April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 5 of 8

IX. 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.

X. 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.

April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 8April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 6 of 8

GUIDANCE

I. Contracting Activity.

Fully identify the contracting activity responsible for the proposed contracting action. Include the name/phone number of the Contracting Officer. Specifically identify as a “Limited Sources” Justification. Identify purchase request number, if applicable.

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

State whether the action is a new order or by modification to an existing order. Identify the GSA schedule number, the Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) number, the order number for the current action, and the Contactor(s). Indicate the Period of Performance (PoP). Also identify the type of the order/line items on the order (e.g. Firm Fixed Price, Labor Hour, etc).

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

Specifically describe the supplies and/or services to be acquired including the price and quantity of each item in the order and state the total estimated value of the order. For services, state whether the services are performance-based and, if not, provide rationale for not being performance based. Also state the delivery/performance schedule/period for the items under the order.

IV. Identification of the justification/rationale for limiting sources and demonstration of the contractor's unique qualifications to provide the required supply/service.

This section is normally the most detailed part of the justification. To assist you in preparing this justification, an introductory sentence and the four circumstances of FAR 8.405-6 that justify restricting the number of schedule holders are provided below. Select the appropriate cite, then provide, in narrative form, a detailed explanation supporting the specific circumstance cited for limiting the number of schedule holders.

(Introductory sentence) FAR 8.405-6 requires an ordering activity to justify its actions when restricting consideration of schedule contractors to fewer than required in FAR 8.405-1 or FAR 8.405-2.

After selecting the appropriate cite, next select one of the four sentences below and provide a detailed explanation supporting the specific circumstance cited.

FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B), “Only one source is capable of responding due to the unique or specialized nature of the work”. (Provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation, as evidence of the “unique or highly specialized” nature of the procurement.

The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements are not acceptable.)

FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C), “The new work is a logical follow-on to an original Federal Supply Schedule order provided that the original order was placed in accordance with the applicable Federal Supply Schedule ordering procedures.” The original order was not issued under sole source or limited source procedures. (Provide details on the previously competed order and explain how this order is a logical follow-on to that order. Explain fully the connection between the previous work/order and the current one.

The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. General statements are not acceptable.)

FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(A), “An urgent and compelling need exists, and following the ordering procedures would result in unacceptable delays.” (Provide a detailed justification with supporting documentation that explains the exact urgency of the requirement and the schedule impact if time were to be taken to follow FSS ordering procedures. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information. Recommend attaching supporting documentation to the back of the document. General statements of urgency are not acceptable.)

FAR 8.405-6(b)(1), “The item is peculiar to one manufacturer. A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer.” (Brand name specifications should not be used unless the particular brand name, product or feature is essential to the Government's requirements. Therefore, explain why the particular brand item is essential to the Government's requirements, and why other companies' similar items, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or

April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 7 of 8April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 7 of 8 cannot meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency's need. The user/customer typically provides this supporting information.

General statements are not acceptable.)

V. Determination by the ordering activity Contracting Officer that the order represents the best value consistent with FAR 8.404(d).

This section needs to be tailored based upon whether the order is for supplies/services not requiring a statement of work (FAR 8.405-1) or if the order is for services requiring a statement of work (FAR 8.405-2).

For FAR 8.405-1 orders the best value determination needs to be based upon the supply or service offered under MAS contracts by surveying at least three schedule contractors through the GSA Advantage! on-line shopping service, or by reviewing the catalogs or price lists of at least three schedule contractors. The ordering Contracting Officer's review of the Contractor's price list(s) and any price reductions sought is also required. (Contracting Officer should seek additional price discounts/concessions based on the specific order requirements on all orders over the micro-purchase threshold.) In addition to price, when determining best value, the ordering activity may consider, among other factors, past performance, special features of the supply or service required for effective program performance, trade-in considerations, probable life of the item selected as compared with that of a comparable item, warranty considerations, maintenance availability, environmental and energy efficiency considerations, and delivery terms.

When an order contains brand name specifications, the Contracting Officer shall post the Request for Quote (RFQ) along with the basis of the justification as required by FAR 8.405-6(b)(3).

For FAR 8.405-2 orders for services requiring a statement of work, FAR 8.405-2(d) requires that an evaluation be performed based on the criteria provided to the schedule contractors. Therefore, the justification must address how the FAR 8.404(d) requirement for an evaluation of the proposed level of effort and mix of labor will be conducted and include a statement that the Contracting Officer will perform a price reasonableness determination as part of the best value determination.

VI. Description of the market research conducted and the results, or explain why market research was not conducted.

Discuss market research that was conducted among schedule holders and the market research results that led to the conclusion to go sole source or to limit the number of schedule holders to be solicited. The narrative in this section should provide a high level of confidence that the requirements of FAR 8.405-1 and FAR 8.405-2 could not be met. If no market research was conducted, state so and provide the rationale.

VII. Other facts supporting the justification.

When FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(C) is cited for an follow-on acquisition as the basis for the justification, include an estimate of the cost that would be duplicated and the basis and derivation of the estimate, or provide details on why a delay to solicit additional schedule holders would be unacceptable.

Provide any other facts supporting the Limited Sources Justification.

VIII. Actions the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services.

Describe all efforts to be taken to remove or overcome any barriers that preclude the agency from meeting the requirements of FAR 8.405-1and FAR 8.405-2 before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services is made. If no actions are planned, so state and provide reasons.

IX. Certification by the Contracting Officer.

The contracting officer's signature on the signature page evidences that he/she has determined this document to be both accurate and complete to the best of his/her knowledge and belief.

X. Certification by the technical/requirements personnel

April 2024 CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION Page 8 of 8

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