LSR-NavLock-Tainter Valves_JA Cisco (revised)_Signed 24R0010-1.pdf

Controlled Unclassified Information

CISCO Brand Network Equipment

BRAND NAME DETERMINATION

1. CONTRACTING AGENCY:

Walla Walla District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contracting Division, 201 N 3rd Avenue, Walla Walla WA 99362-1876.

2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION:

The NWW Navigation Lock Tainter Valve System Upgrades will replace the tainter valves, upgrade the hydraulic systems, and the controls for the Locks of four dams on the Snake River. This will include a requirement for Cisco network switches to be used as part of the upgrades. Approval is being requested for the prime contractor to procure Cisco IE-3100-8T4S-E managed network switches that include warrienties. The estimated purchase price for the specified Cisco equipment is $24,714.24.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES:

This is a justification for brand name equipment, which will be purchased by the contractor who receives the construction contract. The portion of the acquisition requiring brand name products applies to the new networking equipment. Use of this equipment in the acquisition is essential to the Government’s requirements, thereby precluding considerations of products manufactured by other companies as it would not meet the Government’s requirements meeting the standards of Risk Management Framework (RMF).

This brand name determination includes the following networking equipment:

BRAND

PRODUCT

NO.

DESCRIPTION

QUANTITY Cost per Unit

Cisco IE-3100-8T4S- E managed network switch

16 $1,544.64

Contract award is scheduled for October 2024. The estimated purchase price for the specified brand name equipment is $24,714.24. The price of this system represents a small percentage of the total estimated contract price.

4. AUTHORITY CITED: (Use this authority for all purchases under

$250,000.00)

FAR 13.106-1(b)(1) Soliciting from a Single Source. 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 reasonable available (e.g. urgency, exclusive licensing agreements, brand name or industrial mobilization).

5. REASON FOR AUTHORITY CITED:

a. Background: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District Headquarters Engineering & Construction branch has a requirement to replace Tainter Valves, upgrade the hydraulic systems and controls at multiple dams on the Snake River. The controls will require new managed network switches as part of the upgrades. Project personel are required to track and install updates for networked equipment. Utilizing different brands of equipment results in the management of different system updates and makes equipment interoperability difficult or impossible.

Managing multiple equipment updates takes significantly more time to implement. If the wrong network switch is selected it wont be compatable with the existing GDACS network, making any future connections difficult or impossible.

b. Justification: All computer programming for these brand name parts has already been completed by the Hydroelectric Design Center of Expertise (HDC). It is important to maintain similar network systems and components across all Snake River projects to make SCADA network safe by minimizing any risk for not meeting DOD 8500.2 and Risk Management Framework (RMF) (NIST 800-53) cybersecurity requirements. Equipment used in DOD information systems must be approved for use by either DISA (DOD Information Systems Agency), or the Information Systems Security Management (ISSM) proponent. For USACE, this is the USACE Critical Infrastructure and Cybersecurity Mandatory Center of Expertise (UCIC-MCX). DISA approves the use of equipment via their approved product list website (https://aplits.disa.mil/processAPList.action). For UCIC-MCX approval, USACE (HDC or project personnel) corresponds with the Regional Information Systems Security Manager (RISSM). These agencies consider the manufacture country of origin and test the equipment to ensure that it complies with RMF stands and functionality with other DOD information system products. The parts listed above have already been approved for use at USACE facilities. Pursuing a new brand would likely cause significant delays due to the testing that would be needed to get the product approved.

Additionally, different brand name components not used will require additional time, labor, and funding to program a new SCADA network system. The specified network switches are the Enterprise standard and all other brand name hardware/software have been approved by USACE Critical Infrastructure Mandatory Center of Expertise (UCIC-MCX) and programmed for meeting complex cyber-security and network configuration requirements.

Furthermore, ACCS already supports the listed equipment with regular vetting of patches, which would further reduce the overhead of each plant doing this individually. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the government to continue using the products specified above.

1) Cisco network equipment is the only equipment approved for use on the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) network and on the DoD Approved Hardware List. Because of this, the projects have standardized on Cisco hardware as well. Procurement of another brand name would cause issues with standardization, interoperability and stability.

2) All work is tested by HDC ACCS in a test bed environment and standardized matching equipment is required in order to ensure there are no Bulk Electric System failures.

3) The current field administrator support staff is trained and has significant experience with Cisco brand name network equipment.

4) Other competition was not sought because it would require complete replacement, testing, and verification of the currently installed system.

c. Impact: Substitution for the specified products would:

i. Require additional training for project personnel.

ii. Require additional time, labor, and funding to program a new SCADA network system. The new devices must be compatible with existing equipment and configurations. The Cisco Brand Name is the Enterprise standard based on careful consideration of product capabilities and best-of-breed systems to meet complex cyber-security and network configuration requirements.

iii. Create differing site conditions between the Snake River dams that will make spare network components less accessible and increase complexity between the differing SCADA systems. It is in USACE’s best interest to pursue this brand name action in order to maintain the integrity of the overall system, prevent potential hardware failures and to ensure that the adequate system support is available by the manufacturer.

iv. Potentially not meet DOD 8500.2 and RMF (NIST 800-53) cybersecurity requirements. If we do not use the Cisco brand network equipment, it would make critical assets vulnerable and increase our cyber-security risk.

d. Alternative: None. There is no alternative equipment that is able to be utilized at this time. These requirements cannot be met through any other computer and server equipment. Using other systems would result in additional costs to modify new systems to work with existing systems and could interfere with the current platform that is in place on this network and could cause failure and lack of compliance. For each failure, there would be a cost of $14,000 and up to 6 months down time. The cost would be broken down between $8000 in J&K grade electrician and HDC labor service fees. This would not be cost effective to the Government. There is no alternative equipment that is able to be utilized at this time.

6. EFFORTS TO OBTAIN COMPETITION:

There are multiple distributers that can offer the required networking equipment. This J&A shall be posted with the solicitation. Requiring the brand name is unlikely to limit competition among proposals. It will be possible for a contractor to obtain competitive pricing from multiple sources. The cost of the brand name networking equipment is small in comparison to the total estimated cost of construction.

7. ACTIONS TO INCREASE COMPETITION:

Efforts to solicit a separate like product would prove incompatible with the existing USACE infrastructure and the existing equipment. In accordance with CHESS ordering guidelines, Fair Opportunity was given to all six ITES-2H multiple award contract holders using the CHESS Request for Quote (RFQ) process.

8. MARKET RESEARCH: Under the authority cited in FAR 13.106-1(b), I have determined that the particular brand name, or feature is essential to the Government’s requirements and market research indicates that other companies’ similar products, or products lacking the particular feature, do not meet or cannot be modified to meet the agency’s needs. The networking equipment listed in this document is the only compatible equipment currently.

The market research was conducted by the HDC ACCS Branch to determine suitability of networking equipment supporting GDACS.

Computer Hardware Enterprise Software and Solutions (CHESS) government website lists several vendors that provide Cisco brand equipment. Additionally, research was performed using GSA, and other vendor websites, to determine the best cost basis for this requirement.

Market research was conducted utilizing the required sources of supply. The Army’s Computer Hardware, Enterprise Software Solutions (CHESS) program, under PEO EIS, is the mandatory source for commercial IT purchases. CHESS contracts provide IT products and services that comply with NETCOM, Army and DOD policy and standards. Purchasers of commercial hardware and software must satisfy their IT requirements by utilizing CHESS contracts and DOD Enterprise Software Initiative agreements first, regardless of dollar value. The Cisco equipment was found to be available under these contract vehicles. No further market research required

9. INTERESTED SOURCES:

No other vendors have expressed an interest in this project or as a possible source in the near future.

10. Other Facts: None.

11. TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION:

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Eric Hedine Title: Electrical Engineer Electronic Signature: ____________________

12. REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION :

I certify that the supporting data under my cognizance, which are included in the justification are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Eric Hedine Title: Electrical Engineer Electronic Signature: ____________________

13. FAIR AND REASONABLE COST DETERMINATION:

I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for this contract action will be fair and reasonable.

Based on the foregoing determination, I hereby approve the procurement of Cisco Switches on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority 13.106-1(b) subject to the availability of funds, and provided the supply herein described has otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Name: Jani C. Long Title: Contracting Officer Electronic Signature: ____________________

14. CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION:

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

Name: Jani C. Long Title: Contracting Officer Electronic Signature: ____________________

Approval

Based on the foregoing justification, I hereby approve the procurement of Cisco Switches on an other than full and open competition basis pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c) (1) (limited source), subject to availability of funds, and provided that the services and property herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.

Date: ________________ Electronic Signature: ____________________