J&A_for_Cisco_70-K9_Spark-Boards.pdf
PDF 320 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- M6739919Q0035
About this file
J&A for Cisco Spark Boards
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| M6739919Q0035_Amend_5.pdf | ||
| M6739919Q0035_Amend_4.pdf | ||
| M6739919Q0035_Amend_3.pdf | ||
| M6739919Q0035_Amend_2.pdf | ||
| M6739919Q0035_Amend_1.pdf | ||
| M6739919Q0035.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
J&A No. MCAGCC19003
V1.0, 13 June 2019
JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL (J&A)
FOR USE OF BRAND NAME OR EQUAL DESCRIPTIONS, OR PROPRIETARY
SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS, IN SOLICITATIONS
1. Contracting Activity.
Regional Contracting Office
MCAGCC/MAGTFTC
Twentynine Palms, CA 92278
2. Description of the Action Being Approved.
Inclusion of a brand name or equal description in RFQ M67399-19-Q-0035 for Cisco 70-K9 Spark-
Boards.
3. Description of the Supplies.
The supplies to be acquired are Cisco 70-K9 Spark-Boards, with an estimated value of $47,742.00.
Supplies are to be delivered by 30 Sept 2019. FY19 PMC funds will be used for this procurement.
Estimated Dollar Value
Estimated Dollar Amount Appropriation FY19 Total
PMC $47,742 $47,742
Total $47,742 $47,742
4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.
N/A. Full and Open Competition will be utilized. This document meets the regulatory requirement at
DFARS 206.302-1(c)(2) requirements to execute the justification and approval addressed at FAR
13.501(a) in order to use brand name or equal descriptions. FAR Subpart 13.5 procedures are being utilized for this acquisition in accordance with 41 U.S.C. § 1901.
5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority.
Cisco’s Spark Board is a strategic planning meeting room smart board. This system meets the requirements of Contracting Advisory 19-62: DoD Procedures Implementing FAR 4.21, Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Service or Equipment requirements (FAR Case 2018-017). Cisco’s Spark Board is compatible with the existing MCTOG audio/video system, capable of providing the required equipment that will meet the Marine Corps
Command, Control, Communication, Computer (C4) policy standards.
Although this is a brand name procurement, there are numerous CISCO resellers available as a contract vehicle, providing a reasonable expectation of sufficient competition. Cisco is the only vendor (via multiple reseller channels) capable of providing the required equipment, software and replacement of hardware components, as the current unified capabilities accredited infrastructure;
although other manufacturers produce similar hardware and software maintenance, their maintenance offerings are peculiar to their respective hardware and software products. All procured of equipment must interoperate with existing enterprise equipment or non-interoperable equipment will be unable to utilize the enterprise directory and will not participate in Enterprise (Risk Management Framework)
RMF reporting and vulnerability mitigation process.
As mandated by DoDI 8100.04 and the DoD Unified Capabilities Requirement 2013 (UCR2013) the
USMC must integrate current network technologies with future network technologies to provide
Unified Communications (UC) i.e., any single or combination of information media (voice, video, and/or data), whether converged or non-converged) on DoD networks. Products that provide or support UC, acquired or operated by the USMC, shall be certified for interoperability (IO) and information assurance (IA) as set forth by DoDI 8100.04.
The Marine Corps Unified Communications (UC) solution has an active Marine Corps Certification and Accreditation Support Tool- MCCAST RMF package (Authority to Operate- ATO 2017-0273, expiring 27 February 2020), all applicable software is authorized in the Department of the Navy
Applications and Database Management System-DADMS. The unified communications existing solution has the Department of the Navy Applications and Database Management System -
Department of Defense Information Technology Portfolio Repository - Department of the Navy-
DADMS/DITPR-DON registration 89763, and is listed on the Joint Interoperability Test Command approved products list-JITC APL approved by Defense IA/ Security Accreditation Working Group -
DSAWG for IA/IO.
The subject hardware and software update/upgrade are essential to the Government’s requirement and no other vendors can meet or can be modified to meet the requirement.
The Marine Corps has been in possession of the Cisco hardware and software that is end of life/end of support and has already sunk costs into the procurement of the hardware and software, the labor to design a solution, the labor to install and configure the hardware and software, and the labor to train the systems administrators on the use of the solution. Although there are viable alternative solutions from competing manufacturers, implementation of those alternate solutions would require re-investment of those sunk costs and the Government does not anticipate the ability to recoup those costs via full and open competition. The current Cisco infrastructure is sustained by the DoD Cisco Joint Enterprise Level
Agreement- JELA contract, the new hardware and software will also be sustained by this Enterprise JELA contract.
6. Description of Efforts Made to Solicit Offers from as Many Offerors as Practicable.
Market research was conducted in accordance with FAR Part 10, and revealed that there are multiple vendors in the commercial market capable of providing the required supplies. The proposed contract was posted on GSA eBuy from 29 April 2019 to 5 May 2019 and on NASA SEWP from 24 April 2019 to 5
May 2019 as RFI/Sources Sought notices, with the Governments intent to utilize brand name or equal descriptions.
Several vendors expressed an interest in the requirement. No vendors expressed any concern with the use of brand name or equal descriptions. No additional market research was conducted because it is not practicable or in the Government’s best interest, for the reasons discussed in paragraph 5, for the
Government to write its requirement without the use of brand name or equal descriptions.
Market analysis was conducted by MCTOG (Requiring Activity) which collectively determined that other smart boards would not be interoperable with existing equipment , thus the possibility of incurring costs to replace all of the infrastructure would not be in the government’s best interest
In addition to the significant additional costs associated with the “Total Solution Replacement” acquisition strategy, the Government estimates that it would take twelve to eighteen months to design, install, and configure a replacement solution.
The “Total Solution Replacement” approach is neither fiscally nor operationally viable at this time, in accordance with the foregoing and supporting analysis.
This requirement will be competed amongst Cisco-authorized resellers.
7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Cost.
The Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government of the supplies/services covered by this J&A will be fair and reasonable.
The Contracting Officer will ensure quoted prices are fair and reasonable based on a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation and a comparison of the proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items per the techniques outlined in
FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2)(i) and (vi).
8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Future Competition.
For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 5, the activity has no plans at this time to eliminate the use of brand name or equal descriptions from future solicitations for the types of supplies/services covered by this document; however, this will be reassessed during follow-on acquisition planning.
SIGNATURES MUST BE ON A NEW PAGE
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.
Technical Cognizance:
Signature Pamela Castillo (760)830-1747 June 13, 2019
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW
I have determined that this Justification is legally sufficient.
Signature Name (Printed) Phone No. Date
CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION
I certify that this Justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Signature Name (Printed) Phone No. Date
File details come from the government source that posted it.