Approved Justification Redacted.pdf

J&A Number:N00167-24-

SIMACQ-CD-104-0040

failure. Each procurement for the hardware or subsequent supporting warranty or maintenance plan is competed among OEM authorized resellers.

If the government does not procure this requirement under a brand name justification, the entire SeaTech would require replacement, which would cost over $10 million dollars for direct replacement based on the current configuration, along with several months of down time and lost research and development work costing the government tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Approximately 2,000 scientists and engineers use the SeaTech in the course of their daily activities. Direct replacement would take at least 1 full calendar year after contract award. Additionally, purchasing non-branded/non-authorized maintenance and warranty coverage from other vendors would lead to system failures causing direct replacement of hardware between $100K-$1.0M per incident. In addition to the extra replacement costs and time lost, the government would generate extensive costs associated with labor tied to contract package of development and acquisition.

Currently, the government is issuing three to four solicitations yearly, some of which are above the simplified acquisition threshold resulting in significant workload on both the requirement holders and the contracting office. By issuing a BPA, the government can more efficiently procure the requirements that are known for at least the next five years.

Lastly, even if the system was fully replaced, the government would then have to seek a brand name requirement again for whichever brand the newest system is to continue to maintain that system, as most warranties are a year, while the anticipated life of the systems are either 5 or 10 years based on DoD 7000.14-R FMR Vol. 4 Chap. 25 table 25-2.

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

Offerors as Practicable

The government performed market research in accordance with FAR 13.501(a)(1)(iv) to identify available contractor companies and available contracting resources and found that NASA SEWP does provide these supplies. However the requirement is for a BPA and a BPA cannot be issued against NASA SEWP. Historical data was reviewed for available vendors and to compare against what is available on NASA SEWP as well. Replacement of the entire SeaTech was not considered due to the sheer cost and level of effort to replace it. Alternative sources (non-OEM vendors) were considered but found that the risk associated with these does not outweigh the small cost savings potentially gained.

Pursuant to FAR 8.405-6, the Government will make this Justification available on the Government point of entry (SAM.gov), the Government will ensure that the contract file will be documented as to any responses received from making the Justification available.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Costs

In accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a) the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) shall ensure that all supplies and services provided under the anticipated contract are procured at a fair and reasonable price. The Government will require the contractor to submit a formal price proposal and sufficient information to support the accuracy and reliability of the estimate. The PCO shall determine that the proposed order represents the best value (as defined in FAR 2.101) to meet the Government’s needs. The PCO will also rely on experienced technical experts, as well as information from prior procurements conducted by the Navy where the same (or comparable) devices were procured, when conducting the price analysis.

This information will form the basis for a fair and reasonable price.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

This solicitation will be open to all authorized resellers by the Panasas OEM in order to maximize competition.

Future hardware buys will be competed to the maximum extent possible when multiple brands can or should be used to meet the government need. Additionally, small businesses can be used for this requirement and will be considered during the solicitation.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

TECHNICAL/REQUIREMENTS CERTIFICATION (FAR 6.303-2(c))

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

TECHNICAL AND REQUIREMENTS COGNIZANCE:

Signature Date Code 104B

LEGAL SUFFICIENCY REVIEW (NMCARS 5206.303(90))

I have determined this justification is legally sufficient.

Signature Date Assistant Counsel

CONTRACTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION (FAR 13.501(a)(2)(i))

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

Signature Date Contracting Officer, 02

ADVOCATE FOR COMPETITION APPROVAL

Upon the basis of the above justification, I hereby approve, as the solicitation of the proposed procurement(s) described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 10 U.S.C. 3204(a)(1).

Signature , Date Code 02