N6426721Q1076 Brand Name.pdf

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER, CORONA DIVISION

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

BRAND NAME/SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION (FBO) SAT

LIMITED-SOURCES JUSTIFICATION (GSA) SAT

JUSTIFICATION FOR AN EXCEPTION TO FAIR OPPORTUNITY

(ID/IQ TAKS ORDER/DELIVERY ORDER) SAT

1. Description of Supplies/Services.

PA32 requires the following equipment with the specification outlined in Requirement of the SOW.

Part Number DESCRITION QTY 210-AMRM Dell Precision 7920 Tower Workstation-

Specs: Dual Intel Xeon Gold 6226R 2.9GHz,(3.9GHz Turbo, 16C, 10.4GT/s 2UPI, 22MB Cache, HT

(150W) DDR4-2933 Processors, 32GB 2x16GB DDR4 2933MHz RDIMM ECC Memory , M.2 512GB PCIe NVMe Class 40 Solid State Drive (Primary), M.2 1TB PCIe NVMe Class 40 Solid State Drive (Secondary), NVIDIA Quadro P2200, 5GB, 4 DP, Intel X550-T2

10GbE NIC, Dual Port, Copper, 8x Half-Height BD-RE Drive, Dell KB813 Smart Card Keyboard, Dell Optical

Mouse - MS116 (Black)

The requested supplies services represent the minimum requirements of the government, which have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

2. Regulatory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

FBO

FAR 13.106-1(b)(i) Soliciting from a single source

FAR 13.106-1(b)(ii) Particular brand-name item

GSA

FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(A) An urgent and compelling need exists

FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(B) Only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized

FAR 8.405-6(a)(i)(1)(C) In the interest of economy and efficiency, 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 or BPA must not have been previously issued under sole-source or limited-sources procedures).

FAR 8.405-6 (b) Items peculiar to one manufacturer (brand-name item) ID/IQ Task Order/Delivery Order (e.g. NASA SEWP or ARMY CHESS)

2 | 7

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(A) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(B) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(C) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order. [When utilizing this exception, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial order and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value).]

FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(D) It is necessary to place an order to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

3. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Regulatory Authority.

a.) The Items Described in Paragraph 1 Must Be Compatible In All Aspects

(Form, Fit And Function) With Existing Systems Presently Installed.

b.) A Patent, Copyright, or Proprietary Data Limits Competition.

c.) The Items Described in Paragraph 1 are

Parts/Components for Existing Equipment.

d.) Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Supported By A Case Letter.

e.) Unusual and Compelling Urgency.

NSWC Corona Code PA32 provides PA34 with IT support for Missile Defense Agency (MDA) enclave in order to perform analysis for BMD T&E missions. The Dell Precision 7920 Tower Workstations are required to support the MDA Program Office in providing analysis reporting to multiple BMD T&E missions throughout the year. Existing equipment on hand does not meet the required hardware specs to perform the computation of data on newer shipboard Combat Systems baselines. The current equipment being used is also end of life and no longer maintains IA compliance. These Dell Precision 7920 Tower Workstations have the computing power of servers but in a desktop platform. The requested desktops meets the hardware requirements and is compatible with the software and tools that the team will be using in performing their data analysis and meeting missions requirements to enhance warfighter capabilities.

3 | 7 f.) Other: If required, discuss any other rationale that supports the use of a brand name/sole source for this effort.

4. Implication of Procuring another Brand/Manufacturer.

a.) Unacceptable .

b.) Substantial Duplication Of Cost To The Government That Is Not Expected

To Be Recovered Through Competition.

c.) Other: If required, discuss any other implication of procuring another brand/manufacturer.

5. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition

CERTIFICATION

Using a different brand of laptop hardware would delay use by 6 months due to the requirement of having to perform R&D again to ensure compatibility issues. Existing equipment is becoming more outdated and waiting an additional 6 months would be unacceptable.

The associated cost to the government of identifying a potential alternate product, field-testing it, re-training staff, and transitioning all products to the new system is substantial. An RFI would be required and would require six (6) months and approximately 960 hours to prepare, test, and evaluate responses. The R&D portion to test an alternate product would cost $80,000. To test the product, each mission will have a minimum of 1 engineer supporting (labor per event estimated at $20,000 per engineer). Even with the substantial cost of $100,000, the biggest problem would be incurring delays to the research and development effort and possibly even missing acquisition Milestone requirements. For the reason that AEGIS BMD funding has an expiration date, delays to existing efforts is unacceptable.

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 4.a. and 4.b., NSWCCO has no plans at this time to compete future contracts for the types of supplies/services covered by this document. If another potential source emerges, NSWCCO will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible

4 | 7

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

CUSTOMER:

Krista Lestina, ARP, PA (951) 393-5507 22 JUN 2021

Name, Title, Code Phone No. Date

APPROVALS

I certify that the Customer representations above have been verified, and are complete and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the processing of this brand name/sole-source justification precludes the use of full and open competition.

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR/SPECIALIST:

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that completing this purchase as a brand name/sole source is in the best interest of the government.

CONTRACTING OFFICER:

28 July 2021(909) 499 - 7228Contract Specialist, Code 02