Brand-Name JA Template Part 13.5 - Hatteland Monitors_SPS redacted.pdf

J&A No. 0233-26-018-00 Code PID No. N64498-25-SIMACQ-PD-51-0169

BRAND-NAME JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

FOR USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

1. Contracting Activity.

The Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Philadelphia Division (NSWCPD), Code .

2. Description of the Action Being Approved.

Award of a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) purchase order on a brand-name basis for Hatteland Technology monitors.

3. Description of Supplies/Services.

This requisition is for Hatteland Technology brand monitors, listed below, in support of the Machinery Control Systems (MCS) Tech Refresh to replace legacy monitors that have reached end-of-life and are no longer able to support MCS systems. The part numbers, descriptions, and estimated quantities are as follows:

Part Number Description Qty

HM 21T22 UNX-MA1-2OVA 21.3" Xtreme Rugged Marine Display US Navy Bonded ACDC Fixed Handles TDC 141

Budgeted funds will include FY26 Other Procurement, Navy funding. The total estimated dollar value of the proposed acquisition is . The anticipated completion date is six (6) months from the date of the award. The Government’s minimum needs have been verified by the certifying technical and requirements personnel.

4. Statutory Authority Permitting Other Than Full and Open Competition.

41 U.S.C. 1901(e)(2), sole source (including brand-name) acquisition under the authority of Simplified Procedures for Certain Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER

PHILADELPHIA DIVISION

5001 SOUTH BROAD STREET

PHILADELPHIA PA 19112-1403

IN REPLY REFER TO:

5. Rationale Justifying Use of Cited Statutory Authority.

The Hatteland brand is the only responsible source, and no other supplies will satisfy agency requirements based on unique characteristics that are essential to the Government. This specific Hatteland brand monitor, HM 21T22 UNX-MA1-2OVA, is a direct form fit replacement of the legacy monitor, HM 21T22 UNX-MA1-3OVA, currently installed shipboard. The legacy monitor has reached end-of-life and is no longer able to support the MCS systems. This newer equipment must be purchased on a brand-name basis, from either the OEM Hatteland or an authorized Hatteland reseller, in order to effectively display the MCS Human Machine Interface (HMI), which is critical for monitoring and controlling the MCS systems. The Hatteland brand monitors are essential to fulfilling this requirement.

The unique specifications found in the Hatteland brand monitor that are critical to the LHD/A MCS Tech Refresh include the physical specifications and functional specifications. The unique physical specifications include dimensions, attachment points and port location. The dimensions of the Hatteland brand monitor are 18.98'' x 15.71''x 4.01'', (WxHxD). The attachment points are located on the outer edges of the monitor frame, separated by 18.31” x 12.75” (WxH), 0.96” from the top/bottom edge of the frame and 0.335” from the left/right edge. These exact dimensions and attachment points are critical for mounting the monitor within shipboard enclosures. These monitors will be installed on a few different types of enclosures which have different methods of accessing the internals of the enclosure. A few enclosures have the monitor on a vertical hinge, one has the monitor mounted to a door with a horizontal hinge and another within a stationary monitor mounting unit. Any deviation in the dimensions or attachment points will result in monitors not being able to be properly installed, gaps along the edges of frame allowing dust, debris, water, etc. to disrupt and damage the internal components, inaccessible port trays, or inaccessible internal components - all of which would be detrimental to the functionality of the MCS Systems.

The fixed mounting handles and port tray with specific port configurations are not necessarily unique to the brand but are required by the MCS Tech Refresh design. The fixed mounting handles are required to allow for easier installation/removal of monitor. The port tray on the Hatteland monitor is located in a position so that when installed on all the various types of enclosures access to the tray is guaranteed. The Hatteland brand monitor includes the following port inputs, all of which are required to ensure MCS functionality: DVI-D, VGA, HDMI 2.0, DP 1.2, RS-422/485, RS-232, RJ45 and USB Type-A. Critically the Hatteland brand monitor supports an operating temperature of 5.0°F to 131.0°F with 95% humidity.

The Hatteland brand monitor also includes unique functionality specifications that are critical to the LHD/A MCS functionality. An aspect ratio of 4:3 with a resolution of 1600 x 1200 are required due to the current configuration of MCS software. Failure to maintain this aspect ratio and resolution will negatively affect the HMI display making it nearly impossible to accurately and reliably monitor the ships’ operational status.

Through market research, other brands’ ruggedized monitors were identified as potential alternatives. These alternatives include Winmate Marine Display P/N: R21L100-MRM1, EIZO Rugged P/N: RGD2100 and ArgonFDS P/N: ARD21. The specifications for each of these models were reviewed to assess compatibility with the required specifications. The Winmate Marine display dimensions and mounting hole locations are not compatible with the existing shipboard enclosures. Critical port types are missing, and the monitor did not include vertical handles. The EIZO Rugged display mounting hole locations are not compatible with the existing shipboard enclosures and a few critical port types are missing. ArgonFDS display dimensions and mounting hole locations are not compatible with the existing shipboard enclosures.

Ultimately the LHD/A MCS team was unable to identify another commercially available ruggedized monitor that was compatible with the existing shipboard enclosures, other than the Hatteland brand monitors.

Each of the potential alternative OEMs was contacted to see if slight modifications could be made to their COTS monitors to accommodate the specifications required by the LHD/A MCS.

Ultimately none of the OEMs were able to make accommodations without requiring modification to other specifications, requiring significant non-recurring engineering (NRE) services or requiring environmental and EMI testing. Inclusion of NRE efforts indicates that the OEM is unable to make slight modification of their COTS monitor to accommodate the required specifications. Consideration of NRE efforts to design a new non-COTS monitor will result in increase in overall costs and unacceptable delays to the Tech Refresh timeline as a result of designing, testing/qualifying, manufacturing and delivery.

Deviation from the Hatteland brand-name monitor would negatively impact mission critical goals as the Tech Refresh team would not have an acceptable hardware replacement for the aging legacy components. Without this modernized equipment, the legacy components would continue to become inoperable until there are no replacement parts available, halting mission objectives, software testing, and deliveries until functionality is no longer viable.

Communication and system monitorization deterioration would result in serious risk to the safety and performance of the ship, as the sailors would not be able to send or receive critical information relating to systems health, hygiene and status.

Alternative brands are unable to match the specifications of the Hatteland brand-name monitor.

Therefore, consideration of the alternative brands would potentially require approval from stakeholders and a redesign of MCS enclosures. Efforts to redesign MCS enclosures would require multiple years of design efforts and would cost millions to design and manufacture. This level of effort and cost goes beyond the scope of the LHD/A MCS Tech Refresh. Thus, the Hatteland brand HM 21T22 UNX-MA1-2OVA display monitor is essential to the Government’s requirements, thereby precluding consideration of a product manufactured by another company.

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

Efforts to solicit offers was completed by contacting the Hatteland for a list of authorized resellers; , and . Those authorized resellers were contacted for cost estimates. Of the five (5) authorized resellers contacted for cost estimates, all but one (1) responded, . A cost estimate was also collected from the OEM, Hatteland, which was also technically acceptable. In total there were five (5) technically acceptable cost estimates received.

An RFI was posted to SAM.gov 01 July 2025 and closed on 16 July 2025. Two (2) vendors responded to the RFI; and . Both of these responses provided adequate information and evidence that they are capable of supporting this opportunity.

Through these efforts to solicit offers, 6 sources - (reseller), (reseller), (reseller), (reseller), (reseller) and Hatteland (OEM) - were identified as viable options for the procurement of the required Hatteland brand name monitors.

Additionally, a synopsis of this procurement was published to SAM.gov on 29 September 2025 which closed on 14 October 2025. Through these efforts, there were six (6) interested vendors who responded to the posting. , , and were determined unacceptable by the Technical Specialist. (reseller), (reseller), (reseller), were identified as acceptable options for the procurement of the required Hatteland brand name monitors.

7. Determination of Fair and Reasonable Costs.

The Contracting Officer has determined the anticipated cost to the Government of the supplies covered by this Justification will be fair and reasonable.

8. Actions to Remove Barriers to Competition.

For the reasons set forth in Paragraph 5, NSWCPD 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, NSWCPD will assess whether competition for future requirements is feasible.

CERTIFICATIONS AND APPROVAL

COMPETITION ADVOCATE APPROVAL

Upon the basis of the above Justification, I hereby approve, as Competition Advocate, the solicitation of the proposed procurement(s) described herein using other than full and open competition, pursuant to the authority of 41 U.S.C. 1901(e)(2).

Al Stracciolini, (Acting) Chief of the Contracting Office (Code 02) Date