RFO MFR_Limiting_Competition_under_SAT_Redacted.pdf

CUI//SP-PROCURE//FEDCON

Memorandum for Record – Limiting Competition at or below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold

1. Requiring Activity: 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command (AAMDC), Ft.

Bliss, TX

2. Contracting Activity: 418th Contracting Support Brigade (CSB), Contracting Support Section (CSS), Ft. Hood, TX

3. Description of Action:

Nature of Requirement: ☒ New ☐ Follow-on ☐ Extend

Brand Name: ☒ Yes ☐ No

Contract Vehicle: ☒ Purchase Order

☐ Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA)

☐ Order/BPA against FSS Contract #______________________

☐ Order against multiple award IDIQ Contract

☐ Order against a single award IDC Contract

☐ Modification to existing PO/TO/DO/Call Order

Pricing/Contract Type: ☒ Fixed Price

☒ Cost Reimbursable

Funds: FY: __ 26

☒ Operations & Maintenance, Army (OMA)

☐ Other Funds: __________

Name of Proposed Contractor(s) and Address:

_______Multiple Vendors______________________

4. Description of Services or Supplies: This requirement is for a new Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP) purchase order for non-personal services to provide comprehensive maintenance and repair of the existing security systems for the 32d AAMDC at Buildings , Fort Bliss, TX. The systems requiring maintenance are the DAQ Electronics access control system and the Avigilon camera system.

The estimated total value of this acquisition is , which is under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold.

b. Failure to approve this brand-name restriction would result in significant operational and financial risk to the Government. Allowing non-certified technicians to service these systems could lead to improper configuration, system failures, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, and the voiding of OEM warranties. Any resulting downtime or malfunction of the security and surveillance infrastructure would directly degrade the requiring activity’s ability to maintain protected facilities, safeguard personnel, and ensure compliance with security directives. Additionally, the Government would incur increased costs associated with system damage, rework, or the need for OEM corrective action. Limiting competition to sources holding both DAQ Electronics and Avigilon certifications is therefore necessary to prevent serious injury to the mission and avoid avoidable financial loss.

7. Publicizing Contract Actions:

a. The public display and synopsis requirements of FAR 5.101(a) and FAR 5.101(d)

☐ do not apply, less than $20K threshold

☐ apply and will be followed

☒ do not apply due to an exception at FAR 5.101(b)(1)(i)

b. Requirement to post justification in accordance with, FAR 12.102(a)(2), GSAM

538.7104-3(a)(3) or FAR 16.507-6(f) unless:

☐ Action is not a brand name restriction and is under SAT, no posting required.

☐ Action is a brand name restriction, under $40K, no posting required.

☐ Action is a brand name restriction over $40K but will not be posted due to the following exception:

☐ FAR 6.301(e)

☐ GSAM 538.7104-3(b)(3)(i)(B)

☐ FAR 16.507-6(f)(4)

8. Market Research: Market research for this requirement was conducted between 29 January 2026 and 12 February 2026, compiled by with technical input from . The research used multiple methods consistent with AFARS PGI 5110.090 and FAR Part 10, including a Sources Sought Synopsis posted on SAM.gov on 29 JAN 2026 (Notice ID PANMCC26P0000039008) and a follow-up clarification notice to all respondents. The clarification specifically verified whether vendors possessed the mandatory OEM factory certifications for the existing Avigilon (CCTV) and DAQ Electronics (access control) systems.

The initial Sources Sought generated broad interest from nine vendors. After applying the OEM certification requirement—necessary because the systems are proprietary and require manufacturer-trained technicians—the field narrowed to four highly capable small businesses, each confirming DAQ and Avigilon certification and the required 4-hour emergency response capability. These results demonstrate that other companies’ similar products or uncertified services cannot meet the Government’s needs, as uncertified technicians lack access to proprietary tools, software, and encrypted configuration environments, and would risk system failure or voiding warranties.

Additional research included review of commercial practices for COTS security system maintenance, confirmation that the requirement is commercial under FAR 2.101, and verification that no mandatory sources under FAR Part 8 (AbilityOne, FPI) provide these services. The research also incorporated prior procurement history and vendor capability assessments, as reflected in the attached MRR.

Overall, the market

9. Other Facts: N/A

10. Technical/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.

11. Contracting Officer Certification/Approval: I hereby determine that the anticipated cost to the Government for the supplies/services covered by this justification will be fair and reasonable. A fair and reasonable price will be established by soliciting quotes from all identified vendors capable of meeting the mandatory certification requirements. If only one quote is received, the price will be determined reasonable by comparing it to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and historical pricing for similar services.

I certify that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that completing this purchase as a sole source is in the best interest of the Government. Additionally, I approve this justification to limit competition subject to the availability of funds and provided that the services or supplies herein described have otherwise been authorized for acquisition.