RQ CLL20200036 - J and A - DPTV_Redacted.pdf

Form ## (2015 02)

In supporting an action not providing for full and open competition, it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the contractor is exceptionally well qualified or even the best qualified, or that the required brand name product is well suited to the Library’s needs. The rationale must demonstrate that no one else, or no other competing product, can satisfactorily fulfill the Library’s requirement. Do not focus on the importance of the requirement; the issue is the rationale for not competing.

In supporting urgency, address the following: What are the unexpected facts or the unpredictable events that led to this situation? When is the required delivery or performance start date? Why this date? What specific harm to the Government will occur if the delivery is not made or performance not begun as scheduled? (Note that expiration of funds is not sufficient harm to justify not competing.) Demonstrate that the contract is only for items and quantities urgently needed until a competitive procurement action can be developed, or that a separate competitive follow-on is not practical.

In supporting a brand name justification, the brand name or feature must be essential to the Library’s requirements, and market research indicates that other company’s similar products or products with similar features cannot meet or be modified to meet the Library’s needs.