SF1013 SSJ M8 Acquisition_Redacted.pdf

Treasury Standard Form – 1013 (Rev 5/18)

Prescribed by Treasury: DTAP 1013.501

Tracking No.

Removal, Transportation, Decommission and Destruction: . The Contractor shall remove the BPS3000 from each location back to the Contractor’s facility. The Contractor shall then destroy the transported two (2) CP and two (2) RS from the laboratories.

2.b Name of the vendor. Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc.

2.c Requisition No.: TBD 2.d Bridge contract: ☐ Yes ☒ No 2.e Brand name: ☒ Yes ☐ No 3.a A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs:

The FRB FedCash Currency Technology and Support (CTS) released a Request for Proposal (RFP) on February 29, 2016, to procure high-speed currency processing equipment and associated maintenance support. In August 2017, the Federal Reserve Banking Affairs Committee approved the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to enter a Competitive Development phase with two suppliers, Giesecke & Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc. (G+D) and Currency Processing Solutions (CPS) for the development of a targeted prototype machine. The Bank’s goal was to simultaneously negotiate and execute terms and conditions that encompasses the development, purchase, and implementation of the NextGen Currency Processing Equipment and the maintenance to support this equipment. The CTS executed the terms and conditions in the Development, Delivery and Supply Agreement (DDS) and the Statement of Work (DDS-SOW 1) for the competitive development in November of 2017 followed by the Maintenance Service Agreement (MSA) and statement of work (MSA-SOW 1) for the maintenance services in early 2019. The Statement of Work (SOW 2) for the remaining development, delivery and deployment activities was negotiated and executed during the competitive development phase (Phase 1) with both vendors. On August 7, 2020, the Statement of Work (SOW 2) Award Notice was issued to G+D.

Supplier (Giesecke and Devrient, G&D) acknowledges that it is the sole manufacturer of the SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment and that it has not licensed the manufacturing rights to develop the SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment to any other party. Supplier further acknowledges that the BEP, the Board of Governors, the United States Secret Service and Federal Reserve Banks have a collaborative relationship with respect to the processing and authentication of U.S. currency. As such, G&D agrees that in the event that the BEP or the United States Secret Service seeks to obtain any SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment or services from Supplier, Supplier will negotiate in good faith with the BEP and/or the United States Secret Service for the provision of such SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment or services.

The BEP and the United States Secret Service shall have the right to Purchase SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment at a per unit price no greater than would be paid by a Federal Reserve Bank provided that the specifications for such SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment are identical to the established Specifications, and that BEP's submission of an order is within a reasonable time-period from other SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment ordered by Federal Reserve Bank under a SOW. In the event that the BEP or the United States Secret Service elects to purchase SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment from Supplier, Supplier will supply the SOW 2 Currency Processing Equipment on terms and conditions as are mutually agreed by Supplier and the BEP or United States Secret Service pursuant to a separate contract. Supplier shall provide the installation, configuration, implementation, integration, testing, conversion, transition, training, and consulting and other services set forth in (“SOW 2”) (individually or collectively, the “Deployment Services”).

The mission of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) is to manufacture Federal Reserve Notes and other security products for the United States. These products are designed with advanced counterfeit deterrence features to ensure product integrity and manufactured to specifications and in quantities as ordered by its customers, primarily the Federal Reserve Bank system (FRB).

The Banknote Processing System (BPS 3000) is a high-speed cash processing system used for fitness inspection and authentication of banknotes. At BEP, the BPS system is used to ensure that produced currency will be compatible with FRB central banks’ BPS systems. BPS testing is required for QA release. The system is used to determine fitness of banknotes in circulation at the FRB. At BEP, the equipment is used as a quality tool to ensure the printed banknotes will meet FRB requirements for notes in circulation and is required to release product to the FRB. BPS testing ensures printed banknotes are consistent with standards set for currency inspection at FRB banks. BPS testing is part of BEP's Product Release Quality Inspection Process and is required by FRB

The FRB will be replacing their Banknote Processing System machines (BPS3000). The new generation of BPS is known as the M8 system. The new M8 system has improved handling and optical inspection of currency and will need next generation sensor suite. The M8 system is being developed by Currency Technology and Support (CTS) and a private vendor, Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc. Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc will manufacture the M8 System following FRB Currency Technology and Support (CTS) requirements. Obtaining the same system as the FRB also is necessary to guarantee any new currency designs are tested in current BPS systems to ensure we understand system response(s) to new designs. Upgrade to new technology as soon as available will also provide BEP feedback on issues found during processing of newly printed currency.

As FRB prepares to deploy the M8 machines to the Reserve Banks, two additional machines can be built by the manufacturer, G&D, for use at the Bureau of Engraving & Printing (BEP).

The BEP machines will be exact matches to the System machines and used to sample newly printed banknotes for quality and readiness for circulation. The BEP machines will also be equipped with the same types of sensors as the Federal Reserve Banks. For the current generation of machines, the BEP has separate service and PM contracts with both the machine and sensor manufacturers. Additionally, OQO submitted Large Business Case LCAP000012 for the Banknote Processing System (BPS 3000) Replacement that is now approved. The business case is for the acquisition and installation of next generation banknote processing systems (BPS) for DCF and WCF Product Quality Laboratories. System is being developed and built by a vendor (G&D) following FRB CTO requirements.

The BEP cannot obtain systems that differ from what the Federal Reserve Board has specified.

The BEP requires M8 systems with identical specifications to the FRB M8 Systems from the same supplier, G&D.

The proposed acquisition is to procure two (2) M8 systems from the original equipment manufacturer known as Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc, and associated maintenance support. The two (2) M8 systems are to be distributed to two sites, one at the BEP DCF Product Quality Laboratory and one at the BEP WCF Product Quality Laboratory. Target installation dates are Q4 2025 for WCF and Q4 2027 for DCF.

This requirement includes incidental Information Technology (IT) due to software that the M8 machines use. This is not an IT-centric contract.

3.b Includes IT: ☒ Yes ☐ No 3.c IGCE/Estimated dollar value:

The IGCE is . The estimate includes the base price for the Central Processing Unit (CP) per site, Reconciliation System (RS) per site, shipping the CP and RS per site, installation at a fixed rate, decommission and disposal of the CP and RS per site, G&D sensor systems per CP/per RS per site, training per site, software upgrades per site, and service plan per site. Refer to the IGCE for additional details.

4. Identification of the authority being used (Check the box that applies):

☒ 41 U.S.C. 1901 – Simplified acquisition procedures.

☐ 41 U.S.C. 1903 – Special emergency procurement authority.

5. A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited:

Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc unique qualifications and the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited as follows:

i.Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc developed and owns the propriety and patented hardware, software and algorithms that are used in these systems and support the services specifically required for this acquisition; thereby the proposed source has the sole unique technical expertise and other resources required for this acquisition.

ii.The Government currently uses the Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc. Banknote Processing Systems (BPS3000) at DCF and WCF Product Quality Laboratories and the FRB has established that G&D will provide the next generation M8 system.

iii.Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc BPS system supports the Government need for continuity of operations and will ensure that produced currency will be compatible with FRB central banks BPS systems. The next generation high speed currency testing equipment referred as M8 is required for QA release.

iv., This contract shall be issued under the Authority of 41 USC 253(c)(1), only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements.

Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc is the original equipment manufacturer for the next generation high speed currency processing equipment known as the M8 and has the capabilities, specialized technical expertise, and knowledge to manufacture, install, maintain, and repair these systems.

v.BEP must procure the same technology deployed by the FRB to ensure that no differences in the inspection results (e.g., false positives or false rejects) occur between the FRB and the BEP. The accuracy of this information is crucial for quality control and to provide feedback to manufacturing promptly to avoid producing many FRNs that would have to be destroyed at the FRB if the results are incorrect. Ensuring the same results from the BEP and FRB is most cost effectively accomplished by maintaining the system at the same level of performance with the same proprietary hardware and software algorithms as the FRB does.

vi.Being the manufacturer of U.S. currency for the FRB, who is the BEP’s primary customer, the quality of BEP product must meet requirements defined by the FRB. Therefore, having the BPS’s final inspection system set-up the same as the FRB’s is imperative to ensure that

U.S. currency consistently meets the requirements established by the FRB and Secret Service.

vii.Due to the nature of acquisition and the unique qualifications of the proposed contractor as described in section 5- Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc represents the only responsible and qualified source that has the capability to provide this equipment required by the BEP. The FRB’s requirement is for the BEP to have M8 machines that are the same as the FRB, thereby ensuring that currency produced by the BEP meets FRB and other agency’s needs.

6. A description of efforts to ensure that offers were solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by FAR subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under FAR 5.202 applies:

Due to the sensitive nature of the M8’s, BEP and the Federal Reserve Board does not intend for any information regarding its specifications or requirements to become public as G&D owns the propriety and patented hardware, software and algorithms that are used in these systems. The BEP cannot share or discuss requirements for high-speed currency processing equipment with anyone but G&D and or the Board. However, in accordance with FAR subpart 5.2, a notice of intent to award a sole source contract under the authority of FAR subpart 13.5 was posted on the Government Point of Entry. The notice afforded an opportunity for responsible sources to submit a capability statement to be considered by the Government. The notice of intent to sole source was posted on 05 May 23 and remained active for fifteen (15) days.

7. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

Before making award, the contracting officer must determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government shall use any combination of the price analysis techniques stipulated under FAR Subpart 13.106-3 to determine price fair and reasonableness. The contracting officer anticipates G+D’s prices will be determined fair and reasonable based on a comparison of the proposed prices received with those found in the contract issued by FRB to G+D for the same machines. The prices in that contract were determined fair and reasonable by the procuring FRB Contracting Officer and included pricing for the units as well as G&D sensors, decommissioning, disposal, development release, and upgrades. Additionally, the contracting officer may also determine G+D’s prices fair and reasonable based on comparison with the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) and historical pricing from previous BEP procurement of similar systems. Moreover, quantity discount credits for volume purchase of these machines may be available should BEP order M8 Systems from G&D in conjunction with the Board’s other M8 system acquisitions. These discounts will be considered in the CO’s analysis and determination.

8. A description of the market research conducted (see FAR part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted:

Due to the nature of acquisition, proprietary information, sensitivity of specifications, and the unique qualifications of Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology America, Inc. as described in section 5, there are no other potential sources. BEP cannot obtain systems that differ from what the Federal Reserve Board has specified. The BEP requires M8 Systems with identical specifications to FRB’s M8 Systems from the same supplier, G&D.

Due to the proprietary nature of this requirement a Special Notice should be posted to Government Point of Entry to express the Government’s intent to sole source its current requirement to G&D.

9.a Any other facts supporting this justification:

G&D is currently the only approved manufacturer of bank note machines for the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), BEP’s primary customer, and the only one approved by the Secret Service (SS) for inspection of US Currency. There are currently no efforts made by either entity to test or install other manufactured designs and use of an alternative design in the BEP will not be compatible with the equipment, inspection systems, and requirements currently in place between the FRB and SS.

The following techniques were used to conduct an extensive market research:

•Reviewed the Treasury Office of the Procurement Executive, Treasury’s Mandatory Sources, and Acquisition Gateway for a listing of Best-in-Class and Treasury Mandatory Sources in accordance with the Department of the Treasury Acquisition Procedures, DTAP 10008.002(a). The search yielded no results. The equipment is not available through the Gateway or via Treasury Mandatory sources.

•Agency inventories: The BEP does not manufacture the necessary equipment in-house as such it must obtain the equipment from a contractor.

•Excess from other agencies: Not applicable, there is no excess equipment that is available to meet this requirement.

•Other industry specific companies, equipment and software were examined to conclude that only Giesecke & Devrient America can perform the needed functions of the BEP. Due to the specialized nature and the sensitivity of the information provided, no other company exists that can perform the required functions of the BEP. This is critical to the BEP’s mission to ensure M8 high speed currency processing system mirrors the Federal Reserve Board to produce valid and authentic banknotes.

There are no viable Treasury mandatory or small business sources for this requirement. As the result of the market research conducted and sole source Firm Fixed Price contract is the most suitable and preferred method of contracting for the requirement based on the size of the acquisition. (See FAR 10.002 and DTAP part 10). Commercial GSA listings do not indicate that there are small business socioeconomic group business sources available capable of satisfying the agency’s requirement (FAR 19.201 and 19.502-4). There are no GSA Small Business Concerns with the capabilities required to successfully perform these requirements since this equipment is proprietary to the incumbent contractor. Although BEP Bureau Small Business Goal Achievements are a priority, the Government would be best served to leave the requirement in the hands of the current contractor due to the proprietary nature of the sensor. The original equipment manufacturer is required to maintain the equipment because no other source is unable to perform repair on proprietary equipment. It is one-of-a- kind and not sold through distributor or serviced by agents. The service provider holds a unique set of skills making it impossible for anyone else to meet the needs of the government. There is only one specific product or service that can reasonably meet the need; and there is only one vendor who can reasonably provide that product or service.

Moreover, the notice of intent to sole source that was posted on the GPE did not generate any responses. No interested parties emerged nor identified their interest and capabilities.

Not having any interested parties utilizing the opportunity to express interest or provide a capability statement, further strengthens the justification to proceed as a sole source requirement.

9.b Attachments: ☐ Yes ☒ No

10. A listing of sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition:

Not applicable.

11. A statement of the actions, if any, the Requiring Activity or Contracting Activity may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required:

Procurement will continue to be on a Sole Source basis unless the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) releases the proprietary obligations and restrictions or the Federal Reserve Board adopts an additional currency inspection system.

The equipment is a custom-designed currency inspection system that must perform a variety of detection of security features on FRN at very high speed, must interface correctly with several third-party sensors, must process features unique to Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), and must yield identical results to the M8 systems in use by the FRB.

12. Certifications and Approvals:

12.a Program Office certification (Requiring Activity). I hereby certify that any supporting information and data provided, which form the basis for this justification, are accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Name: Date: June 20, 2023

Signature:

12.b Contracting Officer certification and approval. I hereby determine the circumstances of this acquisition support the justification to acquire the item(s) on a sole source (including brand name) basis under the authority of FAR subpart 13.5. I also certify this justification is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the authorized contracting officer for this acquisition, I hereby approve this justification.

Name: Date: June 20, 2023

Signature:

13. Additional Reviews and Approvals (As applicable):

13.a Bureau Chief Information Officer or Authorized Designee (for IT requirements that are over $5 million, but not exceeding $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and representative of the Government’s need. Therefore, I hereby consent to the approval of this justification. (Note: The Bureau CIO may delegate their authority for proposed contracts over $5 million, but not exceeding $13.5 million to the Associate Bureau CIO(s).)

Name: Date:

Signature:

13.b Advocate for Competition (if over $750,000, but not exceeding $13.5 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the Advocate for competition, I hereby approve this justification.

Name: Date:

Signature:

13.c Head of the Procuring Activity or Authorized Designee (if over $13.5 million, but not exceeding $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, unless additional approvals are required as prescribed below, as the head of the procuring activity or authorized designee, I hereby approve this justification.

Name: Date:

Signature:

13.d Treasury Chief Information Officer (for IT requirements that are over $68 million).

I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief, and representative of the Government’s need. Therefore, I hereby consent to the approval of this justification.

Name: Date:

Signature:

13.e Senior Procurement Executive (if over $68 million) (Contracting Activity). I have reviewed this justification and find it to be accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. Therefore, as the senior procurement official, I hereby approve this justification.

Name: Date:

Signature:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SF-1013 - JUSTIFICATION & APPROVAL FOR FAR SUBPART

13.5 SOLE SOURCE (INCLUDING BRAND NAME) ACQUISITIONS

I. General instructions. Each Justification & Approval for FAR subpart 13.5 Sole Source (including brand name) acquisitions shall contain sufficient information and data to justify the proposed action, thereby be able to stand on its own. This type of detail is critical in order to enable a reviewer and/or approver to clearly understand the requirement and the rationale for supporting the justification. Simply copying and pasting information from a vendor’s website or marketing literature fails to support the use of such justification. Market research performed by the Requiring Activity and Contracting Activity should be used to support this document.

Given the majority of the information and data necessary to support this type of action resides with the Requiring Activity, they are the primary party responsible for completing this form.

However, the Requiring Activity shall seek assistance and input from the Contracting Activity/Contracting Officer (preferably in advance of submission of the procurement request).

It is also recommended the justification is not signed by the Requiring Activity until such time the Contracting Officer has had an opportunity to review, make necessary revisions and to include other necessary information or data to support the justification.

For Brand-name acquisitions keep in mind the justification is to cover only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name and that that the document approval requirements only apply to that portion. However, it does not mean that details regarding the overarching requirement (i.e., in the instance where the brand name is only a portion of an overall requirement) aren’t to be included in the document.

In the event of conflict between this form and applicable regulatory coverage (i.e., FAR and DTAR), the more stringent requirement shall be followed.

If the requirement involves classified or sensitive information, ensure the proper steps are taken to protect the information (e.g., labeling and marking).

Prior to distribution for signature: (i) retain only those signature blocks applicable to the dollar value of the items covered by this justification, (ii) delete all green text (which are example), and

(iii) consider converting the document to .pdf to support electronic signature and ease of retention.

The fields within this form are fluid and will change based upon input, therefore individuals completing this form need to be mindful of formatting prior to converting the document to pdf and submitting it for signature.

I. Field specific instructions.

1. Identification of the requiring activity and the contracting activity. Provide the name of the requiring activity (e.g., BFS’ –IT Office). Provide the name of the contracting agency and the name of the actual contracting activity (e.g., BFS’s – Contracting Office for IT).

2. Nature and/or description of the action being approved. Describe the type of action being issued (e.g., new award, contract modification, or brand name). Identify the contemplated contract type (e.g., firm fixed price).

If an existing contract is being modified, thereby requiring a justification or a modification to the initial justification then ensure to include the contract no., task/delivery order number (if applicable), proposed contract modification number, nature of why the modification is required) and, if applicable, a copy of the initial justification. If known, period of performance. When processing a class justification, include the effective period the justification will be in effect.

If brand name, state this justification & approval is covering only the portion of the acquisition which is brand-name.

Section 2.b Name of vendor. If applicable, insert the name of proposed vendor. If not applicable, enter “Not applicable”.

Section 2.c Requisition Number. If known, include the requisition number. If not applicable, enter “Not applicable”.

Section 2.d Bridge contract. Check the applicable box. See DTAP 1017.70 for a definition of bridge contract and other requirements.

Section 2.e Brand name. Check the applicable box.

3.a A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agency’s needs. Provide a clear, concise description of the supplies or services to be procured. Include a statement regarding the delivery schedule and/or the period of performance, inclusive of all option periods and award terms. State the schedule and associated schedule category(ies) the supplies or services are being procured against. For supplies, include details such quantity and a brief description of the items (e.g., twelve (12) laptops).

For brand name, provide the name of the brand, model number and other specific details associated with the brand name item(s) to be procured; name(s) of known sources that can provide the brand name.

For modification describe the purpose of modification, including details such as proposed extension to the period of performance as well as the purpose of and type of the contract.

3.b Includes IT. Check the applicable box. If yes is selected, then include the NAICS and PSC.

3.c IGCE/Estimated dollar value. Provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the anticipated award, inclusive of all options, award terms and any other monetary incentives.

For brand name provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the portion of the proposed acquisition, inclusive of all options, award terms and other monetary incentives, that is for the brand name item and the full IGCE/estimated dollar value of the acquisition.

For modifications provide the IGCE/estimated dollar value of the modification and the current total dollar value of the contract.

4. Identification of the exception to fair opportunity being used. Check the applicable exception being used as the authority for the justification.

5. A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited. Provide a clear and concise description of the rationale for the use of the authority being cited above, including a demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the exception cited. The following provides additional insight for purposes of completing this field:

• If using the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications, then describe what makes the proposed contractor the only source. For example, (i) does the proposed contractor have facilities or equipment that are specialized or unique that are vital to the effort?; (ii) Is the proposed contractor the only one that can meet critical schedule(s) required by the Government?;

(iii) Does the proposed contractor have prior experience or expertise of a highly specialized nature that is vital to the effort?; (iv) Does the contractor have an exclusive licensing agreement?. Fully explain why no other supply or service provided by another vendor will satisfy the Government’s need. Also, describe any type of market survey and analysis efforts conducted to support this conclusion. Do not simply take information from a vendor’s website or other such marketing information to use as the basis as to why they are unique

• If using urgency describe the nature or circumstances surrounding the urgency of the agency’s need; how any follow-on work will be competed or how such urgency will be mitigated in the future; describe the extent and impact of any unacceptable delay (e.g. quantitative data, dollars that would be lost, the impact to schedule) if award is not made in the timeframe needed;

provide supporting rationale and a concise description of the extent, nature, and impact of the potential harm to the Government.

• If using brand name state the brand name product’s unique attributes (be specific and use technical terms, if necessary), provide an explanation of the proposed brand name item(s) unique qualifications and why no other similar product will suffice, including why other companies’ similar products lacking the particular feature, do not meet, or cannot be modified to meet, the agency’s needs; why (if applicable) the nature of the acquisition requires the use of the brand name product. Provide an estimate of the cost and/or delay the Government would incur if other than the brand name item is used for this requirement. Do not simply take information from a vendor’s website or other such marketing information to use as the basis as to why they are unique. Also, describe any type of market survey and analysis efforts conducted to support this conclusion.

• If the logical follow-on exception is used, the rationale shall describe why the relationship between the initial award and the follow-on is logical (e.g., in terms of scope, period of performance, or value).

• If authorized or required by statute is the supporting rationale behind the nature of this acquisition, cite the statute along with the specific language from the statute and how it applies to this acquisition.

6. A description of efforts to ensure that offers were solicited from as many potential sources as is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by FAR subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under FAR 5.202 applies. Provide a clear and concise description of the efforts taken to solicit from as many potential sources as is practicable (include the names of the vendors that responded to the notice or that were contacted or expressed interest).

Keep in mind, if a notice was or will be published, include the date that it was published or anticipated to be published along with any other pertinent information regarding the notice.

And if a notice was not published as required by FAR subpart 5.2, state the FAR exception that was used and how it applies to this acquisition.

7. A determination by the contracting officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable. Provide a clear and complete description of the contracting officer’s determination that the anticipated cost or pricing the Government will be fair and reasonable. This might include things, such as consideration of commercial pricelists or prior acquisition history.

8. A description of the market research conducted (see FAR part 10) and the results or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

See DTAP part 1008, 1010 and 1019 for Treasury Mandatory Sources and small business requirements.

Issuance of a synopsis as required in FAR part 5 does not satisfy the requirement of conducting market research. Market research requires collecting and analyzing product/service information on the technical capabilities and prices/costs within the marketplace to satisfy agency needs.

Altogether, describe the market research performed along with the results. Note: If a market research summary report (e.g., SF 1010) was completed, provide a summary of the findings/determination along with a citation to that document so that a reviewer can refer to that document for greater detail.

If market research was not conducted, provide a complete discussion of the rationale and, if applicable, the circumstances supporting why market research was not conducted.

9.a Any other facts supporting this justification. In addition, to the examples provided in the form itself and listed in FAR 6.303-2 other examples are:

• If acquisition of a patented or copyrighted product is based on the representation of the intellectual property holder that has not been licensed for resale.

9.b Attachments. Check the applicable box. Examples of attachments might be a copy of the IGCE, certification from the vendor stating they are other only authorized reseller of the particular item or are the patent holder of the item.

10. A listing of sources, if any, that expressed a written interest in the acquisition.

Provide a listing of sources, if any that expressed a written interest in the acquisition (inclusive of the circumstances) or if no sources expressed interest provide a statement describing the reason. Do not use “Not Applicable”.

11. A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required. Describe actions taken, or that may be taken, to remove or overcome any barriers to competition before any subsequent acquisitions for the supplies or services required (e.g., overcoming challenges to restrictive data markings, data rights, preparation of a performance-based work statement). If planning or in the midst of a solicitation (i.e., competitive, or sole source), include information regarding this action (e.g., estimated date when the solicitation will be issued or anticipated date of award). If a sole source requirement is being contemplated, state the reasons why it will be sole source.

12. and 13. Certifications, Reviews and Approvals. Each review must be preceded by lower-level approval(s), e.g., over $68 million all approvals are required. IN NO CASE SHALL AN

INDIVIDUAL SIGN MORE THAN ONE APPROVAL LEVEL.

For justifications that include the purchase of Information Technology (IT) the following apply:

• The IT signature reflects only the portion of the acquisition that is IT. This can be important when dealing with an acquisition where IT does not represent the predominate value of the acquisition (i.e. therefore it is not assigned a separate IT PSC code (see the Treasury IT Acquisition Tracker).

• The Bureau Chief Information Officer (CIO) may delegate their authority for proposed contracts over $5 million, but not exceeding $13.5 million to Associate Bureau CIO(s).

Refer to the Bureau supplement to the DTAP to determine if the Bureau CIO has indeed delegated their authority.

A supplemental justification is required if any of the following revisions occur between approval of the original justification and actual award of the contract or modification of the contract: an increase in dollar value beyond the authority approved in the justification; a change in the competitive strategy that further reduces competition; or any type of change in the requirement that affects the basis of the justification.

Additional. Tracking No.: This field is completed as prescribed by Bureau procedures.