Tab 12 Brand Name Justification.pdf
PDF 383 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Honeywell Fire Services/Emergency Management Hardware Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC854949Q
About this file
This document is a brand name justification for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Shared Services Center to negotiate with Honeywell International Inc. for fire services and emergency management hardware maintenance. The justification states that Honeywell/Notifier products are requested to maintain integrity with existing alarm system configurations and equipment, while other brands may require additional costs and time to ensure compatibility. Selecting another brand also risks compliance, incompatibility, and potential impacts to emergency management alarm operations and timelines. The related federal contract opportunity is solicitation number 80NSSC854949Q for Honeywell fire services and emergency management hardware from NASA Shared Services Center.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Tab 4 SOW.pdf | ||
| Tab 12 RFQ.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Page 1 V2.0 3-15-2017
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER
RECOMMENDATION AND DETERMINATION TO SOLICIT FROM ONE SOURCE
OR BRAND NAME
PICK ONE
Sole Source:
☐I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with Vendor Name only for Web of .
The total estimated cost of this effort is Enter Dollar amount and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is Date.
OR
Brand Name Justification:
☒I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate only with vendors who can provide the subject band name from Honeywell International Inc. for Fire Services/Emergency Management Maintenance. The estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 1-2 weeks aro.
This recommendation is for the acquisition of supplies or services determined to be reasonably available from only one source/only one manufacture. Competition is impractical for the following reasons (please answer the questions below):
1. What are the reasons for soliciting only the suggested source/suggested brand name? Please provide the unique characteristics of the items or services along with the supporting rationale and the market research performed to substantiate your reason for the suggested source/brand name.
The Honeywell/Notifier products requested will maintain integrity of the alarm systems and ensure compatibility with existing configurations and equipment. Other ‘compatible’ items may require supplements or adjustments resulting in additional costs and increase timelines for the maintenance and upgrade of vital requirements.
2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.
Selecting another brand risks compliance, incompatibility and increased costs. Additionally, risks to maintenance completion timelines may effect emergency management alarms and operations.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
11/8/2023 Technical User Name Date
Emergency Management and Fire Services Chief
TITLE
LARC
Office
Page 2 V3.0 01/18/2023
****FOR NSSC SAT USE ONLY****
The above justification in pursuant to one of the following (only select one):
☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(1), the proposed contract action will be placed on SAM.gov under the authority of FAR 13.106 - 1(b)(1)(i).
☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(2), the proposed contraction action was not placed on SAM.gov as oral solicitation will be used to solicit quotation under the authority of FAR 13.106-1(c).
☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.202(a)(2), the proposed contract action is exempt from publication on SAM.gov because the government would be seriously injured if the Agency complies with the time periods specified in FAR 5.203.
☐ - Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified. (Under $25,000)
☐ - Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified. Pursuant to FAR 5.201, any contract action over $25,000 shall be synopsized in the Government wide Point of Entry (GPE) and the brand name justification must be attached.
☐ - SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.505(4)(i) (ii), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. (under $30,000)
☐ - SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.505(a)(4)(i)(ii)(iii)(A), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. Any action over $30,000 the brand name shall be posted on the agency website used to solicit offers for orders.
☐ - Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Sole Source: For GSA orders, pursuant to FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(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. Action will be performed against GSA Contract ___________________.
☐ - Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Brand Name: For GSA orders, pursuant to FAR 8.405-6(b), the item is peculiar to one manufacturer. A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer.
☐ - Exception to Fair Opportunity (EFO): For SEWP orders or orders placed against other IDIQ contracts, under the authority of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) and Pursuant to FAR 16.505(b), exemption under FAR 16.505(b)(2) used is based on the following:
☐ (A) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays ☐ (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.
☐ (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.
I hereby accept the above stated recommendation and determine that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available.
X Contracting Officer
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .