20210630_VMS-1 JOFOC Fully Signed.pdf

Rev.:01/2021

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

(JOFOC)

For the Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF) Vehicle Motion Simulator - 1 (VMS-1) System Repair Parts and Services

1. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.303-2(b)(1) – Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the document as a “Justification for other than full and open competition.”

This document is a justification for other than full and open competition prepared by NASA KSC. The procuring agency is NASA and the contracting activity is KSC.

2. FAR 6.303-2(b)(2) – The nature and/or description of the action being approved:

This justification provides the rationale for contracting by other than full and open competition with MTS Systems Corporation, Inc. for replacement of the actuators for the Vehicle Motion Simulator (VMS-1) at the Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF). This proposed action is a firm-fixed-price contract.

3. FAR 6.303-2(b)(3) – A description of the supplies or services required to meet the Agency’s needs (including the estimated value):

This procurement is for replacement of the actuators for the Vehicle Motion Simulator (VMS-1) at the Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF). There are currently two Vehicle Motion Simulators (VMS) Test Fixtures at the Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF), VMS-1 and VMS-2. VMS-1 was installed in 2009 and VMS-2 was installed in 2014. As part of their Maintenance and Engineering Support contract under the Test Operations & Support Contract (TOSC), in 2018, MTS Systems Corporation conducted an extensive inspection on both VMS-1 and VMS-2. The inspection was initiated due to substantial hydraulic fluid leakage in three of the VMS-1 Vertical Actuators. These actuators are used for vertical motion of the VMS-1 Dynamic Structure including low speed motion prior to launches.

The inspections confirmed seal leakage on the vertical actuators and observed significant wear and degradation of the hydraulic flex hoses that supply fluid to the VMS actuators. The inspection also revealed that the existing vertical actuators and the supporting flex hoses are beyond their expected use life. The three vertical actuators are leaking heavily, requiring either refurbishment or replacement. Due to environmental and functional concerns, the launch function of the VMS-1 can no longer be used. VMS-1 slow motion profiles can be performed, however daily oil monitoring and cleanup is required to maintain low speed vertical operation of the VMS-1 fixture.

Repair of the VMS-1 is required to maintain the unique VMS test capability for Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) and commercial partners that have requested access to Kennedy Space Center’s VMS testing.

The requirements for this effort require providing three new vertical actuators, the associated hoses, as well as the necessary materials and services needed to update the existing VMS-1 vertical actuators and hoses. The hardware features used in the update will be identical to the newer VMS-2 vertical actuator design. Deliverables will include schedules reflecting drawing updates, fabrication, test, and delivery. Installation of vertical actuators and hoses at Launch Equipment Test Facility, as well as system testing, and tuning is also required.

All effort required under this order shall be completed no later than ten (10) months from date of award. The estimated value of the acquisition is $2,000,000.

4. FAR 6.303-2(b)(4) – An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition:

The statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition is 10 United States Code §2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302- (1), which permits contracting without providing for full and open competition when the supplies or services needed by the Agency are available from only one responsible source or only from a limited number of responsible sources, and no other type of supplies or services will satisfy the needs of the Agency.

5. FAR 6.303-2(b)(5) – A demonstration that the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications or the nature of the acquisition requires use of the authority cited:

Pursuant to FAR 6.302-1(a)(2)(ii), “services may be deemed to be available only from the original source… when it is likely that award to any other source would result in substantial duplication of cost to the Government that it is not expected to be recovered through competition.” MTS Systems Corporation, Inc. was selected as the supplier of the VMS through a competitive procurement process under NASA’s University-Affiliated Spaceport Technology Development Contract NAS10-03006 and awarded as a sole source follow-on under the Engineering Services Contract (NNK11EA08C). The components of the VMS are proprietary to MTS Systems Corporation Inc. and cannot be accessed by a third-party supplier or subcontractor. Procuring VMS designs and studies other than the original involves substantial duplication of engineering costs that would not be recovered through competition. MTS provides maintenance and engineering support testing under the Test Operations and Support Contract (TOSC) and if any other vendor were to provide and install the upgrade required, that service contract would be in jeopardy of being voided out as MTS would not continue to perform the maintenance under this contract.

To ensure compatibility with the current VMS-1 actuator the use of the same Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts is required. Use of incompatible parts from another source would cause the test fixture to be unavailable to support NASA Programs such as

Space Launch Systems, EGS, and Commercial Partners. It is important that original equipment manufacturer, which has intimate knowledge of the requirements, provide appropriate guidance to the Government so that technical risks and costs can be mitigated.

Significant portions of the VMS-1 design and control system are proprietary as established by the original agreement requirements document by NASA 79K36754.

Therefore, design information required for a supplier, other than MTS, to build or supply any components to activate the VMS-1 are not available. A new company would need extensive time to review the VMS-1 and the current actuator in an attempt to create a compatible design. The new company would have to create drawings, specifications, software, command and control system and data manuals, which would contain the engineering basis, design decisions, analysis, and calculations. The new company would also need time to perform the engineering field work and validate all design decisions, bases, and calculations are correct. For the project identified in this document, it is estimated this familiarization process would take a new company approximately 36 months to complete and that entire effort would be duplicative of that already undertaken by MTS. Such costs are duplicative of the amounts already paid by the Government to get the VMS-1 & VMS-2 to their current state and would not be recovered through competition.

6. FAR 6.303-2(b)(6) – A description of the efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Subpart 5.2 and, if not, which exception under 5.202 applies:

A notice of proposed action will be transmitted to the Government Point of Entry (GPE) Web site <beta.sam.gov> in accordance with FAR Subpart 5.2. Any responses received as a result of the published notice will be appropriately dispositioned and documented in an addendum to this document.

7. FAR 6.303-2(b)(7) – A determination by the Contracting Officer that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable:

The Contracting Officer’s signature on this document indicates that the Contracting Officer has determined that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable. The contractor will be required to submit a proposal to be evaluated and negotiated by the Government. Prior to execution of the contractual instrument, a proposal analysis will be performed. The proposal analysis will ensure that the final agreed-to price for the contract will be fair and reasonable.

8. FAR 6.303-2(b)(8) – Description of the market research conducted, and the results, or a statement of the reasons a market research was not conducted:

In accordance with FAR 10.002(b)(2)(i), The Contracting Officer met with Testing and Design Technical Engineers for the LETF to discuss the required capabilities and known industry sources for the VMS-1 System parts and services. These representatives are intimately familiar with the market for these services and are not aware of any other company that has the combination of hardware, knowledge and information needed to fulfill the requirement for the VMS-1 repair. The representatives reviewed the hardware designs, had direct interactions with

MTS Corporation’s technical experts, and found that no other provider meets the defined requirements.

Additionally, the Contracting Officer conducted discussions with the LETF Technical Engineers and discovered the highly unique and complex VMS was designed, fabricated, installed and checked out by MTS as a result of a competitive acquisition process and that was turned over to KSC in 2010. It is a highly complex, six degree of freedom computer controlled hydraulic powered system with several integrated support systems. When it was turned over, the VMS was covered by a one-year warranty and MTS was subsequently awarded a maintenance and support subcontract under the Test Operations and Support Contract (TOSC). As part of this agreement, if any other vendor were to provide the equipment and perform the repairs required, that service contract MTS has would be in jeopardy of being voided out as MTS would not continue to perform the maintenance under this subcontract.

9. FAR 6.303-2(b)(9) – Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition:

Hardware Design (actuator assemblies, flex hose assemblies, fittings, etc.) – MTS proprietary design. Design requirements, parameters, capabilities and interfaces are unknown and would not be able to be sufficiently determined by others.

Hardware Installation – design information required for installation/removal of VMS hardware. This design info is MTS proprietary and would not be able to be determined by others. Potential damage to VMS Test Fixture if proper procedures are not performed.

VMS Software System Start-up and Check-out – after hardware removal and replacement, the VMS test fixture will need to be operationally checked out (tuned). No other company has the ability or knowledge to perform this checkout on MTS software and hardware parts.

VMS Design is sustained by MTS and there are no approved vendors that can manufacture MTS components.

MTS provides engineering support, which includes VMS Test Fixture capability to perform testing. If components are installed that do not meet the MTS VMS Design configuration, MTS could no longer provide the necessary engineering support to certify the VMS operation.

Other factors to consider

The actuators are only about 25 percent of the procurement. There are flex hoses being replaced that we do not have design information on (length, end connection fittings, etc.). The entire test fixture needs to be partially disassembled to remove and replace the actuators (nobody else would be able to do this without the Test Fixture design knowledge). The system needs to be tuned after actuator replacement (nobody else can do that since it is MTS designed). The software and parts hardware are MTS proprietary designs and MTS is the only known source who can provide the one of a kind system. If we could come up with an actuator replacement, MTS needs to be consulted to verify the Test Fixture is capable of performing testing based on loads applied to the Fixture and proprietary system software. They would no longer be able to certify that the Test Fixture is capable if the parts no longer meet their design.

10. FAR 6.303-2(b)(10) – A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed an interest in writing in the acquisition:

A notice of NASA’s intent to award this sole-source action will be synopsized on the GPE Web site <beta.sam.gov>. All notices required by FAR 5.201 will be published and any bids or proposals received will be considered.

11. FAR 6.303-2(b)(11) – A statement of 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:

The vast majority of KSC services and supplies contracts are awarded after full and open competition. KSC actively promotes competition for contract whenever possible. The components of the VMS are proprietary to MTS Systems Corporation, Inc. Due to constraints and compatibility requirements mentioned in this justification, these primary barriers would be difficult to overcome since the VMS requires OEM replacements parts.

JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

SIGNATURE PAGE

I certify that the facts presented in this justification are accurate and complete.

William Espinosa Technical Representative

I hereby certify that the above justification is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Tara M. Francisco Contracting Officer

CONCURRENCE:

Laura B. Rochester Procurement Officer

APPROVAL:

Kelvin Manning Competition Advocate Kennedy Space Center

Rev.:01/2021

William Espinosa Ortiz

Digitally signed by William Espinosa Ortiz Date: 2021.06.30 12:00:43 -04'00'