SATPC0037894 Tab 06 RDSS..pdf

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 NSI-MI Technologies, Inc. only for the procurement of a dual-polarized waveguide antenna feed from NSI-MI Technologies, Inc. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is to June 30th, 2025.

OR

Brand Name Justification:

☐I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject band name from Manufacture Name for Enter Supply or Service to be procured. The total estimated cost of this effort is Enter Dollar amount and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is Date.

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 antenna chamber was specifically designed around and to interface to NSI-MI Technologies, inc antenna feeds. The feeds are designed with a specific antenna pattern that matches the characteristic of the antenna chamber. Namely, the antenna has a specific amplitude taper, beamwidth, and phase center location that are critical to properly illuminating the compact range reflector, and thus providing an adequately flat plane wave for the antenna test range. Market research was conducted to see if there are other vendors with off-the-shelf antenna feeds that are compatible to the antenna chamber. Researched vendors included the major manufacturers of antenna range feeds: MVG Wireless, Eravant, and RF Spin.

The results of this market research showed that there are no other antenna compatible with the GSFC antenna range on the market.

2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.

Antenna feeds from other vendors have been explored, and we have even explored making modifications to the antenna range. The antenna pattern is non negotiable for the performance of the range, as the range performance is compromised with incorrect illumination of the compact range reflector. Only the MVG wireless antenna offered the appropriate illumination pattern, but the mechanical interface was not compatible to the GSFC antenna range. Correcting this incompatibility would require a complete replacement of the compact range feed positioner, costing an order of magnitude more that the antenna itself. Therefore, use of another vendor/brand would result in additional costs , or complete incompatibility of the product.