SATPC0038205 Tab 10 BNJ_Redacted.pdf
PDF 161 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Lunar Environment Structural Test Rig Vacuum Pumping System Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC25901515Q
About this file
This document is a Brand Name Justification form from NASA Shared Services Center for a vacuum pumping system procurement. The justification recommends soliciting vendors who can provide specific brand name items for the Lunar Environment Structural Test Rig (LESTR 2), focusing on Items 01-08, 12, 19-23 listed in the Statement of Work. The procurement is justified based on standardizing parts and lessons learned from LESTR 1, with an estimated period of performance through 09/30/25.
The document details critical reasons for brand name specification, including maintaining system compatibility, reducing maintenance costs, and avoiding potential performance risks. Specifically, using the same pumping system components as LESTR 1 would prevent potential issues such as inability to reach high/ultra-high vacuum conditions, minimize replacement component stockpiles, ensure continued safety compliance, and avoid significant expenses and schedule delays associated with re-working the vacuum chamber system architecture.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SATPC0038205 Tab 04 4 SOW Rev.pdf | ||
| SATPC0038205 Tab 10 RFQ Open Market.pdf | ||
| SATPC0038205 Tab 04 4 SOW_Redacted.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 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.
OR
Brand Name Justification:
☒I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject brand name from Edwards for Items – 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 12, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 listed in Tables 1 and 2 of the Statement of Work. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 09/30/25.
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.
LESTR 2 is a cryogenic vacuum mechanical test system and is a refinement of lessons learned from LESTR 1. In LESTR 1 the pumping system was successful and, in an effort, to standardize parts, streamline upkeep by reducing unique part count, and to eliminate the time and expense of becoming proficient in a new system, the EHP-SMA Project strongly recommends that the LESTR 2 pumping system be constructed with the same parts as the LESTR 1 system.7
2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.
An incorrectly sized or inadequately evaluated system may not allow LESTR 2 to reach high and ultra-high vacuum conditions which would require replacing the entire system with the system already indicated by this procurement. An oversized system would not cause performance problems, but it would incur inefficient distributions of funds on overperformance that is not required. By utilizing the same systems, the stockpile of replacement components is significantly reduced, transitioning to a new system would significantly increase maintenance costs over the current system. The current system conforms to sound-safety requirements, deviating to a different system would create a risk of no longer being in conformance. If a system does not meet the specific interface requirements of the LESTR 2 architecture the expense to re-work the entire vacuum chamber system would incur large expenses and significantly delay operation schedule.
Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .