SATPC0039981 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 Bally Ribbon Mills only for Advanced Textile Custom Development. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 6 months from ATP.

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 vendor for supply or service to be procured. The total estimated cost of this effort is 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.

NASA’s Artemis Suit Materials (ASM) Project requires the design, weaving, and limited testing of advanced woven fabrics for the next-generation lunar Environmental Protection Garment (EPG). The work, detailed in the attached Statement of Work, includes three phases: Phase 1, weaving uncoated fabric blankets using specified Kevlar and Vectran warps with multiple weft/filling yarn combinations and weave designs; Phase 2, evaluating coated yarns and subsequently weaving coated fabric blankets;

and Phase 3, weaving a final down-selected fabric at production width. Bally Ribbon Mills (BRM) is the only known source capable of meeting these requirements. BRM possesses specialized narrow-fabric looms and proprietary process controls that enable experimental multi-warp blankets with rapid yarn and weave changes while maintaining aerospace-grade quality and documentation. Their machine settings, weaving diagrams, yarn preparation methods, and tension control are proprietary and not available from other vendors. BRM also has an established history of producing high-performance aerospace textiles for NASA missions, significantly reducing technical risk and avoiding extensive requalification. In addition, BRM’s expertise in handling delicate, coated high-performance fibers such as Kevlar, Vectran, PBO, and Nomex with ESD components is critical for successful fabrication. Market research—including outreach to other aerospace textile weavers and review of NASA’s vendor database—did not identify any other suppliers with the ability to produce complex multi-fiber, multi-weave aerospace-grade blankets with the required process control and documentation within the project’s schedule.

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

If NASA were required to use an alternate vendor for this effort, the government would face significant cost, schedule, and technical risks. A new supplier would need to develop custom narrow-fabric weaving processes from the ground up, qualify specialized looms, and demonstrate the ability to handle coated high-performance fibers such as Kevlar, Vectran, PBO, and Nomex with electrostatic-dissipative components. This would necessitate extensive process development, tooling, and qualification testing that would add an estimated six to nine months to the schedule and substantially increase project costs.

Any delay would jeopardize the down-selection of candidate Environmental Protection Garment fabrics and threaten key milestones tied to the Artemis 3 mission timeline. In addition, using an unproven vendor

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017 could result in inconsistent fabric quality, incomplete documentation, and higher risk of technical failure during downstream testing, which would force NASA to repeat critical evaluations and expend additional funding. Collectively, these factors would impose unacceptable schedule risk and cost growth on the government compared to awarding the work directly to Bally Ribbon Mills, the only source with proven capability and established processes to meet the ASM team’s stringent requirements.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Pursuant to FAR 5.201, any contract action over (not bought via GSA or SEWP) shall be synopsized in the Government wide Point of Entry (GPE) by the Contracting Officer. In addition, the brand name justification must be referenced or attached.

9/24/2025 Date