BNJ.pdf
PDF 290 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AFRC VIDEO FY26 RND4- CRESTON UPGRADE ISF
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC26940572Q
About this file
This is a NASA Shared Services Center Brand Name Justification document for a single-source procurement recommendation. The document recommends that NASA negotiate exclusively with vendors capable of providing Crestron Electronics, Inc. brand audiovisual control equipment for the AFRC VIDEO FY26 RND4 CRESTON UPGRADE ISF project, with an estimated period of performance commencing October 1, 2026.
The justification establishes that Crestron is the only provider maintaining complete compatibility with Armstrong Flight Research Center's existing control infrastructure, user interfaces, programmed workflows, and integrated audiovisual systems. The center's heavy reliance on Crestron technology means that switching vendors would necessitate comprehensive system redesign, reprogramming, testing, and staff retraining while introducing risks to operational reliability and compatibility. Market research conducted indicates no alternative solution fulfills the specific technical requirements without significant impacts to schedule, costs, and operations. The document further articulates that utilizing a different vendor or brand would result in substantial schedule delays due to evaluation and integration requirements, potential compatibility issues with existing Crestron-based infrastructure requiring extended technical adjustments and testing procedures, increased costs, compromised reliability, and disruption to operational continuity. The brand name justification supports the government's determination that competition is impractical for this acquisition.
View the file
Other files
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- 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 only with vendors who can provide the subject band name from Crestron Electronics, Inc. for AFRC VIDEO FY26 RND4- CRESTON UPGRADE ISF. The estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 10/1/2026.
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.
Crestron is the only provider that maintains complete compatibility with AFRC’s current control infrastructure, user interfaces, programmed workflows, and integrated AV systems. The center already relies heavily on Crestron technology; switching vendors would necessitate system redesign, reprogramming, testing, and staff training, while also introducing potential risks to reliability and compatibility. Market research indicates that no other solution fulfills these specific requirements without significant impacts on schedule, costs, and operations. Therefore, Crestron remains the only provider capable of meeting the technical and compatibility needs for this upgrade.
2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.
Utilizing a different vendor or brand could result in significant schedule delays, as the government would need to evaluate, integrate, and train personnel on unfamiliar equipment. Previous experience indicates that such processes can considerably slow project progress. Additionally, switching to an alternative brand may introduce compatibility issues with the existing Crestron-based infrastructure, necessitating further technical adjustments, extended testing, and new approval procedures before the system can operate correctly. These challenges are likely to increase costs, compromise reliability, and disrupt operational continuity, making alternative brands both time-consuming and financially burdensome for the government.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .