SATPC0036871 Tab 06 RDSS..pdf
PDF 140 KB Posted
- Attached to
- ROLSES 2. 0 PFM Antenna Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC25885230Q
About this file
This is a Sole Source Justification form from NASA Shared Services Center recommending negotiation with Heliospace for proto-flight model (PFM) antennas for the ROLSES 2.0 project, with an estimated delivery timeframe of 3-4 months.
The justification explains that Heliospace previously designed and built antennas for ROLSES 1.0, and all electronics cards were specifically designed to filter and digitize based on this antenna's characteristics and parasitics. Selecting a new vendor would require redesigning frontend analog cards and extensive retesting. Heliospace has successfully delivered 4 flight antennas and 4 test antennas on budget and ahead of schedule for previous work. Using a different vendor would increase NASA engineering time, costs, and risks, as the build-to-print frontend electronics card would require additional testing and tuning to work with new antenna designs. The document emphasizes that ROLSES 2.0 has both tight schedule and budget constraints, making Heliospace the only practical source for this procurement.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SATPC0036871 Tab 07 Capability Statement SAM.gov.pdf | ||
| SATPC0036871 Tab 04 4 SOW.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 Heliospace only for proto-flight model(PFM) antennas. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 3-4 months.
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 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.
These antennas were previously designed and built by this vendor for ROLSES 1.0. All electronics cards from frontend to the digital cards were specifically designed to filter and digitize with respect to this antenna’s characteristics, considering antenna parasitics. To procure a new design and fabricated antenna from a new vendor would require several redesigns for the frontend analog cards, not to mention that a slew of tests would need to be redone to verify the new design. The previous vendor can easily recreate the expected antenna parameters for ROLSES 2.0. This works in our favor as ROLSES 2.0 is also on a tight schedule with limited budget. The quote for these antennas is known and the timeline for when they are built will be matched or close to the previous procurement.
2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.
No other vendor can match the antenna parameters, specifically the parasitics, that the frontend electronics were designed for. This vendor has delivered 4 flight antennas and 4 test antennas, on budget and on or ahead of schedule. Using another vendor will substantially increase NASA engineering time and needlessly increase the risk of error. For the build-to-print frontend electronics card, running the risk of another vendor designing new antennas based on our requirements would lead to increased amount of testing and tuning of the electronics card. Using the same vendor with a verified product means time and money saved for NASA engineers and government.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .