SATPC0037194 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 Arena by Tomorrow only for Arena Radar Modules. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 22 weeks ARO, and a Service Period of Performance of November 18, 2024 through April 18, 2025.

OR

Brand Name Justification:

☐I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate only with vendors who can provide the subject brand name from Manufacture Name for Product being purchased. 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.

The ARENA FPGA radar modules, designed specifically for the Goddard Space Flight Center's (GSFC) high-altitude radars, are custom electronics boards that align with those utilized by existing radar systems, including the Cloud Radar System (CRS) and the Microwave Barometric Radar and Sounder (MBARS). These ARENA modules deliver essential control, waveform generation, and digital receiving/processing capabilities for these systems. Their continued implementation allows for the effective utilization of significant prior development and engineering efforts related to airborne systems at NASA/GSFC. Additionally, the ARENA modules are tailored for Goddard’s high-altitude radars and similar research instruments, including those at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).The vendor possesses a comprehensive understanding of the end-to-end requirements, backed by over a decade of experience in developing these digital modules. Alternative hardware solutions would not replicate the precise functions required without extensive and costly firmware modifications to ensure compatibility.

Even with such enhancements, this process would disrupt compatibility with existing GSFC instruments, necessitating further engineering efforts at Goddard and increased expenditures to maintain adequate hardware spares.

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

Engaging a different vendor would be impractical, necessitating significant custom firmware and hardware development, and potentially impossible given that the ARENA boards and firmware are proprietary. Additionally, developing similar capabilities for the high-altitude radar projects would pose a risk of incompatibility with our existing airborne systems. This incompatibility would lead to increased engineering efforts at Goddard, as we would have duplicative functionality without the ability to integrate designs effectively.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: