SATPC0037476 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 NanoAvionics only for ACS3 Mission Support. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is September 30, 2025.

OR

Brand Name Justification:

☐I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject band 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.

NanoAvionics has been integral to the ACS3 project, a small satellite system, since the inception of the contract. This continuity and their ongoing involvement provide compelling reasons to continue with NanoAvionics as the sole source for the following reasons: Technical Continuity: NanoAvionics possesses in-depth knowledge and experience with the ACS3 project's technical specifications and operational requirements. Their ongoing contributions have ensured alignment with project milestones, technical advancements, and integration of mission-specific features. Risk Mitigation: Leveraging NanoAvionics' existing knowledge base and established workflows minimizes project risks associated with transitioning to a new vendor. Their familiarity with project intricacies and technical nuances enhances operational efficiency and reduces potential disruptions. Cost Efficiency: Continuing with NanoAvionics promotes cost efficiency by avoiding re-training costs, potential delays in deliverables, and risks associated with integrating new vendors into the project framework. Market Research Confirmation: Previous market research and performance evaluations have consistently validated NanoAvionics' capabilities as the optimal supplier for ACS3. Their proven track record in small satellite systems and ongoing project involvement reaffirm their suitability for meeting NASA's stringent requirements.

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

Considering the potential impact to the government if another vendor or brand were used instead of NanoAvionics for the ACS3 project involves several key considerations: Technical Integration and Compatibility: Transitioning to a new vendor could introduce compatibility issues with existing ACS3 systems and subsystems, leading to delays in integration and testing. This could impact project timelines and

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017 milestones, potentially delaying critical mission objectives. Cost Implications:

Engaging a new vendor may incur additional costs related to re-design, re-validation of technical specifications, and potential re-qualification of components. These costs include not only direct expenses, but also indirect costs associated with project delays and extended timelines. Risk of Performance Variability: The use of a new vendor could introduce uncertainty regarding performance reliability and consistency compared to NanoAvionics' established track record. This risk could affect mission success rates and data quality, impacting overall project outcomes. Operational Disruption: Switching vendors may disrupt ongoing project workflows and operational processes established with NanoAvionics, potentially requiring additional resources and time to adapt to new supplier procedures. Contractual and Legal Considerations: There could be contractual implications, including renegotiation of terms, potential legal disputes, and adherence to federal acquisition regulations, which could further complicate the transition process. Long-Term Project Efficiency: Maintaining continuity with NanoAvionics supports long-term project efficiency by leveraging existing knowledge and infrastructure, minimizing risks associated with supplier transition, and ensuring consistent project management. By highlighting these potential impacts, particularly in terms of cost, schedule, and technical compatibility, the justification for continuing with NanoAvionics as the sole source for ACS3 becomes clearer. This approach ensures that NASA can effectively manage risks and maintain project momentum towards successful mission completion.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

None.

__________________________________ 1/24/2025

Date