SATPC0037573 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 Lumibird, Inc only for Q-Smart 850 2W,3W,4W Twins 532, 355, 266 nm. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 10 weeks ARO.

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.

The Lumibird Q-Smart 850 Twins is a unique set of pulsed lasers using one set of harmonic generators to provide a double-pulse 266 nm beam that will allow us to inject twice the amount of energy (2 x 70 millijoules) in the measurement volume compared to a single 70 mJ laser system. No other vendor offers an equivalent system in their standard product line. Since the spectroscopy and thermometry diagnostics that the laser is being purchased for rely on inherently weak optical scattering processes, the ability of this laser system to deliver double the energy over a user-determined timeframe increases the likelihood of success for our project. This system also meets our beam property requirements (beam diameter = 9 mm, divergence < 0.5 mrad, and a far-field near-Gaussian beam profile) so that it’s similar to the beam of an existing Continuum Powerlite II laser system at MSFC that we plan to combine/overlap with the Q- Smart beam and run through a pulse stretcher. The beam parameters must all closely match so that all the laser beams will coalesce into one focused beam waist after being overlapped and focused through a single lens. Additionally, the compactness of this system, along with the fact that it doesn’t require external water cooling and it can be powered from two standard 110 V wall receptacles, are all important factors to our project since space is very limited in one of the labs where it will be used.

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

If another laser system is selected that is not the requested laser, compatibility between the laser with the existing Powerlite laser in terms of beam properties will be jeopardized, and the success of our project will be further impacted if a system that delivers less than 140 mJ @ 266 nm is selected. This will affect our project in terms of cost and schedule, but it is difficult for us to quantify the extent of the impact.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: