SATPC0038192 Tab 06 BNJ.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 Vendor Name only for Web of .

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 OGP (Optical Gaging Products) | a division o.for SmartScope Flash 670 The total estimated cost of this effort is $ 177,520.00 and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 22-24 weeks ARO.

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.

Florida Metrology has been calibrating our current Coordinate Measuring Machine for the past 10 years.

They demonstrate responsiveness and provide support for repairs, technical training, and instrument calibration in a timely manner. Often, they can be on-site the very next day, as they are a Florida-based company.

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

The selection or utilization of an alternative vendor could significantly impact the compatibility of our existing laboratory equipment and may necessitate additional training for staff. Currently, laboratory personnel are fully trained and proficient in the equipment provided by our existing vendor. Transitioning to a different brand would incur additional labor costs estimated at over $25,000, which could adversely affect various programs within the center that may lack the funding to accommodate this financial burden. Furthermore, formal training from the new vendor could exceed approximately $10,000, again straining program budgets. The current vendor also maintains an established service and maintenance agreement with the center, ensuring prompt support for equipment repairs and calibrations. Timely responses are crucial given the sensitive and time-sensitive nature of the items used in space flight hardware. Programs such as CESO, EGS, LSP, CCP, Orion, and other multi-user spaceport customers would face significant schedule disruptions, testing delays, and potential impacts to launch and mission objectives. Any setbacks to these goals could lead to postponements in required safety testing, launch schedule disturbances, and extensive delays in various missions, which are unacceptable at this time.

Choosing an alternative brand could impose an estimated financial impact of $166,000 on the lab, as this funding is not anticipated in future appropriations from any programs. The current vendor is the only option that has been thoroughly vetted and validated for full compatibility with our laboratory's existing equipment. Engaging another vendor would necessitate further funding for potential facility

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017 modifications related to power, as well as additional training and equipment replacements to ensure operational compatibility.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Thomas Gutierrez 4/7/2025

Technical User Name Date

AST, AEROSPACE FLIGHT SYSTEMS

Title

KSC

Office

Page 2 V3.0 01/18/2023

****FOR NSSC SAT USE ONLY****

The above justification in pursuant to one of the following (only select one):

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(1), the proposed contract action will be placed on SAM.gov under the authority of FAR 13.106 -

1(b)(1)(i).

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a)(2), the proposed contraction action was not placed on SAM.gov as oral solicitation will be used to solicit quotation under the authority of FAR 13.106-1(c).

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.202(a)(2), the proposed contract action is exempt from publication on SAM.gov because the government would be seriously injured if the Agency complies with the time periods specified in FAR 5.203.

☐ - Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified. (Under $25,000)

☐ - Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 13.106-1(b)(1)(i), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified. Pursuant to FAR 5.201, any contract action over $25,000 shall be synopsized in the Government wide Point of Entry (GPE) and the brand name justification must be attached.

☐ SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.505(4)(i)(ii), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. (under $30,000)

☐ SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR

16.505(a)(4)(i)(ii)(iii)(A), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. Any action over

$30,000 the brand name shall be posted on the agency website used to solicit offers for orders.

☐ - Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Sole Source: For GSA orders, pursuant to FAR 8.405-6(a)(1)(i)(B), only one source is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized. Action will be performed against GSA Contract ___________________.

☐ - Limited Source Justification (LSJ) Brand Name: For GSA orders, pursuant to FAR 8.405-6(b), the item is peculiar to one manufacturer. A brand name item, whether available on one or more schedule contracts, is an item peculiar to one manufacturer.

☐ - Exception to Fair Opportunity (EFO): For SEWP orders or orders placed against other IDIQ contracts, under the authority of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act (FASA) and Pursuant to FAR 16.505(b), exemption under

FAR 16.505(b)(2) used is based on the following:

☐ (A) The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair opportunity would result in unacceptable delays

☐ (B) Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly specialized.

☐ (C) The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency because it is a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for the original order.

I hereby accept the above stated recommendation and determine that the circumstances of the contract action deem only one source reasonably available.

X

Contracting Officer