SATPC0040919 Tab 10 Redacted 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 Supply or Service to be procured. The total estimated cost of this effort is $Price 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 brand name from Sentyron B.V. for Sentyron Software Maintenance and Support Renewal. The total estimated cost of this effort is $ and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 1/6/2026-5/31/2027.

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.

This requirement is for the renewal of maintenance and software support for existing, deployed data diode systems currently in operation within the Wind Tunnel System Branch. These systems are already integrated into the isolated wind tunnel network architecture and are critical to enforcing one-way data transfer between security zones.The requested vendor (Sentryron, formerly Fox-IT) is the original equipment manufacturer and sole provider of the proprietary software, firmware updates, and maintenance support required to sustain these deployed diodes. Due to the proprietary nature of the system design, software, and licensing model, equivalent support cannot be obtained from third-party vendors without introducing significant risk to system integrity and security compliance. While alternative data diode solutions exist, they are not directly compatible with the currently deployed hardware and would require full system replacement rather than a maintenance renewal. Additionally, comparable solutions—particularly at higher throughput tiers—are significantly more expensive and would exceed current budget constraints.

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

Utilizing an alternate vendor would require removal and replacement of the currently deployed data diode infrastructure, as other solutions are not compatible with the existing hardware or software environment. This would result in substantial cost increases due to new hardware procurement, system integration, and revalidation efforts.From a schedule perspective, replacing the existing solution would introduce delays associated with procurement, installation, testing, and security accreditation. This would impact ongoing operations that rely on secure, one-way data transfer within the wind tunnel environment.From a technical and operational standpoint, transitioning to a different vendor would introduce risk to system stability and could disrupt established data flows supporting wind tunnel testing and associated instrumentation. Maintaining continuity with the current solution ensures compatibility, minimizes risk, and supports uninterrupted mission operations.

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

James Bell 4/15/2026 Technical User Name Date

SUPV AST, ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENT SYS

Title

ARC:AOI

Office

****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) the proposed contract action in excess of $25,000 will be placed on SAM.gov.

☐ - Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source (RDSS): For open market purchases, pursuant to FAR 5.101(a) the proposed contraction action is exempt from the posting requirement and will not be placed on SAM.gov, i.e., below $25,000.

☐ - 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 12.102(a), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item is hereby justified.

☐ - SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.507-7(a), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified (under $40,000)

☐ - SEWP/IDIQ Brand Name Justification (BNJ): For schedule/IDIQ purchases, pursuant to FAR 16.507- 7(c)(1), the acquisition of the referenced brand name item(s) is hereby justified. Any action over $40,000 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 8.401(b)(and by way of GSAR 538.7104-3(a)), 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 Number: ________________.

☐ Source Justification (LSJ) Brand Name: For GSA orders, pursuant to FAR 8.401(b) (and by way of GSAR 538.7104-4(a)), 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 exemption under FAR 16.507-6(b) 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-mentioned recommendation and determine the circumstances of the contract action are deemed appropriate for this requirement.

Contracting Officer

Page 2 V4.0 APR 2026

X