SATPC0041161 Tab 06 BNJ..pdf
PDF 138 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 80NSSC26933332Q-1
About this file
This document is a NASA Shared Services Center Recommendation and Determination to Solicit from One Source or Brand Name, dated March 15, 2017 (Version 2.0). NASA recommends negotiating exclusively with vendors capable of providing specific Microchip Technology brand components for the Luce/FALCON-Lidar project. The required items include: Qty2 RT4G150-CGG1657B, Qty5 5221B120M0000BB, Qty100 JANTX1N5640A, Qty75 JANS1N4125UR-1, Qty100 JANTX1N6640US, Qty100 JANTX1N4104DUR-1, Qty100 JANTX1N4130DUR-1, Qty10 VSC8541XMVRT-HP, Qty5 PX489-0091-125M000000, and Qty5 PX-489-0093-125M000000. The estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 52 weeks. The total estimated cost is redacted in the document.
The justification for brand name restriction centers on the project's substantial prior investment in developing a prototype Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) board incorporating these specific components. The components are necessary for populating proto-flight boards that will follow prototype work, enabling the flight unit hardware to leverage existing proven design elements. NASA asserts that substituting alternative hardware would incur significant additional development costs and schedule risks, potentially jeopardizing project success. The agency notes that redesigning complex FPGA boards of this type typically requires approximately one year of design work, and component substitution at this advanced phase could result in millions of dollars in additional hardware design, software, and firmware development costs.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SATPC0041161 Tab 04 4 SOW..pdf | ||
| SATPC0041161 Tab 10 RFQ Open Market Template (2).pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
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 only for . The total estimated cost of this effort is ____ and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is
OR
Brand Name Justification:
☒I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate with only with vendors who can provide the subject brand name from Microchip Technology for Qty2 RT4G150-CGG1657B, Qty5 5221B120M0000BB, Qty100 JANTX1N5640A, Qty75 JANS1N4125UR-1, Qty100 JANTX1N6640US, Qty100 JANTX1N4104DUR-1, Qty100 JANTX1N4130DUR-1, Qty10 VSC8541XMVRT-HP , Qty5 PX- 489-0091-125M000000 , Qty5 PX-489-0093-125M000000. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 52weeks.
This recommendation is for the acquisition of supplies or services determined to be reasonably available from only one source/only one manufacturer. 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 Luce / FALCON-Lidar project has invested millions of dollars in the development of a prototype Field Programmable Gate Array board, which includes these components. Components listed on this purchase request are for populating the proto-flight boards that will follow the prototype work. The project is requesting specific brand names and part numbers such that the flight unit hardware can leverage the existing proven design elements.
2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.
If other hardware is substituted, the government would incur significant additional development cost and risk, which would jeopardize the success of the project, and therefore NASA’s mission. It is not uncommon for new FPGA boards of this complexity to require a year of design work, therefore, the impact of changing parts at this phase of the design could result in millions of dollars in additional hardware design, software, and firmware development.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .