SATPC0042910 Tab 10 2 BNJ_Redacted.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

Brand Name Justification:

☒I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate only with vendors who can provide the subject band name from Universal Robots USA, Inc for Universal Robotics UR30 Robot Workstation and Console. The total estimated cost of this effort is and the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 30 days 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.

The Universal Robots UR30 is essential to achieving the procurement’s objectives related to interoperability and a common platform. NASA aims to maintain compatibility with robotic manipulator systems currently in use or under evaluation by collaborating research teams. This compatibility facilitates shared programming, training, tooling concepts, operating procedures, and lessons learned without the need to translate between different control architectures. The UR30 offers a unified programming and integration environment through PolyScope, URCaps, and the UR+ accessory ecosystem. It also provides the payload capacity, reach, force/torque sensing, repeatability, and high-torque capabilities necessary for representative remote-maintenance tasks. While other manufacturers may offer robots with similar individual performance features, selecting an alternative would require developing separate programming, training, integration, maintenance, and support strategies, potentially compromising compatibility with the existing pilot platform. Therefore, the choice of the Universal

Robots UR30 is justified based on platform consistency, interoperability, minimized integration and training risks, and alignment with ongoing NASA research and development efforts.

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 alternative robotic manipulator brand would introduce additional costs, schedule delays, integration challenges, and operational complexities by establishing a separate technical baseline from the platform used by collaborating NASA research groups. NASA would likely need to redevelop and validate programs, safety configurations, coordinate systems, I/O mappings, recovery procedures, and operating processes. This would also entail redesigning or requalifying tooling and accessory interfaces, as well as providing supplementary training, spare parts, maintenance procedures, and technical support for a second platform. Furthermore, an alternate system would necessitate additional integration, safety, and acceptance testing, which could impede the ability to reproduce experiments, transfer lessons learned, and compare results across collaborating organizations. These factors would lead to increased

Page 2 V2.0 3-15-2017 nonrecurring engineering costs, higher training and infrastructure expenses, and elevated schedule risks, regardless of any differences in the initial purchase price. Therefore, selecting an alternative brand would result in increased lifecycle costs and extended implementation timelines, create unnecessary duplicate infrastructure, and significantly reduce interoperability within the established NASA collaborative research environment.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

8/26/2026

Technical User Name Date

Title