TAB 10 BNJ Redacted

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

NASA SHARED SERVICES CENTER

RECOMMENDATION AND DETERMINATION TO SOLICIT FROM ONE SOURCE

OR BRAND NAME

OR
Brand Name Justification:
I recommend that NASA, NASA Shared Services Center negotiate only with vendors who can provide the subject brand name from Confluent, Inc. for Confluent Platform KRaft Basics Development Node and Confluent Platform KRaft Basics Production Node. The total estimated cost of this effort is and
the estimated period of performance or lead-time for delivery is 08/16/2026 08/15/2027. 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. Coordinates Network (GCN) system. The requested Confluent Platform KRaft Basics Development Node and Confluent Platform KRaft Basics Production Node are renewals of the existing licenses required to maintain continued operation of the GCN system and its established software environment. The GCN system provides critical services to a community of several thousand users worldwide, including NASA and non-NASA space missions, ground-based missions, and observatories. The existing GCN software and infrastructure have been developed, configured, and tested specifically to operate with Confluent Platform. Continued use of the Confluent Platform product is therefore necessary to maintain compatibility with the current operational environment and to avoid disruption to existing services and users.
2. What is the impact to the government if another vendor/brand is used? Include any dollar, schedule, or compatibility impacts if possible.
If another brand were selected, it would require substantial redevelopment, integration, configuration, testing, and validation of the existing GCN software and supporting tools. This effort would require significant additional labor and staffing resources, as well as potentially result in additional software licensing costs. A migration would also require the development and implementation of a transition plan while ongoing feature releases and enhancements are already in progress. Use of a different product