Due to the volume of questions received, there are some questions we
have not addressed below. Responses to the remaining questions will be
posted by Tuesday, December 23, 1997.

A.1.2 DELIVERY ORDER SELECTION PROCESS (DOSP)

Comment ID: 337

A.1.2, \"\...the Government reserves the right to issue a unilateral
delivery order at NTE prices.\"

1\) QUESTION: Must a contractor accept a unilaterally issued delivery
order at NTE prices for a delivery order which he chose not to bid?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

A.1.8 RETAINAGE POOLS

Comment ID: 342

Statements in this section appear to be conflicting. If the Retainage
Pools are disbursed on a \"meets/fails to meet basis\", then what does
this mean relative to the subjective criteria cited in this section as
such as \"the manner and degree to which the Contractor demonstrably
assumes joint and mutual responsibility for integration testing\...\"
and \"the manner and degree to which the Contractor demonstrably
delivers services that meet all the Level 1 metrics\...\"?

2\) RESPONSE: Several factors will be considered in the PRP decision.
All of these factors, as listed A.1.8, are considered critical to the
success of this program. If any of these factors are not successfully
achieved, then the PRP and/or MPRP will not be disbursed. If the Program
Manager determines that all of these factors have been successfully
achieved, then the funds will be released.

A.1.20 LIABILITY

Comment ID: 335

3\) QUESTION: The RFP states that the Government assumes no liability
for the loss, damage or destruction of contractor-provided items up to a
ceiling of \[\$1\]00,000 per year per center. This seems to be
unreasonably high and therefore most contractors will cover this risk in
their price, effectively charging the Government for the anticipated
losses. We suggest the Government lower the \[\$1\]00,000 to a number
equal to the anticipated costs associated with processing a claim
submitted by a contractor to recover costs associated with Government
action/inaction.

RESPONSE: NASA understands the risk of establishing a maximum liability
amount.

A.3 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (52.212-1) (JUN

1997\)

Comment ID: 339

A.3.d, When required by the solicitation, product samples shall be
submitted at or prior to the time specified for receipt of offers.
Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation, these samples shall be
submitted at no expense to the Government, and returned at the sender\'s
request and expense, unless they are destroyed during pre-award
testing.\"

4\) QUESTION: Will the contractor be compensated for product samples
destroyed during testing?

RESPONSE: NASA is not requiring product samples to be submitted with
proposals.

A.3.5 PROPOSALS REQUESTED

Comment ID: 340

\"When pricing the homogeneous environment, the offeror shall provide a
single NTE price per seat per Center based on a transition to a single
platform per seat\"

5\) QUESTION: In a homogeneous environment, does \"single platform per
seat\" mean the same platform for all GP1, GP2, and GP3 seats?

***RESPONSE: Page 61 of the RFP defines homogeneous as an "environment
in which platform architecture is consistent within a seat type." For
example, a GP1 seat would be the same platform architecture (i.e., PC,
Mac, or equivalent functionality)***

***.***

A.3.8.1 GENERAL GUIDELINES AND INSTRUCTIONS IN PREPARING

THE TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Comment ID: 331

RFP REFERENCE: A.3.8.1.a, \"The offeror shall provide a summary matrix
cross-referencing RFP requirements\....\"

6\) QUESTION: Is the summary cross reference list part of the page count
for the Technical Proposal? Where should it be located in the proposal?

***RESPONSE: The summary matrix should not be part of the page count. We
are revising the RFP as such.***

A.3.9.1.4 Socio-Economic Policies and Plans (Tab 4)

Comment ID: 329

7\) QUESTION: The first paragraph requires that offers that are not
small businesses submit a subcontracting plan as part of their Business
Proposal. The proposal instructions for the Business Proposal (A.3.10)
do not specify where the subcontracting plan should be placed in the
volume. Should this be an Attachment to the Business Proposal?

RESPONSE: Yes.

A.3.10.1 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE (TAB 1

OF THE BUSINESS PROPOSAL)

Comment ID: 341

\"The offeror shall provide details relating to their management and
program outsourcing experience in contracts of similar scope and
magnitude\"

8\) QUESTION: Please define what you mean by \"contracts of similar
scope and magnitude\".

RESPONSE: We want offerors to describe their experience with regards to
other contracts they have had which are similar to ODIN in terms of
similar requirements (e.g., IT, communications, hardware maintenance,
technology refreshment, asset management, help desk), and similar in
terms of size/environment (e.g., number of seats provided and supported,
co-located facilities)

A.3.10.1.1 Required Submissions

Comment ID: 332

A.3.10.1.1, \"Required Submissions. A minimum of five (5) references
..\" and A.3.10.1 Page 46, \"This \[past performance\] information shall
also be provided for those subcontractors/team members who have greater
than 5% participation\...\"

9\) QUESTION: Due to the restricted page count of 20 pages and the
information required for each contract reference, we assume it is the
Government\'s intent to receive a minimum of five references including
subcontractor references rather than five references for each team
member. Is this assumption correct?

***RESPONSE: It is NASA's intent that each team member provide a minimum
of five references. NASA is deleting the business proposal page
limitation.***

C.2 SCOPE

Comment ID: 338

C.2.1, \"The Contractor is required to deliver comprehensive, end-to-end
desktop, server, and intra-Center communications services, including
associated capital infrastructure improvements, as well as maintenance
and enhancements to that infrastructure, throughout the term of the
contract.

10\) QUESTION: Please define \"capital infrastructure improvements\".
Does the contractor own these infrastructure improvements?

***RESPONSE : Please refer to the RFP, 1. Contract Terms and
Conditions - Commercial Items, paragraph (n).***

C.4.1.2 NASA CIO OPERATING MODEL

Comment ID: 333

C.4.1.2, \"The ODIN Contractors implement the NASA IT architectures and
standards which are published in NASA\'s IT Technical Standards -
Directives and provides an Internet address
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codea/codeao/xnotic-a.html).\"

11\) QUESTION: The provided address
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codea/codeao/xnotic-a.html) is secured
against outside viewing/downloading. Will NASA provide NASA Procedural
Guide 2800 through other means?

RESPONSE: The correct URL is now available.

C.5.6.2 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRACKING SYSTEMS

Comment ID: 343

Ref. C.5.6.2 Property Management Tracking Systems

12\) QUESTION: In the referenced paragraph, the government states: \"The
Contractor shall update information in the Government\'s property
management tracking system databases for Government-owned, ODIN-managed
resources. This requirement shall be performed until the disposal of
Government-owned assets managed by the Contractor takes place. The
Government will be responsible for disposing of Government-owned
assets.\" In order to properly price the effort associated with this
requirement, the offeror requires additional information as follows:

a\) What API\'s or other automated means for data entry exist with these
property management systems?

***RESPONSE : The property management system referred to in the RFP is
the NASA Equipment Management System (NEMS) or any system that might
replace it at some future date. There are no API's or automated means
for data entry within NEMS.***

b\) What is the form of data entry to be provided by the government?

***RESPONSE : The Government will not be performing data entry for ODIN
managed equipment. The Contractor will be performing this data entry.
Documentation regarding NEMS usage is available (in hardcopy format
only) through the GSFC Offerors' Library.***

c\) What information must be recorded?

***RESPONSE: Please refer to the following documentation which is
available (in hardcopy format only) through the GSFC Offers' library:***

***NHB 4200.2A, Equipment Management User's Handbook for Property
Custodians***

***NHB 4200.1D, Equipment Management Manual***

d\) Who is responsible for the accuracy of existing data?

***RESPONSE: The Government expects that the contractor will determine
the accuracy of existing data at due diligence, and negotiate mechanisms
and costs associated with any necessary corrections.***

e\) Who is responsible for correcting inaccuracies in the database?

***RESPONSE: Once the delivery order is awarded, the Contractor is
responsible.***

f\) How will disputes regarding accuracy of information in the database
be resolved?

***RESPONSE: Disputes will be resolved through negotiation between the
DOCO, DOCOTR, and the Contractor.***

E.2.1.2 GP1 SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 344

Ref. Section E.2.1.2, E.2.1.3, E.2.1.4, E.2.1.5, E.1.2.6, and E.2.1.7

13\) QUESTION: The referenced sections require that the Offeror\'s
Service Model provide File Services as being equal to the \"Center
Standard Server Space.\" The term \"Center Standard Server Space\" is
not defined in the RFP. Please provide a definition of the term \"Center
Standard Server Space.\"

***RESPONSE: See section E.3.1.15 which states: The amount of server
file space allocated per user will be negotiated during DOSP and updated
through desktop technology refreshment.***

Comment ID: 345

Ref. Sections E.2.1.2, E.2.1.3, E.2.1.4, E.2.1.5, E.2.1.6, and E.2.1.7

14\) QUESTION: The referenced sections require that the Offeror\'s
Service Model provide Moves/Adds, Changes at a rate which is specified
as \"\<=5 moves/adds/changes completed within 2 work days\". Is it the
government\'s intent to specify that up to 5 moves, adds, or changes can
be ordered for this seat annually and that each such alteration must be
completed by the contractor within 2 work days?

***RESPONSE: No. The number specifies a bound on the number of Move,
Add, Change (MAC) requests at any one time, not the total number of MACs
per year for a particular seat. Therefor in this case, if less than \<=
5 MAC requests are submitted at any one time, they must be completed
within 2 work days. Please see E.3.1.8 MOVES, ADDS, CHANGES for more
information.***

Comment ID: 346

Ref. Sections E.2.1.2, E.2.1.3, E.2.1.4, E.2.1.5, E.1.2.6, and E.2.1.7

15\) QUESTION: The referenced sections require that the Offeror\'s
Service Model provide Moves/Adds/Changes at a rate which is specified as
\"\<=5 moves/adds/changes completed within 2 work days.\" For
Moves/Adds/Changes involving a limited number of seats, the completion
requirement is realisitic. At what level (e.g., 10, 50, 100, 500) will
the government alter the service characteristic to reflect reasonable
completion timeframes for large volume changes?

***RESPONSE: Schedules for large volume changes (where specific levels
will be identified during DOSP) are expected to be coordinated with the
DOCOTR. Please see the tables in E.3.1.8 MOVES, ADDS, CHANGES.***

Comment ID: 347

Ref. Sections E.2.1.2, E.2.1.3, E.2.1.4, E.2.1.5, E.1.2.6, and E.2.1.7

16\) QUESTION: The referenced sections require that the Offeror\'s
Service Model provide training at a rate which is specified as
\"Familiarization with Major Upgrades\". We assume the Government is
referring to software usage training to support users receiving new
software. Is this assumption correct?\" How does the government define
\"Major Upgrade\"

***RESPONSE: Yes, for software and software technology refreshment.
Major Upgrades are new versions which affect end users of the software
including: changes to application functionality or additional
functionality, access to application functionality (Graphical User
Interface).***

E.2.2.2 WEB1 SEAT DESCRIPTION - WEB SERVER SERVICES

Comment ID: 349

E.2.2.2 WEB1 SEAT DESCRIPTION - WEB Server Services

17\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states a requirement for Storage
Volume, Regular to be equal to 50 MB of server space. Is this
requirement to be considered total hard disk space available with the
WEB1 server or the total hard disk space for storage available with the
WEB1 server after allocations for operating system and application
storage, or is this the intended allocation for each WEB1 seat?

***RESPONSE: This is the file space allocated for each WEB1 seat.***

E.2.2.3 APP1 SEAT DESCRIPTION - APPLICATION/DATABASE SERVER SERVICES

Comment ID: 350

E.2.2.3 APP1 Seat Description - Application/Database Server Services

18\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states a requirement for Storage
Volume. Regular to be equal to 500MB of server space. Is this
requirement to be considered total hard disk space available with the
APP1 server or the total hard disk space for storage available with the
APP1 server after allocations for operating system and application
storage, or is this the intended allocation for each APP1 seat?

***RESPONSE: This is the file space allocated for each APP1 seat.***

E.2.2.4 COMP1 SEAT DESCRIPTION - COMPUTATIONAL SERVER SERVICES

Comment ID: 348

Ref. E.2.2.4 COMP1 SEAT DESCRIPTION - COMPUTATIONAL SERVER SERVICES

19\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states: \"COMP1 seat shall
provide 10 CPU hours on the equivalent processing power of a
computational server specified in the service levels.\" Is it the
government\'s intent to specify that for each COMP1 seat purchased with
a Basic Service level that the offeror is expected to deliver 10 CPU
hours of computation time on a server with the equivalent processing
power of a 200 CFPRate SpecMark rating (as defined in Section E.3.2.6)?

***RESPONSE: Yes***

20\) QUESTION: Is it the government\'s intent to require the 10 hours
daily, weekly, or monthly?

***RESPONSE: The 10 hours is a fixed amount of processing time. Once the
10 hours has been utilized by the user, additional COMP1 seats must be
purchased for additional processing time.***

21\) QUESTION: The Offeror further interprets this requirement to
indicate that if the Offeror\'s solution employs a system with two CPUs
to achieve the desired rating only half the clock time per timeframe is
required? Please clarify the meaning of the government\'s requirement.

***RESPONSE: The Offeror's interpretation would meet the Government's
requirement as long as each COMP1 user received (at a minimum) the
functionality and processing power defined in the COMP1 seat
description. Amendment 1 will contain a revised definition of COMP1.***

Comment ID: 351

E.2.2.4 COMP1 Seat Description - Computational Server Services

22\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states a requirement for Storage
Volume. Regular to be equal to 5GB of server space. Is this requirement
to be considered total hard disk space available with the COMP1 server
or the total hard disk space for storage available with the COMP1 server
after allocations for operating system and application storage, or is
this the intended allocation for each COMP1 seat?

***RESPONSE: This is the file space allocated for each COMP1 seat***

E.2.2.5 FILE1 SEAT DESCRIPTION - FILE STORAGE SERVICES

Comment ID: 352

E.2.2.5 FILE1 Seat Description - file storage Services

23\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states: \"File Storage Services
shall be provided in increments of 50 megabytes.\" Please clarify this
requirement. Is the government specifying the minimal amount of file
storage space to be allocated to a single user?

***RESPONSE: The file space specified for the FILE1 seat is the amount
of file storage space allocated to the FILE1 user. FILE1 storage space
may be ordered by individual users, or workgroups to store information
which may be shared by other individuals or workgroups. This storage
space is independent of the storage space allocated to a user's desktop
seat.***

Comment ID: 353

E.2.2.5 File1 Seat Description - file storage Services

24\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states a requirement for Storage
Volume. Regular to be equal to 500 MB of server space. Is this
requirement to be considered total hard disk space available with the
FILE1 server or the total hard disk space for storage available with the
FILE1 server after allocations for operating system storage, or is this
the intended allocation for each FILE1 seat?

***RESPONSE: This is the file space allocated for each FILE1 seat.***

E.2.3.2 PHONE SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 354

E.2.3.2 Phone Seat Description

25\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states: \"Also included in this
service is the maintenance and administration of the telephone
infrastructure, basic services (operational configuration, engineering,
and maintenance of analog and digital telephone switching systems);...
\" Please provide a technical description of the GFSC telephone system
to include model numbers of the Rolm switches at Goddard and Wallops.

***RESPONSE: Please refer to the documentation available through the
GSFC Offerors' Library. The Government believes the information
available is sufficient to develop a response.***

E.3.1.10 DESKTOP CONFERENCING

Comment ID: 355

E.3.1.10 Desktop Conferencing

26\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states: \"Provides the services
to provide desktop teleconferencing.\" Furthermore, the government
states the requirement that this service be compatible with the NISN
low-bandwidth solution (i.e., Picturetel model 4400 and 4500 systems).
Is the government\'s purpose in requiring compatibility to ensure
interoperability, similar functionality, or both?

***RESPONSE: The government's purpose in requiring compatibility is to
ensure interoperability.***

Comment ID: 356

E.3.1.10 Desktop Conferencing

27\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph defines Basic service to provide
services from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM local time daily and Enhanced service
as 24x7 support. Given that the conferencing equipment is intended to be
installed at a seat requiring this service and is thus available to the
user at any time, why does the government differentiate between levels
of service?

***RESPONSE: The Government has revised the service level description in
Amendment 1. The conferencing equipment is to be available to a seat at
any time.***

28\) QUESTION: Is the government anticipating that Desktop conferencing
equipment will be time-shared between service users? Please clarify this
requirement.

***RESPONSE: No, Desktop Conferencing is to be provided as a service
for***

***each Desktop Seat.***

***.***

F.1 METRICS MEASUREMENT

Comment ID: 334

29\) QUESTION: Please define \"Program Level\". Also, how does the
\"Program Level CCB\" fit into the ODIN operating model.

***RESPONSE: This section will be modified in Amendment 1. The statement
should read: "Collective level 1 metrics from each of the Centers will
be reviewed quarterly by the Program Office."***

F.1.1 LEVEL 1 METRICS

Comment ID: 336

30\) QUESTION: It appears that the Customer Satisfaction Metric in F.1.3
puts the contractor in a \"double jeopardy\" situation since many of the
items evaluated here on a subjective basis are also evaluated on an
objective basis in F.1.1.1, Service Delivery Metric, and in F.1.1.2,
Availability Metric. Would NASA consider removing the Customer
Satisfaction Metric since customer satisfaction will be achieved as the
Service Delivery Metrics and the Availability Metrics are achieved?

***RESPONSE: No. The Customer Satisfaction Metric is intended to
incorporate many factors beyond those that are evaluated in the Service
Delivery and Availability metrics.***

ATTACHMENT L TRIAGE ASSIGNMENT TABLES

Comment ID: 357

Ref: Table L.3

31\) QUESTION: The referenced table lists Two different products AES
(Acquisition Evaluation System) and Automated Evaluation System (AES).
Is this the same product or two separate products?

RESPONSE: AES stands for Automated Evaluation System. We will delete the
other reference.

Comment ID: 358

Ref: Tables L.2, L.3, L.5, and L.8

32\) QUESTION: The referenced tables list C and C++ compilers but
provide not vendor identification. Given the large differences in
compiler capabilities, the offeror requests that the government specify
the vendor identification for these compilers.

***RESPONSE: The Government does not believe this level of detail is
required for purposes of developing a response. This level of detail is
not anticipated to be available prior to DOSP.***

Comment ID: 359

Ref. Tables L.2, L.3, L.5, L.7, and L.8

33\) QUESTION: The referenced tables list Fortran, Fortran 77, and/or
Fortran 90 compilers but provide no vendor identification. Given the
large differences in compiler capabilities, the offeror requests that
the government specify the vendor identification for these compilers.

***RESPONSE: The Government does not believe this level of detail is
required for purposes of developing a response. This level of detail is
not anticipated to be available prior to DOSP.***

N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Comment ID: 360

Ref. N.1 Performance Measurements

34\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states: \"Contractors shall
complete the NSTL certification benchmarks according to the NSTL
provided instructions, and enclose the results of NSTL certifications in
their initial proposals, delivery order offerings, and technology
refreshment offerings. Instructions for NTSL certification found on the
world wide web at http://nasa.nstl.com/ states \"Initial performance
profiling of systems for ODIN proposals will the conducted by NSTL.
Offerors are asked to contact NSTL about testing arrangements after
first registering with NASA. After initial proposals are completed,
benchmarks will be made available for downloading from this site for
self conducted testing by ODIN contractors.\" This requirement results
in the following questions:

a\) What will be the 100 percent baseline basis for the benchmarking
process (i.e., the published list as of 26 November 1997)?

***RESPONSE: The list as of 26 November 1997 is the baselined list.***

b\) If the benchmark baseline will be changed from the currently
published baseline, will the government define a cutoff after which the
baseline will not change?

***RESPONSE: The baseline will not be changed before proposals are due.
. Only the top performer (100'th percentile system) affects an offeror's
performance baseline. Additional systems may be placed on the list at
the Government's discretion for completeness, however those additions
will not affect the offeror's baselined scores.***

c\) How will the NSTL published list be modified by products submitted
for testing which may be used to evaluate technology refresh items
rather than offered products?

***RESPONSE: The Government assumes this question is in reference to the
platform performance percentiles AFTER contract award. After contract
award, the baselined list will be updated quarterly by NSTL. Delivery
Order, or Technology Refreshment offerings must meet or exceed the
required percentiles as of the time of submission of the delivery order
proposal or technology refreshment proposal.***

d\) How will the government deal with UNIX-based products which do not
have a certified SpecMark rating?

***RESPONSE: All UNIX-based products must be certified through NSTL
using the SpecMark rating.***

Will self certified data be acceptable?

***RESPONSE: No.***

Comment ID: 361

Ref. N.1 Performance Measurements

35\) QUESTION: The referenced paragraph states \"NSTL will update the
performance specifications based on market surveys and measurements on a
quarterly basis.\"

a\) Is it the government\'s intent to ensure these updates occur on a
regularly scheduled basis or at random during each quarter?

***RESPONSE: On a regularly scheduled basis, no more than once each
quarter.***

b\) How will changes in the NSTL baseline affect the delivery of
equipment associated with previously negotiated delivery orders?

***RESPONSE: Equipment to be delivered must meet performance profile
percentages when they are: 1) proposed for master contract, 2) proposed
for delivery order, 3) proposed for delivery each time a seat is to be
refreshed. Previously delivered equipment does not have to continually
meet updated NSTL ratings until it is due for technology refreshment.***

c\) How will changes in the NSTL baseline affect the acceptability of
previously approved

equipment contained in the Offeror\'s product catalog?

***RESPONSE: CSCC items are not required to meet performance profile
percentiles.***

A.1.1 SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED

Comment ID: 368

36\) QUESTION: Does the total number of aggregate seats refer to
totaling each minimum quantity and totaling each maximum quantity for
each of the individual Service Elements (e.g. desktop service, server
services, phone services, fax services, video services, radio services,
remote communication services, and PA services) as listed in Attachment
Q? For example if you had a maximum for desktops of 1000 and a maximum
of 1000 phones could 2000 desktops be ordered and be considered within
the aggregate bands?

***REVISED RESPONSE: The aggregate seat count refers to each area
(Desktop, Server, Phone, FAX, Local Video, Admin Radio, LAN, Remote
Comm., PA).***

A.3.10.1 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE (TAB 1 OF THE

BUSINESS PROPOSAL)

Comment ID: 367

# 37) QUESTION: The referenced instruction requires information be provided for the 

prime contractor and any subcontractors/team members who have greater

than 5% participation based upon total proposed dollars. We are
contemplating

including several subcontractors in our team who meet the 5% criteria.

We have created a template for the requested information and it requires
a

minimum of 8 pages per contractor (prime or sub) to do a good job of
providing

the requested information. If we have 5 subcontractors with greater than
5%

participation of the total dollar volume, then 6 (prime +5 subs) X 8
pages

are required = 48 pages, which is significantly in excess of the 20 page
limit.

Please consider increasing the total number of pages to allow an
additional

10 pages per subcontractor with greater than 5% of the total contract
dollars.

We would be glad to provide you with a copy of the template via EMail as
this

collector won\'t allow a MS Word attachment.

***RESPONSE: NASA is deleting the page limitation for the business
proposal.***

E.2.3.2 PHONE SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 370

RFP Reference: E.2.3.2 PHONE SEAT DESCRIPTION

\"Also included in this service is the maintenance and administration of
the telephone infrastructure; basic services (operational configuration,
engineering and maintenance of analog and digital telephone switching
system); . . . \"

38\) QUESTION: Please clarify the government\'s intention relative to
the provision of local phone service. Does the government include the
provision of local trunk service in the definition of terms
\"infrastructure\" and/or \"basic services\"?

***RESPONSE: Local phone service is included in the Government's
definition of "basic services". The requirement is for a complete
operational telephone system.***

N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Comment ID: 369

39\) QUESTION: RFP Reference: N.1, \"Contractors shall complete the NSTL
certification benchmarrks according to the NSTL provided instructions,
and enclose the results of NSTL certifications in their initial
proposals\...\"

Question: Based on our experiences with benchmarking on other Government
proposals we do not feel that 48 days (with Holidays in the middle)
provides sufficient time to engineer the best solution for ODIN, obtain
and configure all equipment, deliver it to a third party (out of our
control) for benchmarking, and receive the results in time for
submission with the initial proposal. When considering that the
benchmarking process may require several iterations to reconfigure and
re-benchmark to optimize price and performance. We suggest that
benchmarks be provided directly to the offerors that independent
certification may be conducted by the offeror with verification, by
NSTL, at either contract award or with delivery order offerings.

***RESPONSE: NSTL is currently providing benchmark results of systems to
the offerors within 3 working days. This process is used successfully by
NSTL to benchmark all systems purchased by the Canadian Government. A 3
working day turn-around on systems for benchmarking allows for several
iterations to optimize price and performance. On December 19, 1997, NSTL
will make benchmark methodologies available to registered ODIN offerors
for preliminary benchmarking within guidelines specified by NSTL.
Systems submitted for the offerors' proposal must still be delivered to
NSTL for final certification as required in the RFP.***

Comment ID: 371

RFP Reference: N.1 Performance Measurements

Offerors are asked to contact NSTL about testing arrangements after
first registering with NASA. After initial proposals are completed,
benchmarks will be made available for downloading from this site for
self conducted testing by ODIN contractors.\"

40\) QUESTION: Will submittal of a product to NSTL by one offeror alter
the published baseline for all offerors?

***RESPONSE: Certification results may be added to the quarterly update,
along with market survey results, only if a submitted product is
actually delivered to the Government. Performance results of systems
submitted to NSTL for testing, which are not delivered to the
Government, will not be published and will be held confidential.***

Comment ID: 372

RFP Reference: N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS. The referenced paragraph
states:

\"Contractors shall complete the NSTL certification benchmarks according
to the NSTL provided instructions, and enclose the results of NSTL
certifications in their initial proposals, delivery order offerings, and
technology refreshment offerings. Instructions for NTSL certification
found on the world wide web at http://nasa.nstl.com/ states \"Initial
performance profiling of systems for ODIN proposals will be conducted by
NSTL.

41\) QUESTION: The referenced NSTL web site lists current PC performance
profiles. Based on the information presented, the testing methodology is
unclear. The specific operating system used to conduct performance
benchmarks has not been defined. While the NSTL literature seems to
imply that Windows 95 has been used in all cases, profile data is shown
for PCs employing two CPUs which implies the WinNT operating system. It
is possible to achieve different benchmarks on the exact same hardware
when performing the benchmarks with different operating systems. From
the stand point of satisfying security requirements and as a means to
reduce total life-cycle cost, we recommend WinNT instead of Win95. How
does the government intend to accommodate different operating system
configurations in its NSTL benchmarking process?

***RESPONSE: The offeror may propose hardware and operating system
combinations which meet the Government's requirements. Desktop Seats are
provided at a fixed price per seat, trade-offs between
hardware-operating system performance and total life-cycle cost are at
the offeror's discretion as long as the Government's requirements are
met. The NSTL benchmarking process accommodates the different operating
systems mentioned, through a single benchmark which will run on either
operating system.***

Comment ID: 376

RFP Reference: N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS. The referenced paragraph
states:

\"Contractors shall complete the NSTL certification benchmarks according
to the NSTL provided instructions, and enclose the results of NSTL
certifications in their initial proposals, delivery order offerings, and
technology refreshment offerings. Instructions for NTSL certification
found on the world wide web at http://nasa.nstl.com/ states \"Initial
performance profiling of systems for ODIN proposals will be conducted by
NSTL.

42\) QUESTION: The referenced NSTL methodology for determining the
performance benchmark score is insufficient to independently establish
the NSTL benchmark rating, since the rating is based on the solution\'s
relative performance to other possible solutions within the scale. The
inability of the offeror to independently assess its offering or
potential offering will serve to limit the number and breadth of
technical refreshment options provided the government. The offeror
requests that a performance rating system which allows independent
performance measurement by the offerors be defined.

***RESPONSE: On December 19, 1997, NSTL will make benchmark
methodologies available to registered ODIN offerors for preliminary
benchmarking within guidelines specified by NSTL. Systems submitted for
the offerors' proposal must still be delivered to NSTL for final
certification as required in the RFP.***

N.2 PLATFORM PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Comment ID: 375

RFP Reference: N.2 PLATFORM PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

\"The listed performance percentiles indicate the performance required
relative to the best

performance achieved by a system in a particular scale.\"

43\) QUESTION: This implies that an offeror can\'t independently
establish the benchmark rating. The inability of the offeror to
independently assess its offering or potential offering will serve to
limit the number and breadth of technical refreshment options provided
the government. The offeror requests that a performance rating system be
defined which allows independent performance measurement by the
offerors.

***RESPONSE: The combination of the baselined top performers (Nov. 26)
and availability of benchmark methodology (Dec. 19) will allow offeror's
to independently assess its offering before shipping to NSTL.***

THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS WERE PART OF COMMENT ID: 362 SUBMITTED
PRIOR TO DEC. 4.

44\) QUESTION: Vendor1 Workbook (Total Summary Spreadsheet) - Rows
486-488 and 494 contain reference errors. Will these be corrected?

RESPONSE: The errors contained in the total summary tab cell under
Catalog of Selected Commercial Components (CSCC) eval. , starting at
B483, have a "#DIV/0!" error because the formula is trying to divide by
zero. This error will be eliminated when there are true values inserted
by the offerors in the classDB and CSCC tabs of the Center spreadsheets.

45\) QUESTION: Vendor1 Workbook (Total Summary Spreadsheet) - The
November 28 release of the pricing model included 2 new centers, GWAC
and GWAC-H, but these two centers are not included in the totals. Please
explain.

***RESPONSE: The GWAC and GWAC-H spreadsheets are not NASA Centers.
These spreadsheets contain quantities available to other agencies if
they chose to use the ODIN contract. A summary spreadsheet will be
available the week of December 22.***

46\) QUESTION: Vendor1 Workbook (ARC Spreadsheet) - Row 43 of this
spreadsheet, upon which TOTAL Sum Row 42 depends, contains the word
\"TOTAL\".

***RESPONSE: This will be corrected in the revised Price Model.***

47\) QUESTION: Vendor1 Workbook JSC/GSFC Spreadsheets) - Rows 485-488
contain reference errors.

***RESPONSE: See response to Question 44.***