A.1.1 SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED

Comment ID: 666

Re: Comment ID 450 through 467

A.1, A.3, C.5, C.7, E.1, E.2\...

Discussion: In December, we submitted a series of pricing format
questions. We have not received responses for the referenced questions.

Question: When may we expect responses to Comment ID 450 through 467?

***RESPONSE: The answers to these have been posted now.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

A.1.16 CERTIFICATE OF MAINTAINABILITY

Comment ID: 467

RFP Reference: A.1.16(c)

Question: Why is the contractor responsible for a certificate of
maintainability for those desktops he provides when Table E.2.1.1 allows
for the purchase of seat services with no maintenance as an option?

***Response: The Certificate of Maintainability is not required of the
Contractor if the service is not acquired in ordering a seat.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

A.3.10 INSTRUCTIONS FOR BUSINESS PROPOSAL

Comment ID: 685

Question:

It is not possible for us to provide the additional business management

proposal information (TAB3) as requested in Amendment 3 on February 2

because this information depends upon our final price proposal which
will

not be complete til closer to the February 20. Is it possible to submit

this information with the February 20 submittal?

*RESPONSE: Yes. Tab 3 of the Business Management Proposal, as requested
by Amendment 3, may be submitted with the February 20 submission.*

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.11.3 ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF PRICING EXHIBITS

Comment ID: 671

This vendor has found the following problems with the ODIN Price Model
posted on January 22, 1998. Will these problems be corrected?

ARC

1\. FY00 Group2 totals 3,000; Table Q (R.2) shows 1500.

2\. FY00 Group3 totals 400; Table Q (R.2) shows 200.

3\. FY00 SE1 totals 1190; Table Q (R.2) shows 600.

GSFC

1\. The GSFC FY sheets are not structured the same as the other Centers.
There seems to be a row missing around Row 403.

2\. FY06 Servers - Row 339 contains no formulas for calculating totals
for any of the server types so FY06 Servers are not reflected in the
summary sheet.

3\. FY06 Phones - Row 368 contains no formulas for calculating totals
for any of the phone types so FY06 Phones are not reflected in the
summary sheet.

HQ

1\. FY00 Group1 totals 458; Table Q (R.2) shows 705.

JSC

1\. FY08 Comp1 server totals 25,500; Table Q (R.2) shows 28,000.

2\. FY09 Comp1 server totals 25,500; Table Q (R.2) shows 30,000.

3\. JSCSUM Phone Service 4 (row 351) formula reads
\"SUM(JSCFYxx)!\$T\$38:\$T\$381; it appears the formula should read
SUM(...)!\$T\$380:\$T\$381.

LARC

1\. FY01 App1 Server totals 50; Table Q (R.2) shows 150.

LERC

1\. FY00 Group2 totals 381; Table Q (R.2) shows 407.

2\. FY01 File1 Server totals 12; Table Q (R.2) shows 40.

3\. FY01 Phone1 totals 4,000; Table Q (R.2) shows 500.

4\. FY01 Phone 2 totals 13,000; Table Q (R.2) shows 4,000.

5\. FY01 Phone3 totals 1,000; Table Q (R.2) shows 1,200.

6\. FY01 Phone4 totals 300; Table Q (R.2) shows 250.

7\. FY01 Pcell totals 200; Table Q (R.2) shows 100.

8\. FY01 Fax1 totals 400; Table Q (R.2) shows 40.

9\. FY01 Fax2 totals 0; Table Q (R.2) shows 15.

10\. FY01 Fax 3 totals 0; Table Q (R.2) shows 250.

11\. FY01 AR1 totals 0; Table Q (R.2) shows 350.

12\. FY01 AR2 totals 0; Table Q (R.2) shows 125.

13\. FY01 LAN1 totals 80; Table Q (R.2) shows 8,000.

14\. FY01 LAN2 totals 60; Table Q (R.2) shows 1,000.

15\. FY01 LAN3 totals 10; Table Q (R.2) shows 1,000.

16\. FY01 RC1 totals 64; Table Q (R.2) shows 700.

17\. FY01 RC2 totals 16; Table Q (R.2) shows 30.

18\. FY01 RC3 totals 25; Table Q (R.2) shows 5.

19\. FY01 RC4 totals 32; Table Q (R.2) shows 1,000.

20\. RC4 totals 0 in all FY\'s except FY01; Table Q (R.2) shows 1, 500,
1000, 2000 . . .

MSFC

1\. FY00 Group1 totals 6,885; Table Q (R.2) shows 2,424.

2\. FY06 Lan3 does not have a formula in cell O458 to calculate the
total and carry it forward to the summary sheet.

SFC

1\. FY99 Group3 totals 403; Table Q (R.2) shows 145.

2\. SFCSUM AR3 Row 414 formula reads \"SUM(c410:413)+SFCFY00!\$O\$439\".
The fiscal year does not change across the row.

Finally all Centers with Local Video (except GWAC) show a 1 in the
quantity as NASA indicated in response to Comment ID 641. GWAC still
contains a value of 500 for Video.

***RESPONSE: These will be corrected in the next version of the price
model.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

C.5.3 INTEGRATED CUSTOMER SUPPORT/HELP

Comment ID: 673

The government has listed numerous freeware packages as being required
at triage level one. In preparing bids vendors obtain long term (life of
contract) pricing commitments from manufacturers. This is not possible
with freeware, and yet the nature of freeware is that the next release
is often priced. Would the government please clarify its expectations
for the freeware.

In addition, both freeware and shareware generally provide limited
support. How are vendors expected to provide full triage level one
support for products of this nature?

***Response: The ODIN contractor is responsible for the full support of
the services and functionality that a freeware product provides.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

C.5.5.1 ODIN-SUPPORTED HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE (TRIAGE LEVEL 1)

Comment ID: 669

RE: Comment ID 566

Discussion: Using the example provided in the response to Comment ID
566, how does the contractor recover maintenance and on-going support
costs for the active matrix display after the initial 36 months, if it
is still in use? Should the purchase price be loaded with 36 months
worth of maintenance, on-going support and all other costs related to
the triage levels, or should it represent a stripped hardware price
only? The latter case is the only place where list price has any
relevance and therefore the associated discount. Can the contractor bid
an indexed rate in their catalog as the government states?

***RESPONSE: That is a decision the contractor will have to make based
upon it's business decision. However, one should note that if the active
matrix display is in use it would have to be attached to a seat which
would be covered with some sort of pricing. The items in the CSCC should
include the triage level of support stipulated for category 1, category
2, and category 3, as specified in G.1. The question concerning an
indexed rate can't be answered by the Government since it is not
sufficiently detailed.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

Comment ID: 674

Reference Comment ID 566 (428)(481):

NASA refers to discussions and negotiations regarding the catalog
pricing for those offerors found within the competitive range. Does this
mean NASA intends to request best and final offers from those determined
to use in the competitive range?

***Response: According to A.3, Instructions to Offerors, Paragraph (g),
the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions only if it is
in our best interests. The original response would apply if the
Government elects to have discussions.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

C.7.1 PERIODIC/ROUTINE TECHNOLOGY REFRESHMENT

Comment ID: 461

RFP Reference: C.7.1.1

Question: Under the requirements of this clause a contractor that
installs 100 systems with a 3 year technology refreshment cycle would
have to refresh 33 of those systems in the first year after
installation. Is this a correct interpretation?

***Response: It is not a likely that the Contractor will be working with
a completely tech refreshed base at the beginning of the contract. The
ODIN contractor will have a large base of existing systems. Systems in
this base will be at all stages of their life cycle. In the example
given, there is a requirement that 33 systems be replaced but not
necessarily the new 100 systems to attain the requirement of maintaining
an average age of 3 years for all systems. If a vendor did propose a
complete replace of all existing systems initially in order to get to a
common base, an alternate, but equivalent refreshment plan could be
proposed.***

***\*\*\*\*\*\****

E.1.3 OPTIONAL SERVICE LEVEL

Comment ID: 462

RFP Reference: E.1.3

Question: This requirement seems to imply that the full unit price is
put into the price model for the standard service level and all the
options are priced as positive and negative increments from that price.
Is this a correct interpretation? Will the automated price model handle
negative numbers?

***Response: This is a correct interpretation and the price model will
handle it correctly.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

E.2.1.1 SUMMARY (DESKTOP SEATS TABLE)

Comment ID: 463

RFP Reference: E.2.1.1

Question: The government has listed \"none\" as an option for both
hardware and software maintenance for GP1 through SE3 in this table. How
will the option be reflected with performance credits listed in A.1.8(b)
and A.1.9? How can the contractor realistically be held responsible for
performance if the government has elected not to keep the equipment
maintained?

***Response: The metrics formula refers to Downtime which states \"the
events not within the control of the Contractor will be evaluated by the
COTR and may not be calculated as downtime\". Therefore, systems
acquired with the \"no maintenance\" option may fall within this
definition.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

F.1 METRICS MEASUREMENT{R1}

Comment ID: 464

RFP Reference: F.1

Question: For the service delivery, availability and customer
satisfaction metrics what is the responsibility of the contractor for
performance and reporting for systems where the government has elected
no maintenance and/or software support? How is the above responsibility
related to the Level 2 and Level 3 metrics given the same lack of
support ordered by the government?

***Response: The metrics formula refers to Downtime which states \"the
events not within the control of the Contractor will be evaluated by the
COTR and may not be calculated as downtime\". Therefore, systems
acquired with the \"no maintenance\" option may fall within this
definition. Level 2 and 3 metrics are to be created by the Contractor
and should support the Level 1 metrics appropriately.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

G.1 CATALOG OF SERVICES AND COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS (CSCC)

Comment ID: 465

RFP Reference: G.1

Question: The government has listed that the catalog prices must include
maintenance. Since these items are one time purchase items, how much
maintenance must be included in the price? Where will ongoing
maintenance prices be included in the offer?

***Response: This question was previously answered. See Comment ID 545
Current, Response Date January 16, 1998.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

Comment ID: 667

Re: Comment ID 545, revised response (a)

Discussion: The response to a) in the above-referenced Comment ID was
confusing. One interpretation would be that if the contractor bids a
one-time price in the catalog for items, this equates to a 36 month use
term (per response to (c)) for the government without title transfer
(except infrastructure) and that the contractor may at his discretion
offer large items on a monthly recurring lease basis.

Question: Is this scenario correct?

***RESPONSE: Yes, this is a correct interpretation.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

Comment ID: 668

Re: Comment ID 545, revised response (c)

Discussion: The government\'s response does not address on-going
maintenance and support costs for items in use longer than the first 36
month period. There are no provisions in the catalog to bid this, and
the RFP does not address how the government will treat this cost post
award.

Question: How does the contractor recover on-going maintenance and
support costs if the item remains in use longer than 36 months?

***RESPONSE: Again these items are part and parcel of some existing seat
and how the offeror chooses to recover any later support costs is a
business decision.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

G.1.1 BASE PLATFORM HARDWARE AUGMENTATION COMPONENTS

Comment ID: 670

Re: Comment ID 582

Discussion: The government example implies that incremental component
upgrades for base platform augmentations from the catalog will be
ordered as part of the original delivery order for that seat or item.

Question: Is this a correct assumption? If not, please explain.

***RESPONSE: It is anticipated that the majority of time the assumption
is true. However, there will be instances where an end-user may decide
to modify their service levels and the catalog options ordered for their
seat.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

G.1.3 CSCC SELECTED SOFTWARE TABLE

Comment ID: 466

RFP Reference: G.1.3, G.1.4, G.1.5

Question: The government states \"Contractor shall propose volume
pricing discounts as appropriate?. How would these discounts be
incorporated into the pricing submission and how would they be
evaluated?

***Response: The discounts that the Contractor is proposing should be
included in class DB tab.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

E.2.3.2 PHONE SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 672

Reference: E.2.3.2, C.9.1, NASA responses to Comment ID 370 and Comment
ID 592

In the responses to Comment ID 370 and 592 NASA clarified that \"local
access from telco will be provided through ODIN\" as part of the PH1
through PH4 seats.

Does NASA intend that the ODIN contractor will pay the telephone bill
for the NASA Centers and include those costs in the ODIN PH1-4 seat
prices?

***RESPONSE: It is intended that the price for PH1-PH4 seats include the
local phone bill. Long distance charges will be paid through the NISN
contractor.***

***\>\>\>\>\>***

Does NASA intend that the ODIN contractor will pay the telephone bill
for ordering locations under the GWAC provisions of the ODIN contract
and include those costs in the ODIN PH1-4 seat prices?

***RESPONSE: It is intended that the price for PH1-PH4 seats include the
local phone bill. Long distance charges will be handled external to the
ODIN contract.***

***\>\>\>\>\>***

It appears that the local telephone service provided by the Local
Exchange Carrier for each NASA Center or GWAC ordering location will be
composed of multiple cost elements. These cost elements include costs
based on flat rates (e.g., trunks and circuits with prices determined by
state-by-state tariffs) and other costs that are usage based (e.g.,
message units, intra-lata toll calls, directory assistance).

Without specific estimates from NASA for the usage elements (e.g.,
message units) there does not appear to be any practical way, based on
commercial practice, to construct a seat price that includes the
elements described above. Additionally, for GWAC orders under the
contract, information about the location where local telephone service
will be delivered is needed in order to determine which tariff will be
applicable for determining local access costs.

We have reviewed the RFP and documentation provided in the various
bidders libraries and are not able to find the information necessary to
price the local telephone service at the NASA Centers or GWAC ordering
locations. In order to include \"local access from telco\" in our seat
prices, we request that NASA provide the following types of information
for each NASA Center and GWAC usage:

a\) Message units quantities or other appropriate measures to be
included

b\) International calling usage, if any, to be included

c\) Inter-lata toll calls usage to be included

d\) Directory Assistance call usage to be included

***RESPONSE: The NTE costs should be estimated based on local tariffs
and prevailing rates and center size. Include pricing assumptions in
your proposal and any discrepancies can be adjusted through DOSP.
International calling is not included in ODIN.***

***\*\*\*\*\****

N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Comment ID: 675

N.1 Performance Measurements - Apple Products not listed by NSTL

Re: Comment ID 636

The Government in above comment has indicated that if the Apple Product
as offeror wishes to propose is not on the NSTL list, the offeror should
propose it according to the prescribed methodology.

Please clarify if the prescribed methodology in this case requires
offerors to perform their own testing of Apple products that are not
listed by NSTL. If so, would NSTL provide necessary software for the MAC
Operating system to perform these tests.

***Response: NSTL has tested the majority of the Apple product line and
the results are available from NSTL either via the WWW or phone call
(number is posted on Web page).***