A.3.11.3 ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF PRICING EXHIBITS

Comment ID: 689

In NASA\'s January 29th release of their ODIN Price Model, Row 475
(Security Surcharge) of the Vendor1.xls file currently reads as follows:

(B41+B21+B82+B62+B103+B123+B145+B166+B187+B208+B228+B248+B270)\*0.01)\*

\'Total Summary\'!\$D\$14.

We believe this formula to be in error since it is referencing the D14
cell of the \"Total Summary\" worksheet rather than the D14 cell of the
\"Discounts\" worksheet. Consequently, it is not picking up the Security
Surcharge % which is in cell D14 of the\"Discounts\" worksheet.

We believe the formula should read:

(B41+B21+B82+B62+B103+B123+B145+B166+B187+B208+B228+B248+B270)\*0.01)\*

\'Discounts\'!\$D\$14.

Please clarify.

**REPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release.**

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 691

Questions Regarding the 1/29/98 Price Model and Corresponding Table Q

1\. All Centers

a\. Summary Worksheet row 414-The formula across the row reads
\"Sum(B410:B413)+xxxFY00!\$O\$439\" where \"xxx\" is the individual
center; that is, the fiscal year does not change from column to column
across the row.

b\. FY06 sheet cell O458 does not have a formula to calculate the total
for LAN Interface Service Type 3.

**RESPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release.**

\*\*\*\*\*

2\. HQ

a.  FY04 all quantity calculations read \"\'C:ODIN\\\[JSC MIN MAX.
    xls\]Desktop Seats\'!\$col\$row\*\'C:\\ODIN\\\[All
    PDR.xls\]JSC\'!\$col\$row.

**RESPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release.**

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

b\. MA1 and MA2 contain values in the model; while Table Q (R3) shows
zeroes.

**RESPONSE: The MA1 and MA2 seats do not relate to Table Q in that the
Price Model is actually looking at Gross Asset Value, while table Q is
using numbers. NASA is using a nominal value for all centers where the
current quantities are 0, to ensure that the MA Seats are within scope
if needed.**

\>\>\>\>\>

3\. SFC

a\. MA2 contains no values in the model; while Table Q (R3) shows 1.

**RESPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release.**

\>\>\>\>\>

4\. GWAC

a.  Summary Worksheet columns K and L contain no formulas for
    calculating totals for these fiscal years.

**RESPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release.**

\>\>\>\>\>

b.  FY06 cell AS256 contains no formula for calculating a total.

    **RESPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release.**

    \>\>\>\>\>

c.  Video is represented by 500; is this correct?

**RESPONSE: Yes**

\>\>\>\>\>

5\. DFRC

a.  MA1 contains values in the model; while Table Q (R3) shows zeroes.

**RESPONSE: The MA1 and MA2 seats do not relate to Table Q in that the
Price Model is actually looking at Gross Asset Value, while table Q is
using numbers. NASA is using a nominal value for all centers where the
current quantities are 0, to ensure that the MA Seats are within scope
if needed.**

\>\>\>\>\>

6\. HQ

a\. MA1 and MA2 contain values in the model; while Table Q (R3) shows
zeroes.

**RESPONSE: The MA1 and MA2 seats do not relate to Table Q in that the
Price Model is actually looking at Gross Asset Value, while table Q is
using numbers. NASA is using a nominal value for all centers where the
current quantities are 0, to ensure that the MA Seats are within scope
if needed.**

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 692

When testing today, this vendor noticed the GWAC summary tables do not
include grand totals as the Vendor1.xls summaries do. Will this be
corrected with the next release of the price model?

**RESPONSE: Will be corrected in the next price model release**

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 694

In the pricing model released 1/29/98, quantities in HQ.xls for FY04 are
incorrect. The sheet references the JSC Min MAX.xls.

**RESPONSE: Corrected in next price model release.**

\>\>\>\>\>

Also the other spreadsheets reference \"MIN MAX\" and \"ALLPDR\" files
not included with the model

**RESPONSE: The quantity columns are calculated by using the Min Max
Table and PDR. In prior releases of the price model NASA was converting
formulas to values so the references to Min Max and PDR would not show.
In all future versions NASA will not be converting formulas to values
therefore, you will receive a message about updating links, you should
reply no to this message.**

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

Will NASA provide the spreadsheet mention in comment 406 for calculating
annual seat prices

**RESPONSE: This spreadsheet will be provided ASAP.**

\*\*\*\*\*

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED VERBALLY:

COMMENT: Where quantities are zero (0) in the price model (i.e., COMP1
Server Seat, Performance Delivery) should we propose a price?

**RESPONSE: Yes.**

\*\*\*\*\*

C.4.2 COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND
PROCESSES

Comment ID: 690

The vendor is a professional consulting specializing in information
technology. Our firm would like to establish a strategic relationship
with the awarded prime contractor of this contract. We would like to
serve as a sub-contractor for professional services.

Our organization can offer over fifty years of experience. Our staff of
professional consultants have diverse educational backgrounds and
expertise. we cab provide an array of services including strategic
planning, business process analysis, solution development,
infrastructure installation and integration, and training.

Our organization is certified as a MS Solution Provider, Lotus Business
Partner

Novell Gold Partner, and SUN Java Developer.

Our business status is a small, women-owned business

RESPONSE: Announcement of the successful prime contractors will be made
after award of the contracts in June 1998.

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

ATTACHMENT N ODIN PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Comment ID: 693

The vendor has a concern about the way the computers are being evaluated
and scored by NSTL. The best case that can make on this relates to the
way the Macintosh Laptops are being presented. NSTL has rated the
PowerBooks as follows:

Computer NSTL Rating

PowerBook G3/250 100.0%

PowerBook 3400c/240 46.6%

PowerBook 1400c /166 12.8%

It appears that what has been done is to normalize all the computers
around the best performing computer and the results are a fair relative
performance rating for these three computers. However, it should be
pointed out that when the PowerBook 3400/240 was first introduced in
March of 1997 it was the fastest laptop in the Apple lineup of products
and was known as \"the fastest laptop on the planet\" and capable of out
benchmarking any PC laptop. Then in November of 1997 Apple announced the
PowerBook G3 and it benchmarked 220% faster than the PowerBook 3400/240.
It has no equal in the PC laptop world. In Section N of the ODIN RFP it
states that NSTL will establish performance specifications for the
provided systems. In order for a laptop to be a entry-level Macintosh
laptop it must have a performance specification of at least 50%. Your
rating process would eliminate the PowerBook 3400/240 from even
qualifying as an entry level laptop even though it would probably place
at the top of the PC Laptop rating list.

The low rating of 12.8% for the PowerBook 1400/166 also eliminates it as
the entry level Macintosh Laptop. These low ratings give the reader the
impression that these products are very under powered and not worthy of
any consideration. When you look at the testing results of just the 166
MHz PC Laptops they all rate between 84% and 70.6%, but the standard
being used is the IBM ThinkPad 770 running at 233 MHz. By using a much
lower standard in the PC Laptop area the computers are rated much closer
together in performance. If you ran software tests that were common to
all platforms and rated all platforms relative to each other the
Macintosh computers would look significantly better and Apple is certain
that the PowerBook 1400/166 would rate at the top of the list of 166 KHz
PC Laptops. As things stand now the wrong impression is given relative
to the Macintosh performance and this could severely impact sales as
well.

An observation of the testing methodology is that a very different set
of criteria were used on the Macintosh and the PC computers. On test 1
and 2 both plaforms did use MS Excel and Word, but on test 3 the Fox Pro
2.6 data base was chosen on the PCs and Photoshop on the Macintosh. Then
on test 4 Adobe Illustrator was chosen for the Macintosh and Intermark
Video on the PC. Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator are both cross platform
pieces of software and would allow true comparisons to be made on both
platforms because this software was optimized to run on both platforms.
Additionally, the version of Microsoft Excel and Word in the tests,
while they are cross platform pieces of software, have only been
optimized for the PC platform. There is a very solid beta version of the
new Microsoft Office 98 for the Macintosh(due to go Golden Master in
March) out now that has been optimized for the Macintosh and would
provide a better comparison of the two platforms when running MS Excel
and Word.

The vendor recommends that common software to both platforms(PC and
Macintosh) be used in the NSTL testing and that one ranking be
established for both platforms so that users can better compare their
relative performance.

RESPONSE: NASA has specifically chosen not to dictate to an independent
third party

how to establish the benchmark methodology.

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