The following is the Government's response to questions posted through
January 7, 1998 with exceptions as noted. In addition, the Government is
still working its responses to the following Comment ID's: 494, 495,
500, 503, 504, 507, 509, 510, 520, 521, 525, and 531. The responses will
be posted as soon as possible.

A.1.2 DELIVERY ORDER SELECTION PROCESS (DOSP)

Comment ID: 568

Reference Comment ID: 382

Question: Service Delivery. Since the offeror will not be able to
accurately assess NASA provided facility costs until the Delivery Order
competition, will these costs be allowed as potential upward adjustments
to the NTE prices?

***RESPONSE: A.1.2.2 NASA DOSP (b) (3) A due diligence price adjustment
may be submitted after due diligence. This is a one time price
adjustment, but it is not an adjustment to the NTE prices.***

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

Comment ID: 569

Reference Comment ID: 411

Question: How will the government handle incremental cost issues related
to the NTE prices in the case of a unilateral delivery order where due
diligence is not allowed? Such as NASA provided facility costs.

***RESPONSE: See answer to question #539.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.26 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION REQUIREMENTS (1852.204-75) (SEPT 1989)

Comment ID: 559

Paragraph A.1.26 of the RFP says that \"performance under this contract
will involve access to and/or generation of classified information, work
in security area, or both, up to the level of Top Secret.\"

Is there going to be a DD form 254 submitted by the Government that
covers the above statement for this contract?

***RESPONSE: A DD 254 has been included for NASA Headquarters. NASA HQ
is currently the only center with the Top Secret requirement.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.2.3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS COMMERCIAL ITEMS
(52.212-3) (JAN 1997)

Comment ID: 570

Reference Comment ID: 426\>

Question: Based on the government response, the referenced FAR is only
applicable to software. Is this a correct interpretation? If not, what
else in the contract is this FAR applicable to?

***RESPONSE: Based on further review, it has been determined that this
clause pertains to the entire requirement including the services and the
products provided.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.4 PROPOSAL PAGE LIMITATIONS/FORMAT {R1}

Comment ID: 562

1\. Reference RFP A.3.4 (b) Proposal Page Limitations/Format. Please
clarify the definition of illustrations and charts. Would a table be
considered a chart?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 563

Reference RFP A.3.4 (b) Proposal Page Limitations/Format. Due to the
complexity and size of some drawings, would it be acceptable to use 8
point type for illustrations instead of 9 point type?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 564

Reference A.3.4 (d), is a TAB page, as herein described, an index tab or
a divider page? Please clarify.

***RESPONSE: An index tab.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.5 PROPOSALS REQUESTED

Comment ID: 578

REFERENCE: A.3.5 PROPOSALS REQUESTED

Question: The government states: \"The homogenous environment pricing
shall include all transition costs associated with the migration to a
homogenous environment . . . .\" It is the offeror\'s interpretation of
this requirement that it is the government\'s intent to have offerors
include migration costs in the NTE seat price for the homogenous
environment. If this interpretation is correct, the NTE seat price will
be artificially inflated to cover amortization of the one time migration
costs over some assumed performance period. Is this interpretation
correct?

***RESPONSE: In addition to migration costs, any changes in seat prices
resulting from the consolidation to a single platform should be
identified in homogenous pricing proposals.***

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

REFERENCE: A.3.5 PROPOSALS REQUESTED

Question: The government states: \"The homogenous environment pricing
shall include all transition costs associated with the migration to a
homogenous environment with the exception of conversion of non-Triage
Level 1 supported software, as described in Section C.5.5.1,
ODIN-Supported Hardware and Software (Triage Level 1).\" It is the
offeror\'s interpretation of this requirement that it is the
government\'s intent to exclude from the computation of cost of
migration the cost associated with Triage-level 1 supported products.
Further the Offeror assumes that migration costs associated with
non-supported software are also to be excluded from the cost of
migration. This would imply the migration costs being identified by the
government only address the cost of the Seat change out and user
training associated with the replacement of the same Seat Offering from
the Offeror\'s standard offering. Is this interpretation correct? If the
Offeror\'s interpretation is incorrect, please clarify the government\'s
requirement.

***Response: Migration of Triage Level 1 applications and user data are
to be included in the homogeneous proposal. Triage 2 and Triage 3
software products are to be excluded from migration costs.***

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

Comment ID: 580

REFERENCE: A.3.5 PROPOSALS REQUESTED

Question: The government states: \"The homogenous environment pricing
shall include all transition costs associated with the migration to a
homogenous environment with the exception of conversion of non-Triage
Level 1 supported software, as described in Section C.5.5.1,
ODIN-Supported Hardware and Software (Triage Level 1).\" It is the
offeror\'s interpretation of this requirement that it is the
government\'s intent to exclude from the computation of cost of
migration the cost associated with migrating user data files and user
developed applications from one platform to the new platform. Is this
interpretation correct? If the Offeror\'s interpretation is incorrect,
please clarify the government\'s requirement.

***RESPONSE: See Government's response to comment #578. User developed
application migration costs would only be included in homogenous pricing
proposal if the contractor was providing Triage Level 1 support for
those applications***.

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.9.1.2 Technical Approach (Tab 2)

Comment ID: 576

Reference: RFP Sections A.3.9.1.2.e and A.3.9.1.2.f.

Question: Paragraph A.3.9.1.2.e asks us to describe our approach to
performing integration testing. Section A.3.9.1.2.f asks for our
approach to configuration management, change control and integration
testing. Would it be sufficient to address our approach to integration
testing in one section as a response to A.3.9.1.2.e? If not, please
describe the difference between the two requirements.

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

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

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

Comment ID: 575

Reference RFP Section A.3.9.1.4.b. \"The offeror shall compare and
contrast its plan with the existing NASA environment as defined in the
SOW, in terms of the types and amount of work, the number of actions,
and geographical dispersion."

Question: What is meant by \"number of actions"?

***RESPONSE: Number of actions refers to the number of contract
actions.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.11.1 REQUIRED PRICE DATA

Comment ID: 587

REFERENCE: A.3.11.1 REQUIRED PRICE DATA

Question: Section A.3.11.1 (c) of the RFP states that the Platform
Inventory Report (PRD) \"shall be used by offerors in preparing their
offers and shall be considered accurate for the purposes of preparing
the price model. These spreadsheets include a number of calculation
inconsistencies to include: \[1\] - KSC cells K45 and N45 totals don\'t
reflect the advertised summation for the specified seat type (e.g., the
formula for K45= K43+K10+K17 but should be K45= K43+K12+K21). How should
the offeror accommodate calculation errors in the PDR?

***RESPONSE: The formula will be corrected.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 588

REFERENCE: A.3.11.1 REQUIRED PRICE DATA

Question: Section A.3.11.1 (c) of the RFP states that the Platform
Inventory Report (PRD) \"shall be used by offerors in preparing their
offers and shall be considered accurate for the purposes of preparing
the price model. The JSC and KSC spreadsheets identify SEI seat types as
being a combination of entry-level, mid-level, and high-end UNIX
workstations. How does this characterization correlate with the
government\'s SEI seat requirement?

***RESPONSE: The PDR reflects the current inventory and is not
necessarily a one-to-one correspondence to the usage. The seat count
reflects the seats planned to be ordered.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 560

The following lists additional discrepancies between the pricing model
and the following discrepancies exist between the Pricing Model and
Attachment Q that were not identified in Comment ID: 531, which was
released

on January 6, 1998:

JSC: SE3 FY99 through FY09, model reflects maximum quantity per year of
50,

Attachment Q reflects the maximum quantity per year of 80.

KSC: APP1 in FY01, model reflects maximum quantity of 112, Attachment Q
reflects

the maximum quantity of 108.

KSC: APP1 in FY06, model reflects maximum quantity of 108, Attachment Q
reflects

the maximum quantity of 103.

KSC: WEB1 in FY06, model reflects maximum quantity of 50, Attachment Q
reflects

the maximum quantity of 43.

KSC: File1 in FY06, model reflects maximum quantity of 66, Attachment Q
reflects

the maximum quantity of 59.

LeRC: GP2 in FY00, model reflects maximum quantity of 2,228, Attachment
Q reflects

the maximum quantity of 407.

LeRC: SE1

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 through FY09

Model 2,983 2,924 2,865 2,806 2,750

Attach. Q 910 892 874 856 839

LeRC: SE2

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 through FY09

Model 734 720 705 691 676

Attach. Q 407 399 391 383 375

MSFC: WEB1

FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09

Model 75 75 75 75

Attach Q. 650 650 650 650

MSFC: APP1

FY01 FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09

Model 55 25 25 25 25

Attach. Q. 60 60 60 60 60

MSFC: File1

FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09

Model 18 48 96 9

Attach. Q. 910 910 910 910

SFC: APP1 in FY01, model reflects maximum quantity of 16, Attachment Q
reflects

the maximum quantity of 17.

SFC: LVID1 in FY00, model reflects the maximum quantity of 161,
Attachment Q

reflects the maximum quantity of 157.

GWAC (Low End): SE2 in FY06, model reflects maximum quantity of 700,

Attachment Q reflects the maximum quantity of 320.

GWAC (Low End): COMP1 for FY02 through FY09, model reflects the maximum

quantity of 150, Attachment Q reflects the maximum quantity

of 40,000.

GWAC (High): FILE1 for FY08 and FY09, model reflects the maximum
quantity of

96 for each period, Attachment Q reflects the maximum quantities

of 144 and 192, respectively.

***RESPONSE: Corrections were made to the PDR, Price Model and
attachment Q as required, and will be reflected in the revised price
model***

\*\*\*\*\*

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

Comment ID: 566

Reference Comment ID 428 (481).

Question: The government response to this question states that products
from the CSCC will not be owned by the government. This seems to
conflict with Section G.1 which states \"prices in the catalog are on a
one time basis, however, large dollar items (in excess of \$100,000) may
be leased\". The one time basis implies purchase. Please clarify. If it
is the government\'s intent to lease then the price table structure will
not work, nor will the evaluation approach. There will not be a list
price for lease. How will the government evaluate this category if its
intent is to not take title to this equipment?

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

C.5.7 CATALOG SERVICES

Comment ID: 567

Reference Comment ID: 398

Question: If the CSCC is part of the Technical Proposal, will it be
technically evaluated and be part of the offerors technical score?

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 574

Reference Comment ID: 497, 511, 499, and 398

Question: Based on NASA\'s responses to comment ID 497 regarding a
repeated equipment failure plan that is now exempted from the technical
volume page count and can be up to 5 pages; Comments ID 511 and 499
regarding additional and extensive requirements for the Relevant
Experience and Past Performance; and Comment ID 398 regarding inclusion
of the catalog in the technical volume for which NASA has not yet
defined the evaluation criteria; we request that NASA extend the due
date for all four volumes to March 2, 1998. This date assumes that the
technical evaluation criteria for the catalog is imminent. If not, we
may need to request an additional extension.

***RESPONSE: The due date for Technical and Business proposals will not
be extended; the due date for Pricing Proposals will be reflected in
Amendment 2. ID 497 is not a new requirement, ID 511 and 499 is not a
change from the requiement in A.3.10.1 for the Prime, it is just for the
team members and we don't expect this to cause a delay. ID 398 refer to
answer in 567.***

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

E.2.2.1 SUMMARY (SERVER SERVICES TABLE)

Comment ID: 577

REFERENCE: E.2.2.1 SUMMARY (SERVER SERVICES TABLE)

Question: Under the service category of Data Backup and Restoration,
Table E.2.2.1 identifies \"Premium\" as an optional service level for
all server types. Section E.3.2.5 does not define the government\'s
requirement for the \"Premium\" service level. Please clarify the
government\'s requirement.

***RESPONSE:Amendment 2 will delete the "Premium" service level defined
in E.2.2.1***.

\*\*\*\*\*

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

Comment ID: 581

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

Question: In the above referenced paragraph government states several
requirements including:

1.  \"Catalog items shall be offered and priced in three categories.
    Category 1 is a \"full service\" category with the price reflecting
    the price of the acquisition (product price), maintenance,
    integration, and Triage Level 1 (see C.5.5.1) support to ensure
    functionality. Category 2 reflects the price for acquisition,
    maintenance, installation for non-ODIN supported components as
    described in Triage Level 2 (see C.5.5.2). Category 3 is the price
    of the acquisition and maintenance for components receiving Triage
    Level 3 support (see C.5.5.3).\"

2\. The prices in this catalog are on a one time basis, however, large
dollar items (in excess of \$100,000) may be leased, depending on the
customer\'s needs.

The offeror interprets the government requirement to imply that the
prices in the catalog are for full life cycle support for the product.
If this is a correct interpretation, what period of performance should
be used for pricing purposes? If the offeror\'s interpretation is
incorrect, please clarify the government\'s intent with regard to these
instructions.

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

G.1.1 BASE PLATFORM HARDWARE AUGMENTATION COMPONENTS

Comment ID: 582

REFERENCE: G.1.1 BASE PLATFORM HARDWARE AUGMENTATION COMPONENTS

Question: In the above referenced paragraph the government states:
\"Items that replace components included in a standard seat (i.e. larger
monitor) should be priced as an upgrade cost to the standard seat, with
trade-in of the standard component assumed.\" Given that paragraph G.1
states that prices in the catalog shall be quoted on a one-time basis
and standard seat prices are quoted on a per month lease basis, upgrade
cost will be a function of the remaining period of performance and the
residual value at the time of the trade-in. On what basis does the
government expect the Offeror to calculate upgrade cost? How does the
government expect the upgrade to effect the cost of seat delivery over
the remainder of the period of performance?

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 583

REFERENCE: G.1.1 BASE PLATFORM HARDWARE AUGMENTATION COMPONENTS

Question: What is the government requirement with respect to disposition
of augmented hardware purchased under a category 3 price schedule from
the CSCC, when the seat is subsequently removed from service or subject
to a technology refresh?

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 586

REFERENCE: G.1.1 BASE PLATFORM HARDWARE AUGMENTATION COMPONENTS AND
GOVERNMENT\'S RESPONSE TO COMMENT 482

Question: The Offeror understands in response to comment 482 the
government has in effect relieved offerors from the requirement for
providing a discount from CPL/GSA pricing. The government has not yet
identified an alternative approach for evaluating competitive CSCC
offerings. How does the government intend to evaluate CSCC offerings
from different offerors in light of the fact that the CSCC pricing bears
no relevance to CPL/GSA prices?

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

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

G.1.2 CSCC OPTIONAL HARDWARE AND EQUIPMENT TABLE

Comment ID: 584

REFERENCE: G.1.2 CSCC OPTIONAL HARDWARE AND EQUIPMENT TABLE

Question: What is the government requirement with respect to disposition
of optional hardware purchased under a category 3 price schedule from
the CSCC, when the seat is subsequently removed from service or subject
to a technology refresh?

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

ATTACHMENT L TRIAGE ASSIGNMENT TABLES {R1}

Comment ID: 561

After reviewing the various centers bidders libraries, we request that
all software in Attachment L:Triage Assignment Tables be further
identified by manufacturer, version, platform and quantity in order to
provide the requested pricing.

***RESPONSE: The Attachment L will be replaced in a future amendment.
Each Center will identify 45 or less products, the manufacturer name,
and triage support level for the purposes of bidding the NTE prices. The
additional product support requirements for each Center will be
established during DOSP and priced in the one-time-adjustment price.
NASA does not think that the revision numbers and current quantity are
required for pricing purposes. The current revision at a minimum should
be supported and the quantity can be based upon the minimum quantities
specified in the Price Model.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 589

REFERENCE: ATTACHMENT L TRIAGE ASSIGNMENT TABLES AND GOVERNMENT\'S
RESPONSE TO COMMENT 493.

Question: In response to the above referenced comment, the government
indicates that \"the offeror may propose software with similar
functionality in cases where products are discontinued or poorly
defined.\" The Offeror has reviewed the Attachment L lists of software
and has identified the following items for which insufficient
information can be ascertained to allow the offeror to identify and
price the product or determine a comparable software package and be
confident of compliance with the government\'s requirements and
clarifications.

506,

4D Server,

4-sight Fax,

4th Dimension,

Access to Fastrack,

ACRONYMS,

ACS,

ACTS,

Adasoft: Man E,

Address Book,

Admin Accnts,

ADS,

Advanced Spacecraft Integration and Systems Test ASIST - in house,

AGI Navigator,

AGI PODS,

AGI STK,

All Clear,

ARRS,

ARS,

ASAL,

Assessor Series,

Astronaut DB,

ATS - Appl Tracking Sys,

Auto Clause (GOTS),

Automated Evaluation System (AES),

Avid VideoShop,

AWCS,

Backup Exec Enterprise,

BAMIS,

Basis Plus,

Baton,

BizPlan Builder,

Borland BRIEF Editor Utility,

Borland Novell Office,

BPS,

Brown Univ TN3270,

BUDS,

Builder Xcessory,

BUMS,

CAMIS,

CAPPS Local,

CareerPoint,

CARTS,

CATS II,

Celsa,

Center Tour DB,

CHDB,

Cisco TGV Multinet,

Clasics,

CLASSICS,

CLS,

CMMS Maximo,

CMSI,

COBRA,

Compuserve,

Cong DB,

CONG MAPS,

Connectix RAM Doubler,

Connectix Virtual PC,

Conversions Plus,

Correspondence Log,

COTS 2k,

CPAP,

Credit Check Equifax,

Crystal Ball,

CSRS-FERS Handbook,

CTDS,

CTS,

CYMIS,

D4 time (free time sync program),

D506,

Datebook Pro,

DAVE,

DB Textworks,

DCTS,

DDEFT,

Debris Assessment,

DECQuery,

Delrina FormFlow,

Delta Graph (metered),

Deltagraph Pro,

Deltek Accounting,

Deskscan II,

DFMS,

DialogLink,

Digitalk Smalltalk V Mac,

Director Suite,

Disinfectant,

Disinfectant 3.x,

Doc Open,

DOC Open/PC DOCS,

DOW JONES,

Drafix CAD,

Draw (metered),

Drop Stuff,

DTD,

DumpACL,

Dynacomm,

E.O. 12958,

EDB,

EDCATS,

EDCSgui/Document Library - Government Developed,

EDS,

Emacs,

EMS-Y,

Enscript,

Entire Connection,

Entire Connection (Windows),

EPSCor,

ERMP,

EWAN VT100 Terminal Emulator - freeware,

Express Meter,

FAAD,

FACS,

FACS Tables,

FAMIS,

FAST,

Fast Track Schedule,

Fastback,

Fastback Plus,

Fax Sr,

Fed Retirement Calc,

FEDPLAN,

Fetch,

Fetch (FTP),

Fetch (Mac),

Flightwatch,

FlowCharter,

FMS,

FOIA,

FolioViews,

FORM 295,

FORM 6 - COB,

FORM 6 -J,

Foxpro Work Request System,

FPDS,

F-Prot,

F-Prot,

F-Prot95,

FRC,

Front End Data System - in house,

FSOP,

FTR/PR,

FUS,

Gcc,

Ghostscript,

Ghostview,

GLAS,

GLCS,

GLINK,

GOS,

Government Contract Advisor,

Grateful Med,

GSFC,

GSFC-SPS-HQ,

GTDS (GOTS),

GUS ,

gzip/gunzip,

HATS,

HLFC,

Hot Metal,

Hotdog,

HP HFSF,

HQLI,

HR Empower,

HRCD,

HRTS,

HTML Assistant,

HyperCard Player,

IAD,

IDEAS,

IDL,

IFMP,

Imager32,

Impromptu,

Informed Filler,

Informed Manager,

INT: ChartObject, Edit Table,

Integrated Financial Management Project,

Intel FAXAbility Plus,

Intellidraw,

Internet Assistants,

Internet Config,

Interview,

INVENTORY-S,

IP Protocols (ICMP, TCP, FTP, TELNET, ARP, UDP),

IPES,

IRIS,

IRMA Workstation: 3270 Terminal Emulation (requires gateway access to
JSC CIN, BARS, SPDMS, etc),

ISO,

JPEGView,

Keyserver,

KR ProBase,

LabelWriter II,

LaserCom,

LaserWriter 8,

LDDMS,

Legislate,

Legudate,

Less Talk for Mac,

LessTalk,

Lexis-Nexis,

Linux,

LIS Litigation Information Sys,

Livelink,

LTS,

Lview,

M/ATS,

M/PS,

MAARS,

MAC - TCP M,

,

,

MAC TCP,

Mac340,

MacFlow,

MACLink Plus/Translator Pro,

MacLink+ Translators,

Macpaint,

Macwrite Pro,

Manpower Tracking Sys (GOTS),

MAPS-Y,

MaX.500,

MBPD,

McSink,

Meeting Maker,

MFI,

Micrographix DES,

Milestone MLT (GOTS),

Milestones,

MMS,

Mosaic Web Browser,

MPSS,

MS IPX/SPX & NW Client,

MS IPX/SX & NW Client,

MS Powerstation,

MS TCP/IP & Client,

MSDB,

M/S Telnet, NCSA Telnet M,

Multi-Ad,

NASA Gov Warning,

Natural Connection (DOS),

Navfit Fitrep,

NCDware,

NCRS,

NCSA Telnet,

NCTN Screensaver,

NDES,

NEMS,

Network documentation system (NDS) written by KSC contractor,

Network File System (NFS),

Network schedule,

Network Utilities (ping, telnet, ftp, nslookup, x500 search, etc. ),

Networked incremental backup,

NEWIS,

News Reader,

Newswatcher,

NFMS,

NIPMIS,

NODIS II,

Norton Program Schedule for Windows 95,

Notifier 32,

NOVIS,

Now Scrapbook,

NPMS/FACP,

NPPS Local,

NPPS T&A,

NPSS,

NTDS Local,

NTED,

OBJC,

Office Viewers,

OGCDB Macro,

OIG Online Disclaimer,

OIGNIS,

Omega Program,

OMIS,

OmniPage,

OmniPage Pro,

ONLINE,

On-Line Disclaimer,

OpenGL,

Oracle,

Orcad,

Org Plus,

Organizer Chart ,

OSSIM,

Pacerlink,

PageMill,

Paintshop Pro,

PAN ,

Paper Port,

Paradigm,

Parasoft Insure C,

Passport,

Passport 3270 Emulation Software,

PATHWORKS VT320 Emulator,

PATRAN,

PATS,

Pcalc ,

PDMSInfo - govt devpd,

Perfcode,

PerForm Pro Plus,

PERSEC,

Personnet ,

PFSS,

PGS,

PICSPrint - govt devpd,

PIN-S,

PIN-Y,

Places Rated Almanac Sep \'93,

PLDS,

Plotfile Conversion Utility - v 1.2b ARTEMIS,

PLS,

Plus,

Plus/win Microsoft,

POP 2.2,

POP-M,

POP-R,

Postscript Viewer (Ghostview),

PowerCADD,

PowerPack,

PowerPlay,

PRDB,

Preprint,

PREP-Y,

Presentation Partner,

Press Release DB,

Primavera,

PSRS,

Pure Software Pure Coverage,

Pure Software Purify,

Pure Software Quantify,

Persuasion,

PV Wave,

QPC Software - WinQVT 3.96,

QPSRS,

QTMS,

Quicktime, Sparkle(M),

R506 Core,

R506-M,

R506-S/U/Y,

R506TS Core,

R506TS ER,

RAMIS,

RAMIS DOWNLOADER,

RATS,

Rbase,

RDSS,

RealAudio,

RealPlayer,

Reep,

Registry Update,

Retrospect/Remote,

RIID,

Risk Assessment,

ROCRS (ROCR),

RPI,

RTCMD,

RTOP-S,

RTOP-Y,

SAPS,

SATS ,

SB,

Schedule,

SCSI Probe,

SDBDB,

Secret Agent,

Security Software,

SEDB,

SEDSA,

SGI - Development Environ,

SGI - Windview,

Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP),

Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP),

SIRSI GUI,

Snooper,

SOAA,

Sound Machine,

Spry Internet Office,

SPTS,

Spyglass Dicer, Format, Transform,

SRL,

ST340,

STIC 95 (GOTS Scientific library access software),

Streamline,

Stuffit Expander,

Superpaint,

Sysinfo,

TANGO,

TATMIS,

TBTS,

TBVS,

TCP/Connect II,

Tcsh,

TechTracS,

Telnet,

Telnet (MAC) ,

TemplatesPlus,

TGV Multinet,

ThinkC,

ThinkPascal,

Timberline,

Time & Chaos,

TMS,

TMS 4D,

TN3270,

TN3270 IBM Terminal Emulator - freeware,

Top,

Travel Lightning,

Travel Manager,

TRAVEL-S,

TRAVEL-U,

TRCN,

Trouble Call,

TrueForm,

Trumpet,

Type Manager,

UMIS,

Unique SSP applications including Program Doc Center, forms, MA
applications, etc.,

Unit Price,

US Code,

USA - PC Bars for Windows - v 2.1 (requires gateway access to BARS),

VADSelf Ada,

VDO Live Player,

VDS,

Versaterm Pro,

Video Player,

Videoshop,

Viewlogic,

Viewlogic Suite,

ViruSafe,

Vision,

Visioneer PaperPort,

VISITT,

Visual Studio,

VMPEG Lite,

VMPEG Video Player - freeware,

WCS,

WDUA,

WDUA (GOTS X-500 browser),

West Send,

WestMate,

Win QVT/Net,

WinCenter Pro,

WinComm Pro,

Windows PC Speaker Driver,

Windview for SGI,

WinVN Network NEWS Reader,

Wplany,

WS-FTP,

WSFTP Winsock FTP Client - freeware,

WSPING Winsock PING Client - freeware,

X.500 Lookup WDUA,

X11,

XCSLOG,

Xoftware,

XPPS,

Xrunner,

X-Windows,

Zypher Passport

Please provide clarification as to the government\'s requirement
regarding software items for which insufficient information is available
to allow the offeror to determine comparability of its offering with the
software identified.

***RESPONSE: See answer to Comment 561.***

\*\*\*\*\*

ATTACHMENT N ODIN PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Comment ID: 572

We are in the process of preparing Performance Profile ratings on
various platforms configurations using the NSTL benchmark methodology.
We will submit these results with the technical proposal. In selected
cases, manufacturers are submitting platforms directly to NSTL for
certification. Is it acceptable to utilize the certifications obtained
under this latter method, given that the \"offeror\" did not initiate
the request for certification? Will NASA accept certifications from NSTL
which were requested by the manufacturer if the platform is configured
identifcal to the configuration as proposed? Please clarify, as the
three options described in the nstl web site imply that the offeror must
initiate this process.

***RESPONSE: Yes, certifications through manufacturers will be
acceptable. In that case, the manufacturer as a Offeror's supplier is
completing the certification on behalf of the Offeror. However the
Offeror is still responsible for the certification and delivery of
proposed systems for ODIN.***

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

N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Comment ID: 585

REFERENCE: N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AND GOVERNMENT\'S RESPONSE TO
COMMENT ID: 421

Question: The government has stated its intent to allow offerors to
submit NSTL results based on their own execution of the NSTL benchmark
processes and procedures with the provision that formal certification,
by NSTL, will be required prior to contract award. In addition, the
government has stated that NSTL certification prior to proposal
submission will remain an option. Will \"formally\" certified offerings
increase the government\'s evaluation score?

***RESPONSE: No.***

\*\*\*\*\*

EXHIBIT 1 ODIN PRICE MODEL

Comment ID: 571

Reference Comment ID: 438

Question: The government assumption that maintenance is a single percent
of GAV may be accurate within a specific class of equipment of similar
age. The GAV in this bid covers multiple classes of equipment and the
age issue is not addressed at all; nor is the issue of what the GAV
value is based upon. Is the GAV value at list price or government cost
price? If it is government cost then what is the average discount
obtained? Many maintenance prices are structured around a percent of
list price per year. Without knowing how the GAV relates to list price
the offeror will not be able to develop and bid the required percent.
Without additional granularity of the GAV it is impossible for a bidder
to make any reasonable assumption of what costs will be. Please provide
information as to percentage of list price for the GAV value for the
equipment in each class and average age of equipment in each category.

***RESPONSE: Pending further review.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 573

Reference Comment ID: 444.

Question: In the third part of this comment, the government referenced
the previous answer. The previous question dealt with price and
quantity. The question in this comment dealt with number of months and
was not answered.

***RESPONSE: It is not clear what comment you are referencing. It
appears you are referencing the wrong comment id number. Included in
this response is comment id: 444 and the response: "Comment ID: 444**
**Outyear Pricing Tabs: Are standard seat bands prices annual prices or
monthly prices? RESPONSE: Monthly Prices"***

1\. CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS\--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (52.212-4) (MAY
1997) (MODIFIED)

Comment ID: 553

Terms and Conditions, Paragraph 1(n) specifies \"...... Title for any
infrastructure,

replacements or upgrades shall remain with the government . This
includes but

is not limited to items such as antennas, telephone switches, routers,
hubs

and cableplant.\"

Question: Under a lease for equipment, title would be neither in the
hands

of the ODIN contractor nor the government. Can we assume that this would

still be consistent with the Government's intention in the citation
above? Additionally, if a lease-to-purchase is proposed, shall we assume
that the

title would transfer to the government at the conclusion of the lease?

***RESPONSE: In either case, the title would be required to be
transferred to the Govt. or the successor in interest.***

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

A.1.1 SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED

Comment ID: 539

Reference RFP Paragraphs A.1.1 (e) and A.1.2; and, Gov't Comment ID 411

If the Government chooses to issue a unilateral modification at the NTE
prices, without a due diligence phase, what process will contractors and
the Government use to correct pricing for any discrepancies found at the
center (e.g., inventories, infrastructure changes, center-specific
interfaces, center-specific network and communication requirements,
etc.)?

***RESPONSE: Vendors are not required to participate in the DOSP . The
NTE pricing may be accepted by the Govt. and therefore, the vendor has
waived their rights for due diligence adjustments. The Govt. does not
intend to accept any adjustments to the NTE pricing.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 549

Referencing the Government's response to Comment ID 368 (revised on
12/30/97) and the Government's response to Comment ID 424, it is still
unclear how the Government intends to apply the aggregated bands
identified in Attachment Q. To clarify, will the proposed NTE prices for
GP1 seats for JSC apply in situations where the Government orders more
GP1 seats or less GP1 seats than the quantities specified for JSC GP1
seats as specified in Attachment Q for any given year?

***RESPONSE: Yes***. ***See also answer to comment 550.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 550

The Government's revised response to Comment ID 368 appears to be in
conflict with the previous earlier Government response to Comment ID
424. The response to Comment ID 424 indicates that \"aggregate minimum
and maximum is based upon the total minimum and maximum number of seats
identified, regardless of seat type.\" Does the revised response to
Comment ID 368 mean that the minimum and maximum quantities for GP1,
GP2, GP3, SE1, SE2, SE3, MA1, MA2, and NAD seat types will be aggregated
into total quantities per year for \"Desktop\" for determining
\"aggregated bands\" as identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That WEB1, APP1, COMP1, and FILE1 seat types will be aggregated into
total quantities per year for \"Server\" for determining \"aggregated
bands\" as identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That PH1, PH2, PH3, PH4, Pcell seat types will be aggregated into total
quantities per year for \"Phone\" for determining \"aggregated bands\"
as identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That FAX1, FAX2, and FAX3 seat types will be aggregated into total
quantities per year for \"Fax\" for determining \"aggregated bands\" as
identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That the LVID1 seat type quantities will stand alone as \"Local Video\"
for determining \"aggregated bands\" as identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That AR1, AR2, and AR3 seat types will be aggregated into total
quantities per year for \"Admin Radio\" for determining \"aggregated
bands\" as identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That LAN1, LAN2, and LAN3 seat types will be aggregated into total
quantities per year for \"LAN\" for determining \"aggregated bands\" as
identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That RC1, RC2, RC3, and RC4 seat types will be aggregated into total
quantities per year for \"Remote Comm\" for determining \"aggregated
bands\" as identified in RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

That PA1 and PA2 seat types will be aggregated into total quantities per
year for \"PA\" for determining \"aggregated bands\" as identified in
RFP A.1.1?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.14 ASSET TRANSITION

Comment ID: 540

Reference RFP Paragraph A.1.14(b)(2)

RFP paragraph A.1.14(b)(2) states, \"The contractor agrees to furnish
familiarization/phase-in training at the beginning of the phase-in
period to the successor contractor...\"

Since ODIN is a ID/IQ Delivery Order contract, how does the Government
intend to direct the incumbent contractor to conduct this training? What
CLIN will the Government order to initiate/satisfy this requirement?

***RESPONSE: The Offeror shall propose how they plan to conduct this
training, and the schedule will be mutually agreed upon by the incumbent
contractor, the DOCO, and the DOCOTR. The Government considers this to
be an integral part of the services provided and that the Offerors will
have priced those services accordingly. The Government does not intend
to define a separate CLIN.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.15 PROCEDURES TO EFFECT SPECIALIZED REQUIREMENTS

Comment ID: 541

Reference RFP Paragraphs A.1.15; C.5.9.1

RFP paragraph states that pricing for Specialized Requirements shall be
in accordance with Attachment P, Price List, while Paragraph C.5.9.1
states, \"The contractor shall uplift any seat to Mission Critical
Status in accordance with the procedures and pricing described in
Section A.1.15.\"

There does not appear to be a separate entry in the pricing model for
the price to uplift any seat to Mission Critical Status. How should
contractors provide this pricing to the Government?

***RESPONSE: Defer pending revisions to price model***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 543

Reference RFP Paragraph A.1.15

RFP Paragraph A.1.15 states that where there is no price impact (e.g.
Mission Freeze) the request for Specialized Requirements may be made by
any Government employee supported by ODIN.

Does the Government intend to allow any Government employee to direct
contractors to change contractual service levels with regard to
Specialized Requirements? We suggest that this language be changed to
the Contracting Officer or duly authorized representative of the C.O.

***RESPONSE: The language stands as written (this is for the items that
would not have a price impact). The only category identified with no
price impact at this time is Mission Freeze. However, during DOSP,
different procedures may be defined.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.34 YEAR 2000 WARRANTY\--COMMERCIAL SUPPLY ITEMS

Comment ID: 552

The RFP states that the contractor must warrant each hardware software
and

firmware product delivered under the ODIN contract will be Y2K
compliant.

It further states that any technology refreshable seat must be Y2K
compliant

by the year 2000.

Attachment L lists, by center, products which the government requires to

be supported (by Triage level). Some of these products are GFE and some

are shareware. It is not feasible for any ODIN contractor to warrant

software products not under his control or for which he could gain a Y2K

warranty from the software vendor. Both GFE and shareware have these

characteristics.

It is understood that the ODIN contractor will have to supply a
reasonable

list of software to fulfill the requirements of Table G.1.3 and that
this

software will have to be Y2K compliant. Can we assume that it is not the

intent of NASA for the ODIN contractor to supply the software listed in

attachment L, but rather provide only an appropriate level of support

(Triage I, II, III) in installing (de-installing), maintaining, and

responding to problems?

***RESPONSE: During DOSP, a specific list of certified products will be
provided. Only the non-compliant Triage Level 1 products will be
required to be fixed by the vendor. The Government expects the vendor to
give these items priority to fix (e.g., tech refresh).***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.11.3 ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF PRICING EXHIBITS

Comment ID: 537

Reference RFP Pricing Model, Server Services:

The formula for calculating the total price of server services (i.e.
WEB1, APP1) is currently \"=SUM(E341:E347)\". This formula only includes
costs for system administration and maintenance; it does not include any
costs for storage volume, data backup and restoration, and performance
delivery. If NASA desires a total server price by seat, should this
formula be revised to include all server services. Please clarify.

***RESPONSE: This will be corrected in the next release of the pricing
model***.

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 538

Reference RFP Attachment E and Pricing Model, Server Services:

Attachment E specifically includes LAN Services as a server service type
in the WEB1, APP1, COMP1 and FILE1. The pricing model does not allow for
pricing LAN services in the server (WEB, APP, COMP, FILE) seats. Should
the pricing model be amended to allow the offeror to propose prices for
the LAN services requirement in Attachment E?

####### RESPONSE: Refer to response to comment #494

\*\*\*\*\*

C.5.5 SUPPORT TRIAGE FOR ODIN AND NON-ODIN COMPONENTS

Comment ID: 536

Under the description for hardware maintenance, the RFP lists \"\... and
designated peripherials.\" What is a typical designated peripherial for
each seat? Does each seat have designated peripherials? For example
desktop printers - are they considered part of each seat under hardware
maintenance?

**RESPONSE** - ***CSCC and GFE items associated with an ODIN Desktop
Seat "inherit" the restore to service times for that desktop seat if
they are under Triage Level 1 support. GFE will be associated with
particular ODIN seats at DOSP. CSCC peripherals will be associated with
a seat when an item is ordered from CSCC. C.5.9.1 MISSION CRITICAL
REQUIREMENTS***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 542

Reference RFP Paragraphs A.1.15; C.5.9.1

RFP paragraph states that pricing for Specialized Requirements shall be
in accordance with Attachment P, Price List, while Paragraph C.5.9.1
states, \"The contractor shall uplift any seat to Mission Critical
Status in accordance with the procedures and pricing described in
Section A.1.15.\"

There does not appear to be a separate entry in the pricing model for
the price to uplift any seat to Mission Critical Status. How should
contractors provide this pricing to the Government?

***RESPONSE: Yes, Mission Critical Uplift pricing will be in upcoming
revisions to price model***

\*\*\*\*\*

C.5.9.4 PRIORITY SERVICE

Comment ID: 551

In reference to the priority service of 1% and an additional 1% of the
seats will receive

priority service is totally unrealistic taken into account the failure
rates of desktop hardware.

At these numbers, there is no need for the five different service levels
(basic through critical.)

Will NASA redefine this requirement? From our perspective, this
requirement means that \"at

any one time\" we will need to provide 30 minute response time to anyone
who requests it. Who

wouldn't request it knowing that it's a possibility? Take an example:
2,000 desktops would equate

to 20 service calls at any one time possibly requiring 30 minute
response time. For 2000 units, it's

unlikely that 20 calls per day will be placed (i.e. all calls receive 30
minute response time.) We feel

this should be 0.1% or in the example two service calls per day.

***RESPONSE: For purposes of the Master contract the first 1% refers to
a specific quantity of pre-identified seats and the second 1% should
refer to the total number of calls placed on any one day. Specific
Center priority service requirements may be identified at DOSP.***

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

E.1 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE MODEL

Comment ID: 544

Reference RFP Paragraph E.1

RFP Paragraph E.1, OVERVIEW OF SERVICE MODEL, states: \"Server services
provide institutional capabilities through ODIN servers at a fixed price
per unit. Pricing for all requirements to provide these services is
bundled into the fixed price per unit, including hardware and software
acquisition and maintenance, network access/connectivity, and system
administration. Four categories of server services are defined.

Communication services (other than the network services bundled into the
desktop and/or server services) are to be provided as separate service
categories. Pricing for all requirements to provide these services,
including all communications infrastructure support, is bundled into the
fixed price per service category. Some of these communication services
are to be available on a per unit basis (e.g., phones, faxes) and employ
a \"seat\" model similar to the desktops while others are provided on a
per system basis.\"

Further, the instructions provided in the \"pricing.doc\" document
state: \"The seat price is inclusive of all the \"S\" services
identified for that seat. The \"O\" items are changes to the standard
seat service level and the offeror shall insert either a positive or
negative dollar value in the columns entitled Unit Price.\"

The pricing model provided as Exhibit 1 to the RFP does not appear to
provide any place to enter the bundled seat price for server services
(e.g., a price for a WEB1 seat) or communications services (e.g., a
price for a PH1 seat). The optional prices appear to be the only prices
available for entry in the price model. Further, the Government's
response to Comment ID 507 indicates that it may not be the Government's
intent to have a single, bundled price.

1\) Is it the Government's intent to have a bundled price for each of
the server services seat types (i.e., FILE1, COMP1, WEB1, APP1)?

2\) Is it the Government's intent to have a bundled price for each of
the communications seat types (e.g., PH1, PH2, etc.)?

3\) If it is the intent to have a bundled price for the server services
seat types and the communications seat types, please provide instruction
on where in the Exhibit 1 pricing model these prices should be entered.
The only items currently available for entry of unit prices are the
optional prices associated with these seat types.

4\) If it is not the intent to have a bundled price for the server
services seat types and the communications seat types, please describe
the relationship of the requirements specified in Attachment E for each
of the seat types and their associated service levels and the individual
optional prices requested in Exhibit 1.

***RESPONSE: Modification to previous response to comment #507. Upcoming
price model will have "bundled" pricing for each server and
communication seat.***

\*\*\*\*\*

E.2.2 SERVER SERVICES

Comment ID: 548

Please clarify what is included in each of the Server Services
\"seats.\" The table included in E.2.2.1 does not have a service
parallel to the Platform service in the Desktop seats, which is used to
provide the hardware acquisition service level of the service category.
This would indicate that no hardware is to be provided with any of these
four server \"seat\" types. However, the descriptions of the seats in
E.2.2.2 through E.2.2.5 all state that \"...this includes the
hardware...\"

Our confusion is compounded by the government\'s response to offeror
Comment 507a published on 12/24. The offeror\'s comment pointed out the
fact that the price evaluation spreadsheets do not allow the entry of a
Unit Price for the \"Total Qty\" field associated with each server
\"seat.\" Further, the spreadsheets do not calculate a Total Amount
(based on Unit Price and Total Qty) for any of the Server Services
\"seat\" types. The offeror who developed the comment obviously felt
that this was a simple spreadsheet error similar to others already
identified and corrected by the government. However, the government\'s
response seems to indicate that there is no standard bundle of services
for these four seats; on the contrary, all service levels seem to be
available for purchase as individual units. Please describe exactly what
the offeror is responsible for providing when NASA orders a WEB1 (or any
other server) seat.

In addition, please clarify the government\'s response and example
provided to Comment 507a. In the government\'s example at GSFC, of the
16 WEB1 seats, 12 of these seats require Regular system administration.
The four remaining seats require Enhanced system administration,
indicated by the \"S.\" Where in the spreadsheet are offerors to provide
the unit price for the \"S\" Enhanced system administration service?
(48)

***RESPONSE: see previous responses to Comments #544, #494.***

\*\*\*\*\*

E.3.1.1 PLATFORM

Comment ID: 547

Please confirm that the only software that is required with a Desktop
Service Category such as a GP1 is the \"system software\" referred to in
E.3.1.1, Platform. The definition of ODIN Application Software provided
in E.3.1.2 seems to include only services to support the acquisition of
the appropriate software for a given desktop. Therefore, it is our
understanding that all other software is orderable through the Catalog
of Services and Commercial Components (CSCC), including a variety of
application software suites and other software to add functionality to
customize that seat.

If actual software products are to be included as part of the ODIN
Application Software service level, please define the exact applications
for each Desktop Service Category which must be included in the
per-seat, per-month single price bundle. (49)

***RESPONSE: When a seat receives "standard" application software, the
contractor shall provide the required application software to meet the
functionality for : word processing, spreadsheet, presentation graphics,
electronic messaging (e-mail, calendaring, forms), Internet tools (WWW,
news, FTP, Telnet, collaborative tools, etc.), anti-virus, etc., as
defined by Agency/Center standards.***

***See Amendment 2, paragraph E.3.1.2.***

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

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

Comment ID: 545

Reference RFP Attachment G, paragraph G.1

Attachment G of the RFP states: \"The prices in this catalog are on a
one time basis, however, large dollar items (in excess of \$100,000) may
be leased, depending on the customer's needs.\" \[emphasis added\]

The Government's response to Comment ID 428 stated: \"Products obtained
from the CSCC will not be owned by the Government. Please refer to the
RFP, 1. Contract Terms and Conditions - Commercial Items, paragraph
(n).\" \[emphasis added\]

The language in Attachment G would tend to indicate that prices offered
in the CSCC are one time (e.g., purchase) amounts. However, the response
to Comment ID 428 indicates the Government will not own items obtained
through the CSCC. Please clarify the following items:

a\) Are the prices offered in the CSCC intended to be truly \"one-time\"
or monthly recurring charges?

b\) For hardware items under \$100,000, if the Government will not own
the item, please clarify the Government's understanding of what the
prices offered in the CSCC include.

c\) For the price categories identified in Attachment G that include
maintenance or ongoing support, does the Government intend these prices
to be offered as \"one-time\" charges?

RESPONSE: In Amendment 2, the last sentence of G.1 will be amended as
follows: "The prices in this catalog are on a monthly basis for items in
G.1.1, G.1.2 and G.1.3, and on a one-time basis for items in G.1.4 and
G.1.5. "

\*\*\*\*\*

EXHIBIT 1 ODIN PRICE MODEL

Comment ID: 546

Reference Government Comment ID 406:

Please provide the Government's summary spreadsheet referenced in the
response to Comment ID 406.

***RESPONSE: This will be provided when available.***

\*\*\*\*\*