A.3.11.3 ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF PRICING EXHIBITS

Comment ID: 590

Question:

1\. When would the original pricing model, after all the appropriate
corrections

have been made, be released?

#### *RESPONSE: As soon as possible.*

\>\>\>\>\>

2\. It appears that the new version of the pricing model has not been
completed.

Is the new version completed, and when would the new version of the
pricing model

be available?

***RESPONSE: NASA has determined a new price model will not be
generated.***

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

3\. Will the contractor be responsible for inputting the variances in
the \"Variance\"

worksheet found in the ODINETTE workbook of the new version?

#### *RESPONSE: N/A (a new price model will not be generated).*

\>\>\>\>\>

4\. The original pricing model breaks out the SLA seat quantities, by
seat type,

by GFY based on the information contained in the PDR. How will these SLA
quantities

be handled in the new version of the pricing model?

#### *RESPONSE: N/A (a new price model will not be generated).*

\>\>\>\>\>

5\. Upon reviewing the new version of the pricing model, we have found
the

following discrepancies/inconsistencies:

#### *RESPONSE: N/A (a new price model will not be generated).*

\>\>\>\>\>

In the ODIN workbook, the calculation used to determine the unit monthly
price

is incorrect. Taking the Government\'s sample discount of 12% for GFY
99, the

formula would be the following: (seat price x (1 - 12%)). The new model
is

calculating an 88% discount to the proposed seat prices for GFY 99.

#### *RESPONSE: N/A (a new price model will not be generated).*

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

In the ODIN workbook, discrepancies and inconsistencies exist in the
formulas used to calculate

the total amount column for GP1 GFY99, the total amount column for GP1
GFY00-09,

and the revised pricing instructions, 3rd paragraph, second sentence,
released

January 8, 1998.

#### *RESPONSE: N/A (a new price model will not be generated).*

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

The new version of the pricing model averages the maximum number of seat
types

for all proposed years. What is the significance of this averaging if
the

\"Variance\" table adjusts the seats back to the maximum quantity by
fiscal year?

#### *RESPONSE: N/A (a new price model will not be generated).*

\>\>\>\>\>

6\. Due to the lapse in time, pricing model fixes, the uncertainty of
which

pricing model will be required, and the significant amount of time
required to

develop each SLA seat price and record in the Government pricing model,
will the

Government entertain providing a slip in the submittal due date of
February 9, 1998?

**RESPONSE: Yes, this will be reflected in a future amendment.**

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 591

Question: If the original pricing model can be corrected, this
Contractor would prefer

to keep the original format. It would be helpful if the Government would
answer

the following questions, to assist contractors in selecting a model. In
addition,

we have provided some inconsistencies we found with the new version

of the pricing model.

1\. When would the original pricing model, after all the appropriate
corrections

have been made, be released?

2\. It appears that the new version of the pricing model has not been
completed.

Is the new version completed, and when would the new version of the
pricing model

be available?

3\. Will the contractor be responsible for inputting the variances in
the \"Variance\"

worksheet found in the ODINETTE workbook of the new version?

4\. The original pricing model breaks out the SLA seat quantities, by
seat type,

by GFY based on the information contained in the PDR. How will these SLA
quantities

be handled in the new version of the pricing model?

5\. Upon reviewing the new version of the pricing model, we have found
the

following discrepancies/inconsistencies:

In the ODIN workbook, the calculation used to determine the unit monthly
price

is incorrect. Taking the Government\'s sample discount of 12% for GFY
99, the

formula would be the following: (seat price x (1 - 12%)). The new model
is

calculating an 88% discount to the proposed seat prices for GFY 99.

In the ODIN workbook, discrepancies and inconsistencies exist in the
formulas used to calculate

the total amount column for GP1 GFY99, the total amount column for GP1
GFY00-09,

and the revised pricing instructions, 3rd paragraph, second sentence,
released

January 8, 1998.

The new version of the pricing model averages the maximum number of seat
types

for all proposed years. What is the significance of this averaging if
the

\"Variance\" table adjusts the seats back to the maximum quantity by
fiscal year?

6\. Due to the lapse in time, pricing model fixes, the uncertainty of
which

pricing model will be required, and the significant amount of time
required to

develop each SLA seat price and record in the Government pricing model,
will the

Government entertain providing a slip in the submittal due date of
February 9, 1998?

***RESPONSE: This question is a duplicate. See comment ID 590.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 594

Reference: A.3.11.3 Electronic Availability of Pricing Exhibits

Question: We would like to offer the following suggestions for
simplifying the current price model. Our specific recommendations are
provided below.

Recommend that NASA consider eliminating some of the options included in
the price model that are not essential for the price evaluation. For
example, rather than requesting NTE pricing for six levels of hardware
maintenance (i.e., none, basic, regular, premium, enhanced, and
critical), offerors could offer \"regular\" price, a \"critical\" price,
and a price for \"none.\" This reduced number of optional prices would
provide NASA with the range of NTE maintenance prices for purposes of
price evaluation at the master contract level. At DOSP proposal time, if
the other maintenance options are required for performance at a given
center, the offeror could provide the additional NTE prices with their
delivery order proposal.

***RESPONSE: It is required that we identify under the master contract
those six levels, otherwise we risk at DOSP being told that adding a
level constitutes an increase in scope.***

\>\>\>\>\>

Question: Recommend that NASA ask for only five (5) years of pricing for
evaluation of the master contract proposals for Fiscal Year 1999 through
Fiscal Year 2003. This will substantially reduce the volume of
individual unit prices offered, eliminate many of the Excel spreadsheet
tabs in the current model, while still accommodating price evaluation
for all centers using the implementation schedules indicated in RFP
Exhibit 4. In this scenario, NASA would be able to evaluate at least a
three year delivery order period for all NASA centers with the NTE
pricing offered.

***RESPONSE: We have to evaluate the entire period for which we intend
to place orders and include that pricing in the contract value.***

\>\>\>\>\>

Question: Recommend that NASA fix the known problems and discrepancies
in the current model that have been raised through the question process.
These include a number of issues raised concerning incorrect formulas as
well as more substantive questions raised concerning missing or
conflicting entries for seat pricing.

*RESPONSE: NASA will consider the above recommendations and will be
providing an amendment to the original price model.*

\*\*\*\*\*

C.5.7 CATALOG SERVICES

Comment ID: 593

Reference C.5.7.2, Response to Comment ID 398

Question: Will NASA consider delivery of the Catalog of Services and
Commercial Components, without prices as specified in NASA's response to
Comment ID 398 at the time the price proposal is submitted and not at
the time the technical proposal is submitted?

*RESPONSE*: *No.*

\*\*\*\*\*

E.2.3.2 PHONE SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 592

Reference: E.2.3.2, C.9.1, NASA response to Comment ID 370

Question: The RFP description for PH1, PH2, PH3, and PH4 seats provided
in E.2.3.2 focuses on the requirements for the phone instruments,
feature sets, and operations and maintenance considerations. These
requirements do not specify a requirement for telco services such as
local access, provision of transmission service, tariff services, etc.
Further, the description of ODIN Wide Area Telecommunications and
Network Interface Requirements in C.9.1 indicates that the ODIN will
interface with NISN for wide area telecommunications, including voice
service.

These two RFP references appear to be in conflict with NASA's response
to Comment ID 370 that states \"Local service is included in the
Government's definition of basic services.\"

It is our understanding that local access from the telco (i.e., tariff
services) will be provided through NISN, CSOC, contracts with the
Regional Bell Operating Companies, or other non-ODIN contracts for PH1,
PH2, PH3, and PH4 phone seats.

*RESPONSE: Comment #370 is correct, local access from telco will be
provided through ODIN.*

\*\*\*\*\*

A.3.11.3 ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF PRICING EXHIBITS

Comment ID: 595

Question: When can we expect a final version of the new spreadsheets?

*RESPONSE: NASA has determined a new price model will not be generated.*

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 596

Question: When can we expect a final version of the new spreadsheets?

***RESPONSE: Duplicate; see comment #595.***

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

A.3.12.1 TECHNICAL, BUSINESS, AND PRICE PROPOSAL VOLUMES {R1}

Comment ID: 597

Question: In Table A.3.12.1, there are different statements regarding
the number

of required copies of CDs, e.g., \"3 sets of CDs\" and \"3 CDs\". Is
there a

difference in the number of copies required by these two descriptions?

***RESPONSE: No, unless more than one CD for the proposal is
required.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.10 ALLOWABLE CABLE PLANT DELIVERY ORDER CHANGES

Comment ID: 600\
\
Reference: A.1.10\
\
Question: Is cable plant support to be priced as a separate item and
only in the delivery order proposal? If so, will NASA pay for this
through the \"set-aside for specialized requirements\"? If not priced
separately, and if it is meant to be incorporated in the evaluation
model, please explain where it should be represented.

***RESPONSE: The support of the cable plant shall be included with the
NTE price of the seat. At DOSP, if a Center requires it to be price
separately, then the vendor will do so at that time.***

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

A.1.20 LIABILITY

Comment ID: 614\
\
Question: Paragraph A.1.20 states \"The Government assumes no liability
for loss, theft, damage, destruction (willful or otherwise) of any asset
(tangible or intangible) provided by the Contractor in performance of
this contract except as stated in this clause. The Government\'s rights
under this provision extend to Government employees acting within the
scope of their employment, as well as Government contractors and
grantees acting within the scope of their agreements. The liability to
the Contractor for losses resulting from loss, theft, damage, or
destruction by a Government employee, another Government contractor, or
grantee shall not exceed \$100,000 per year per Center. If the actual
losses resulting from loss, theft, damage, or destruction by a
Government employee, another Government contractor, or grantee exceeds
\$100,000 per year per Center, the Government will reimburse the
Contractor for the lessor of the actual loss (acquisition cost less
depreciation) or actual cost for replacing lost, stolen, damaged or
destroyed equipment, in excess of the \$100,000 per year per Center
limit, provided the Contractor can substantiate both the nature of the
loss and the reimbursement costs with either written or electronic
records.\"\
\
This offeror has reviewed the FAR, and the NASA FAR Supplement, and has
not found a clause containing this language. This appears to be a clause
developed by the Government specifically for this procurement. The
provision requires Contractors to assume liability for loss, theft,
damage or destruction by a Government employee, another Government
contractor or grantee, when they have no control over security, fire or
other hazardous occurrences. In effect, it forces offerors to presume
they will be liable for up to \$1M (\$100,000 for each of the ten
centers) per year for occurrences beyond their control. Offerors will be
forced to spread this arbitrarily over the contract price. As pricing is
established on a \"per seat\" basis, and there is no mechanism for
including the cost other than in the \"per seat\" price, as the pricing
model exists today, offerors will spread this throughout their contract
price, thus passing on a cost to the Government for something which may
not occur. Furthermore, since one contractor may or may not be awarded
all the seats, at all ten centers, the contractors will not necessarily
be able to recover their costs if such losses occur. In addition, there
is no way that the Government can determine how and where each offeror
spread the cost; thereby possibly skewing the evaluation of the \"per
seat\" price. This offeror feels that it is not in the Government\'s,
nor the offerors\' best interest to include this liability clause in the
solicitation, as written. Will the Government be willing to take this
into consideration and modify the solicitation accordingly?

***RESPONSE: The Government will not be modifying the solicitation. The
clause used is a GSFC specific clause which has been modified for this
procurement.***

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

A.3.1.1 OFFEROR\'S LIBRARY FOR THIS SOLICITATION {R1}

Comment ID: 602\
\
Pertaining to Section A.3.11.3 Electronic Availibility of Pricing
Exhibits\
\
\
The effort and consideration spent in developing a more streamlined
evaluation model is greatly appreciated. As proposed, the model should
be easier to work with and will significantly reduce the number of
pages. However, the application of a single ClassDB schedule applicable
to all sites does create a level of concern.\
\
***RESPONSE: NASA has determined that a new price model will not be
generated.***

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

A.3.11.3 ELECTRONIC AVAILABILITY OF PRICING EXHIBITS

Comment ID: 607\
\
Question: During our evaluation of the Price Model, several questions
arose :\
\
1. Will contractors have the capability to apply different discounts at\
the seat type / service levels within a Center within a fiscal year?\
\
NASA's revised model (ie Class DB tab) appears to indicate that only
one\
discount can be applied per year.\
\
2. Assuming NASA's response is to use the new pricing model, when will
the\
formalized version be made available for use by all bidders?

***RESPONSE: NASA has determined that a new price model will not be
generated.***

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

Comment ID: 609

Question: While we appreciate the government\'s efforts to simplify the
ODIN pricing model, this offeror is very concerned with the
government\'s consideration of changing the evaluation model of the ODIN
Price Proposal at this late date in the procurement process.\
\
***RESPONSE: NASA has determined that a new price model will not be
developed.***

**\>\>\>\>\>**\
In addition, we would like to suggest the following modifications to the
existing price model evaluation:\
\
1. Remove the infrastructure upgrade evaluation plug number from the
ODIN Price Proposal. The government has not included in the RFP any
clearly defined contractual obligations and responsibilities for
infrastructure upgrades and the relation to the proposed price discount
in the Price Proposal. However, during contract performance, the
government\'s requirements can be more clearly defined, proposed, and
negotiated.

***RESPONSE: In order to preserve the Government's ability to order this
service if required, the recommended modification will not be made. The
actual cost will be negotiated when the specific requirement is
defined.***

\>\>\>\>\>\
\
2. The evaluation of catalog pricing per Center should be based on
price\
reasonableness instead of a weighted discount. Because there is no valid
reference price available for these items with the service levels
required, it is impossible to fairly evaluate vendors by weighing an
offeror\'s average proposed discount.

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

\>\>\>\>\>

Regarding the review of the government\'s simplified pricing model:\
\
1. The government states that the Total Average Quantity for each seat
type is calculated by taking the estimated maximum number of seat types
for all 10 years and dividing by 10. However, this approach does not
correlate to the quantities in Attachment Q. There are many Centers that
have quantities for 11 years. An example of this is Goddard Space Flight
Center. Please explain.\
\
2. This offeror does not understand the Variances tab found in the
Odinette Excel file. In the government instructions, it states that the
Variances tab contains the deltas per seat type and per fiscal year.
However, in the Excel spreadsheet only Centers are defined with
variances per fiscal year. For example, if it is per seat (GP1, GP2,
GP3) under each Center, many more rows would have to be added and the
Center spreadsheets would contain new lookups. Also, what method is used
for calculating the variances? Since the Average Total Quantity is based
on Max Quantities divided by 10, is the variance equal to the Average
Total Quantity minus the Max Quantity for that seat for that center for
that year? Please explain how this spreadsheet is derived and who is
responsible for completing the Variances tab.\
\
3. The government states that the Total Annual Amount will be calculated
by subtracting the Average Total Quantity for each seat type from the
Variance for each year and multiplying that by the Unit Monthly Price
and then multiplied by 12 to provide the Total Yearly Amount. Based on
the instructions, Total Yearly Amount is calculated as ((Variance - Avg.
Tot. Qty) \*(Price)) \*12. Since the variable variance is still
undefined, the offeror will use the rationale that variance means the
difference between Average Total Quantity and Max Quantity for that
year. If this is the case, in a great many instances the Total Yearly
Amount would be equal to a negative number or zero. For example, based
on Goddard GP1 PC the Max Quantity is 1,006 and the Average Total
Quantity is 1,103. The variance would equal 97. Based on (97-1103) your
Total Yearly Amount would be negative. Please clarify.\
\
4. In ClassDB under product class, code, the government has added
discounts for FY 99 through FY 2009. The government states that the
offeror shall propose a percentage delta for each fiscal year. Although,
this greatly simplifies the model, there is no method to accurately
reflect the delta changes to unit prices that will occur to the various
service levels per year. (50)

***RESPONSE: NASA has determined that a new price model will not be
generated*.**

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

ATTACHMENT A LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Comment ID: 601\
\
Reference: Attachment A\
\
Question: NASA\'s definition of infrastructure refers to \"components\"
only, not service costs for design installation, support and
maintenance. Please clarify whether service costs associated with
infrastructure apply to the reference to a plug number for
infrastructure costs in the evaluation model.

***RESPONSE: Services associated with upgrading/replacing the
infrastructure are included with the infrastructure cost. Services that
are associated with ongoing maintenance and operation of the
infrastructure are included in the seat cost.***

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

C.5.9.2 MISSION FREEZE

Comment ID: 611\
\
Question: In reference to C.5.9.2 Mission Freeze, can credits be levied
against the contractor when mission freeze restrictions are imposed?

***RESPONSE: No credits will be levied.***

\*\*\*\*\*

C.5.9.4 PRIORITY SERVICE

Comment ID: 610

Question: In reference to C.5.9.4, subparagraph 1., can priority service
be requested outside of the PPM (6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday)?

***RESPONSE: Yes.***

\*\*\*\*\*

C.8 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY REQUIREMENTS {R1}

Comment ID: 612\
\
\
In reference to Section C.8, will there be any limitations on removing
defective hardware components (e.g., Hard Drives) from a NASA site?

***RESPONSE: Yes, the user will specify requirements depending on the
policies required for the type of data they process (i.e., Legal,
Procurement, Personnel).***

\*\*\*\*\*

C.8.6 IT SECURITY TRACKING

Comment ID: 599\
\
Reference: RFP C.8.6 - IT Security Tracking\
\
Question: The second sentence reads \"0that such entry results in either
a user\'s loss of data or system availability or renders the user
unproductive for a period of time.\" There appears to be some text
missing at the beginning of the sentence. Would the government please
supply the missing text?

***RESPONSE: An amendment will be issued.***

\*\*\*\*\*\
\
E.2.1.3 GP2 SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 608

Question: The referenced paragraph E.2.1.3 states "\... Functionality
includes: Business program\
development (e.g. Visual Basic, C++) and execution, statistical
analysis,\
desktop publishing, desktop multimedia development, desktop databases\
(e.g. Access, FoxPro), and desktop graphics (e.g. Canvass, Corel Draw)\
as well as word processing, spreadsheet, presentation graphics,
electronic\
messaging (e-mail, calendaring, forms, Internet tools WWW, news, FTP,
Telnet,\
collaborative tools, etc,), anti virus."\
\
This appears to imply that the full set of software described, which is
in\
addition to that provided for the GP1, must be available on each GP2
seat.\
Since each of the software packages listed for these categories is a\
relatively expensive package, to include the full suite will drive up
the\
cost of the GP2 significantly. It does not seem likely that each GP2
end\
user will need the full suite of software, rather they will utilize a
subset\
of the listed software to meet their needs.\
\
Is it NASA's intent that each GP2 delivered have the full set of\
software listed in E.2.1.3 or is it NASA's intent that the GP2 be able
to\
run the software listed in E.2.1.3 and that software be made available
as\
required?\
***\
RESPONSE: It is NASA's intent that the platform be able to run this type
of software. A user can order from the catalog the software that is not
included in the standard load. As stated in our response to comment
547 - 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.***

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

E.2.3.9 PUBLIC ADDRESS SERVICE DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 613\
\
Question :In E.2.3.9, the RFP states that the Public Address Service
provides for the operations and maintenance of an existing centerwide
public address system. Paragraphs E.2.3.9.1 and E.3.3.7 state that the
Public Address Support provides a complete system to service a Center\'s
Public Address requirements. Should this seat include equipment or just
operations and maintenance? In addition, what is the definition of a PA1
seat? (51)

***RESPONSE: This seat should include the equipment, maintenance and
operations. It is defined in E.2.3.9.1. A PA1 seat is a Centerwide
Public Address system which is used to broadcast emergency notifications
to the entire Center.***

\*\*\*\*\*

ATTACHMENT N ODIN PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Comment ID: 604

Question: Do Unix products need to be submitted for NSTL certification,
or can\
the SPEC baseline numbers be utilized w/ the ODIN formula for unix
products\
to determine the baseline performance ratings for each product
submitted?

***RESPONSE: SPEC baseline numbers can be utilized with the ODIN
formula. UNIX products do not need to be submitted to NSTL for
certification. However, validity of the SPEC numbers must be verifiable
if requested.***

\*\*\*\*\*

N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Comment ID: 605\
\
Do Unix products need to be submitted for certification w/ NSTL

***RESPONSE: No.***

\*\*\*\*\*

EXHIBIT 1 ODIN PRICE MODEL

Comment ID: 606\
\
Question: NASA\'s proposed revisions to the price model contain
extensive errors and omissions in the formulas, which make it difficult
to derive exactly what the revised strategy is intended to do. The
Variances table which is supposed to establish quantities by fiscal year
by Center contains whole numbers in the first two cells (-5000 and 1000
respectively) while all remaining cells contain values that appear to be
percentages. The first few cells of the ARC (the only one with
representative formulas for the proposed model) do not accurately
implement the instructions as revised. For example, the calculation of
Total Amount for GP1 PC for FY99 is: Average quantity plus calculated
variance times 1, which apparently should be 12, times the price. The
same calculation for the next fiscal year, however, is: Average quantity
plus calculated variance times calculated price times 12. The third year
uses the same formula as the second, but because the Variance table
value is a negative .05, the Total amount calculates to a negative
dollar value.\
While the proposed revised model may be simpler than the original,
switching at this point would probably delay the bid again as bidders
will first undergo learning curve and then begin identifying errors on
the new model. We recommend that NASA keep the initial model and
continue with the process of error correction.

***RESPONSE: NASA has determined a new price model will not be
generated*.**\
\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 616\
\
Questions:\
1.) The new model, using average quantities, places undue cost burden on
the contractor. We recommend that this aspect of the original model
(total quantities for each year) remain in place.\
2.) The proposed model is not mature, and contains formula and
typographical errors. These need to be corrected in a future version.\
3.) Given the remaining time available, we are concerned with the
overall data requirements and we would support any effort on the part of
NASA to further simplify, (e.g. using a \"model\" site which would be
further definitized during the DOSP process).\
4.) As an additional recommendation toward simplification, we also
recommend that NASA consider modification of the requirement to price
CSCC items at this point, which can also be competitively priced during
DOSP.\
\
\
***RESPONSE: NASA has determined that a new price model will not be
generated.***

\*\*\*\*\*

EXHIBIT 5 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Comment ID: 598

Ref: Sec R Exhibit 5 Past Performance Questionnaire\
\
Question: NASA requests two signatures. There is no signature line on
the form as\
it exists. May we alter the form to allow for one or two signatures?\
Please offer a solution that can be quickly implemented.

***RESPONSE: Yes the form may be altered to add signature lines at the
end.\
***\*\*\*\*\*

EXHIBIT 6 TECHNOLOGY REFRESHMENT BASELINE

Comment ID: 603

Question: This exhibit asks the bidder to provide who the manufacturer
is for each of the items listed.\
Does this mean I need to contact the manufacturer of the complete
systems, such as a computer system from e.g. IBM, Compaq or Sun to find
out who provides these items to them, or is Listing the Manufacturer who
offers the equipment sufficient?

***RESPONSE: Listing the Manufacturer who offers the equipment is
sufficient.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 615\
\
Question: Is it correct to assume that Tab 10,Technology Refreshment
Baseline, is to be excluded from Volume 2\'s 80-page limit? (52)

***RESPONSE: Yes***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.2.2 NASA (DOSP)

Comment ID: 617\
\
Question: Despite the fact that this paragraph addresses the Delivery
Order Selection Process, we would like to know what assumptions we
should make in our basic ODIN proposal with regard to the potential cost
for use of government facilities/space. Will the government provide a
cost per square foot, or should we assume zero cost for evaluation of
this basic proposal? (53)

***RESPONSE: The proposal should assume no government facilities. During
DOSP, facility requirements and price adjustments will be discussed.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.8 RETAINAGE POOLS

Comment ID: 618\
\
Question: This paragraph describes several subjective criteria on which
the potential release of the 3% performance retainage pool (PRP) is
based, and states that release of the PRP is at the sole discretion of
the Program Manager. Is it NASA\'s intent that release of the PRP will
be governed by something similar to NASA\'s current award fee processes,
so that the contractors will have a clearer understanding of the
criteria to be used by the ODIN Program Manager in making the PRP
release determination? If so, can we expect that some sort of evaluation
plan, patterned on NASA\'s current award fee guidance documentation,
will be incorporated into delivery orders? (54)

***RESPONSE: The release of the retainage pool will be at the discretion
of the Program Manager.***\
\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.14 ASSET TRANSITION

Comment ID: 619\
\
Question: This paragraph states that, if the contractor proposes to use
existing government assets, the assets will be made available on an \"as
is\" basis. Numerous other references in the RFP imply the government\'s
intention for the contractor to maintain existing government assets in
service until they are in need of technology refreshment. Will the
government consider providing something akin to certificates of
maintainability for these assets upon transition to the contractor, or
is this an area that would be subject to price adjustment as a result of
the due diligence process? (55)

***RESPONSE: No the government will not provide certificates of
maintainability. Due diligence price adjustments can be proposed.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 620\
\
Question: Are the costs associated with a transition to a third party at
the end of a delivery order period-familiarization, phase-in training,
etc.-to be included in the seat prices, or are they expected to be
priced separately if such a transition is necessary? (56)

***RESPONSE: No, this should not be priced separately. The government
intends to execute A.1.7.***

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

A.1.19 COMPONENT CLASSIFICATION

Comment ID: 621\
\
Question: This paragraph states that all components provided by the
contractor must be publicly announced and marketed as COTS products for
at least 30 days before submission of any technology refresh proposal.
Does this preclude the contractor from submitting a technology refresh
proposal based on evaluation of beta products so that the products can
be provided immediately upon commercial release of production products?
For example, would we be able to complete a thorough beta test or early
adopter program for Microsoft Windows 98 and insert this product into a
technology refresh baseline when it is commercially released to
production, or would we have to wait until 30 days after the production
release before submitting our technology refresh proposal? (57)

***RESPONSE: The 30 day limitation applies to the release of products
into production systems rather than the submission of technology refresh
proposal for these products. With coordination with the DOCOTR, the
vendor may perform pilot testing at the Center prior to roll-out.***

\*\*\*\*\*

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

Comment ID: 622\
\
Question: This paragraph requires the contractor to ensure that any
existing installed hardware that supports an ODIN seat be made Year 2000
compliant. We ask that the government define \"support\" so that we can
understand the limits of potential liability. As this paragraph is
written, it is possible that mainframe systems used by ODIN seat users
could be construed as \"supporting\" the seats using them, thus creating
an obligation on the ODIN contractor to make mainframe systems Year 2000
compliant, even though these systems are not nominally within the
purview of the ODIN contract.(58)

***RESPONSE: As stated in comment ID: 552, 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.2.3 OFFEROR REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS COMMERCIAL ITEMS
(52.212-3) (JAN 1997)

Comment ID: 635\
\
Question: The Government\'s response to Comment 426 states that the FAR
52 225-9 applies because the software licenses will become a part of the
impending contract. Please confirm that FAR 52.225-9 Buy American
Act/Trade Agreements Act/ Balance Payment program does not apply to
hardware content of the seat services provided under this contract, as
this hardware will never be owned by the Government.

***RESPONSE: As stated in comment ID: 570, it has been determined that
this clause pertains to the entire requirement including the services
and the products provided.***

\*\*\*\*\*

C.5.2 END USER DOCUMENTATION

Comment ID: 632\
\
Please clarify \"electronic documentation\".

***RESPONSE: Electronic documentation that is normally provided with
commercial products.***

\*\*\*\*\*

E.2.1.5 SE1 SEAT DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 637\
\
Reference: E.2.1.5, E.2.1.6, E.2.1.7 - UNIX Workstations\
\
Question: A large number of UNIX operating systems are currently in use
throughout NASA, including AIX, DEC Unix, DEC VMS, DEC MicroVax, HP UX,
Linux, SGI, and SUN Solaris. Each NASA Center has at least three (3)
different hardware platforms using various operating systems. Is it the
Government\'s intention to have the offeror(s) propose multiple UNIX
solutions in response to these requirements? Please clarify.

***RESPONSE: The vendor should offer whatever they determine best meets
the Government's technical requirements and the objectives of the ODIN
program.***

\*\*\*\*\*

E.3.1.2 ODIN APPLICATION SOFTWARE

Comment ID: 634\
\
Question: For all service categories, the contractor is expected to
support existing equipment. The desktop seats GP-1 through GP-3 and SE1
through SE3 can be purchased for new or existing equipment. Please
clarify why the software tables in Section L do not include the UNIX
operating systems currently in use, i.e. SUN Solaris, HP UNIX, DEC VMS,
and DEC Unix for any of the NASA locations.

***RESPONSE: The operating system is included under the platform
requirements (see E.3.1.1 and E. 3.1.4) and is not required in
attachment L. However, the OS may be listed in Attachment L where the
Government desires to specifically identify an OS for support (e.g.,
Win95, NT 4.0).***

\*\*\*\*\*

E.3.1.6 HARDWARE TECHNOLOGY REFRESHMENT

Comment ID: 623\
\
Question: Please clarify the requirement for basic service. Is it the
government\'s intention that each seat be refreshed at least every 5
years, but with no more than a 3 year average (leading to a refresh in
both year 5 and year 6)? Or is it the government\'s intention that the
average refresh of all seats will be no more than 3 years, but that some
seats could go as long as 5 years between refresh? (59)

***RESPONSE: For the basic service, by the requirement in C.7.1.1, one
fifth of the seats are to be refreshed each year. The three-year average
was included to be consistent with NASA's policy for obsolescence.***

\*\*\*\*\*

E.3.1.8 MOVES, ADDS, CHANGES

Comment ID: 624\
\
Question: This paragraph indicates that each service delivery order can
request to move/add/change multiple ODIN seats. We assume this applies
to catalog orders as well as physical relocation of equipment (e.g.,
provide and install 100 graphics accelerator cards); however, the
typical service characteristic for catalog orders is not
volume-sensitive, as is the service characteristic for
moves/adds/changes. We recommend the government apply the same
volume-sensitive service characteristics used for moves/adds/changes to
catalog orders as well (e.g., catalog orders affecting 5 seats should be
completed within 2 days of order; catalog orders affecting more than 50
seats shall have the completion date negotiated).\
\
In addition, the service characteristics for moves/adds/changes appear
to address workload volumes per service delivery order, rather than
aggregate volumes. This would appear to make it possible to \"game\" the
system. For instance, a customer desiring 60 moves/adds/changes who did
not want to go through the negotiation process associated with putting
all 60 on a single delivery order could easily submit 12 delivery orders
for 5 moves/adds/changes each on the same day-thus requiring the
contractor to complete 60 moves/adds/changes in 2 days. We recommend
that the volumes used to determine service characteristics be aggregate
volumes per organization or something similar that would help a scenario
such as described above. (60)

***RESPONSE: The DOCOTR will manage the requests (alleviate splintering)
and ensure reasonableness to the contractor.***

\*\*\*\*\*

F.1.1.2 AVAILABILITY METRIC

Comment ID: 625\
\
Question: This paragraph defines an availability calculation that is
based on users affected when the vendor discovers a problem. With all
the emphasis placed on proactive system management in the RFP, it is
highly likely that the vendor will discover and resolve problems without
any perceptible disruption to user capability. The availability
definition in this paragraph would count such a proactive problem
resolution against the contractor (problem discovered by the vendor), to
the full extent of the number of users who might have been affected if
the problem were allowed to persist. We recommend that the RFP language
be modified either to define a problem as something that affects actual
user performance (rather than potential user performance), or to define
unavailability to begin when a user reports a problem (as opposed to
when the vendor discovers a problem). (61)

***RESPONSE: The availability metric is only effected when the user's
ODIN service is impaired. If the vendor discovers and resolves problems
before a user's service is impaired then they are maintaining their high
metric ratings. See also the definition of downtime in F.2.***

\*\*\*\*\*

G.1.1 BASE PLATFORM HARDWARE AUGMENTATION COMPONENTS

Comment ID: 631\
\
Question: The DVD-ROM Player and 128-bit graphics accelerator for the
Apple-based and UNIX-based systems (laptops and desktops) are not
available through the OEM, and this offeror has not been able to find a
third party source supported these items. Will the government consider
deleting the requirement for these options for the Apple and UNIX based
laptops and desktops?

***RESPONSE: The tables in Attachment G are "examples only" of the type
of items the Government would expect to be proposed in the CSCC.***

\*\*\*\*\*

G.1.2 CSCC OPTIONAL HARDWARE AND EQUIPMENT TABLE

Comment ID: 626\
\
Cables\
\
Question: Please clarify the line item \"Cables\"? This is a very
open-ended requirement. Is this line meant to encompass any and all
additional cables for any and all options, or is this specific for a
particular hardware option? Please clarify

***RESPONSE: The tables in Section G are "examples only" of the type of
items the Government would expect to be proposed in the CSCC. The term
cables is meant to include any cables that may be associated with the
seat.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 627\
\
Color\
\
Question: The term \"Color\" is on a line between two requirements (both
specified as B&W. Is this line item meant to be an option for both the
optical character reader and the local printer? Please clarify

***RESPONSE: The tables in Section G are "examples only" of the type of
items the Government would expect to be proposed in the CSCC.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 628\
\
ColorThermal Wax\
\
Question: Please clarify what the Government\'s requirement for this
line item is. Was this intended to be an option for the injet printer?
If so, this offeror has not been able to find a manufacturer which is or
will continue to support this technology. Please clarify.

***RESPONSE: The tables in Section G are "examples only" of the type of
items the Government would expect to be proposed in the CSCC.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 629\
\
\
Administrative Radio Options\
\
Question: The term \"Administrative Radio Options\" is extremely vague.
Please provide clarification for this requirement.

***RESPONSE: The tables in Section G are "examples only" of the type of
items the Government would expect to be proposed in the CSCC.
Administrative Radio Options refers to anything that may augment the
hardware in your proposed solution for Administrative Radios.***

\*\*\*\*\*

Comment ID: 630\
\
Administrative Radio Options\
\
Question: The term \"Administrative Radio Options\" is extremely vague.
Please provide clarification for this requirement.

***RESPONSE: The tables in Section G are "examples only" of the type of
items the Government would expect to be proposed in the CSCC.
Administrative Radio Options refers to anything that may augment the
hardware in your proposed solution for Administrative Radios.***

\*\*\*\*\*

ATTACHMENT L TRIAGE ASSIGNMENT TABLES {R1}

Comment ID: 633\
\
Question: The government has listed some Freeware and Shareware software
packages as requiring Triage Level 1support. The nature of this type of
software is to have limited support. Can the government clarify what
they expect as Triage Level 1 for these types of software.

***RESPONSE: The Government requirements for triage level support are
stated in section C.5.5. See future amendment for Attachment L.***\
\*\*\*\*\*

N.1 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS

Comment ID: 636\
\
Question: Please confirm this offeror\'s understanding that:\
\
(1) The offerors do not have to conduct SPEC testing to determine the
CFPRate of their porposed solution. Proposed solutions for the UNIX
platforms will be evaluated by the published CFPRate of the proposed
processors.

***RESPONSE: Correct.***

\>\>\>\>\>

\(2\) Because of the limited range of Apple products, NSTL will conduct
the necessary benchmarks on the entire range, and will provide the
results to the vendors registered with the NSTL for the ODIN
procurement.

***RESPONSE: No, if the Apple product you wish to propose is not on the
NSTL list, you may propose it according to the prescribed
methodology.***

\>\>\>\>\>

\(3\) The computational Server platform for four levels of service, i.e.
basic, regular, premium, and enhanced, is not required to be
benchmarked. How will the government evaluate / validate an offeror\'s
solution for the four levels, i.e. WEB1, APP1, FILE1, and COMP1 seats?

***RESPONSE: The vendor should describe their solution for providing the
various levels of performance. As part of the description, the vendor
may wish to utilize published benchmarks for the solution they are
proposing.***

\>\>\>\>\>

The absence of specific benchmark requirements for the WEB1, APP1, and
FILE1 seats could result in seat solutions based on each individual
offeror\'s interpretation of the stated criteria, and therefore there
would be a significant price delta This offeror recommends specific
benchmark requirements for each server platform as was required for the
COMP1 seat and/or the UNIX workstations.

***RESPONSE: The Government is not necessarily evaluating the actual
platform, but rather, evaluating the service being provided. The vendor
should describe the performance characteristics for the various levels
of performance delivery in accordance with the definition of the service
level.***

\*\*\*\*\*

A.1.1 SERVICES TO BE FURNISHED

Comment ID: 644\
\
Question: This section indicates that post due diligence, the
contractors will be allowed\
to submit a one time adjustment to the total price for the support of
the site.\
Assuming that the adjustment is not to the NTE, can the contractors
submit an\
adjustment based upon the number of router to be monitored in the system
based\
upon the results of the due diligence, as an example? or any other
anomaly that\
they find during due diligence which was not anticipated in their
proposal based\
upon the data that is in the RFP?

***RESPONSE: Yes, anything found requiring adjustment can be
proposed.***

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

A.3.11.1 REQUIRED PRICE DATA

Comment ID: 643\
\
Question: Subsection 3 references the PDR as the basis for the price
model, and\
subsection 2 references section Q of the RFP. These documents do not\
agree on the seat count and the PDR, indicates that the seat count
represents\
more seats than the ODIN procurement will include. What is the purpose
of the\
PDR? Is the only reason for the PDR a statistical review of the
processor types?

***RESPONSE*: As stated in Comment ID 412, t*he Platform Distribution
Report (PDR) provides an estimate on the manner in which NASA's*
[current]{.underline} *inventory, grouped in terms of platform type
(i.e. PC, Mac, or UNIX) and processor (e.g. 386, 486, etc.), would be
allocated into the ODIN seat types (e.g. GP1, GP2, etc.). In determining
this inventory some centers chose to include their entire inventory
while others limited to only those desktops definitely intended to be
included under ODIN. The assumption is that the relative percentages
remain roughly same either way. The PDR is intended to be informational
only as an initial estimate of NASA's current inventory in advance of a
detailed inventory to be conducted at DOSP. The quantities in Attachment
Q of the RFP determine the bands for which the NTE prices offered are
valid. The quantities in the pricing model were generated directly from
the max figure in Attachment Q spread over the estimated relative
percentages of anticipated PC, Macs and Unix systems (as derived from
the PDR) and the estimated percentage of the standard and optional
service levels. Thus the total quantity in the price model for any one
seat type (e.g. GP1) should equal the max value for that seat type from
Attachment Q.***

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

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

Comment ID: 642\
\
REFERENCE: C.5.5 SUPPORT TRIAGE FOR ODIN AND NON-ODIN COMPONENTS AND
RESPONSE TO COMMENT ID 536 DATED 1/14/98.\
\
Question: Based on the government\'s response to comment 536, the
offeror understands that for Triage Level 1 CSCC and GFE items will
inherit the restore to service times for the desktop seat to which they
are assigned. The current pricing model provides a single column to
provide pricing. For items in the CSCC, how does the offeror reflect
price differentials for restoration time options?

***RESPONSE: If the vendor feels it necessary, the CSCC may include a
line item per return to service level. However, this is not required by
the Government.***

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

E.2.3.5 LOCAL VIDEO SERVICE DESCRIPTION

Comment ID: 641\
\
REFERENCE: E.2.3.5 LOCAL VIDEO SERVICE DESCRIPTION\
\
Question: The above referenced paragraph states: \"The Video service
will provide for the operation and maintenance of an existing
Center-wide video system.\" Based on this definition, the offeror would
expect to see order quantities reflecting the \"center-wide\" nature of
the local video service defined (i.e., either zero (0) or One (1)).
Attachment Q however, lists the min/max unit quantities for each center
and varies widely from center to center. For example LeRC indicates a
unit quantity of one, as expected, while Headquarters indicates maximum
unit quantities ranging from 220 in FY00 to 260 in FY09; MSFC indicates
maximum unit quantities of 250 in FY99 decreasing to 0 in FY03; and ARC
indicates a constant 700 unit quantities over all years. In addition
data in the center questionnaires does not seem to clarify the basis of
the unit estimations. Please clarify the basis of unit estimates between
the various centers.

***RESPONSE: The Center responses were based on different
interpretations of the requested quantities. Correct answers for most
Centers should be either (0) or (1). Center's are projecting the number
of ports expected to be supported which should be reflected in the
options for the service. See future amendment for Attachment Q.***

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

E.3.1.9 LAN SERVICES

Comment ID: 638\
\
Question: We assume that no hardware/software purchases are required to
provide these services, rather that we are providing access to existing
facilities.

*RESPONSE: The vendor will take over the existing facilities and be
responsible for maintenance, operations, enhancements, etc.*\
\*\*\*\*\*

E.3.3.2 FAX SERVICE

Comment ID: 639

Question: What is intended by the entry \"Transactions\" in the table in
E.3.3.2 for Enhanced Service Description?

***RESPONSE: There is a typo in this section the Enhanced should be like
E.2.3.4.3 where enhanced is a 20 ppm plain paper fax. See future
amendment.***

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

ATTACHMENT Q AGGREGATE SEAT BAND PER ORDERING ENTITY {R1}

Comment ID: 640\
\
Question: The ODIN home page refers to a NASA directive that is causing
some consideration about revising the minimum quantities. Will NASA
release a copy of this directive and/or advise the offerors of the
impact of this review? When will the quantity tables in Attachment Q be
revised to reflect this decision?

***RESPONSE: The directive is now available via the ODIN website. It is
not anticipated that the quantities will be significantly adjusted. If
necessary, updated information will be provided after initial proposals
are received.***

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