NASA Lewis Research Center, 21000 Brookpark Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44135

70 -- ENGINEERING, DESIGN, AND MANUFACTURING SOFTWARE SOL SFO3-057594 POC Linda Kendrick, Contracting Officer, (216) 433-2407, MS 500-309 or Internet E-Mail: Linda.Kendrick@lerc.nasa.gov. This amendment revises SFO3-057594 which was posted 9/18/96 as follows: The following questions have been received in response to Solicitation SFO3-057594. The identity of the inquirer has been removed from the body of the individual questions, and has been replaced with the term (Vendor). QUESTION 1.) (Vendor) has participated in two formal evaluations of Engineering, Design, and Manufacturing Software at NASA Lewis. In neither case has our company received a formal debriefing on the results of these previous tests. Since this solicitation seeks to purchase the very same tools that we have already competed for, we request that NASA Lewis issue our company with a formal position on the findings of these previous evaluations. (ANSWER 1.) It is not uncommon for government entities, like corporate entities, to investigate a marketplace before they solidify their requirements. There was an on-going effort at LeRC, which was described in the SFO as ''extensive market research'', to thoroughly investigate the currently available commercial products. During the course of this investigation, various manufacturers provided information, and that information was retained and examined by a diverse group of NASA personnel. Since this was a market research initiative (not a procurement action), there was no competition, and debriefings (which are part of the procurement process) were not required. Firms who choose to participate in market research initiatives must recognize that there is no guarantee that a procurement, let alone a contract, will ensue as a result of the market research initiative. The information obtained and generated during the market research initiative was intended for internal use only. No formal document was prepared for external distribution. QUESTION 2.) Since our response will be compared to the ''extensive market research'' that has been performed on the Unigraphics product, we request an outline of the type and level of detailed information that has been gathered in arriving at your current position. (ANSWER 2.) There will be no comparison of products. The SFO states very clearly that this is not a sole source. Also, it is not a ''brand name or equal'' acquisition. The offered products must meet the Manufacturing Specifications and the Drafting Specifications, and those offered products that do meet those specifications will then be evaluated in terms of price and best value (see the ''Best Value Selection'' section of the SFO). The Unigraphics products are listed only to provide guidance to prospective offerors of a type of product that is known (as a result of the market research described in the (ANSWER to Question #1) to meet all of the specifications. The requested ''outline'' is outside the scope of this acquisition, and is not needed to respond to the SFO. QUESTION 3.) The specification (GOVERNMENT NOTE: Actually, the following is a statement found in the solicitation, not in an individual specification. The question is mis-phrased, but its meaning is apparent, so the error does not render the question unanswerable.) states that ''if other products are selected, then the individual items/quantities will be determined during negotiations.'' Assuming an alternate product is selected and offers an equal or higher level of functionality as your minimum attributes, and that this product is in general comparable in price, please confirm that the minimum/maximum quantities and length of contract will not be altered. (ANSWER 3.) See the ''Best Value Selection'', ''Step Two'' section of the SFO. Also, the government retains its right to cancel any acquisition at any point prior to award. QUESTION 4.) Under Manufacturing Specifications, Item 2: Please explain what is meant by ''without regeneration'' and what functional benefit this attribute provides to NASA Lewis. (ANSWER 4.) LeRC needs to be able to edit the actual tool path files, as opposed to changing parameters and regenerating the tool path files. Regeneration takes time, so the functional benefit is in time savings. QUESTION 5.) Under Manufacturing Specifications, Item 4: Since most machine tools are incapable of maintaining data accuracy beyond .000001, why is it important that NASA Lewis maintain an accuracy of .0000005. Does NASA Lewis have machine tools that are capable of maintaining this accuracy? (ANSWER 5.) Yes, LeRC does have such a machine tool, and that is why it is required that the accuracy be as specified. QUESTION 6.) Under Manufacturing Specifications, Item 5: Please explain what is meant by ''without redefining'' and what functional benefit this attribute provides to NASA Lewis. (ANSWER 6.) LeRC does not need to redefine the mold, LeRC does need to reverse the surface vectors to define the mold surface. The functional benefit is a time saving in generation of the mold. QUESTION 7.) Under Drafting Specifications, Item 2: The specification requires that the products must be able to provide a drafting interface similar to CADAM. Since this is a competitive product to all vendors (except CADAM) that would respond to this solicitation, please explain how other vendors are expected to know and understand what the CADAM interface looks like. Please provide the criteria by which a vendor's offering can be measured in this regard. (ANSWER 7.) CADAM is a product common in the marketplace and incumbent at NASA LeRC. Other vendors familiar with the marketplace can reasonably be expected to know and understand what the CADAM interface looks like. LeRC's market research (see the (ANSWER to Question #1) indicates that at least two vendors have CADAM-like interfaces. An offeror may submit product literature that establishes its compliance with this specification. QUESTION 8.) (Vendor) requests that the specific evaluation criteria that will be used to determine the qualitative merit for each specification be provided to all vendors. Has this criteria been used in performing the ''extensive market research'' and are those scores available for the selected Unigraphics product? (ANSWER 8.) The specifications do not allow for ''qualitative merit'', the offered product either meets all of the specifications, or it does not meet them. Those products that do meet all of the specifications are subject to the ''Best Value Selection'' section of the SFO, which describes the final evaluation process being used for this acquisition. As indicated in the (ANSWER to Question #1, the market research process is different from an acquisition process, and does not ordinarily entail criteria, although it may. The acquisition process is not constrained by prior market research processes. As to the availability of information provided to the government during the market research process, see the (ANSWER to Question #1. Finally, the reference to a ''selected'' product is inaccurate and misleading: No product has been selected yet, and no product will be selected until the evaluation process for this acquisition has been completed. QUESTION 9.) (Vendor) understands that less than 10% of NASA Lewis's Engineering, Design and Manufacturing work requires the import of data from external contractors. If this is an accurate number, please provide the rationale behind a decision to select and widely implement an ''interface'' tool for such a small part of the NASA mission. (ANSWER 9.) LeRC has been designated a Center of Excellence for Aeropropulsion by the Agency. As such, the exchange of data with aeropropulsion manufacturers and researchers is a significant part of LeRC's portion of the NASA mission. QUESTION 10.) The Best Value Characteristic can only be measured through live tests of all vendors including Unigraphics. Please describe when and how these tests will be conducted. (ANSWER 10.) There will be no live tests. LeRC anticipates that standard product literature will not make false or misleading claims. LeRC also anticipates that a vendor would be unwilling to commit to a contract containing hard specifications that its product cannot meet. QUESTION 11.) (Vendor) maintains that our information suggests that NASA Lewis does not currently receive 90% of its data in the Unigraphics format. Please clarify this position and provide a list of the companies, divisions and volume of parts which currently comprise this 90% source. Please inform us as to what specific tool in use at NASA Lewis is used to read the Unigraphics part files that are received. Please describe in detail what method and format is used to move this data into the current CADAM tool that is in widespread use at NASA Lewis. (ANSWER 11.) Amendment #1 issued 9/30/96 changes and clarifies the data accompanying the Best Value Characteristic, and makes the requests of sentence #3 and sentence #4 moot. The request for ''a list of companies, divisions and volume of parts'' (sentence #2, 2d part) is outside the scope of this acquisition, and the information requested is not needed to respond to the SFO. QUESTION 12.) Please confirm that NASA Lewis only receives 10% of its data in the IGES format. Our information suggests that this number is substantially higher. (ANSWER 12.) Amendment #1 issued 9/30/96 changes and clarifies the data accompanying the Best Value Characteristic, and makes this question moot. QUESTION 13.) Based on the details of the value characteristic, does NASA Lewis maintain that it does not currently receive any data (0%) from any source in the STEP, DXF, AutoCAD, SDRC IDEAS, Pro/ENGINEER, CADAM, CATIA, or other CAD formats? (ANSWER 13.) Amendment #1 issued 9/30/96 changes and clarifies the data accompanying the Best Value Characteristic. QUESTION 14.) If NASA Lewis maintains that 90% of its data is currently received in the Unigraphics format, please explain why all references to this requirement and all benchmark tests have been omitted by the CAD Study Team without even a reference to this critical government requirement in the two previous evaluations over the past year. The CAD Study benchmark required and tested the import/export of IGES, IDEAS, P3-PATRAN, COSMOS and STEP files. (ANSWER 14.) Amendment #1 issued 9/30/96 changes and clarifies the data accompanying the Best Value Characteristic. All references to the ''CAD study'' and to ''previous evaluations'' are interpreted as references to the market research initiative, which is discussed in the (ANSWER to Question #1. Vendors should realize that issues that may have been of interest during a market research initiative, do not always remain of interest after the market research effort has yielded marketplace information. QUESTION 15.) Does NASA Lewis interface and receive data from any of the other NASA centers? If so, what percentage of your incoming data comes from these sources and please confirm that this data is always received in either the Unigraphics or IGES formats. (ANSWER 15.) Yes, LeRC does interface and receive data from other NASA Centers, and that data is considered internally-generated information. The request for data concerning internal data-exchange between NASA Centers is outside the scope of this acquisition, and the information requested is not needed to respond to the SFO. QUESTION 16.) Please describe what format is currently used to transfer data to and from the NASA Lewis support contractor organizations. (ANSWER 16.) This request is outside the scope of this acquisition, and the information requested is not needed to respond to the SFO. QUESTION 17.) Since the implementation of the Unigraphics software will require an additional investment in new hardware, please confirm that NASA Lewis will consider the hardware costs associated with each offering in its evaluation. (ANSWER 17.) LeRC as a whole is in the process of upgrading its hardware. No purchases that are not already planned are anticipated to result from this software acquisition. QUESTION 18.) Does NASA Lewis intend to run this software on available PCs at Lewis under the Windows NT operating system to save hardware costs? If so, please indicate the number of PCs that would be used and for what purpose (engineering manufacturing, design, etc.). (ANSWER 18.) Windows NT will be used to run the software. The request for data on the ''number of PCs'' is outside the scope of this acquisition, and the information requested is not needed to respond to the SFO. QUESTION 19.) In selecting an Engineering, Design and Manufacturing tool, it is customary and normal practice to evaluate a systems impact on the total process that may be affected. In some cases, the impact to the process may be 10 to 100 times the impact of the initial data transfer. Please explain why NASA Lewis's mission and budgetary constraints suggest that these factors should be ignored. (ANSWER 19.) LeRC is upgrading its infrastructure to meet the needs that will be imposed by LeRC's role as a Center of Excellence for Aeropropulsion. LeRC has not ignored this impact, but is in fact dealing with that impact. QUESTION 20.) Given the major focus that NASA is putting on common interfaces and open industry standards for translation, why is it that NASA Lewis seeks to purchase and implement a tool based on a proprietary data format? Why doesn't Lewis select a tool that improves its productivity and ask the contractors for widely accepted neutral data formats? (ANSWER 20.) LeRC intends to select the tool that best interfaces with the industry being served (aerospace engines), in order to more efficiently and economically work with all the contributors (including researchers and manufacturers). (NOTE: The Due Date for this acquisition was extended from October 2nd to October 9, 1996 by Amendment #1 to this SFO. No further due date extensions are anticipated. The government believes that this SFO has been publicized sufficiently, and that any relevant questions from interested offerors should have been submitted by this date. Unless it necessitates a significant change to the solicitation, a submittal of future questions will not be considered a sufficient basis for further extension of the offer Due Date.) Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of this solicitation remain unchanged. Offerors shall acknowledge receipt of this amendment by (1) identifying the amendment number and date on the offer submitted, (2) letter, or (3) facsimile. The Government must receive the acknowledgement by the time specified for receipt of offers or your offer may not be considered. (0277)

Loren Data Corp. http://www.ld.com (SYN# 0266 19961004\70-0001.SOL)