On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 02:52:24AM +0900, Steven Jenkins wrote:
> 
> I said I had other examples :-).
> 
> It's been a long time since I was involved in one, but I'm reasonably 
> confident that we use "standard" benchmarks for large procurements. When 
> you spend US Government money, you have to jump through a lot of hoops 
> to ensure a level competitive playing field. A protest from a losing 
> bidder can tie you up for a long time, so you try to avoid that. Using 
> your own benchmarks for procurement qualification invites protest.
> 
> Nobody wins just because their TPC-A or whatever is highest. A Request 
> for Proposal may give a particular performance threshold, and the


I used to do some spending of U.S. D.O.E. money at Fermilab for servers/workstations/networks for CADD/CAE , as you say the standard benchmarks were a starting point to see what vendors might be considered, but for justifications the capabilities for in-house needs were the main thing.  My projects were in $100-$200K range, surely a few orders of magnitude smaller than your NASA ones, with the procurement requirements not as burdensome. 


  Our group made civil engineering packages (all those tunnels and collision halls) for outside bid, and of course there the spec book that accompanied the drawings was what ruled.  That could be called a set of benchmarks, I suppose; they were a mix of construction industry standards and what our engineers had calculated. 




Ralph "PJPizza" Siegler