RFQ 1305M326Q0019 Questions and Answers.pdf

Question # Document in Question

Page/Paragraph in Question Question/Comment: Government Response

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

CAR 1352.216-77

Ceiling price. (APR 2010)

We noticed that the total budget for the requirement is not to exceed $124,000. Does the government expect full modernization for that price or to fulfill as much as possible until the budget is exhausted?

The total budget for the base period of this requirement is $2,000,823.20, as detailed in RFQ Attachment 1. This will be the amount funded at award (the exact spread between line items may change prior to award during negotiations with the best-suited quoter). Per the referenced clause, the $124K value is the total value (base and all options) of time-and-materials line items only (the ODC line items). The other line items will be firm-fixed-price.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Paragraph 6.3 (Data Rights)

Section C, paragraph 6.3 requires the Government to have unlimited rights to all source code produced under the contract. Would the Government consider a solution in which CASS is built upon a commercially licensed operational platform (COTS), provided that all CASS-specific code — including data ingest connectors, model integration layers, visualization configurations, and workflow logic — is developed as modular, platform-agnostic components owned by the Government with unlimited rights?

Under this approach, the Government would retain full portability of all mission-specific code and could migrate to a different platform in the future without redevelopment of the core CASS capabilities. The COTS license cost would be included within the Government's set total evaluated price. If such an approach is acceptable, should the quoter include the COTS license cost within the CLIN 0003 ODC ceiling, incorporate it into the CLIN 0001 unit price, or does the Government prefer a different treatment?

The CLIN 0001 unit price should only include labor or other costs associated with the baselining effort. Any licensing costs would be covered by CLIN 0003. See Government Response to Question 41. Quoters must not modify the CLIN 0003 price in RFQ Attachment 1. If, during negotiations with the best-suited quoter, the Government determines that a COTS solution is appropriate, the distribution of pricing between CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 may be adjusted prior to award. The total price of the base period of performance will not change from what is listed in RFQ Attachment 1.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Paragraph 3.0 (Period and Place of Performance)

The base period of performance includes a two-month baselining effort followed by approximately one year of development, with one optional additional development year. What is the Government's plan for sustainment, maintenance, and continued operation of CASS after the base period of performance ends if the option year is not exercised? Specifically, does the Government intend to maintain CASS with internal staff, re-compete a follow-on sustainment contract, or pursue another approach?

See Government Response to Question 17.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Phase I Submission Form

The RFQ references CAS v1.0 source code and a limited-access technical requirements document developed by PMEL. The Phase I Submission Form further notes that the awardee will work with multiple disparate applications written in different base coding languages, some running on Windows platforms and some on Linux. Will the CAS v1.0 documentation and source code be made available to quoters during the evaluation period to inform technical approaches, or will it only be provided post-award?

Additionally, can the Government characterize the current maturity and operational status of the CAS v1.0 codebase (e.g., prototype, production-ready, actively maintained) and identify which programming languages are applied to which applications and their corresponding operating environments?"

CAS v1.0 documentation will only be provided post-award. See Government Response to Question 43 for additional detail regarding CAS v1.0.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Paragraph 2.0 (Scope)

The RFQ states that the contractor will join the dedicated NWS team, composed of NWS Office of Central Processing and OAR Global Systems Laboratory staff along with their supporting contractors, in integrating ATOMS into the TWCs and synchronizing it with CASS.

Can the Government describe the current state of ATOMS deployment at the TWCs and whether defined APIs, interface specifications, or integration documentation exist that will be available to the awardee during the baselining period? Additionally, can the Government clarify the expected division of responsibility between the CASS contractor and the existing NWS team with respect to the ATOMS-CASS integration?

The ATOMS project is in a development state where this type of work (the external contract for CASS) can dovetail, over time, with how the platform operates. The platform is largely developed to where the TWCs are in various stages of testing specific aspects of the interface and logging errors, tracking issues, and further testing to see if bug fixes were addressed. There is documentation that will be provided to the contractor on how the ATOMS platform operates and how code for CASS would need to be written to be able to send data outputs to ATOMS to be ingested and used in operations. In terms of the division of responsibility, since ATOMS is in a latter stage of development with little room for substantive code change (other than bug fixing and testing), the primary responsibiity of the CASS contractor would be to write to the requirements of ATOMS, for the outputs that would need to be sent to the ATOMS interface at either TWC.

Both TWCs will have some unique differences in their service provision but in the end, the "same" interface will be installed at both TWCs, such that one could expediently "become" the other TWC, if the need arose, and be able to carry out the same functions of that TWC. Yes, there would be concerted effort to have the ATOMS and CASS development teams coordinate in a regular basis or more frequently, depending on specific activities, if needed.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Section C, Paragraphs

5.2 (System Description) and 6.1 (Classification/Credent ials)

The RFQ describes the TWCs as operating a FISMA High impact-level system with 24/7/365 operational availability requirements. Can the Government clarify whether CASS must be deployed on-premises at each TWC, in a Government-authorized cloud environment (e.g., FedRAMP High), or whether a hybrid deployment is acceptable? Additionally, given the March 16, 2026 start date, can the Government describe the anticipated timeline and process for contractor personnel security processing, including any requirements specific to PTWC's location on Ford Island?

The desire to develop CASS to be on-prem at both TWCs, for a variety of reasons, including backup/failover, risk reduction, and other interfacing capacities with agency systems, such as those that generate and disseminate the messages from each TWC. However, there will be an emphasis on determining if any components of the system can utilize cloud resources, such as database storage. The process to approve contractors onto Ford Island to visit PTWC is much less stringent for US citizens, with a relatively short period of pre-approval - on the order of a week in advance.

7 Other Section H (CAR 1352.239-72)

Section H references the requirement for a System Accreditation Package and a Certification Work Plan due within 14 days of contract award. Does the Government have an existing Authority to Operate boundary that CASS would fall within, or will the awardee be expected to support a new ATO process? If a new ATO is required, does the Government anticipate that the ATO effort would be conducted concurrently with the CLIN 0001 baselining period, or is it expected to be completed prior to development activities under CLIN 0002?

The delivered product will fall within the existing FISMA boundary. The contractor must provide detailed design documentation to enable the Information System Security Office (ISSO) to assess security risks effectively.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Section L – Two-Phase Advisory Process

Can the Government clarify the anticipated timeline between Phase I advisory notifications and Phase II oral presentations, including the expected preparation time that will be provided to invited offerors?

See Section M, paragraph M4. Once Phase I advisory notifications have been distributed, quoters will have approximately two days to "opt-in" to Phase II. At that time, additional information regarding logistics for oral presentations will be given to those wishing to continue. The Government anticipates that oral presentations will commence between one and two weeks after the Advisory Notifications are sent. Additionally, the Government anticipates that the Scenario-Based Questions will be distributed to Quoters approximately 24 hours prior to their scheduled oral presentation time slot.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Section L – Phase II Submission Requirements; Section M – Evaluation Process

Can the Government provide additional details regarding the Phase II technical demonstration, including the expected format and duration?

See the table in Section L, paragraph L8 for a detailed breakdown of the planned process for the oral presentations. The Government expects (subject to change) that one hour will be allotted for the Technical Demonstration portion, to include interactive dialogue following the demonstration. There is no requied format for the Demonstration, other than that it will be conducted over Google Meet. Per Section L, paragraph L8, quoters must not distribute any written or electronic materials to the Government during the oral presentation, but will be authorized to use a PowerPoint (or similar) slide deck to support their presentation. Any additional details regarding Phase II will be provided after advisory notices have been released.

Page/Paragraph in Question Question/Comment: Government Response

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Section C / PWS – System Architecture and Hosting Environment

Can the Government clarify the expected deployment environment for CASS (e.g., on-premise at the Tsunami Warning Centers, government-managed cloud, or hybrid), and whether the solution is required to be cloud-ready even if initially deployed on-premise?

The goal is to have an on-prem set-up at both TWCs. There is a need to minimize risk by having failover capabilities at the physcial locations. Another reason is so that TWC IT personnel can update and maintain it, per the annual IT requirements for NOAA systems. However, there is also a need to explore how cloud services can enable things like data ingesting and data assimilation. From the early stages, there will be an effort to discover what components can be developed as exclusively cloud-based and what cannot/should not be cloud dependent.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Section C / PWS – System Requirements and Functional Responsibilities

Related to the above, can the Government clarify whether contractor responsibilities for SIFT/RIFT and SeisComP are limited strictly to integration, orchestration, monitoring, and visualization, or if any corrective maintenance, updates, or sustainment activities are anticipated during the period of performance?

Yes, owever, there will be an effort to identify and ingest other potential tsunami modeling and post-processing outputs that can help supplement a "full suite" of available tsunami forecast guidance. Components of that may be less restrictive, depending on the identified model. Again, flexibility in some aspects of how to best represent real-time data ingests and the subsequent analysis methodologies.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Section C / PWS – System Scope and Responsibilities

Can the Government clarify whether SIFT/RIFT and SeisComP will remain fully government-maintained, or whether limited operations and maintenance (O&M) support for these systems is expected under this contract beyond integration and interface support?

SIFT is primarily supported by NOAA through PMEL, for inclusion into TWC operations but they have the primary O&M responsibility. RIFT is PTWC-developed and maintained, so different in terms of O&M but still NOAA-owned. SeisComP is, at present, being utilized under a subscription service, so a different situation than the other models. We do not envision substantive changes in how these paradigms exist, outside of more internal controls on the SIFT/RIFT future modifications, to support the tsunami mission.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Page 51, Paragraph L5 Are we allowed to use more than one contract experience in our response?

Yes, so long as the page limit is not exceeded.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Page 51, Paragraph L5 Can we use subcontractor experience in our response?

Yes, if the quoter submits Experience of anyone other than the prime quoter (e.g. teaming partner or subcontractor) they must provide a short explanation detailing whose experience is being submitted and how the prime quoter will leverage the experience of that entity during performance.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Page 52, Paragraph L8, Factor 3 (Technical Capability)

Can subcontractors participate in the Oral presentation if the offeror advances to Phase II?

Yes, they will count towards the participation limit and will need to be properly identified in accordance with Section L, paragraph L8(d).

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Page 52, Paragraph L8, Factor 3 (Technical Capability)

Per the Oral Presentation guidelines for Phase II, offerors are allowed three virtual Google Meet connections, but the connection could be to a conference room with multiple people in

it. However, only three people are allowed to speak for the team during the presentation. Are the "silent" participants in the conference room allowed to communicate with the three designated speakers during the oral presentation via notes, text, etc.?

Yes.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 9 Does NOAA expect the contractor to provide ongoing maintenance and support for the CASS platform after initial deployment beyond the period of performance stated in Section F?

The focus for this project will be to have the contractor deliver the CASS system to where it would be maintained through NOAA/NWS Enterprise support. However, depending on how close the developed system is to complete, by the end of the CLIN 0002 performance period, there may need to be some extension in development, or testing, or both -- to where the contract may need to continue via exercising the CLIN 1001 optional development period, to ensure system readiness will be achievable.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 9 What are the requirements for NOAA to assume operations?

Assuming this question is asking about requirements for a system to be cleared operationally-ready. Much of the relevant requirements are IT-security related, as well as failover capabilities, risk reduction capabilities, and meeting the unique testing requirements for the outputs of the system/application.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 9 Will the contractor be responsible for migrating existing CAS 1.0 code into the CASS platform or will NOAA provide the CAS 1.0 code as-is for integration?

See Government Response to Question 43.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 10 What level of access will contractors have to the PMEL technical requirements document referenced for CAS 1.0?

See Government Response to Question 43.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 10 Are there existing interface control documents (ICDs) or API specifications for integrating CASS with ATOMS or will the contractor be responsible for defining these interfaces?

See Government Response to Question 52.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 10 Does NOAA require the contractor to develop or modify alert dissemination logic specific to each TWC DSA or is this logic already defined in existing systems?

See Government Response to Question 33.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 11 Will contractor personnel require physical access to both TWC facilities (Palmer AK and Honolulu HI) or can all work be performed remotely except for the site visits specified?

The contractor will not be required to have a routine, regular physical presence at the TWCs. Most work will be performed remotely and the contractor will be required to make periodic site visits. Dedicated travel to each TWC is necessary to expedite the understanding of the current systems in use, their complexity, differences (from each other) and potential IT-related solutions pertinent to the contract tasks

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Does NOAA have existing Authority to Operate (ATO) documentation for the TWC high-impact FISMA system that the contractor can leverage or will the contractor need to support a full system authorization from scratch?

See Government Response to Question 7.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

For the DART source characterization and SMART subsea cable data ingest listed in Section

5.3 does NOAA have existing data format specifications and ingestion infrastructure or must the contractor develop these from scratch?

See Government Response to Question 48, for the SMART-related portion. For DART source characterization (ingest), yes, there are specificiations that will be shared with the contractor for those data streams, as well as all other pertinent/operational data sets, observation networks (seismic and sea level).

that is a good characterization of the responsibilities for those specific models and the SeisComP product.

H

Page/Paragraph in Question Question/Comment: Government Response

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 Does NOAA expect the contractor to procure or configure GNSS network access and agreements or will NOAA provide access to the required GNSS data sources?

Real-time GNSS is an evolving technology. There is operational use in the TWCs but is mostly used to augment or supplement hazard monitoring. There will be a component of the work on CASS to essentially ingest/ the current capabilites for GNSS inclusion -- but the contractor will have access to that which is currently in operational use at the TWCs.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 For the coordination modules with USGS NEIC and interaction with their PDL what level of access will the contractor have to USGS systems and documentation during development?

Unsure of the level of access but likely it will not be limited access. USGS/NEIC are partners of NOAA/NWS/TWCs and will certainly provide access to the pertinent information about PDL ingesting. Even before that, certain TWC staff are accustomed to PDL specifications, so that extra step may not be necessary.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 Does NOAA require the contractor to develop volcanic monitoring and landslide modeling algorithms or integrate with existing external models and data sources?

Not a requirement but there are related activities that could provide a pathway for inclusion of current, accepted versions of modeling algorithms for landslide/volanic sources. These requirements were more so on the "CAS 1.0" effort, via PMEL, but not defined for CASS -- outside of base integration of accepted models, sources, algorithms into CASS, where/when possible.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

For ensemble modeling and probabilistic forecasting does NOAA have preferred methodologies or statistical frameworks the contractor must use or is the contractor free to propose approaches?

This will be a largely free space to explore, promote, test and evaluate -- with time and resources being the primary restriction. There are codified definitions in use by NOAA/NWS on probabilistic forecasting for many weather elements but tsunamis are largely untapped and untethered, with a lot of room to explore this sphere. Statistical guidance and other outputs from the tsunami models in use by the TWCs do have level of restriction or boundary space but certainly, the contractor has room to promote ideas and allow for discovery of potential alternatives.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 What level of inundation modeling accuracy and resolution is required and does NOAA have existing validated inundation models or must the contractor develop these?

The operational models used by the TWCs have their own unique accuracy/resolution specifications but no NOAA-validated requirements for them. Nor is there a valid requirement for TWC service provision based on those models. Contractors would instead attempt to adhere to the specifications of the model, where specified, to maintain the quality currently in use.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 For the ITIC web portal or visualization tool does NOAA have user interface requirements or design standards the contractor must follow?

The requirements gathering process is ongoing for this effort/need, specifically, however - there will be enough visualization requirements to create a baseline prototype that can be (easily) modified to change certain field or offerings on the page.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 Does the messaging transition to ATOMS from legacy pathways require the contractor to decommission or maintain legacy systems during the transition period?

The contractor would need to understand the legacy pathways and how they are being (actively) modified as ATOMS continues to be tested and evaluated but is yet to be considerated operationally-ready. Because of this, the contractor won't be required to adhere to the current standards of messaging dissemination, since they will be changing - per the requirements of the ATOMS system. The goal will be a functioning CASS that is not dependent on any of the legacy pathways, once a prototype is deemed operationally-ready itself.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 For CAP 2.0 and WEA testing does NOAA have existing test environments and procedures or must the contractor establish test infrastructure for alert dissemination testing?

NOAA/NWS does not have a hardended, separate, inactive (not live) system for acceptance testing of CAP to alert (i.e.

WEA) capabilities. Live events are the only way to fully test the end-to-end system, outside of certain, coordinated tests that are performed on a routine basis. However, there will not need to be an established mechanism for this type of testing for CASS. The only real connection between CASS output and the messaging system designated to generate/send those actual alert messages (ATOMS) is with non-alerting metadata/outputs that will feed from CASS into ATOMS, recommending a certain product, like a Tsunami Warning. WEAs are under the jurisdiction of FEMA and their IPAWS system, so the NWS will provide any changes or new information -- and they will enable that, on our behalf (just for a background on that specific process).

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 Does NOAA expect real-time or time-delayed integration with NEXRAD weather radar data or is this a future consideration not required in the initial CASS deployment?

No anticipated inclusion of NEXRAD radar data (or live satellite data for that matter), only real-time seismic and sea level observation information. There may be a need to ingest/display real-time marine (weather) observations, for situational awareness and comparison but not radar data; which would only be deemed a "nice to have" but not a requirement of the system.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 13 If NOAA denies a contractor request for source code data formats or documentation does the contractor have recourse or appeal process or is NOAA determination final?

NOAA will make every effort to provide the contractor with requested source code data formats or documentation, but, in some instances may need to deny access in order to protect intellectual property or prevent conflicts of interest. By signing the CASS contract, the awardee agrees to adhere to any stipulations listed in Section C.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 9 Will NOAA provide access to the Technical Working Group (TWG) and Special Advisory Panel during the CLIN 0001 baselining period or only after CLIN 0002 begins?

The TWG and Special Advisory Panel will be available to coordinate with the contractor during CLIN 0001.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Does NOAA expect the contractor to provide production support (bug fixes hotfixes operational support) during the CLIN 0002 development period or only deliver sprint-based development work?

The emphasis of CLIN 0002 is sprint-based development work. Bug fixes, etc. will be required for work developed during these sprints.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Will NOAA provide dedicated product owner and stakeholder availability for sprint planning reviews and retrospectives or will contractor need to accommodate limited stakeholder availability?

Because of the physcial locations of the TWCs (Alaska and Hawaii), anywhere from 3 to 6 hours behind the CONUS, there will be a need to accomodate these time zone differences, especially at concentrated times of development (and testing) during Sprints. Not all of the internal stakeholders will be on M-F "8 to 5" schedules but being operational staff, they will have their own rotating and flexible schedules. The measure of success will be those periods of time where schedules do need to align for a period of time, ahead of a Sprint/code delivery, to ensure effectiveness and readiness ahead of those deadlines.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 10 Does NOAA have existing development test and production environments for CASS or must the contractor design provision and operate these environments?

The current thinking is that immediate hardware procurement, after a period of discovery, would be the most efficient and effective method to get into immediate development of technical offerings of CASS. In effect, CASS would be best served to be coded with components of the currently used (disparate) applications and tools used by the TWCs but not having to interface directly with them. A pseudo-operational environment could then be developed, instead of having to adhere to the strict GFE and IT requirements of DOC/NOAA systems.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

What cloud service provider (CSP) or on-premises infrastructure is approved for CASS deployment and does NOAA have existing FedRAMP authorization for the target environment?

At this juncture, the NWS is still exploring how to manage Enterprise CSP considerations, so there will not be a specific (out of the gate) solution to follow. There will be an exploration of how cloud services could benefit this project in terms of support for items like robust database/storage support.

mimic

Page/Paragraph in Question Question/Comment: Government Response

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Are new hardware materials or licenses required for CASS and if so is the contractor responsible for procurement or will NOAA provide these as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)?

If the contractor and the Government determine that procurement of hardware or licenses is necessary for the planned CASS development, the current expectation is that the contractor will utilize the ODC CLIN to procure those items as Contractor-Acquired Property (CAP), which would subsequently become Government Furnished Property (GFP) once the Government assumes ownership.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Page 12 Does NOAA require the contractor to develop event simulation and playback capabilities from scratch or integrate with existing TWC simulation tools?

The requirement will be to assess the current simulation tools at each TWC and provide a comprehensive/combined simluation and playback capabilities -- which would ideally be new and not tethered to either TWC's current configuration. The goal is a new, modern, and robust tool for these capabilities.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

2.0 Scope - paragraph

Can the Government provide high-level technical details for the existing CAS application(s), including primary programming languages and frameworks used, approximate source lines of code (SLOC), and major third-party dependencies?

Documentation for the existing/first version of CAS will be provided as a foundational step. Coordination with PMEL (CAS 1.0 developers) will then be a critical componet of gaining the other requested items (i.e. primary programming languages and frameworks used, approximate source lines of code (SLOC), etc.) -- as well as the burgeonoing use of Gempa's SeisComP solutions that are being evaluated by the TWCs for operational use in the analysis of tsunami hazard monitoring. The existing CAS applications are written in various programming languages. The primary languages include: C, C++, Java, Python, Tcl and Fortran.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

2.0 Scope - paragraph

1-3

Does the Government anticipate the contractor will require access to Government-provided High Performance Computing (HPC) resources to perform this contract, or is the contractor expected to provide its own compute infrastructure?

The Government does not anticipate the contractor will require access to government supercomputing resources. The contractor will be required to provide its compute infrastructure for development and testing. If cloud computing resources are needed for development and testing, the contractor will be responsible for providing the cloud resources.

See Government Response to Question 41 for additional information about the use of the ODC CLIN.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

2.0 Scope - Paragraph

1-3

Are seismological and hydrographical models executed within the CAS application itself, or are they externally produced and ingested by CAS?

See Government Responses to Question 11, 12, and 29. Elements of those responses address this question. Generally, SIFT and RIFT are the two most critical tsunami "models" with other subset/derivative tools and experimental models set for inclusion into CASS, in the most acceptable format.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

10 / Section 4.0

Can the government provide more details about the CAS v1.0 code in terms of

1. technology/language/deployment environment used,

2. when it was developed,

3. who developed it,

4. associated contract #. and

5. what monitoring systems are covered?

See Government Response to Question 43.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

pg. 10 / Section 4.0 Can the requirements document prepared by PMEL be made available? Do other respondents have access to the requirements?

See Government Response to Question 43. Also, this documentation is internal-only, and/or CASS contractor access.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

pg. 12 / Section 5.3 Is implementation of using SMART and GNSS to support monitoring already developed and operational in the prototype, or intended to be part of the this contract?

GNSS is further along in terms of implemented, operational use in the TWCs. SMART is burgeoning technology and inclusion into limited mechanisms of tsunami analysis but not a requirement of this contract. The current operational use of GNSS at the TWCs would be the only consideration for this contract and even a relatively lower priority than the current tools and procedures critical to the TWCs' staff.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

pg. 12 / Section 5.3 Does “other necessary functions” mean they are not operational in the CAS v1.0 prototype and required for this project?

Section C paragraph 5.3 was meant to be a non-exhaustive list of required functionalities for the ultimate CASS product.

The best-suited quoter will work with the Government to clarify any requirements in Section C and develop a Performance Work Statement prior to contract award.

50 Other Pg. 8 / Section B Please clarify the price ceiling, $124K appears in the RFQ. How is this related to the "Total Set Evaluated Price" mentioned in the Pricing Sheet (2.+Attachment+1+-+Pricing+Sheet+1305M326Q0019)?

See Government Response to Question 1.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Pg. 9 / Section 5.3 Does the government require providers to develop new tsunami inundation and arrival time models or is the CASS system designed to ingest existing model outputs into a unified system?

The contractor is expected to design and implement a system to ingest existing model outputs into a unified system.

The discovery phase will determine the models to include in the unified system.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Pg. 10 / Section 2.0 Is the government directing the existing NWS CP, OAR, and GSL contract support to lead the CASS integration into AWIPS/ATPMS?

The CASS integration into AWIPS (via ATOMS) will be a component (task) of this specific contract. This will be done via coordination with CP and GSL with their separately-resourced effort. One won't "lead" the other, it will be strictly an information-sharing, coordination effort as development on CASS is occurring. It is understood that fully-functioning integration of CASS outputs into ATOMS may be challenging during the period of performance, so that will be an fluid situation with a lot of pre-coordination between involved parties.

53 Other Pg. 2 / Phase I submission form

Does the government intend to have Factor 1 Experience from the Prime Contractor (bidder) only or Teaming Partners' (sub-contractors) Experience also count? It is very difficult to highlight Prime vs Teaming Partner(s)/Sub-Contractor(s) Experience in a format like this.

See Government Response to Questions 14 and 15.

RFQ Section C - Baseline Performance Objectives

Pg. 13 / Section 6.2 "The NOAA Tsunami Warning System (NTWS) will provide source code, data formats, historic data and relevant documentation, as requested by the contractor." -- Does this mean during proposal phase or post-award? If proposal phase - how do we make the request?

This will be provided post award.

RFQ Section L - Submission Instructions

Page 50, Paragraph L4.(b.) Font Size

Per the Solicitation, size 10 font may be used for tables, graphics, and other illustrations. The Factor 1 section of the Submission Form requires using graphics or other visuals (e.g.

screenshots). It is difficult to limit a font size on a screenshot. Will the government consider removing these from the font requirements?

Graphics and/or other visuals can be exluded from the font requirement, though they should be readable without zooming in.