CPNT RFQ Amendment SF-30 03142024.pdf

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

FACILITY CODE

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15C. DATE SIGNED

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

PAGE OF PAGES

6. ISSUED BY CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X)

CODE

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

Previous edition unusable

The purpose of this amendment is to add FAR Clause 52.225-1 incorporated by reference; and to answer questions submitted regarding this solicitation. Please see the following continuation pages.

Volpe National Transportation Center 220 Binney Street Cambridge, MA 02142

6913G624Q300020

03/14/2024

02/08/2024

1. Is the expectation that technologies that complete the field testing described in the proposal be considered for listing in the DOT Clearinghouse? Yes, that is the expectation.

2. Periodicity of RFP: Should we expect DOT to periodically issue a similar RFP for assessing future implementations of Complementary PNT solutions? If so, what would be the likely periodicity? The DOT CPNT Action plan calls out a rapid and a continuity phase. This RFQ is related to the rapid phase. The expectation is that DOT will use lessons learned from the rapid phase to inform the continuity phase. The CPNT Action Plan also provides the timeline for the continuity phase. Any additional phase would be subject to the availability of funds.

3. Would the Cape Cod test range be available for an extended period of time for testing? Yes and the RFQ allows for optional CLINS delineating year 2 and 3.

4. Mobility Applications and Specs: For some of the more advanced Mobility applications (eg:-evTOL and Drones) where FAA specs are still being developed – although the systems can be tested, conformance to some specs may require a qualitative/quantitative solution to be provided in addition to some field test data. Is this acceptable for DOT? Yes.

5. End user implementation: It is noted in the RFP that the solutions should be ready to test in [6 months] and performance period of the RFP upon award is [12 months], however in order to implement the solution in the end Critical infra provider’s systems there may be an integration period that may need to be allocated to ensure the implementation works in those systems. Does USDOT have a similar view that there may be an integration period with the Critical Infrastructure provider (eg:- 3-6 months) that may occur upon award? Yes, depending on the user and use case.

6. RFP states that “Partnerships should be included in the proposal and the narrative should clearly identify each organization’s role.”. Can we list potential partners as exemplary if we haven’t “closed” them before the deadline? Yes.

7. Is there is a mechanism to alert DOT of additional critical infrastructure partners developed after RFP submission? Bringing forward a partner after award is not a problem if cost is not a factor.

However, if cost is a factor, they will be discussed on an individual basis.

8. Page 4 of the solicitation advises Offerors that the Technical Approach cannot exceed 10 pages, except for “the required appendices…” In bullets 2 and 3 immediately below, the solicitation requests the Technical Approach include an instruction manual of how the Solution user equipment (UE) can be configured by a user, and diagrams and information for system installation and setup. Please confirm the instruction manual and diagrams can be included as appendices that are exempt from the 10-page limit. Yes – instruction manuals and diagrams can be included as appendices and exempt from the 10-page limit.

9. Are there any other required appendices? No.

10. May we include a title page for the Technical Approach and its appendices that is also exempt from the 10-page limit? Yes.

11. May we include Table of Contents for the Technical Approach and its appendices that is also exempt from the 10-page limit? Yes.

12. Is there a cost to use the Federal test range located on Joint Base Cape Cod (JBCC)? No.

13. Can you clarify the timeline of testing? The CPNT Action Plan lists 12-14 months for Rapid Phase Testing, however the RFQ is a base + 2 option years for 36 months. Can you help clarify the difference? The base option aligns with the rapid phase testing. The option years allow for the potential to continue testing if needed and/or allow for other use cases/users to be brought forward for testing if advantageous for the government.

14. Are these the correct dates and timelines in the CPNT Action Plan? If these are not correct, will

DOT be issuing an update to this plan and if so, will DOT extend the due date for the RFQ to allow for industry to update their proposal to align properly. Although the dates may not be exactly aligned; the Action Plan refers to the necessary work that is required; and the Period of Performance is clear in the posted RFQ.

15. Please confirm that Option CLINs 00300/00400 and Option CLINs 00500/00600 are for Year 2 and Year 3 respectively. Yes

16. I’m a bit confused about the following and that there is an offer mailed to you in Cambridge and a signed offer emailed to your dot.gov address. Can you clarify please? Offers should be submitted through e-mail.

17. Regarding the Firm-Fixed Price purchase orders, referred to in the solicitation, can you give us some guidance as to the price range for the field test? No additional guidance is available.

18. What is your definition of normal and challenging situations, what type of situation can be expected? Challenging situations refer to environmental or naturally occurring challenges as well as intentional threats. The challenges and threats considered are to both the fundamental signals a UE processes to produce the CPNT solution, as well as to GPS signals to evaluate CPNT dependencies. The exact definition and implementation of testing approach to challenges is to a large extent dependent on CPNT solution technology and use-cases it supports. For example, RF solutions can suffer from multi-path and signal blockage while wired based solutions have a different set of challenges. Example implementations of testing for environmental challenges can include, indoor vs outdoor UE/antenna testing, driving in an area where signal multipath and blockage can occur, or injecting faulty signal into the input of wired solution to emulate damage a damaged connection or faulty node. Emulation of intentional threats for solutions that use more than one type of input signals for timing and/or positioning can include degrading signal inputs (e.g. injection/coupling of jamming or spoofing signals) into one or more of UE ports which can include the CPNT fundamental signals and/or GPS/GNSS signals.

19. Is the expectation that each company will demonstrate within 6 months? The period of performance on the RFQ lists 12 months, looking for clarity. The period of performance (for the initial CLIN) is 12 months from award. The expectation is that Vendors would be ready to test within 6 months (this allows for setup, configuration, etc.). The optional years allow for continued testing if needed.

20. What is the requirement for the duration and length of the drive? What are the requirements for a vendor-provided test facility? There might be multiple drives to emulate multiple situations and will depend on the solution coverage and area of operation. In general we expect to have < 1 hour drive per data collection. But there might be multiple drives for different scenarios. We aim to make dynamic tests efficient and drive lengths as short as practically possible to evaluate the relevant scenarios and key challenging situations that are relevant to CPNT technology as they pertain to the use-cases such technology supports. On the second question, the vendor facility should have the operational solution available and ready for testing. It should allow access to the government team for examination and preparation for testing and provide the ability to test the CPNT solution(s) in-doors, out-doors, and dynamically (with existing roads on or around the facility (when applicable).

21. What is the grading rubric for successful completion? Technologies will not be graded, but rather the information obtained during the testing will be used to infer the integrity (including resilience), accuracy, continuity, and availability of the solution in nominal and stressed environments. This will inform critical infrastructure owners and operators and Government users technologies/services that are available to meet their needs. The measures of effectiveness developed during the 2020 CPNT Demonstration will be considered and updated. For key performance measures that will be considered in the MOEs, refer to the solicitation Appendix A SOO sections V-5 (c)&(d) and Federal Radio Navigation Plan (FRP) referenced in those sections.

22. Are there any restrictions on what kind of vehicle the vendor may provide? An applicable vehicle is likely a large SUV or van type vehicle. It’s possible that some of the scenarios that the vehicle will travel is on grass and/or dirt roads. In addition, some important attributes for such a vehicle are listed below. However, the final determination will have to be based on coordination between the government and vendor:

Vehicle can be configured with vendor support to install the solution UE Provide enough power and space to integrate with a government reference and data collection system. This includes the ability to mount antennae on the roof and route cables to the inside of the vehicle

Can be made available to gov employees/contractors to install, configure, and pretest data collection and reference system

CPNT UE can be installed in the vehicle and made available as part of the pre-test Vehicle drivable on standard roads and especially on the target applicable test range

Can be driven by a Gov employee/contractor and/or vendor provides a driver for the dynamic testing

23. Based on Section III, Section V, and Appendix B CLIN titles it is unclear what want priced for Options I and II. Option Years 2 and 3 are for continuation of testing.

24. Will our submission to the DOT be treated as confidential? Vendors proposal’s will be kept confidential; however, all responses should be free from classified material. Use case information, threat/scenario testing, etc. will be publicly released after testing.

25. We have a complete professional-grade (Transmitter and UE) single-channel time delivery solution at TRL9, but we are planning to propose to build a new consumer-grade 6-channel UE that DOT can use to test joint position and time estimation capabilities of BPS. If we include both time and time + position functionalities, can we claim TRL 8 or 9 for our combined claim? Please reference: Federal Highway Administration Exploratory Advanced Research Program, Technology Readiness Level Guidebook, FHWA-HRT-17-047, September 2017, https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/37824 for guidance on determining TRL level.

26. Is the GNSS usage question about UE or both UE and transmitter sites that could be tens of miles away? BPS UEs don’t need GNSS, and we can configure the towers so that GNSS is never used in the system. However, to reduce the cost and to achieve better accuracy in normal operating condition, we are suggesting that the towers use GNSS as one of the timing references along with STL, Cesium clocks, PTP over fiber, and neighboring BPS towers. Since proposals with GNSS independence will be given priority, we’ll propose whatever configuration is needed to claim GNSS independence. Do we need to remove GPS from the tower sites to claim GNSS independence in item 1)b.? The vendor should be able to shutdown/remove dependencies on GPS/GNSS during a subset of scenarios.

27. Is the cost question about setting up and providing the BPS service, or is it about using the BPS service, which is free-to-use? We are asking because the combined synopsis states that prices and dollar values shall be stated only in the Price Quote and shall be omitted from the Technical Approach. Per the solicitation a separate price quote shall be provided that supports the work outlined in the vendor provided SOW.

28. Can you please help us find the definitions of accuracy, integrity, continuity, and availability definitions in FRP? There are so many documents listed there that we are lost. It will be very helpful if you can point us to the document that provides the definitions. Please refer to https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/2021_Federal_Rdionavigation_Plan.pdf - Appendix A.

29. There can be two cost of coverage numbers: first year cost that includes both deployment and operating cost, and subsequent year cost that includes only the operating cost after deployment.

Which number do you want to see? Again, the combined synopsis states that prices and dollar values shall be stated only in the Price Quote and shall be omitted from the Technical Approach.

We are looking for guidance on how to respond meeting contradictory demands in the Technical Approach section. The base CLIN cost is for the vendor setup/deployment/operating costs to support and allow the government to test the solution. The option years are for continued testing and associated costs.

30. Appendix B, Pricing Information, Option Years : We would like to understand the scope of option year 2 and option year 3 cost. We are planning to propose additional market deployments in years 2 and 3. Therefore, the option year 2 cost will be the operational cost of year 1 and both deployment and operational cost of year 2. Similarly, option year 3 cost will be operational cost of years 1 and 2 and both deployment and operational cost of year 3. Alternatively, option years 2 and 3 could mean just the operating cost of the service that will be deployed in option year 1 without expanding the network. Please advise what information DOT is looking for. We are ready to provide option year 2 and 3 estimates for a growing network covering most of the continental United States. See answer above. The option years are also aimed at costs for testing the solution and not the costs for deployment of a solution for operational users.

31. Do we need to include the cost of setting up a test site in the vendor fielded test range? For static tests, we can include the cost of renting a test site with power, internet, HVAC, and antenna mounting options. For mobile tests, we can estimate the cost of building a mobile platform.

Alternatively, we can state that DOT could set up in own test site at Fayetteville, North Carolina for static timing tests, and that DOT can either drive or select multiple locations anywhere in the western North Carolina for timing + positioning tests. Please advise how we should respond. The cost should reflect the full cost for the government to test a solution. The rationale for listing three different test range options is to allow selection based on practicality, efficiency, and reduced costs. For example, if a vendor is provisioning and testing a solution in particular geographic area it would be more cost effective to perform the government testing at the same test range or a test range within that geographic area.

32. How many UEs you might need for your test? The vendors should provide at least one UE for each model it intends to test.

33. Should we just include the travel cost of prime contractor employees and contractors, or do we need to estimate the travel cost of all subcontractors/suppliers? All travel costs should be included in the vendor cost proposal.

34. During the RFI process, the proposal submission deadline was extended by 2 weeks. Are you planning to extend the deadline for the RFQ too? Currently all submissions are due on March 25, 2024 by 4pm EDT.

35. Is there any additional guidance regarding allowable costs for this RFQ? No.

36. What is the purpose of the Option CLINs? Is it to allow for cases where Offerors/Vendors may wish to participate in multiple field trial tests? It’s to continue testing if needed (e.g. additional use cases).

37. What is the expected duration of each field trial test? As outlined in the RFQ the initial period of performance is 12 months with two option years, each being 12 months.

38. Does DOT plan to publish results of the field trial tests? Yes.

39. Would the government consider providing a time base, and test event base of effort to bound risk variation? As part of the RFQ, vendors are asked to provide a SoW that outlines the work that the vendor will accomplish as part of this solicitation. The cost estimate should reflect the work in the SoW.

40. We are not familiar with the suggested government test ranges and we would like to know the dimensions of the field that can be used for us to deploy our ground terminals/transceivers. The size of the area will help us propose use cases and determine cost per unit area. Please consult the

2020 CPNT congressional report which provides a sense of the JBCC test range.

https://www.transportation.gov/administrations/assistant-secretary-research-and-technology/complementary-pnt-and-gps-backup

41. The intended solution is relatively low maintenance system and we would appreciate some guidance as to how to allocate man power, if awarded a contract, during the first year (and optional second and third year) of trials. We will allocate man power for installation of the system in the US but not sure whether to account for permanent on-site personnel throughout the trials.

The vendor should provide the level of support it intends to provide during testing and that the cost proposal reflects that support.

42. Would you require any security clearance for the personnel to access suggested government test ranges during the installation and/or trials. Security clearances are not required; however, personnel must be capable of gaining entry into U.S. Government facilities (e.g. U.S. citizens)

43. Proposals are to be received through email and the page limit of the technical approach is clearly identified, however, no guidance is given pertaining to the size/page limit of appendices to complement the proposal (price quote + technical approach). If size of some of the appendices render the enclosure too big to be sent through email, can a secure FTP site used to transfer them?

All proposals must be submitted via email by the closing date and time. A zip extension/compressed files or multiple emails may be used to transmit the files if they are too big.

44. We have tentatively selected ‘Company X’, a foreign company whose chips have been used for products available in the US, to supply chips for the commercial-grade multichannel UE. We wanted to verify any restrictions or limitations of supplier selection with you before including them in our quote. The provision at FAR 52.225-1 “Buy American-Supplies” applies to this RFQ.

45. We have a general question about the end-to-end nature of solutions or if a proposal for a back-end data fabric to integrate other solutions would be considered. We are looking for CPNT technologies that provide end-to-end solutions. It is on the offeror to determine any partnerships that collectively provide that end-to-end solution.