6913G626Q300038 QandA.pdf

1. Is there any incumbent/recompete or this is a brand-new project? If yes, could you please provide us with their award number or even if the customer bought similar services in the past.

New project.

2. I wanted to reach out to you to find out if you will require Map / LiDAR data for the roads in this ADAS project. We have a fleet of 30 trucks equipped with GPS, civil-engineering grade LiDAR, as well as 360-degree cameras. We have mapped nearly 1M miles in NA for L2+ ADAS usage for GM, Toyota, Nissan, Subaru and others.

We would be interested in assisting on this project, however, we are not sure who to reach out to. Could you help guide us to who may be interested in this data? Or if possible, could you pass along my contact information to the potential vendors?

This information is protected by the Procurement Integrity Act

3. My question is whether a University is eligible to apply for this project?

Yes – Full and Open competition

4. Page two of the subject RFQ references the Statement of Objectives (SOO) for PWS requirements in Attachment 1. Will the government please provide the attachment?

The SOO was posted with the RFQ

1. Minimum Data Collection Duration

Section 4.1 of the Statement of Objectives specifies a minimum of 40 hours of data collection.

Please clarify whether the 40-hour minimum applies:

• to each proposed NWR site;

• to each test vehicle/ADAS configuration; or

• to the overall project across all proposed sites and vehicles.

The 40-hour minimum is for each proposed NWR site. It can be across various test vehicle/ADAS configurations.

2. Number and Diversity of Test Vehicles

The SOO expresses a preference for late-model vehicles, cutting-edge production ADAS, and varied manufacturers and vehicle configurations.

Is there a minimum number of vehicles, manufacturers, or distinct ADAS configurations expected, or may the quoter propose the number it determines is technically appropriate to achieve the research objectives?

There is no minimum number.

3. Observable ADAS Response When Internal Perception Data Are Unavailable

When proprietary OEM perception signals are unavailable, is it acceptable to evaluate ADAS performance by correlating independently verified environmental events with observable vehicle/ADAS behavior, including HMI warnings, audible alerts, engagement/disengagement state, driver takeover requests, vehicle response, and driver interventions?

Yes. The intent of this research is to explore whether and how these systems can work in FWS environments, so Offerors are encouraged to account for fallback provisions such as these.

4. Wildlife, Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Visitor Test Methodology

Does the Government expect wildlife, pedestrian, cyclist, photographer, parked-vehicle, and similar interactions to be evaluated exclusively through naturally occurring encounters?

Alternatively, may contractors supplement naturalistic testing with approved controlled scenarios, surrogate targets, or trained test personnel where such testing can be safely performed?

If controlled scenarios are permitted, could FWS assist in identifying appropriate roadway locations or periods suitable for such testing?

While the Government expects such interactions to be evaluated primarily through naturally occurring encounters, controlled scenarios are permitted. After selection, FWS and Volpe will assist in refining appropriate roadway locations or periods of time suitable for either type of testing.

5. FWS Site Coordination and Access

Please clarify whether Volpe/FWS will coordinate necessary refuge access, local refuge approvals, route authorizations, permits, temporary operational restrictions, and coordination with refuge personnel after award, or whether these activities should be independently obtained and priced by the contractor as part of the firm-fixed-price quotation.

Yes, Volpe and FWS will coordinate necessary refuge access and coordination with refuge personnel. There will be no need for any permits, as driving along these routes is permitted by the public and the cars will not be autonomous but will have a human driver. In addition, all of the station's management have approved the deployments.

6. PII Treatment and Raw Data Transfer

Objective 3.2 requires protection of personally identifiable information, including faces, license plates, and GPS tracks, through techniques such as blurring or anonymization before ingestion. The same section also requires mechanisms for transferring both raw and quality-assured datasets to the Volpe Center.

Please clarify whether original, un-anonymized source video/data are expected to be transferred to the Government, or whether PII anonymization must occur before project data are ingested, stored, or transferred.

The Government would prefer PII-anonymized data when the government requests any raw data.

The Government intends to only ask for selected periods of raw data, and not for all raw data collected by the Selected Offeror.

7. Data Security Requirements

Are project data expected to be considered Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI), or subject to any specific DOT requirements regarding cybersecurity, encryption, cloud hosting, FedRAMP, FISMA, data retention, or secure transfer beyond the requirements that the contractor proposes in the Data Management Plan?

The SOO addresses data anonymization on page 3. Applicable federal laws and regulations, including Privacy Acy data protection, will be followed.

8. Technical Proposal / Submission Format

The RFQ requests a firm-fixed-price quotation and a PWS and specifies that the PWS is limited to 10 pages. The Instructions to Offerors also reference a “Statement of Capabilities” and an “RFI title,” while the evaluation factors identify Technical Capability, Past Performance, and Price.

Please confirm that:

(a) the PWS constitutes the Technical Capability submission;

(b) no separate Statement of Capabilities document is required and the reference to “RFI title” should instead refer to RFQ 6913G626Q300038; and

(c) the 10-page limitation applies only to the PWS and does not include the Past Performance submission.

Yes to (a) and (b). However, the 10-page limitation includes both the PWS and the Past Performance submission.

9. Contractor Background Intellectual Property and Project Data Rights

Section 4.2 of the SOO states that raw and processed data created under the project will be Government property.

Please confirm that contractor pre-existing software, AI/ML models, data-processing and labeling tools, algorithms, KPI-generation methods, instrumentation designs, analytical methods, and other background intellectual property remain contractor property, with Government rights applying to the project data and deliverables created under the resulting purchase order except as otherwise specified.

Yes, confirmed.

1. Test vehicle disposition. The Statement of Objectives specifies that no Government Furnished Property will be provided and that the Contractor must supply all vehicles. At the conclusion of the period of performance, does the Government expect title to, or delivery of, the instrumented test vehicle(s), or does the Contractor retain them? This affects how vehicle costs are reflected in our firm-fixed-price quote.

The Government will not retain any vehicles or equipment at the conclusion of the period of performance.

2. Instrumentation constraints. The SOO calls for "secondary, non-intrusive" data-logging instrumentation. Could you confirm whether externally mounted aftermarket sensors (e.g., roof- or rack-mounted lidar/radar, external reference cameras, high-precision GNSS/IMU) are acceptable under the "non-intrusive" requirement? Additionally, does the Government have any preferred formats or standards for the reference/ground-truth datasets to be delivered?

The Government does not have any constraints on the equipment, formats, or standards referred to in this question, other than that they be “secondary, non-intrusive” data-logging instrumentation like those referred to in this question. Offerors should include detail on what they intend to use in their PWS.

3. Pricing ceiling. The solicitation notes the acquisition will remain under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Should quoters treat the SAT as the effective not-to-exceed ceiling, or is there a higher value the Government will be open for this action?

This solicitation is being advertised as a Simplified Acquisition.

4. Vehicle use across sites. For a two-site quote (base plus option), is it acceptable to use the same instrumented vehicle sequentially across both proposed sites given the non-overlapping testing windows, or does the Government prefer distinct vehicles and/or manufacturers at each site?

Yes, it is acceptable to use the same vehicle across proposed sites.

The RFQ references that the anticipated value falls within the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, but the solicitation does not explicitly state whether this acquisition is set aside for small businesses or is being competed on an unrestricted basis. Could the government please clarify if this requirement is a total small business set-aside or if full and open competition applies?

Full and open competition applies.

The RFQ references three testing locations. Could the government please clarify the need for permits for these locations to do testing? And if permits are required, what level of coordination assistance will the Volpe Center or local FWS refuge managers provide regarding permitting assistance?

There will be no need for any permits, as driving along these routes is permitted by the public and the cars will not be autonomous but will have a human driver. In addition, all of the station's management have approved the deployments.

The RFQ references including lighting as part of the plan for testing. Could the government please indicate if lighting conditions of interest include those within park hours of operation only?

Lighting conditions of interest include only those within refuge hours of operation. However, some refuges have extensive hours of operation, and it is the intent of this project to capture a full range of lighting conditions during those times (dawn, dusk, etc.).

Will the government clarify whether cover pages or tables of contents are excluded from the 10-page limit for the PWS?

Cover pages and tables of contents are excluded from the 10-page limit for the PWS.

1. Proposed Site Count - The RFQ specifies that one or two sites may be proposed, however the SOO states that one, two, or three sites may be proposed. Would you please clarify if a proposal for all three sites would be acceptable?

One or two sites may be proposed. The typo of three sites will be corrected.

2. Regularly Scheduled Reporting - What frequency of regular reporting would be expected (monthly/weekly/daily)? Is the intent of the reporting to be in a written report format, a teleconference, or include both?

The frequency of regular reporting should be specified within the PWS. It is the Government’s preference that it be at least weekly and in a written report format.

3. Baseline Data - Would the collection of baseline data for urban and rural highway environments or simulated encounters (traffic, pedestrians, signs, etc.) similar to the events discussed in the SOO be within the scope of the proposal or should the proposal be limited to testing on-site at the NWR locations only?

While Offerors can leverage prior experience to inform their analysis, the scope of the proposal should be limited to testing on-site at the NWR locations only.

4. Data Ingestion - What would be defined as data ingestion in the context of the SOO? Would ingest be our internal retrieval and storage of data from the acquisition systems to our network or is ingestion intended to represent the transfer of data from us to the Government?

For “Conduct regular (at minimum, daily) data ingestion, quality assurance, and technical maintenance to ensure data integrity and system calibration,” this refers to internal retrieval and storage of data from the acquisition systems to your network.

For “Include provisions for protecting personally identifiable information (PII)—such as vehicle license plates, driver faces, or GPS tracks—using techniques such as blurring or anonymization before ingestion.”, this refers to before ingestion to the analysis environment.

5. Test Vehicle Scope - Is there a preferred range for the total number of vehicles tested? Is there a preference and/or requirement for using the same set of vehicle models at each test location?

The Government has no specified requirements for either of these questions.

6. Data Collection Duration - Would the specified minimum 40 hours of data collection apply per vehicle or would the 40 hours be spread across multiple test vehicles?

The minimum of 40 hours of data collection is per test site. It can be for one test vehicle or spread across multiple test vehicles.

1) Please provide the procurement review timeline and anticipated award date.

The review timeline and anticipated award date is not yet able to be determined as we are still in the solicitation process.

2) 6913G626Q300038.pdf contains: "The period of performance (PoP) will extend from the date of award through 8/15/2028, and work will be performed at the proposed field sites."

Statement of Objectives contains: "Period of Performance: Respondents may propose an overall period of performance of up to 24 months from contract award, with accelerated timelines viewed favorably."

Please confirm the maximum period of performance.

The maximum period of performance is the date of award through 8/15/2028.

3) The Primary Research Priorities indicate that data should be collected in all natural lighting conditions. Are varied weather conditions also desirable or expected?

Lighting conditions of interest include only those within refuge hours of operation.

However, some refuges have extensive hours of operation, and it is the intent of this project to capture a full range of lighting conditions during those times (dawn, dusk, etc.).

4) 6913G626Q300038.pdf contains: "The quoter shall propose the site that represents the best value to the Government as base CLIN 00100 and may also propose a second site as option CLIN 00200."

Statement of Objectives contains: "Respondents may propose ADAS data collection and testing operations at one, two, or all three of the following NWSs."

Please confirm if all 3 sites can be proposed.

One or two sites may be proposed. The typo of three sites will be corrected.

5) 6913G626Q300038.pdf contains: "This solicitation is being conducted under FAR Part 12, Terms and Conditions - Commercial Products and Commercial Services; and will remain under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold."

Simplified Acquisition Threshold is defined under FAR Part 13. Because this is considered

"Commercial Products and Commercial Services", does this fall under FAR Subpart 13.5 and the increased simplified acquisition threshold?

No.

6) Does the Simplified Acquisition Threshold apply individually to the Base (CLIN001) and Option (CLIN002) costs, or to the total combined cost?

Total combined cost.

7) Are there requirements that the proposer is a current small business?

No, this is being solicited under full and open competition.