693JJ3-26-BAA-0004_ISS Prototyping.pdf

Intersection Safety Systems (ISS) Prototyping 693JJ3-26-BAA-0004

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Acquisition and Grants Management

Intersection Safety Systems (ISS) Prototyping

Solicitation Posted: June 5, 2026

1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office (ITS JPO) is announcing its intent to solicit proposals under this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for the topic titled Intersection Safety Systems (ISS) Prototyping. This BAA is developed in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 6.101(b)(3)(ii) and FAR 35.102, which provide USDOT an acquisition tool with the flexibility to make awards to meet present and compelling needs.

This BAA is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any proposal preparation costs. All responsible, eligible sources capable of satisfying the Government’s needs may submit a proposal. The Government reserves the right to award contracts that are determined to be of benefit to the Government in achieving the goals of this program.

1.1 Background

According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), traffic crashes remain a major challenge, with 36,640 estimated U.S. fatalities in 2025 (NHTSA 2026). Pedestrians are especially at risk—a pedestrian died every 74 minutes, and a pedestrian was injured every 7 minutes in traffic crashes in 2024, on average (Traffic Safety Marketing by NHTSA). Intersections account for a significant proportion of these pedestrian fatalities, with about 18% of pedestrian fatalities having occurred at intersections in 2024 (Traffic Safety Marketing by NHTSA). Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) offer flexible and scalable alternatives that can complement existing roadway safety countermeasure strategies.

In response to those concerns, and as part of the USDOT implementation of the National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), the USDOT established the Intersection Safety Challenge or “the Challenge.” The Challenge was a two-stage prize competition aimed at developing new, cost-effective, real-time roadway Intersection Safety System (ISS) concepts, open to any capable and eligible entity. In the first stage of the Challenge, competitors were asked to develop concept papers describing their ISS, and the best concepts moved on to the next stage of the competition. In the second stage of the Challenge, which was open to first stage prize recipients, participating teams performed virtual testing of their ISS concepts utilizing Government-provided roadside sensor data and other supporting information. In total, 120 participants submitted concept papers in the first stage, 15 participants won prizes in the first stage, and 13 prize recipients participated in the second stage. USDOT awarded 10 teams prizes at the conclusion of the second stage. More information on the Challenge may be found at https://www.its.dot.gov/research-areas/intersection-safety/challenge, including the Challenge structure and awardees.

Informed by the technical maturity of the ISS concepts tested in the Challenge and their potential to result in transformative safety impacts, USDOT considers it both feasible and desirable to proceed to ISS prototype development.

1.1 Legislative Authority

The legislative authority for this BAA is found under 23 U.S.C. 516, which states, in part: “The Secretary shall carry out a comprehensive program of intelligent transportation system research and development, and operational tests of intelligent vehicles, intelligent infrastructure systems, and other similar activities that are necessary to carry out this chapter.”

https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813800 https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/safety-topics/pedestrian-safety https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/safety-topics/pedestrian-safety https://www.its.dot.gov/research-areas/intersection-safety/challenge https://www.its.dot.gov/research-areas/intersection-safety/challenge

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this BAA is to build on the success of the USDOT Intersection Safety Challenge by advancing end-to-end ISS prototyping. Note that while the Challenge was instrumental in assisting USDOT in understanding the maturity of the subject technologies and the risks and rewards associated with near-term ISS prototyping, this BAA is open to any eligible entity, regardless of prior Challenge participation or prizes won.

The Challenge results indicated there is a compelling case that low-cost, infrastructure-based sensor systems, together with advanced algorithms to fuse data rapidly, show significant promise in achieving the overall vision of the Challenge. However, critical research questions remain regarding the ability of any ISS to predict and mitigate conflicts in real-time. Conflict mitigation, in particular, which is a key element of the ISS vision, requires additional research and refinement.

This effort will focus on ISS prototype development to demonstrate the physical capabilities of ISS, address key research questions regarding conflict prediction and mitigation at intersections, and consider the cost-benefit of broader ISS deployment.

2 CONTRACT GUIDELINES

Offerors shall propose an ISS prototype concept and, guided by the requirements of this BAA and Attachment 1 – Draft Performance Work Statement, will develop, test, evaluate, and document the success and failures of a working ISS prototype in partnership with USDOT.

2.1 Schedule

USDOT anticipates the following schedule for this BAA. Note: the dates provided are estimates and subject to change.

Solicitation Posted June 5, 2026 Questions Due June 19, 2026 Answers Provided June 24, 2026 Proposals Due July 20, 2026 Award/s Made By September 30, 2026

All correspondence regarding this BAA should be directed to Contract Specialist Jessica Prutz, at Jessica.Prutz@dot.gov.

During the Question and Answer (Q&A) period, all questions shall be submitted using Attachment 4 - Q&A Template, attached to this BAA. The Government will publicly post the Q&A for the benefit of all potential Offerors. Questions that are duplicative or similar in substance may be removed.

2.2 Communications Protocol

Any exchanges of information must be consistent with procurement integrity requirements of section 27 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 423, as amended) (see FAR 3.104). Offerors are advised that any indication of interest from the Government in the affirmative is not meant to imply nor in any way impart an obligation on the part of the Government that an award will be forthcoming for the offered work or project.

mailto:Jessica.Prutz@dot.gov

2.3 Offeror Eligibility

This is an unrestricted BAA; however, eligibility is limited to responsible sources including, but not limited to, States or local Governments (or organizations of State or local Governments), universities or institutions of higher education, non-profit organizations, private individuals, corporations, and businesses or commercial organizations.

All Offerors must be registered in the Federal Government’s System for Award Management (SAM) system at the time of proposal submission in accordance with FAR 52.204-7.

2.4 Program Requirements and Project Funding Limits

Teaming Requirements This effort has a teaming requirement. Proposals must include three roles: a lead ISS developer, a public sector partner, and an access-controlled roadway intersection testbed provider. Note that a single organization or entity may play one or more of these three required roles. If a single organization proposes to fulfill more than one role, it must clearly demonstrate that they possesses the specific experience and capability required for each role. See Attachment 1 – Draft Performance Work Statement (PWS) for additional details on teaming requirements.

Phasing Requirements The ISS prototyping effort has two phases:

• Phase 1 (Base Period): Prototype Development and Testing will focus on the development and testing of ISS prototypes in an access-controlled roadway intersection testbed, referred to as a closed testbed. The Government anticipates awarding up to three contracts to teams developing differentiable ISS prototypes for Phase 1.

• Phase 2 (Option Period): Prototype Refinement and Assessment will focus on further development and refinement of promising Phase 1 ISS prototypes, including deployment of ISS prototypes in multiple real-world intersections. After installation in real-world intersections, ISS prototype systems will be deployed for observation only and will collect data, predict conflicts, and identify/anticipate unsafe conditions. If convincing evidence is identified within Phase 2 that some or all ISS real-time mitigating actions can be introduced in an operational state in some or all deployed ISS locations with acceptable risk, then real-time mitigation may be introduced.

Note that the lead ISS developer, the public sector partner, and the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) must all concur and document the operational conditions, mitigation types, and deployment locations under which real-time mitigations may occur.

NOTE: The Government may exercise the Phase 2 option for all, some, or none of Phase 1 awardee teams.

Project Funding Limits Awards are subject to the availability of funds. The Government estimates the total value of all awards across all awardees and phases (base and option) will not exceed $17 million. The Government anticipates a total period of performance between 30 and 42 months (12-18 months in Phase 1, and 18-24 months in Phase 2).

NOTE: Offerors may propose phase durations and corresponding deliverable schedules for each phase within the Government-identified minimum and maximum time frames.

http://www.sam.gov/

Program Phase and Duration Estimated Total Federal Cost Base Period/Phase 1: 12-18 Months $5.5 million (among up to 3 awardee teams) Option Period/Phase 2: 18-24 Months $11.5 million (among up to 3 awardee teams) Total Estimated Duration: 30-42 Months $17 million

2.5 Deliverable Requirements

REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTING SECTION 508 STANDARDS

NOTE: The following applies to all Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) contracts and assistance agreements containing Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as a deliverable.

In addition to the work requirements specified in this statement of work, the Contractor shall ensure that all ICT deliverables meet the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ICT Final Standards and Guidelines (508 Refresh) at 36 CFR Part 1194.

As defined in the 508 Refresh, at 36 CFR Part 1194, Appendix A, E103.4, ICT is “Information technology and other equipment, systems, technologies, or processes, for which the principal function is the creation, manipulation, storage, display, receipt, or transmission of electronic data and information, as well as any associated content. Examples of ICT include, but are not limited to computers and peripheral equipment; information kiosks and transaction machines; telecommunications equipment; customer premises equipment; multifunction office machines; software; applications; Web sites; videos; and, electronic documents.”

Section 508 requires that all electronic products prepared for the Federal Government be accessible to persons with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing, cognitive, and mobility impairments.

Applicable Standards:

• Appendix A to Part 1194 – Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: Application and Scoping Requirements

• Appendix B to Part 1194 – Section 255 of the Communications Act: Application and Scoping Requirements

• Appendix C to Part 1194 – Functional Performance Criteria and Technical Requirements

Section 508 Refresh standards are available at https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh.

The Contractor shall adhere to the terms and requirements in FHWA Form 4260 Section 508 Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Conformance Criteria for Section 508 conformance. The Conformance Criteria document does not need to be completed when submitting a deliverable.

Deliverables identified for publication are subject to further USDOT review after technical acceptance but prior to publication. The Contractor is responsible for and shall make any and all changes to create USDOT Publication Ready deliverables.

2.6 Data Sharing

Appropriately prepared system control, performance, and evaluation data, stripped of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or Sensitive Personally Identifiable Information (SPII) resulting from this effort must be made available and posted in a timely fashion on the USDOT ITS DataHub for use by the https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#about-the-ict-accessibility-standards https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#about-the-ict-accessibility-standards https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#about-the-ict-accessibility-standards https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#about-the-ict-accessibility-standards https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#about-the-ict-accessibility-standards https://www.access-board.gov/ict/#about-the-ict-accessibility-standards https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-the-ict-refresh public and research community. The Contractor shall identify all appropriate data and processes (including privacy-related processes) to be utilized in enabling public data sharing. These processes must be compliant with the USDOT’s current Privacy Policy1 and Public Access Plan2 to ensure information is included where appropriate. Note that all data made available must adhere to guidelines on preparation for submission and accompanying metadata. Please see: https://its.dot.gov/data/data-submission/

2.7 Code Sharing

Further, software development, enhancements, alterations, or adaptations developed using Federal funding in this effort are intended to be shared as open-source resources in the USDOT ITS CodeHub.

Existing applications developed prior to or outside this prototyping effort are not required to be open-source; however, offerors must explicitly detail in their proposal which components will remain proprietary. Note that all code made available must adhere to guidelines on preparation for submission and accompanying metadata. Please see: https://www.its.dot.gov/code/code-submission/.

2.8 Intellectual Property Rights

Offerors must describe any limitations on any intellectual property (patents, inventions, trade secrets, copyrights, or trademarks) that will impact the Offeror’s performance of the contract or impact the Government’s subsequent use of any deliverable under the contract. The Offeror must describe the intellectual property in sufficient detail to describe the limitations (data assertions of the Offeror or any subcontractor, potential patent licenses required by the Government, etc.) and describe why or how the Government can accomplish the BAA’s stated objectives with the limitations described or proposed by the Offeror.

2.9 Patents

Awards will generally contain detailed clauses concerning patent rights, rights in technical data and computer software, data reporting requirements, and other terms and conditions, which shall be negotiated as part of the award process.

Offerors must list any known invention or discovery that is or may be patented that may require the Government to obtain a license should the Offeror’s proposal be selected for award. Invention is defined in FAR 27.301 as “any invention or discovery that is or may be patentable or otherwise protectable under title 35 of the U.S. Code, or any variety of plant that is or may be protectable under the Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321, et seq.).” If the Offeror owns any patent or patent application, the Offeror must provide a statement, in writing, that it either owns or possesses the appropriate licensing rights to the patent or patent application for which the Government may require a license. If an Offeror does not own or have license rights to license the Government for any such patent or patent application, the Offeror must explain how the Government may obtain a license or whether the Offeror plans to obtain these rights on behalf of the Government.

For any patent or patent application listed above, the Offeror must provide the patent number or patent application publication number, a summary of the patent or invention title, and indicate whether the Offeror is the patent owner. If a patent or invention is not licensed by the Offeror, identify the licensor.

Rights in patents, patent applications, and invention disclosures will be addressed in the patent rights clause to be included in the contract and therefore, no assertion of limited rights in patents or patent applications will be accepted. The Offeror must describe why or how the Government can accomplish the BAA’s stated objectives with the limitations described or proposed by the Offeror.

1 https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/dot-privacy-policy 2 https://www.transportation.gov/mission/open/official-dot-public-access-plan-v11 https://its.dot.gov/data/data-submission/ https://www.its.dot.gov/code/code-submission/ https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/privacy/dot-privacy-policy https://www.transportation.gov/mission/open/official-dot-public-access-plan-v11

2.10 Proprietary Restrictions on Proposal Materials

The Government recognizes that proposals may contain data the Offeror does not want disclosed to the public for any purpose or used by the Government except for evaluation purposes. To protect these proprietary materials, all portions of Volume I with the exception of the Prototype Concept Summary (maximum 2-page) will be considered proprietary; see section 3.1.1 below for more information on the Prototype Concept Summary. The Government may choose to excerpt, adapt, or paraphrase the Prototype Concept Summary from successful technical proposals to provide context for public updates on this project. Materials from any proposal NOT resulting in award, including the associated Prototype Concept Summary, will NOT be made public in any form. Additionally, all portions of Volume II with the exception of the total value of the award will be considered proprietary.

2.11 Document, Data, and Code Rights

The Government shall maintain ownership and unlimited rights to all documents, data, and source code developed as a part of this BAA and identified for sharing with the research community. As stated in section 2.7 Code Sharing, offerors must explicitly detail in their proposal which components will remain proprietary.

The Government may identify certain documents, data, and/or source code that may not be used or sold without written permission from the CO.

2.12 Section 889 Compliance Requirement

All contracts awarded under this BAA must be compliant with Section 889 of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (P.L. 115-232), “Prohibition on Contracting for Certain Telecommunications and Video Surveillance Services or Equipment.” See:

• FAR 52.240-90 Security Prohibitions and Exclusions Representations and Certifications (SEPT 2025)

• FAR 52.240-91 Security Prohibitions and Exclusions (SEPT 2025)

2.13 Executive Order 14398 Compliance Requirement

All contracts awarded under this BAA must be compliant with Executive Order 14398 titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” issued on March 6, 2026. Offerors are encouraged to review the mandatory clause prior to submitting a proposal.

• FAR 52.222-90 Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors (APR 2026)

PROJECT PROPOSALS

The proposal shall be organized into two Volumes:

• Volume I: Technical Proposal

• Volume II: Business, Cost and Pricing Data

Project proposal documents must meet the following formatting requirements: no less than 10-point font, and single-spaced, single-sided letter size pages with 1” margins (minimum). Proposals must not contain promotional brochures, advertisements, taped recordings, or other extraneous material.

Proposal Page Limits:

• There is a 30-page limit for Volume I only, subject to the exceptions and further restrictions described below. Proposal materials submitted over this page limit will not be reviewed.

• There is no page limit for Volume II.

https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-52#FAR_52_240_90 https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-52#FAR_52_240_90 https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-52#FAR_52_240_91 https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul/far-part-deviation-guide/far-overhaul-part-52

Submissions that are incomplete, materially lacking, or not responsive to the technical requirements of this BAA may not be evaluated, or evaluated as is, without further opportunity for revision, at the discretion of the Government’s evaluation committee.

Offerors are advised that the Government’s evaluation of a particular project for possible award is based solely on the contents of the Offeror’s project proposal and the Offeror’s answers to any technical clarification questions, as transmitted through the Contract Specialist or Contracting Officer.

3.1 Volume I: Technical Proposal

3.1.1 General Requirements

The technical proposal shall contain the following sections and appendices. Items marked with * do not count toward the page limit.

1. Cover Page*

2. Prototype Concept Summary

3. Performance Work Statement (PWS) Adaptation Summary

4. Technical Approach

5. Project Schedule

6. Team Organization, Capabilities, and Experience

Appendix A: Resumes* Appendix B: Modified PWS* (Optional) Appendix C: Public Sector Agency Letter(s) of Support*

Section 1. Cover Page* Project proposals must include a cover page containing the following information:

• Working title of the proposed project

• BAA Title and Solicitation Number

• “Volume I Technical Proposal”

• Name, phone number, mailing address, and e-mail addresses for the principal technical and contractual points of contact (person or persons authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror and who can contractually obligate the Offeror’s organization)

• Secondary Offeror organization listed (project partners), if any

• Designated lead entity’s Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) from SAM.gov confirming registration

(Note that designated lead entities must have a valid UEI at the time of proposal submission;

those who do not will be considered ineligible); and

• Date of submittal

Section 2. Prototype Concept Summary Offerors shall provide a concise summary (maximum 2 pages) describing the proposed ISS concept, including but not limited to: sensor types used, power and edge compute requirements, and the proposed form of mitigating actions (e.g., warnings, changes to intersection control) the ISS prototype is envisioned to take in response to the detection of conflicts or unsafe conditions. The Summary must address the concept’s potential to improve intersection safety. In particular, the summary shall identify and discuss the specific safety problems the ISS concept is expected to address. For example, this discussion might identify the scenarios, intersection geometries, and operational conditions under which these safety improvements from ISS concept deployment are expected to have the most significant and immediate impact. Further, the summary must address the potential of the proposed ISS concept to be incorporated into operations at intersections nationwide. The concise summary must reference supporting evidence regarding the potential of the ISS concept, where applicable, including relevant prior research and testing, and/or assessments of deployed safety systems relevant to the ISS concept.

Patented or proprietary items: The Offeror must identify any patented or proprietary items, if any, proposed to be utilized, as described in Section 2.8 and 2.9. The Offeror must provide a concise summary of the implications of these considerations with respect to the overall goals of the ISS Prototyping effort.

Detailed discussion is not expected in the Prototype Concept Summary Section. If required, more detailed discussion can be incorporated under the Technical Approach section.

The Summary must indicate the Offeror’s proposed period of performance for Phase 1 and identify the controlled environment testbed proposed for prototype development. The Summary must include the Offeror’s proposed period of performance for Phase 2 and identify the proposed geographic location(s) and characteristics of the intersections selected for ISS prototype deployment. The Summary must conclude with a brief, high-level description of the organizational structure of the proposed team, and the roles assigned to each entity/organization within the team.

Section 3. Performance Work Statement (PWS) Adaptation Summary Offerors are expected to closely review Attachment 1 – Draft PWS provided by the Government in the development of all proposal materials. If changes to this PWS are considered necessary for the cost-effective delivery of the ISS prototype, Offerors may propose a revised PWS by submitting a redlined version of the Government’s draft PWS clearly indicating all proposed changes. Please note:

• No changes to the structure of the phasing and tasks will be considered.

• All identified deliverables in the draft PWS must be reflected in any revision, i.e., no deliverables may be deleted.

If required, a revised, redlined PWS shall be prepared as a separate document and submitted as Appendix B to Volume I. There shall be no company-sensitive or proprietary data included in Appendix B. If an Appendix B is provided, Section 3 of Volume I shall present the rationale behind all modifications and justify the proposed changes by describing the benefit to the Government resulting from the revised PWS.

Section 3 has a page limit of 2 pages and counts against the overall Volume I page limit.

If the Offeror plans to perform the draft PWS without revision, no Appendix B is required. In Section 3 of Volume I, Offerors should indicate this decision with the following phrase:

• “The unmodified Government-provided PWS will be used for this effort.”

Section 4. Technical Approach Referring to the PWS identified above, Offerors must provide a narrative description of the work to be performed, organized as it is expected to be performed. The technical approach section must describe the activities designed to interpret and complete the task structure and deliverables identified in the PWS as well as describe the methods, key subtasks, and other activities necessary to achieve the desired project results in each task. Note critical dependencies among tasks as well as the proposed approach to managing these critical dependencies.

The Technical Approach shall provide evidence of the suitability of the proposed ISS prototyping to align with the identified Evaluation Factors (Section 4.2), in particular, Factor 1, Technical Merit and Importance to Agency Programs.

Describe the quality requirements for the project and identify the processes and/or procedures that will be employed to ensure these requirements are satisfied.

The Technical Approach shall include a risk assessment. Technical, institutional, intellectual property (IP) and patent implications, and other non-schedule risk elements must be analyzed for their impact on the project. Offerors must describe why or how the Government can accomplish the BAA’s stated objectives with any limitations described or proposed by the Offeror. Schedule risks must be presented in the Section 5, Project Schedule.

Section 5. Project Schedule The proposal must contain a proposed schedule for the project covering both phases.

Project Schedule: The Project Schedule sequences all tasks and activities as well as expected activity durations. The Project Schedule shall be presented as a Gantt-style figure highlighting all task and activities, as well as key activity relationships (dependencies). Key project deliverables and milestones consistent with the PWS must be clearly indicated on the Project Schedule.

Mobilization Plan: In the context of the Project Schedule, the Mobilization Plan must describe the approach to acquiring and deploying resources needed for the project, including personnel, facilities, equipment, and other resources.

Schedule and mobilization risks must be identified, if any, and potential impacts discussed with respect to the likelihood of success in Phase 1 and Phase 2, see Evaluation Factors (Section 4.2).

Section 6. Team Organization, Capabilities and Experience Organization Chart: Provide an organization chart for the project illustrating roles and reporting relationships. Include all partnering organizations. Identify the type of business (large, small, disadvantaged, educational, and/or public sector) for each partner organization. The organizational chart and supporting text must clearly identify how the proposed approach meets the Teaming Requirements (Section 2.4).

Subcontracts/Teaming Plan: Identify and describe the Offeror’s plans for subcontracting to meet the teaming requirements for this effort. Clearly identify the roles and responsibilities of all organizations working within the project team.

Capabilities and Experience Summary: Describe the capabilities and experience of the proposed organizations and staff as they align with the Evaluation Factors. Describe any unique capabilities that the proposed team possesses that may reduce project risk, reduce project duration, and/or improve project financial performance. Describe these capabilities within the context of the BAA’s objectives and the proposed project’s scope of work.

NOTE: Letter(s) of Support from the identified public sector partner(s) are required to be included as Appendix C to this proposal. Appendix C does NOT count against the Volume I page limit.

Key Personnel: Identify and describe the capabilities and experience of named key personnel (and associated organizational affiliation) on the project team, including, at a minimum:

• Prototype Development Lead (PDL): The Offeror shall identify a single individual to serve as key personnel in the PDL role. The PDL is responsible for ensuring the quality of all deliverables and the safe and effective operation of the ISS in an operational state. The PDL serves as the primary point of contact between the Government and the deployment site on all matters, whether business, technical, or institutional.

Up to five key personnel (total, including the PDL) may be identified. The titles, roles, and responsibilities of additional key personnel may be developed at the Offeror’s discretion and should be tailored to the team organization and proposed technical approach. At least one named key personnel must be a member of the organization identified in the public sector role under Teaming Requirements.

NOTE: Resumes shall be provided in Appendix A. Resumes (3-page maximum) are required for all identified key personnel (up to 5). Additional staff resumes (2-page maximum) may be submitted for up to five additional staff that are not key personnel, but these resumes are not required.

3.2 Volume II: Business, Cost, and Pricing Data

3.2.1 General Requirements

The Government anticipates awarding up to three Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts resulting from this BAA utilizing a deliverable and milestone payment method (see Attachment 3: Milestone Payment Schedule Template). Fixed Price deliverables must follow the structure and framework provided in the provided template even if a modified PWS is submitted. The Offeror shall provide Volume II of the proposal organized in the following sections:

1. Cover Page

2. Cost/Price Information and Milestone Payment Schedule

3. Other Financial/Organizational Information

4. Small Business Subcontracting Plan

Section 1. Cover Page The cover page for the cost and pricing proposal must include:

• Working title of the proposed project

• BAA Title and Solicitation Number

• “Volume II Business, Cost, and Pricing Data”

• Names, phone numbers, mailing address, and e-mail addresses for the principal technical and contractual points of contact (person or persons authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror and who can contractually obligate the Offeror’s organization), and

• Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) from SAM.gov for all organizations (Offeror and partners) on the proposed team.

Section 2. Cost/Price Information and Milestone Payment Schedule Offerors must provide a fully detailed cost breakdown showing costs by each major cost category, including (as applicable) direct labor, fringe benefits, subcontract costs, other direct costs (travel, equipment, etc.), and indirect costs for all tasks and phases of the project. The total cost must match the total firm fixed price provided in Attachment 3 – Milestone Payment Schedule. The Milestone Payment Schedule Template provided may be revised to reflect the Offeror’s modified PWS but must maintain the same format.

Supporting documentation must be provided for all prices proposed including labor, materials, facility rental fees, travel, and other costs. Other direct costs such as materials and travel will be reimbursed at cost separately. Offerors must provide rationale for all other direct costs proposed. If necessary, the Government will request additional information, as appropriate.

NOTE: See Section 2.4 for Program Requirements and Project Funding Limits.

Cost detail shall include:

Direct Labor:

• Personnel by name or labor category

• Number of hours proposed (commercial organizations) or percent of effort (organizations subject to OMB Circulars)

• Hourly unburdened labor rate (commercial organizations) or salary rate and basis (9- or

12-month basis) (organizations subject to OMB Circulars)

• Fringe Benefits Rates applied

Other Direct Costs: Other Direct Costs must be supported by explanation of estimated factors and other relevant supporting details. For example, travel costs must be supported by detailing the estimated trips, number of travelers, and associated costs for airfare, per diem, other transportation, etc. A similar level of detail must be provided for any meeting costs, equipment, copying/printing charges, and other direct costs.

Indirect Costs: Identify the various indirect rates, what they are based on (e.g., labor overhead based on direct labor dollars) and how they are applied/calculated. State any differing indirect rate applications (for example if there is a different proposed indirect rate when applied to travel or material purchases than when applied to subcontractor costs). Offerors must provide dollar values as well as percentages.

Subcontractor costs should be fully detailed, and the information used by the Offeror to analyze the price of the subcontract shall be provided.

The Offeror must propose deliverable or milestone payments with the understanding that:

• Payment is dependent on the Government’s technical acceptance of final deliverables.

• Payments will not be made for partially completed deliverables.

• Draft deliverables may not be priced.

• Periodic deliverables such as monthly summaries or iterative deliverables such as testing summaries may be proposed with either per-unit or collective pricing milestones.

• The number of any periodic or iterative deliverables must be identified by the expected total quantity of these deliverables for pricing purposes.

For all cost/price proposals, the Offeror must submit, under a separate tab, all (if any) assumptions or conditions upon which the cost/price proposal is based.

Section 3. Other Financial/Organizational Information Offerors shall provide the following financial and organizational information in Section 3 of its Volume II

– Business, Cost and Pricing Data:

• Terminated Contracts - List any contract that was terminated for default within the past 5 years.

Briefly explain the circumstances in each instance.

• Conflicts of Interest - The Offerors shall provide a brief statement in the proposal that describes in a concise manner all past, present, or planned organizational, contractual, or other interest(s) that may affect the Offerors’ ability to perform the proposed contract in an impartial and objective manner. The Contracting Officer will review the statement and may require additional relevant information from the Offerors. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, all such information, and any other relevant information known to USDOT, will be used to determine whether an award to the Offerors may create an actual or potential conflict of interest. If any such conflict of interest is found to exist, the Contracting Officer may (a) disqualify the Offerors, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the United States to contract with the Offerors and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict in the contract awarded.

• If subcontractors and/or individual consultants will be used in carrying out the requirements of this project, the following minimum information concerning the subcontractor or consultant must be furnished: name, address, and phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Section 4. Subcontracting Plan In accordance with FAR 19.109(a)(1)(i) Small Business Subcontracting Plans must be submitted when a contract is expected to exceed $900,000 and the Offeror is other than a small business. Each prime Offeror who is other than a small business shall include within its proposal a complete copy of Attachment 2 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan, satisfactorily addressing all the administrative requirements set forth in FAR 52.219-9. In the event that the Offeror has no such plan, the form must be submitted with “no plan identified” indicated on the form as applicable and the Offeror must submit a statement of circumstances supporting that determination.

4 EVALUATION AND AWARD PROCESS

The BAA evaluation process shall be conducted in accordance with FAR Subpart 35.102(d)-(f). All Offerors will be notified of evaluation results electronically via e-mail. The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, some, or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement.

4.1 Evaluation Methodology

4.1.1 Project Proposal Evaluation

Proposals will be evaluated using the following Evaluation Factors: Factor 1, Technical Merit and Importance to Agency Programs; Factor 2, Availability of Funds; and Factor 3, Cost Realism/Reasonableness, with Evaluation Factors 1 and 2 being of equal importance. Proposals will first be evaluated under Factors 1 and 2, to determine the highest technically rated. Only the highest technically rated proposals will be evaluated under Factor 3. Small Business Subcontracting Plans will only be evaluated for proposals selected for award, on a pass/fail basis.

The Government will select Offeror(s) for award based on the Evaluation Factors as described above and listed below. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and/or negotiations with Offerors directly to clarify any technical and cost/price details from the proposals. Offerors considered unresponsive to the Government’s communications in a timely manner, defined as meeting Government deadlines established and being responsive to the request may be removed from further consideration.

4.2 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Technical Merit and Importance to Agency Programs. This factor will be evaluated based on the following sub-elements that are of equal importance:

1a) High-Risk Intersection Applicability and Safety Impact Potential:

● The proposed ISS prototype addresses significant real-world intersection safety issues identified by a public sector partner.

● The proposed ISS prototype has the ability to address high fatality and serious injury scenarios, with projected reductions in fatalities and serious injuries.

● The proposed ISS prototype has the potential to improve safety at high-risk intersections nationwide. Deployment scalability factors may include:

a. Cost-effectiveness of implementation at scale across high-risk intersections nationwide,

b. Transferability across geographic regions and infrastructure configurations for potential nationwide scalability, and

c. Integration potential with existing intersection infrastructure, especially in communities where resources may be limited.

1b) Overall Technical Approach:

The ISS prototype resulting from the proposed effort has strong potential in:

● Predicting and mitigating individual conflicts in real-time.

o Conflicts are situations wherein the risk of imminent collision among specific nearby road users is high. The Government seeks ISS prototypes that are capable of predicting individual conflicts, e.g., an imminent collision between a vehicle and a pedestrian, and take immediate mitigating action, e.g., issuing an auditory or visual warning to the vehicle driver, the pedestrian, or both.

● Characterizing unsafe conditions at intersections as they develop and making appropriate operational changes in real-time to improve intersection safety.

o Unsafe conditions reflect more general operational conditions under which a high rate of conflicts and collisions has been observed in the past. The Government seeks ISS prototypes that are capable of characterizing and predicting unsafe conditions (e.g., unprotected left-hand turning movements across crosswalks with significant pedestrian volume) and making real-time operational changes to mitigate or eliminate the unsafe conditions (e.g., altering signal phasing to include a protected left-hand turning movement phase where conflicting pedestrian movements are not permitted and another phase where pedestrian movements are permitted and left-hand turns are not permitted).

● Implementing and testing practical mitigation strategies for predicted conflicts and/or identified or anticipated unsafe conditions.

o Mitigating strategies may include the real-time modification of intersection control and the issuance of warnings.

The proposed ISS prototyping activity is capable of meeting the Phase 1 and Phase 2 objectives.

• Phase 1 Objective: To develop and test an initial ISS prototype in an access-controlled testbed situated apart from public roadways and closed to the general public.

o The proposed ISS prototype can be developed and tested iteratively in the closed testbed with public sector partner engagement.

o The proposed iterative testing provides a sound and rigorous mechanism to illustrate the potential safety impact of the ISS prototype.

o The initial ISS prototype can be demonstrated and assessed for operational readiness at the conclusion of this initial phase.

• Phase 2 Objective: To refine an ISS prototype by deploying tailored systems based on the prototype in multiple real-world intersections.

o The ISS prototype can be rapidly installed and calibrated for operation in real-world intersections. The prospective set of deployment locations provide a sufficient number and type of intersections to demonstrate the real-world potential of the ISS prototype for scaled deployment.

o The ISS prototype issues warnings and mitigates unsafe conditions, enhanced through iterative testing/refinement in a closed testbed utilizing data collected from observe-only ISS prototypes deployed in real-world intersections.

o The results of the ISS prototypes’ real-time mitigation strategies are able to be clearly assessed and evaluated for potential scaled deployment.

1c) Technical Management Approach The proposed technical management approach has strong potential to manage risk, schedule, cost, and deliverable quality effectively.

● The proposed management approach ensures quality and consistency of all deliverables.

● The proposed schedule shows logical understanding of the relationships among deliverables and allocates sufficient time for the development of each deliverable.

● The proposed technical approach in each task demonstrates clear understanding of task requirements, and a practical approach to identify and resolve barriers to success in each task area.

● The proposed technical approach provides a practical and systematic method to gather and document evidence of potential safety impacts of the ISS prototype.

● The proposal demonstrates how the Offeror’s proposed technical approach appropriately addresses technical, institutional, and financial risks to ensure that the objectives of this BAA are able to be met.

1d) Team Qualifications and Partnership Strength The proposal demonstrates the proposed Offeror team has the technical capability to conduct a successful ISS prototyping effort.

The proposed team has clearly identified and qualified organizations in three key roles (note that a single organization may play one or more of the identified key roles):

● A lead entity responsible for ISS development and testing,

● An entity providing access to a configurable closed testbed, and

● A public sector partner committed to the following activities by phase (documented in a letter of support):

o Providing supporting data and ensuring the prototype concept and testing aligns with high-priority intersection safety issues relevant to intersections under their jurisdiction (Phase 1).

o Supporting the installation of ISS prototypes in an appropriate number and type of intersections under their jurisdiction in observe-only mode, with deployed ISS prototypes potentially taking specific real-time mitigating actions subject to prior approval (Phase 2).

The proposed team has clearly identified and qualified staff:

● The proposed key personnel are highly qualified, and all key personnel roles are aligned with both the proposed organizational structure and technical approach.

● The proposed team contains technical staff with a comprehensive set of experience, skills, and credentials to cover the capabilities required to deliver all aspects of the proposed scope of work. These include, but are not limited to sensor fusion, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML), systems engineering, performance measurement, standards, stakeholder engagement and outreach, Institutional Review Board (IRB) for human use approval, partnership agreements, and contracting. Further, the proposed Offeror team has ample relevant experience developing, deploying, and testing the key enabling technologies identified in the proposal.

● There is a clear plan to coordinate activity among partner organizations and associated personnel effectively and responsively. Partner organizations and key personnel have clear and logical divisions of responsibility aligned with overall project success.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to select an awardee or awardees that provide the best technical alignment with overall goals of this effort, including considerations related to proposed sensor technologies, use cases, and suitability of solutions for scaled deployment.

Factor 2 - Availability of Funds The Government will consider the overall availability of funding for awards selected under this BAA.

Factor 3 – Cost Realism/Reasonableness As noted above, cost reasonableness and realism analysis will only be conducted for the highest technically rated proposals as determined based on Evaluation Factors 1 and 2. Cost will be considered in the ultimate award decision. The Government will not make awards to any Offeror if the Contracting Officer is unable to determine that the costs proposed are realistic and reasonable.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan As noted above, the Small Business Subcontracting Plans, as applicable, will only be evaluated for proposals selected for award and will be evaluated on a “Pass/Fail” basis. Small Business Subcontracting Plans are only required for other than small businesses that submit proposals of $900,000 or more. See Attachment 2 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Offerors whose Small Business Subcontracting Plan fails the initial evaluation may be asked to revise their Subcontracting Plan to meet the Government’s standard or will be removed from further consideration.

4.3 Award Selection

As stated in section 4.1.1, the basis for selecting proposals for award shall be the highest technically rated based on Factor 1 Technical Merit and Importance to Agency Programs and Factor 2 Availability of Funds. Factor 3 Cost Realism/Reasonableness will be used to evaluate only the highest technically rated proposals. Only the Contracting Officer can legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds under the BAA.

After an awardee is selected, the USDOT may enter into negotiations with the awardee regarding any aspect of the contract award. The Government reserves the right to remove an awardee from award consideration should the parties fail to reach agreement on contract terms, conditions, and cost/price within a reasonable time, or if the Offeror fails to provide any additional information requested in a timely manner.

Awards received through this announcement are not controlled by general procedures of FAR Part 15 “Contracting by Negotiation”; they are awarded under the authority and procedures described in FAR Part 35 “Research and Development Contracting.” Given the inherent nature of a Broad Agency Announcement, specific terms, conditions, and contract clauses, including FAR, USDOT, and FHWA terms and conditions, can only be determined based on the specifics of a proposed project, appropriate contract, and entity type. Accordingly, contract clauses will be identified and defined prior to award.

The Government reserves the right to request additional information necessary to determine the Offeror’s qualifications for the contract award or clarify any proposal aspects. Such information must be furnished promptly upon the Government’s request.