693JJ322R000002_A001 Attachment 1_Question and Answer.pdf

Request for Proposal 693JJ322R000002 Amendment A001 – Attachment 1 Question and Answer – 11/19/2021

1) Does this program utilize existing Informatica software already in place?

The NPMRDS program is a travel time data acquisition program – there are no requirements for specific software use.

2) Is FHWA/NPMRDS looking to acquire new software or technologies instead of what they are currently using?

FHWA is looking to procure travel time data on the National Highway System and the means to disseminate it to authorized users, statistical reports, and technical assistance as described in the statement of work.

3) Are non FedRAMP services allowed to be considered, or is that a critical security function?

There are no FedRAMP services specified in the solicitation.

4) Is this program looking to be changed/enhanced with new technology, or is the purpose of obtaining a contractor to fulfill services for the existing program?

FHWA is looking to procure travel time data on the National Highway System and the means to disseminate it to authorized users, statistical reports, and technical assistance as described in the statement of work.

5) What technology is in place currently to serve the NPMRDS?

The NPMRDS is a data procurement and contractors are required to meet the solicitation requirements.

6) Is cloud modernization an initiative that NPMRDS is pursuing?

There are no cloud modernization initiatives as part of this NPMRDS solicitation.

7) How does the NPMRDS program work in conjunction with other programs at FWHA, i.e., ITIP?

The NPMRDS is more or less a standalone service that provides travel time data on the National Highway System for use by authorized users. There is a conflation requirement to include Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) attributes as part of the NPMRDS travel time deliverable.

8) Is this objective of this program RFP to enhance current functions or support what NPMRDS is doing right now?

The objective of the solicitation is to continue the NPMRDS program as defined in the solicitation requirements.

9) Is there an incumbent? If so, please name the incumbent and the contract number.

The current NPMRDS contract was awarded to the University of Maryland, Contract Number

DTFH6117C00003.

10) Is mobile LTE signal strength related to the RFP?

There is no LTE signal strength requirement directly related to this solicitation.

11) Is this a new requirement? Or a service that is currently being provided.

This is a solicitation for a continuation of the current NPMRDS with some additions/changes to the current contract requirements.

12) On Page 3, the description of “Part V ‐ Past Performance” says this part is “not to exceed 5 pages.” On Page 9 (Part V – Past Performance), the last sentence in this section says, “each description shall not exceed two pages each for a total maximum page count of 10 pages….” Is the Past Performance section limited to 5 pages or 10 pages?

See Amendment A001 for revision to page 3 of the RFP.

13) Section G on Page 5 and Section 4.2 Task 2 says that travel time “…data elements must be identified by FHWA roadway ID and roadway functional class per HPMS definition at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/”. But the HPMS Field Manual does not specify a “Roadway ID”, only a “Route ID” (HPMS Sections Catalog, Field #3). Is this what FHWA intends to be linked to the travel time data? If so, does FHWA only want the travel time data directly related to the Route identifier, or does FHWA want the travel time data related to a HPMS segment, given by each unique combination of Route_ID, Begin_Point, and

End_Point?

The requirement refers to FHWA roadway ID, which correlates to the HPMS “Route ID.” The requirement states that the travel time data provided must be identified by the functional class and route ID as defined in the HPMS Field Manual. It can also be identified by additional means, such as the current use of Traffic Message Channel (TMC) segments. It does not require relationship to an HPMS segment, although that is possible to do. Please reference the current NPMRDS “Metadata” document version 1.1, that is included within the new hyperlink provided within the solicitation as part of Amendment A001.

14) Some scope areas may accommodate options to enhance this project. However, the Schedule of

Services described in this solicitation does not mention a method to accommodate options.

Would the Government consider the inclusion of an options section to the technical and financial proposals by offerors?

In submitting their offer, the proposals need to meet the requirements of the of the solicitation.

Where the solicitation is silent on the methodology or process for a task, the Contractor may propose their solutions and/or approach.

15) Can we request an extension to the due date? We suggest December 17th. The reasons for this request are as follows: we were not anticipating the amount of data analysis required in providing a year of statistical coverage analysis, which has not been referenced in prior documents. This also provides an advantage to the incumbent, who already has the data on hand referenced to the required coverage already. Additionally, the proposal time frame includes two major Federal holidays. Finally, the proposal requires analysis of the HPMS coverage, but the actual coverage data is not physically available for download from the link provided (see question 21).

At this time, an extension to the solicitation is not being considered. See answer to question 21 for the HPMS information.

16) Can you please confirm that the 15‐ and 60‐minute aggregated data deliveries are to be made monthly (p.25)?

Yes, all travel time data (5, 15, 60‐minute aggregation and three sources – passenger vehicle, freight only and all vehicles) must be provided monthly.

17) Regarding the weekly and monthly reports, can the required reports be delivered through the delivery portal, or is a separate restricted recipient list preferred?

Reports/documents shall be delivered directly to the COR (see p. 25 of the solicitation for

Inspection and Acceptance and Government Acceptance Period).

18) To confirm, does the weekly delivery need to cover Sunday through Saturday, or Monday through Sunday? The former makes it easier to achieve Tuesday noon delivery, but the latter is apparently the ISO 8601 standard. (p.24)

The ISO 8601 standard is preferred. The weekly data is due no later than the second Tuesday following the end of a week (Sunday). E.g., the delivery of data covering the week from

11/22/21 to 11/28/21 would be no later than Tuesday, December 7, 2021.

19) In the response, the required appendix containing “the past 12 months’ worth of spatial and temporal coverage information” (p.4): should this be aggregated across all 12 months, or supplied separately for each month? Is the expectation for the “past 12 months” indicate

November 2020 – October 2021?

Either approach (monthly or aggregated annually) would meet the requirement. The past 12 months would refer to November 2020‐October 2021, since this solicitation was dated

November 2, 2021.

20) P. 34 says the GIS shapefile should be updated quarterly, but p. 35 says two updates per year.

How should we understand the requirement?

The deliverables mentioned in Task 2, and updated as part of Amendment A001:

Initial Geographic Information System (GIS) shape file containing network and links/segment states that quantity is “Two Months from the effective date of the contract and updated quarterly, as necessary”

GIS Shapefile updates deliverable has been corrected to state: “At least one and up to four updates per year” for consistency purposes.

21) The RFP document references this location to access the HPMS/NHS data files (p. 21):

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/shapefiles.cfm. This link contains links to the 52 individual shapefiles, hosted within an ARC GIS Online Viewer. In order to conflate the data and transfer the attributes to our basemap content, we must be able to download the shapefiles into our environment. Can FHWA provide a downloadable shapefile, preferably a single combined shapefile of the US and territories, with the required coverage and attribution?

Downloading the HPMS data/shapefile is not required for proposal purposes. If an potential offeror would like download the HPMS data/shapefile, the following link provides: https://data‐ usdot.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/highway‐performance‐monitoring‐system‐nhs/

To download, once at the site, hit “View Data Table” in menu on left of screen, and then once the table loads, you can hit the download icon on the left tab menu and see your options there.

Note that the full, most recent shapefile for the NHS via HPMS will be provided to the awardee after award of a contract.

22) Regarding the attributes required as part of the annual metadata and shapefile content, can you provide an explanation for the source and meaning of the following fields (p. 19, Item 2)? We do not see these listed as part of the data definitions supplied:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/

a. border_set – is this a calculated field identifying data records that are identified as part of the identified border coverage?

b. Isprimary – what is the source and meaning of this field?

c. timezone_name – what is the source and structure of this field?

These items are items that are within the NPMRDS that need to be in the next NPMRDS.

“Border_set” is a simple Yes or No on whether that element is part of the border data set as specified on p. 20, Geographic Coverage, Metadata.

“isprimary” indicates the “primary” Traffic Message Channel (TMC) for an Interstate segment that has overlapping TMCs (this is only applicable when there are overlapping segmentation and may not be needed otherwise).

“Timezone_name” is the time zone that a majority of a segment (in current NPMRDS, the TMC) is in.

23) Under requirement g (page 5), it is noted that the data elements must be identifiable by FHWA

Roadway ID. Is this a field contained within the HPMS/NHS GIS database? The closest likely attribute we see in the field manual list of attributes is Route ID. Neither is listed among the attributes to be delivered as part of the metadata. Does FHWA intend for this field required to be delivered as part of the metadata? Is this field required to be delivered as part of the data deliveries also or can it be cross referenced from the metadata and GIS files that will be provided?

As per the answer to question 13, the “FHWA roadway ID” correlates to Route ID in HPMS. And yes, it can be “cross referenced from the metadata and GIS files that will be provided.” Please reference the current NPMRDS “Metadata” document version 1.1, added to the download files, for more information on how to potentially provide this requirement.

24) Under requirement f (page 5) the document states: “The Offeror shall demonstrate an ability to provide a record for every 5‐minute period whether it includes travel time/average speed data from an observed probe or not.” Does this mean that for any spatial location for which no observed probe vehicle data is available that the vendor should provide null rows and columns for that timeframe or is FHWA open to other ways to structure this data?

Yes – all records shall be contained in the monthly data set, including for null data rows and columns if no data is available.

25) We would like a clarification about the sample data request: “The proposal shall include sample data, identifying a particular time and location, for each classification” (p. 5, item h). Is one week of sample data an appropriate and sufficient amount to meet your needs as a sample delivery?

The amount both spatially and temporarily is up to the contractor. Showing availability of travel times in terms of the specifications in the RFP (e.g., every five minutes, all functional classes on NHS, passenger, freight, all vehicle, etc.) is the intent of this requirement.