RFP 693JJ325R000014 Questions and Governments Response_Additional Questions.pdf

RFP 693JJ325R000014 Questions and Government’s Response

# Question Response 1 L.6 Proposal Content and Configuration:

Volume I - Technical Capability

"Volume I – Technical Capability Proposal shall consist of the following parts and each section shall be divided by a blank divider page: Technical Approach – Not to exceed 20 pages, not including resumes."

If we use appropriate headers, do we have to put a blank page between each section?

No need for a blank page between sections.

2 L.6 Proposal Content and Configuration:

Volume II - Price Proposal: Part III - Other Financial / Organizational Information (a)

In light of recent actions associated with DOGE and the new administration, will DOT remove the requirement for disclosure of any contracts terminated for convenience?

Due to the current environment this information has been removed.

Please see Amendment 1 of the solicitation for more information.

3 L.6 Proposal Content and Configuration:

Volume II - Price Proposal: Part III - Other Financial / Organizational Information (g)

"A Preaward Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR 22.805(a)." When attemping to access the site, the page cannot be found.

https://ofccp.dol-esa.gov/preaward/pa_reg.html. Can you provide a link / instructions on how to obtain this document?

This language has been removed from the solicitation. Please see Amendment 1 of the solicitation for more information.

4 C.5 Statement of objectives - Performance objectives, goals, and outcomes

Is the intended audience for the RAD tool the general public or researchers with access to statistical software (e.g., arcGIS, netlogo, R)?

The intended audience for RAD are researchers with access to software to generate the RAD. Preferably an executable file that would run on Windows OS.

5 Is there any expected Level of Effort allocated to this TOPR? Can the government provide an estimated level of

The estimate for this effort is $400,000. FHWA does not effort for the SOO? This would help in understanding the complexity of the solution that government intends as the outcome of this project.be held in person?

There is no travel funding allocated in the fee schedule.

anticipate any required travel for this effort.

6 Is the final product expected to be a standalone end-to-end software solution?

Yes, the final product is expected to be a standalone end-to-end solution.

7 Are there any specific software requirements for the development of the work? For example, is there any specific language, framework, or analytical platform that the government expects to be used in the development process?

Please see question #4 for the answer.

8 Should the RADs focus only on pedestrian volumes, or should they also include pedestrian movement patterns and behaviors (e.g., crosswalk usage, jaywalking trends, peak-hour density)?

Primary focus should be pedestrian volumes. However pedestrian movement patterns and behaviors can be added attributes.

9 What specific validation methods, quality benchmarks, or performance metrics will the FHWA use to assess the acceptability of the pedestrian RADs, and are there any predefined thresholds or standards we should align with in our approach?

FHWA has not established any validation methods or quality benchmarks to assess the pedestrian volumes generated. The proposers should provide the thresholds and standards to assess the accuracy and acceptability of the pedestrian volumes. The proposed use cases and their outcomes will be one way of validating the volumes generated.

10 The SOO requires marketing/promoting RADs to a wide range of stakeholders (e.g., State DOTs, planners, researchers).

Can you provide an estimate of the expected number of stakeholders to engage or the scale of outreach efforts required to determine the level of effort for this task?

There are no set number of stakeholders for engagement. At a minimum there should be a representation from State DOTs, planners, researchers etc who would be the ultimate users of the generated pedestrian volumes.

11 The RFP highlights potential use of AI/ML for RAD development. Are there any specific AI/ML techniques, tools, or levels of sophistication that FHWA prefers or expects, and will the contractor need to justify the chosen methods in the deliverables?

There are no specific AI/ML techniques or tools prescribed for this solicitation. The offerors can choose best AI/ML techniques and tools appropriate for the intended outcome.

12 The links to the two example RADs in the BAA are not functioning properly due to

Yes, currently the TFHRC website is down for maintenance. We can site maintenance. If the maintenance is predicted to continue for an extended period of time, can you provide access to these documents via alternative means?

provide the documents electronically as the attachments.

*For the vendor’s awareness, this is not a Broad Agency Announcement, but a regular Part 15 solicitation.

13 Can the government consider changing the contract type from FFP to CPFF or T&M considering the type of research work involved in this project?

The Government will continue to require firm fixed price on this requirement. It is recommended to propose any major contingency work as an option that can be exercised.

14 Section L.10 states, “The timeliness of a proposal is determined by the time of receipt and not just the time submitted. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to ensure that the proposal submission email is received, not just submitted to, at the email address listed above by the designated cut-off date and time.” What type of timeliness submission confirmation will the Government accept?

This section of the solicitation is referring to the timeliness of proposals. This language is intended to notify vendors that even if the Offeror has documentation that the email with the proposal left the Offeror’s computer system before the deadline, FHWA will determine timeliness by when the email is received by the contracting officer and specialist. This is intended to notify vendors to not wait until 1259 ET to submit proposals.

15 Is there an incumbent? If so, is the incumbent eligible to bid as a prime? What is the existing contract number?

There is no incumbent for this effort.

16 The last sentence describes “pedestrian volumes (counts) for various roadway types.” Could FHWA quantify “various”?

How many? Which types are of priority interest?

Page 5, paragraph 2 spells out non-traditional functional classifications. Those could be considered one classification of roadway types in addition to traditional classification of roadway types defined in Green Book (A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets). Offerors should also consider the Highway Functional Classifications document in https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ processes/statewide/related/hwy-functional-classification-2023.pdf https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/hwy-functional-classification-2023.pdf

17 The objective states, “Develop a standalone (static) pedestrian count RADs or a software application that would generate pedestrian count RADs for different roadway facilities by inputting initial parameters.” How many RADs? The wording can indicate either one (“a standalone”) or more than one (“RADs”).

If this refers to more than one RAD, what types are given priority?

We have provided documentation of two previously developed RADs.

The MIMIC RAD is a standalone application where DREDGE is considered as a RAD generating platform in which a family of RADs can be generated based on the inputs. We are open to both type of application development.

18 The phrase “or a software application” seems to conflict with Section F.2 (“Method of Delivery”), which requires that “Electronic copies shall be delivered using MS Office suite tools.” Should we assume that a software application is to be developed and platformed in MS Office Suite?

Yes, and see answer for question 4.

GitHub, SourceForge, etc could also be used for software delivery.

19 How many and which roadway facilities does the phrase “for different roadway facilities” refer to?

See answer to question 16.

20 The phrase “Develop a standalone (static) pedestrian count RADs or a software application that would generate pedestrian count RADs” suggests that either a dataset or a dataset-generating application is acceptable. Could FHWA clarify which of the two is desired, as well as the physical form?

A dataset generating application would be preferable as it would provide greater opportunity to generate complementary datasets to augment available pedestrian count data that could then be used for defining CMFs for a particular location.

21 In the recently posted Q&A, the government clarified that the estimated level of effort for this requirement is $400,000. Could you please confirm whether this amount is for the total period of performance of 30 months or if it represents the estimated value for a 12-month period?

The $400,000 is for the full amount of the effort.

22 As part of the submission for the Technical Approach, the government is asking vendors to describe the Offeror’s and staff’s experience and understanding of pedestrian research. Could the government please clarify the specific expectations for this requirement?

Understanding of pedestrian research would include familiarity with pedestrian-related research, such as studies on social influences, demographics, time-of-day effects, and environmental factors such as urban design and weather conditions.

23 If a vendor has expertise in AI and ML tools and offers a customizable solution for generating synthetic data to produce the RADs as specified in the requirements but lacks direct experience in pedestrian research, would this be considered a disadvantage under the evaluation criteria?

If so, would the government consider providing access to Functional Subject Matter Expertise in pedestrian research to encourage more competitive proposals from innovative Information Technology solution firms?

The Offeror must have the expertise and knowledge to be able to develop realistic artificial pedestrian counts dataset(s), perform validation and quality checks of RADs, develop use cases to demonstrate the utility of these RADs, and promote/market these RADs to a wide range of stakeholders so that it can be used a as a research and planning tool for designing pedestrian facilities. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to obtain the required technical expertise to complete this effort.

24 The submission instructions do not provide specific guidance for submitting past performance; however, past performance is listed as an evaluation factor. Could the government please clarify whether the submission of past performance is required? If so, could you specify the number of past performance examples the government expects vendors to provide?

The expectations have been clarified. Please see Amendment 0002 for more information.