Q A - Complete.pdf

Question No.

Reference: Paragraph/Sentence Question Government Response

1 BAA Section 5 (pg. 9)

Is there a limit on the number of Key Personnel that can be proposed?

The BAA states, “Resumes shall be submitted only for key personnel and up to five additional staff.”

No. There is no limit on key personnel; however, the Government requires only the top 5 key personnel resumes for the project. Additional key personnel can be indicated in organization charts contained within the proposal.

2 BAA Section 5 (pg. 9)

Should Letters of Commitment (LOC), Letters of Intent (LOI), and Letters of Support (LOS) all be included under Volume I, Appendix B, or should the LOCs and LOIs be submitted as a separate appendix?

Letters of Commitment and Letters of Intent should be contained in one appendix.

3 Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives (pg. 3)

Since Phase 2 is optional and dependent on a successful ORR, how much detail for Phase 2 does USDOT expect to see in the proposal?

Offerors must propose a complete end-to-end technical proposal for both phases. Proposals will be evaluated as a single, comprehensive project.

Offerors must provide comprehensive technical and management details for phase phases within their Volume I technical proposal, including a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and Project Schedule. Additionally, a full cost breakdown of both phases must be provided in Volume II. The estimated total federal funding of $5 million ecompasses both phase 1 and phase 2.

4 Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives (pg. 3) Is there any guidance on the expected cost or size of Phase 2? Since Phase 2 is an optional task, what level of detail should be included for Phase 2 within the 30-page Volume I limit?

See response to Question #3.

5 Attachment 1 – Statement of Objectives (pg. 3)

Should Phase 2 be included in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), even though it is an optional task that is dependent on a successful

ORR?

Offerors must provide comprehensive technical and management details for phase phases within their Volume I technical proposal, including a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and Project Schedule. Additionally, a full cost breakdown of both phases must be provided in Volume II. The estimated total federal funding of $5 million ecompasses both phase 1 and phase 2.

6 Cost Template / BAA Section 3.2 (pg. 10)

Attachment 4 includes separate FFP, Cost-Reimbursement, and T&M pricing templates. Should Offerors complete only the template for their proposed pricing arrangement, or are multiple tabs required?

Offerors must complete at least 1 template for their chosen pricing arrangement; however, Offerors may use more than one template if providing multiple options to the Government, or if using a hybrid pricing arrangement.

A detailed cost breakdown must be provided for any pricing arrangement in order for the Government to determine price reasonableness.

7 Submittal Requirements, Section 3

The BAA requires proposals to be submitted by email to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer. If the files exceed the email size limit, can the proposal be submitted in multiple emails or through a OneDrive or other secure file-sharing link?

If necessary, submit through multiple emails, identifying in the subject line each email sent (for example Email 1, Email 2, Email 3 and Final).

8 Schedule / BAA Section 2.4 (pg. 4)

Does the 18 months of technical activities include both Phase 1 and optional Phase 2? Or is the 18 months intended for Phase 1, followed by the 6-month documentation and review period, including completion of the ORR, before a decision is made to proceed with Phase 2 real-world deployment?

The Government expects all active technical work—including Phase 1 controlled testing, the Operational Readiness Review, and Phase 2 real-world demonstrations and data collection—to be completed within the first 18 months. The final 6 months of the 24-month Period of Performance are strictly reserved for federal reporting reviews, revisions, Section 508 compliance checks, and final publication of the report. Offerors may propose an alternative schedule if technically justified, provided the total contract Period of Performance does not exceed 24 months.

9 Page 10, Section 2

Would subreceipients be able to receive funding directly in parallel from the agency? e.g. like NSF-style arrangement where the team members receive funding directly in parallel from the agency

No. Contracts will be awarded directly to a single Prime Contractor. The Prime Contractor is contractually and financially responsible for managing and distributing funds to all proposed subrecipients, subcontractors, or team members. Direct parallel funding from FHWA to subrecipients is not available under this requirement.

BAA Section 2.4, Teaming Requirement (p. 3-4):

"The Prime contractor for this effort must be either an OEM, Tier 1 Supplier, ADS developer, or an IOO." | BAA Section 4.2, Evaluation Factor 1, Sub-element D (p. 13) | SOO Section

1.0 (p. 1), "industry-led" CDA prototypes

Section 2.4 permits an Infrastructure Owner-Operator (IOO) to serve as the Prime contractor. However, Evaluation Factor 1, Sub-element D describes "a strong, multidisciplinary teaming arrangement led by an OEM, Tier 1 Supplier, or ADS developer, in close partnership with an IOO," and the SOO (Section 1.0) states the team is "ideally led by an OEM, Tier 1 supplier, or ADS developer." Please clarify: (a) Will a proposal in which a State DOT, acting as the IOO, serves as the Prime contractor -- with an OEM team member providing the industry-ready CDA vehicle prototype and verifiable access to pre-production Level 1+ automated vehicles with V2X capabilities -- be evaluated on an equal basis with proposals in which the OEM, Tier 1 Supplier, or ADS developer serves as the Prime? (b) If not, how will an IOO-led teaming arrangement be assessed under Evaluation Factor 1, Sub-element D?

Yes, as mentioned in the BAA :The Prime contractor for this effort must be either an OEM, Tier 1 Supplier, ADS developer, or an IOO. Note that a single organization or entity may play one or more of the four required roles.

Therefore a State DOT acting as the IOO, can serve as the prime. The evaluation factor is updated to resolve the conflict as "The proposal demonstrates a strong, multidisciplinary teaming arrangement led by an OEM, Tier 1 Supplier, ADS developer, or an IOO, in close partnership with all required project partners (including an independent evaluator and closed testbed provider) to assess CDA benefits and progress."

SOO Section 3.0, NOTE (p. 2): "prototype components that are sufficiently mature for integration and operational prototyping" | SOO Phase 1 Objectives (p. 3): "Conduct integration activities, including vehicle and infrastructure components" | BAA Section 1.1 (p. 2), TRL 6-7

The SOO states that Offerors must have prototype components "sufficiently mature for integration and operational prototyping," and lists as a Phase 1 objective to "conduct integration activities, including vehicle and infrastructure components." Please clarify the minimum maturity and supporting evidence expected at time of proposal submission: (a) Is a proposal within scope if the vehicle-side and infrastructure-side prototype components have each been validated (e.g., in laboratory or prior pilot settings), with full vehicle-infrastructure system integration occurring as a Phase 1 activity? (b) Or must an already-integrated, end-to-end CDA prototype exist at the time of proposal submission?

Yes. Integration of vehicle and infrastructure components is within the scope of this BAA and is expected to be conducted and demonstrated as a core Phase 1 activity. An already-integrated, end-to-end prototype is not required at the time of proposal submission; however, Offerors must demonstrate that the individual vehicle-side and infrastructure-side components have achieved sufficient maturity (e.g., TRL 5) to undergo successful integration during Phase 1.

Solicitation Number: 693JJ3-26-BAA-0005 Project Name: Cooperative Driving Automation (CDA) Small-Scale Industry Prototyping

BAA Section 2.4, Teaming Requirement (p. 3-4) | BAA Section 3.1, Volume I, Section 2 Basic Requirements (p. 8): "Confirmation that the OEM vehicles being used possess CDA and V2X capabilities and prototype functionalities" | SOO Section 3.0 requirements 1-2 (p. 3)

Regarding the requirement that "OEM vehicles must have CDA and V2X prototype capabilities": must the CDA and V2X capabilities be OEM factory-integrated, or would a prototype in which a Tier 1 Supplier or ADS developer integrates CDA/V2X capabilities onto production Level 1+ vehicles -- with the OEM providing vehicle access, interfaces, and engineering support under a teaming agreement --satisfy the requirements of Section 2.4 and Volume I Section 2 (Basic Requirements)?

The CDA and V2X capabilities do not need to be OEM factory-integrated. A prototype where a Tier 1 Supplier or ADS developer integrates these capabilities onto an existing production vehicle satisfies the requirement, provided there is a formal teaming agreement in place where the OEM provides vehicle access, interface specifications, and engineering support. Proposing teams must demonstrate a viable pathway to take the integrated prototype to market.

2.4 Program Requirements and Project Funding

Limits

Assuming as IOO is the Prime, what would guarantee that they hire the same partners as subcontractors when awarded? Is there any protection here for the subrecipients (such as an independent evaluator firm) to assist with proposal development as a key partner to remain in the team?

The BAA requires letters of intent for project partners and subrecipients which must be signed and authorized from the partner organization. If the Government selects a proposal to move forward for contract award, it is based on (in part) the team proposed by the prime contractor. If a prime were to remove a project partner after award, this invalidates part of the technical basis for award and could lead to contract termination.

14 General Will there be any cost sharing requrements? No. There are no cost-sharing or matching fund requirements under this BAA.

BAA Sections 2.3-2.4;

Attachment 1 SOO Section 3.0

For the required OEM/Tier 1/ADS developer role, may a purpose-built SAE Level 4 ADS vehicle satisfy the vehicle requirement where the ADS developer controls the vehicle platform and can provide the required CDA and V2X prototype capabilities, including use of infrastructure-originated information in automated control decisions, without requiring a separate conventional OEM vehicle partner?

Yes. A purpose-built SAE Level 4 Automated Driving System (ADS) vehicle can satisfy the vehicle prototype requirement, provided the ADS developer controls the platform and can deliver the required Cooperative Driving Automation (CDA) and V2X prototype capabilities. This includes the vehicle's ability to ingest and utilize infrastructure-originated information in its automated control and tactical decision-making processes, without requiring a separate, conventional OEM vehicle partner.

A primary objective of this BAA is to develop and test high-fidelity, industry-led prototypes validated in operational environments (TRL 6–7). Because the USDOT's ultimate goal is widespread deployment and adoption, the proposing team must demonstrate a clear, viable technical and commercialization pathway to mature the prototype beyond this project. The proposal must outline a robust business case to take the solution to market, ensuring full compliance with applicable National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulations and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) or obtaining NHTSA's waiver on this matter.

BAA Section 2.4; Evaluation Factor 1D

For purposes of the required Infrastructure Owner-Operator role and prime contractor eligibility, does the reference to a public sector IOO partner require the IOO itself to be a state or local roadway agency, or may a regional governmental or quasi-governmental entity responsible for developing and managing the digital infrastructure serve as the IOO where participating roadway agencies retain roadway authority and provide Phase 2 deployment sites?

A regional or quasi-governmental entity responsible for managing digital infrastructure can qualify as the IOO partner, provided they have established agreements or partnerships with the state or local roadway agencies that retain legal roadway authority over the proposed Phase 2 deployment sites to permit public road demonstrations.

BAA Section 2.4 Phasing Requirement; Section 3.1 Technical Approach

For the access-controlled roadway testbed requirement, must the proposed testbed be a fully operational established test facility at the time of proposal submission, or may a privately controlled site be instrumented and made operational prior to Phase 1 testing if the proposal demonstrates site control, required technical capabilities, safety procedures, schedule feasibility, and operational readiness?

Yes. It is acceptable to propose a controlled test facility or site that is currently under development or being instrumented, provided the proposal clearly assesses and mitigates any schedule and technical risks. The site must be fully operational, access-controlled, and safety-certified prior to the start of Phase 1 controlled testing.

BAA Sections 1.1-1.3;

Attachment 1 SOO Sections

1.0 and 3.0

Does the TRL 6-7 expectation apply to the integrated CDA prototype demonstrated under the project, or must every individual hardware and software component incorporated into the proposed architecture independently be at TRL 6-7 at the time of proposal submission?

The CDA solution demonstrated during phase 1 and 2 must be TRL 6-7.

19 Section 1.3 (Purpose)

Are there specific speed requirements or Operational Design Domain (ODD) constraints for the proposed CDA vehicle prototype? For example, do low-speed automated vehicles (e.g., operating at or below 25 mph) satisfy the requirements for both Phase 1 closed testing and Phase 2 real-world demonstrations?

No, there are no specific speed requirements. Speed requirements should be dictated by the operational needs of the use case proposed and its ODD. The Phase 2 real-world deployment site is legally compatible with low-speed operations, and the participating Infrastructure Owner-Operator (IOO) partner can secure the necessary public road permits and approvals for low-speed mixed traffic operations

20 Section 2.4 (Teaming Requirement)

Can a single organization or entity who plays the role of "independent evaluator" takes on other roles, e.g., testbed provider or IOO?

To ensure objectivity, the Independent Evaluator must be contractually independent and separate from the Prime Contractor, the vehicle provider (OEM/Tier 1/ADS developer), and the infrastructure provider (IOO).

21 Section 2.4 (Teaming Requirement)

Can a university entity that owns, operates, and controls traffic signals/roadway infrastructure on its campus qualify as an Infrastructure Owner-Operator (IOO) role?

No. For the purposes of this BAA, the Infrastructure Owner-Operator (IOO) role must be fulfilled by a public-sector transportation agency (such as a State, county, or municipal DOT) or a regional toll/transit authority that owns and operates public roadway infrastructure. While universities are highly encouraged to participate as research partners, independent evaluators, or testbed providers, campus-only infrastructure does not satisfy the public roadway requirement for the Phase 2 real-world deployment.

22 Section 2.4 (Phasing Requirements)

Does a secured university parking lot, closed campus roadway segment, or private facility with temporary traffic controls qualify as an "access-controlled roadway testbed provider" for Phase 1 testing?

Or it has to be an accredited/dedicated automotive proving ground?

A secured parking lot, closed campus roadway, or private facility can qualify as an access-controlled testbed for Phase 1, provided the site can be fully secured, controlled, and closed to public traffic during testing. The proposed facility must also possess the physical characteristics and digital infrastructure necessary to safely replicate the operational design domain (ODD) and scenario speeds required by the proposed use cases.

23 Section 2.4 (Project Funding Limits)

The RFP specifies that all technical work must be completed within the first 18 months, reserving the remaining 6 months for final report review and publication. Does this require all Phase 2 real-world testing and data collection to completely cease at Month 18, or can real-world demonstration data collection continue into the final 6 months alongside final report drafting?

Both phases are desired to be completed in 18 months, the Government is willing to consider alternative schedules to complete the work, including any reports that need to be submitted, within the 24 month period of performance.

24 Section 2.4 (Teaming Requirement)

Are DOE national labs eligible to participate as IOO or other roles? If so, are there any additional funding or contracting requirements applicable to their participation?

DOE National Laboratories are not eligible to fulfill the primary Infrastructure Owner-Operator (IOO) role, as they do not own or manage public roadways.

However, National Laboratories are eligible to participate as technical team members or subcontractors.

Section 3.2 (Volume II – Business, Cost and Pricing Data)

Are there any requirements on cost-share? No. There are no cost-sharing or matching fund requirements under this BAA.

Will FHWA consider multiple awards? Yes, multiple awards may be considered. In the event that several highly rated, competitive proposals are received, the award of multiple contracts will be contingent upon the availability of funds and formal authorization from agency leadership for supplemental funding.

Will FHWA consider a consultant-led team with a vehicle OEM providing product and engineering support?

A consulting or engineering firm can write the proposal, coordinate the teaming partners, and manage the technical delivery, but the designated contractual Prime Contractor must be one of the eligible entities (such as the State DOT/IOO or the vehicle technology partner) to satisfy Section 2.4

An independent evaluator who will assess traffic safety and efficiency improvements from CDA usage over automation and connectivity by themselves.

Can the independent contractor responsible for testing be from the same organization, as long as they are not involved in the development?

See the response for #20.

OEMs and the ability to access OEM CDA prototypes for testing and evaluation.

Does an ADS-developer-led aftermarket system on production OEM vehicles satisfy the “OEM CDA prototype” requirement, or is formal OEM participation mandatory?

See the response for #12.

Confirmation that the OEM vehicles being used possess CDA and V2X capabilities and prototype functionalities that validate the functional safety and integrity of the system.

Does “both direct and network communication” require operational direct V2X in every proposed use case? Can cellular and wifi be exploited?

No. Operational direct V2X communication is not strictly mandatory for every individual proposed use case. The selection and application of V2X connectivity—whether direct (short-range) or network-based (wide-area)—should be dictated by the operational requirements, latency tolerances, and functional safety needs of the specific use case being demonstrated.