Questions for Parametric RFQ_responsev1_RD Comments_03022026.pdf

ID Question to FRA Reason / What to Clarify Government Response 1 Please confirm the required CLIN structure (FFP CLINs and travel CLIN(s)) and how CLINs map to the SOO deliverables.

The RFQ requires an unlocked Excel price workbook summarizing FFP price for each CLIN and detailed breakout by CLIN, but the deliverables schedule is “RESERVED,” and the SOO only provides “suggested deliverables” without CLIN numbering.

The price/deliverables schedule is reserved for potential quoter to provide in their quotation. The quoter is expected to provide a list of deliverables and prices based on their proposed PWS.

2 Does the contract include option periods? If yes, how many, what durations, and what should be priced?

FAR 52.212‑2 states “No Options are anticipated,” yet the price evaluation describes adding “all options” to the base year and references a 6‑month extension under FAR 52.217‑8.

No priced option periods, as such, are anticipated. However, per FAR 52.217‑8, services might be extended if warranted.

4 What is the Government’s definition of “total evaluated price” (what is included/excluded)?

Evaluation language references base year + all options + a 6‑month extension pricing (mirroring an option period), but the contract is described as 18 months. Clarification is needed to avoid mispricing and evaluation discrepancies.

The reference to a total price, inclusive of options, was in error.

Quoters should provide a price for 18 months and a price for an additional optional 6 months. The 6-month extension is not treated as an option per se.

5 Does the cybersecurity addendum PDF contain internal comments/markup intentionally (e.g., ‘Dockery, Ray (FRA)’), and is there a clean ‘final’ version?

The addendum appears to include internal editing comments, which creates uncertainty about what text is contract‑enforceable.

A revised copy of the Cyber Security attachment J.2 has been uploaded with the Sticky Notes removed.

6 Are there any DOT/FRA small business participation percentage goals for this procurement, and is the J‑6 subcontracting plan template required for large businesses only?

The solicitation states DOT small business participation objectives will be clearly stated, but does not provide percentages; J‑6 includes prefilled rationale thresholds (e.g., 48.5% SB) that may not apply to this DOT procurement.

Since this solicitation is issued on a "full and open basis" subcontracting plans are required. In accordance with FAR

19.701 and FAR 19.702, each prime offeror who is other than a small business shall include within its proposal a complete copy of the prime offeror’s Master Subcontracting Plan (if one is approved) and an Individual Subcontracting Plan, satisfactorily addressing all of the administrative requirements set forth in FAR section 52.219-9.

On page 2 percentages are clearly stated. Also, please note that if a quoter cannot meet the goals they should supply a rationale as to why they cannot, e.g., the work is being carried out by individual contractors. Similarly, it could be possible that there are not opportunities for subcontracting by small businesses due to the nature of the work. Additionally, these percentages represent goals rather than absolute numbers that must be reached at time of award.

In short, a subcontracting plan is required by regulation, but the opportunity for small business participation might be limited or not applicable in this case.

I have provided updated small business goals in the revised uploaded subcontracting form.

7 Is the J‑6 Subcontracting Plan template (APM 025D) the correct required format for FRA/DOT, or is an agency-specific template expected?

J‑6 references an APM form and contains links/phrasing that appear not DOT‑specific; clarification avoids submitting an incorrect subcontracting plan.

The Subcontracting Plan template is a DOT specific form. The referenced links are to relevant government websites.

8 Can FRA confirm whether FAR 52.217‑9 is included correctly (title and applicability) and whether both 52.217‑8 and 52.217‑9 are intended?

The solicitation includes both clauses and labels 52.217‑9 as ‘Option to Extend Services’; confirming intent matters for period-of-performance and pricing assumptions.

Only FAR 52.217‑8 is pertinent to the current solicitation. FAR 52.217‑9 will be removed via amendment and a revised solicitation will be provided.

9 Is there an expected not‑to‑exceed (NTE) amount and/or expected number of trips for travel CLIN(s)?

Travel is reimbursable, but no travel assumptions, ceilings, or expected trip profile are provided.

An NTE amount of $10K will be stipulated. The solicitation will be amended accordingly.

10 When will the standard oral‑presentation question set be provided: with down‑select notification or on the day of the oral presentation?

The solicitation states questions will be provided the day of the oral presentation, but also says the quoter will have been provided a standard question set with the down‑select notification.

The standard set of questions will be provided with the down select and there will be one "on the spot" question provided on the day of the oral presentation.

11 Will the contract include milestone payments, and if so, how will milestones be defined given the reserved deliverables schedule?

Invoice instructions reference milestone payments and COR acceptance documentation, but there is no milestone/deliverables table provided.

It is anticipated that quoters will propose a milestone payment if they choose to do so. The preference for firm fixed price contracts is to pay by deliverable. However, that may not be possible for some quoters.

12 Is the 80‑hour / 60‑day Transition Assistance period included within the 18‑month period of performance, and how should it be priced?

The SOO requires post‑delivery transition support; without knowing whether it is inside PoP or separate.

The transition period is separate from the Period of Performance.

13 What Government-furnished data will be provided for model development and validation (datasets, formats, access method, classification level)?

The SOO requires validation/calibration and notes FRA will assist with data collection/management, but the solicitation does not identify the specific datasets and their handling constraints.

FRA will work with the contractor to identify internal resources that may assist with validation efforts. FRA will work direclty with the contractor to review agency data resources that may include freight railroad track charts and freight volumes and trends data. As noted in the SOO, FRA will assist the contractor in outreach to Class I railroads to collect and assemble data need to support model validatation. The engagement plan will outline a strategic approach for coordination with public agencies and freight railroads to acquire data. Unlike data required for validating microsimulation models, access to signficant amounts of comercially senstivite data is not anticipated.

14 Will FRA facilitate access to Class I railroads / stakeholders for engagement and peer review, or is the contractor expected to secure those relationships independently?

Stakeholder engagement and peer review with external SMEs/industry partners are expected, but the level of Government support and any constraints on outreach are not defined.

It is anticipated that contractor will identify a 'baseline' inventory for a representative number of corridors supported by data that can demonstrate the Parametric model is able to estimate capacity/throughconditions. While there is no pre-determined number of corridors or freight railroads that may be invited to participate, the definition of the model 'baseline' condition will influence the identification of selection of stakeholders. An external peer review /assessment of estimated (final) model will ideally help achieve acceptance of the model by the broader industry.

Government Response to Questions 03022026

15 What constitutes a “Government‑approved secure environment,” and what is the approval process/timeline?

Both the SOO and the cybersecurity addendum require Government‑approved secure environments for sensitive/production datasets, but do not define the approval criteria or process.

Government-Approved Secure Environment

• For this effort, all development, testing, and production activities must occur within the FRA-provided Azure/AWS tenant or a specific DOT-authorized environment. Restriction:

Contractors are prohibited from using contractor-hosted or third-party cloud services for any phase of the lifecycle, including initial coding and unit testing.

• This ensures 100% visibility for the DOT SOC from Day 1 but may require the Government to provide Government Furnished Equipment – laptops, Virtual Desktops (VDI) or PIV-enabled access for contractor personnel.

To architect a DOT-approved development environment, FRA will need to understand the Technical Footprint fo the model.

The vendor must provide a system architecture and Resource Requirements Document containing: Computational Requirements, the Software Stack & Golden Image, Software inventory, data flow & connectivity, Tooling & IDEs.

16 May the contractor use contractor-hosted development/test environments and third‑party cloud services for non‑sensitive work? If yes, what controls apply?

The SOO restricts sensitive/production datasets to Government‑approved environments and prohibits third‑party cloud unless authorized; the cybersecurity addendum also discusses contractor development environments, but the allowed boundary is unclear.

Restriction: Contractors are prohibited from using contractor-hosted or third-party cloud services for any phase of the lifecycle, including initial coding and unit testing.

17 If any Government or third‑party sensitive data must be processed, will DOT provide Government-furnished equipment (GFE) and/or remote access (VDI), and what are the onboarding requirements?

The contract includes DOT clauses about facility/system access and ID cards, but the work location is listed as contractor facility. Clarification is needed on expected access needs, background checks, and lead times.

The contractor will be accessing a DOT cloud environment. It is not anticipated that the vendor will work at a DOT facility.

However, the vendor will need a certain amount of access to the DOT network. The vendor is prohibited from using non-government devices to store, access, or process sensitive government data. Government will provide GFE with VPN to access the network securely to each cleared individual contractor after the successful completion of background investigation and onboarding process.

18 Which incident reporting timeline controls for cyber incidents: 1 hour/24 hours (addendum) or 2 hours regardless of category (DOT SOC clause)?

The cybersecurity addendum sets 1‑hour notification for incidents impacting sensitive production data/systems and 24 hours for lower impact, while the solicitation’s DOT SOC reporting clause requires reporting within 2 hours regardless of category.

Regarding Cyber Security Incident reporting, note that the DOT SOC clause (2-hour requirement) takes precedence as the primary agency-level reporting standard in the event of a conflict.

To ensure full compliance across all requirements, the contractor should adhere to the following timelines:

- Within 1 hour: For incidents involving sensitive production data and Personally Identifiable Information (PII), per the Addendum.

- Within 2 hours (or upon detection, whichever occurs first): For all other cyber incidents, per the DOT SOC clause.

19 What are the intended data rights and licensing expectations for the deliverable code (especially if open-sourced on FRA GitHub)?

The SOO references FAR data rights (52.227‑17 for the model, 52.227‑14 for other data), while the cybersecurity addendum states the Government retains ownership of all created/loaded code/tools hosted on vendor infrastructure.

Clarifying background IP, open-source licensing, and Government rights is critical.

The Government intends to assert Unlimited Rights (per FAR 52.227-14) for all deliverable code developed specifically under this contract.

If Government record or data is made available or disclosed to the vendor that information disclosed to such officer or employee can be used only for that authorized purpose.

Further disclosure of any such information, by any means, for a purpose or to an extent unauthorized herein, may subject the offender to criminal sanctions imposed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030.

New Code will be hosted on the FRA GitHub repository and released under an Open Source License (e.g., MIT or Apache 2.0) as determined by the FRA.

Vendors must explicitly identify any pre-existing proprietary tools or "Background IP" in their proposal. The Government will require a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, modify, and reproduce such IP as necessary to operate the model.

20 Can FRA confirm the required number and type of validation test cases and what ‘sufficient’ validation means for acceptance?

The SOO calls for validation across a range of freight and passenger conditions and says the number of tests should be sufficient; acceptance criteria and data availability need definition to manage risk.

While validation scenarios are not prescribed in the SOO, it is anticipated that the model be useful for estimating rail capacity for corridors with varying mix of freight and passenger demand, infrastructure characeteristics (tracks, signals, sidings), and operating conditions (speed restrictions, grades, etc). The validation plan will identify an approach for verifying the accuracy and reasonableness of model outputs as model input variables are modified. Statistical measures will be identified, in consultation with FRA, to assess confidence levels and verfify mode results across multiple validation scenarios. The overall validation approach and associated measures will be documented in a model validation report.

21 The RFQ states, that for the person authorized to sign: “shall be accompanied by evidence of that agent’sauthority, unless that evidence has been previously furnished.”

What constitutes acceptable evidence? This might include an attestation to that fact or some other form of documentation that supports the agent's authority.

22 The RFQ states that the quote must be valid “for 120 days or longer” Is it up to us to specify how long the quoteis valid for? Is there a preference?

The preference is for 120 days, however, quoters may extend that period. Quoters may offer additional days.

23 Although not requested in the RFQ, should we submit CVs of our key team members, either with Vol I/II or Vol III?

CVs may be included as an attachment to volume III.

24 Do we submit Volume III (written technical volume) and the Volume IV pricing worksheet on March 20?

Yes.

25 Approximately over what time period do you expect the oral presentations to occur?

This will depend on the number of received quotations.

27 Do we need to fill out the Attachment 1 Subcontracting Plan form if part of our team will be a subcontractor on the project? If so, to what Volume should we attach the form (i.e., is this form due on March 10 or March 20?)

Yes, fill out the subcontracting for and submit it on March 23 as an attachment with the Technical Volume III

28 Please clarify the due date for the Phase 2 response (i.e., is it March 20 or TBD with date provided upon receipt of down-select information from

FRA?)

The due date for the Phase 2 response has been extended to March 23, 2026.

29 Does FRA have a preferred simulation software for generating inputs to the parametric model?

The software should be readily accessible by FRA and should be capable of satisfying the technical objectives of the study and will be determined in consultation with FRA.

30 Please clarify with regard to the model validation objective. Are there existing test cases for validation? Arethere any additional validation sources the team can anticipate (aside from its own resources?)

While validation scenarios are not prescribed in the SOO, it is anticipated that the model be useful for estimating rail capacity for corridors with varying mix of freight and passenger demand, infrastructure properties (tracks, signals), and operating conditions (speed restrictions, grades, etc). The 1975 parametric model study outlines several case studies that were developed to verify model outputs. An illustrative segementation could be a segmentation of validation test cases that include verying levels of freight traffic/congestion, extent of single tracking, and/or presence of automated track signals and advanced technologies.

Sheet1