RFP 693JJ922R000005 Questions and Responses.pdf

RFP: 693JJ922R000005

Older Driver Research Feasibility Study

Questions and NHTSA Responses

1. Will the developers of this app (RoadCoach) be allowed to submit offers to perform the research contract, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor?

NHTSA’s Response: Yes.

2. Will the organizations where the authors (Libby, Morris, Craig) of the document cited in the NHTSA solicitation be allowed to submit offers to perform this research contract, either as a prime contractor or subcontractor?

NHTSA’s Response: Yes.

3. Will the developers of RoadCoach be compelled by NHTSA to share all relevant technical information about this app as needed to satisfy contract requirements regarding a description of its operational characteristics with the successful offeror, excluding source code or any other legally protected information?

NHTSA’s Response: No. The RFP provides a link to information about RoadCoach.

4. If some offerors but not others have secured agreements with any of the organizations employing the authors of the document cited in the NHTSA solicitation (Libby, Morris, Craig), will this be regarded by NHTSA as a valid evaluation criterion (ref Section M.4 -

Technical Evaluation Factors)?

NHTSA’s Response: No.

5. Can you please provide clarification as to whether one regional program office will be managing this safety app project, if so which? Also if you have contact information for the program staff working on this project please provide that information.

NHTSA’s Response: NHTSA’s Office of Behavioral Safety Research, Injury Prevention

Research Division, is managing this project as stated in the RFP, Section B.1 Supplies/Services.

All contact with NHTSA will be through NHTSA’s Office of Acquisition Management as stated in

Section L of the RFP.

6. Reference Point: RFP Section L.8, PROPOSAL FORMAT, page 55: “The Technical

Proposal should contain a cover sheet that clearly identifies the Offeror’s name, RFP number [693JJ922R000005, date, and the number of the copy (i.e., copy x of 5)].”

Question: Since the proposal will be submitted to NHTSA via email, can we omit the

“number of the copy” from the Technical Proposal cover sheet?

NHTSA’s Response: Yes, you may omit the “number of the copy”.

7. Reference Point: RFP Section L.9, TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS, page 59, “If the Offeror has had previous contracts with NHTSA, this list shall consist of the

Offeror’s most recent projects with NHTSA.”

Question: The RFP indicates that we should list our most recent projects with NHTSA for past performance. However, the RFP also requests that we indicate “The project’s relevance to the project.” Should we list the most recent NHTSA projects or the most relevant ones? In addition, please clarify if “most recent” refers to our most recently completed NHTSA projects, or if we should describe ongoing projects under past performance.

NHTSA’s Response: The RFP states for Part V. Corporate Experience and Past Performance, the Offeror shall provide a list of three (3) recent projects conducted within the past three (3) years that include:

• Project title;

• Description of the project objectives and key tasks;

• Sponsor;

• Project Manager’s contact information (name and phone number);

• Key deliverables, such as data collection plans, interim reports, draft final reports, final reports, and the original scheduled due dates and submission date of the version of the deliverable that was approved by the sponsor; and

• The project’s relevance to the current project.

If the Offeror has had previous contracts with NHTSA, this list shall consist of the Offeror’s most recent projects with NHTSA.

If the Offeror has current or previous contracts with NHTSA then the list shall consist of these contracts, but the Offeror should determine what projects provided in their proposal will assist

NHTSA in evaluating the Offeror’s Corporate Experience and Past Performance.

8. Reference Point: RFP Section L.8, PROPOSAL FORMAT, page 56: “The type shall be

Times New Roman 12 point.”

Question: Can font size smaller than 12 point be used in figures and tables, provided that the text is legible?

NHTSA’s Response: The Offeror may use Times New Roman font no smaller than 10-point for figures and tables.

9. Reference Point: RFP Section F.3,1 MILESTONES/DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE page

18, Lines 22-24; Section C.5, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, C.5.5 Crash Data

Acquisition and Analysis, page 11:

Question: The timing of submission of the draft Data Acquisitions and Analysis Chapter

(within 2 weeks of receipt), COR provision of feedback on the chapter (within 13 months of project award) and submission of the revised Data Acquisitions and Analysis Chapter

(within 2 weeks of receipt) does not match the timing of these activities included in

Section C.5, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, C.5.5 Crash Data Acquisition and Analysis on page 11, where contractor submission of the draft chapter is described as occurring within 13 months of project award, with COR provision of feedback occurring within 2 weeks of receipt.

NHTSA’s Response: See RFP 693JJ922R000005 Amendment 0002

10. Reference Point: RFP Section F.3,1 MILESTONES/DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE page

18, Lines 25-26; Section C.5, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, C.5.6 Discussion and

Conclusions, page 11-12:

Question: The timing of submission of the draft Draft Discussion and Conclusions

Chapter (within 14 months of contract award) and COR provision of feedback on the chapter (within 15 months of project award) does not match the timing of these activities included in Section C.5, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, C.5.6 Discussion and

Conclusions on page 11-12, where contractor submission of the draft chapter is described as occurring within 15 months of project award, with COR provision of feedback occurring within 2 weeks of receipt.

11. Reference Point: RFP Section F.3,1 MILESTONES/DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE page

18, Lines 21 and 33, Section C.5, SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS, C.5.7 Prepare Draft

Final Report, page 12:

Question: In the table in section F.3, Line 33 appears to duplicate Line 21. There is no corresponding discussion of the task referenced in Line 33 in the discussion on page 12.

12. Reference Point: RFP Section L.3, PROPOSAL SUBMISSION, page 53: “The Proposals are due no later than 2:00 PM ET January 07, 2022.”

Question: Would NHTSA consider extending the proposal due date?

NHTSA’s Response: Yes, NHTSA will amend the proposal due date and time to January

21,2022 no later than 2:00 PM ET.

13. Can NHTSA define the specific age ranges for "young" and "older" drivers to be included in the study population?

NHTSA’s Response: As noted on page 4 of the RFP, under C.1, for the purposes of the proposal assume young drivers to be those between ages 18 and 25 and older drivers to be 75 and older.

14. Does NHTSA require or anticipate contractor travel associated with an in-person kick-off meeting, presentation of final results, or presentation at any national conferences?

NHTSA’s Response: Assume briefings will be virtual. No conference presentations are anticipated as a part of this contract.

15. A footnote on page 10 of the solicitation references study quality scales by Newcastle-

Ottawa and RTI. Will NHTSA consider the use of other national study quality scales in lieu of those referenced?

NHTSA’s Response: Yes, other national study quality scales will be considered provided the

Offeror provides adequate justification for their use.

16. In accordance with the requirements of Section L.3 “Questions” of the subject

Solicitation, a reference point for where each question originated is provided below with the question(s).

The Solicitation included spreadsheet file J.4: “Travel Cost Breakdown”. Section L.10 specifically identifies this file and section M.5 may also be applicable.

If a proposal has no projected travel costs is submission of this file required?

NHTSA’s Response: If the Offeror does not have any costs associated with Travel, then the J.4, Travel Cost Breakdown is not required to be submitted by the Offeror.

17. The Solicitation included spreadsheet file J.5: “Other Direct Costs Breakdown”. Section

L.10 specifically identifies this file and section M.5 may also be applicable.

If a proposal has no projected other direct costs is submission of this file required?

NHTSA’s Response: If the Offeror does not have any costs associated with Other Direct Costs, then the J.5, Other Direct Cost Breakdown is not required to be submitted by the Offeror.

18. Section C of the Solicitation indicates that the term “older adult driver” will refer to a driver 75 years of age or older.

Will NHTSA permit proposals, without penalty, to allow for a different definition of

"older adult driver"?

19. Section C of the Solicitation indicates that the term “younger adult driver” will refer to a driver between the ages of 18 and 25.

Will NHTSA permit proposals, without penalty, to allow for a different definition of

"young adult driver" or the substitution of the term “younger adult driver” with the term

“younger driver” that uses a different age range?

20. Section C of the Solicitation indicates that an assessment regarding the efficacy of the

RoadCoach app and other possible similar apps is be completed.

Does NHTSA have access to any proprietary information from RoadCoach or other apps? If yes, will the awardee have access to that same information? If yes, can NHTSA provide a summary of the types of available proprietary information?

NHTSA’s Response: NHTSA has no access to such proprietary information.

21. The Solicitation included spreadsheet file J.2: “Cost Proposal Template”. The spreadsheet indicates information is desired for two tables. The second table includes a Task 1, Task 2, and a Task 3. Section L.10 specifically identifies this file and section

M.5 may also be applicable.

Please define what is meant by Task 1, Task 2, and Task 3 in spreadsheet J.2 or clarify what information NHTSA requires be provided in the Cost proposal template J.2?

NHTSA’s Response: The headings titled, “Task 1, Task 2, Task 3” in J.2 Cost Proposal

Template are set up as a template for the Offeror’s to use. The Offeror can change the titles to support their cost proposal. NHTSA suggest using the titles in the RFP, such as C.5.1, C.5.2, C.5.3, C.5.4, C.5.5, C.5.6, C.5.7, C.5.8, C.5.9 and F.4.1… etc.

22. Section M.5 states “The cost evaluation will be based on cost analysis, cost reasonableness, and comparison with independent government estimate.”

Will NHTSA be providing an estimated level-of-effort for labor hours for use in spreadsheet file J.2: “Cost Proposal Template”.

NHTSA’s Response: The Offeror will provide their best level of effort based on the technical approach proposed by the Offeror.

23. Part V: The Offeror shall request past performance information from three (3) recent clients.

Question: Can NHTSA provide a timeframe for “recent” clients.

NTHSA’s Response: The Offeror will determine the “recent” clients based on their contracts/task orders

24. C.1. Background: NHTSA has been directed by Congress to explore the efficacy of smart phone apps as an intervention for older drivers. Congressional staff expressed a particular interest in Road Coach, a smart phone app originally developed to reduce risky driving in teens, based on findings from Older Driver Support System Field Operational Test.

Question: The RoadCoach App does not seem to be released and thus is not readily available on the App/Play Store. How does NHTSA recommend contractors get access to the app and/or app specifications?

NHTSA’s Response: Offerors are to use the information about RoadCoach available at the link provided in the RFP.