FINAL DOT RFQ Questions_Answers Read Only.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 29 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 693JK426R600002
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Amend 00007.pdf | ||
| Amend 00006.pdf | ||
| Additional questions. docx.pdf | ||
| Amend 00005.pdf | ||
| Amend 00004.pdf | ||
| Amend 00003.pdf.pdf | ||
| Amend 00002.pdf.pdf | ||
| RFP Airline Analysis and Scheduling.pdf | ||
| Amend 00001.pdf | ||
| RFP Airline Analysis and Scheduling.docx | DOCX document |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1 Airline Analysis and Scheduling Solution via a Web-based Application DOT Responses
| We have a similar contract with DHS for this very tool. Can you tell us how many users you anticipate needing to use the platform? I'm guessing you probably just need a price per unit (price per user)? Just want to make sure we are providing you with the best price as we can provide deeper discounts with a larger volume of users | We will have at most 10 users and currently it will be more like seven users. We can work with per user (unit) licesening or blanket price up to a 10 user threashold. |
| You mentioned you’re looking to have a global view of passenger load and fare data, including foreign-foreign networks - but then you also mentioned DB1B. DB1B is just American carriers and anything touching U.S. airspace. | Correct which is why we are looking for itinerary and fare data for traffic operated to/from the United States by foreign carriers who are not required to report. We are also looking for similar data for travel between foreign points. DB1B one of, but not the only, sources we'd expect to see the provider using to build their data set. |
| Are you open to soultions that are combining other data sources t oprovide a unique view for the global data? | Yes, we consider that a requirement, our primary requirement is the data represents comparable “as flown”/“purchased” data that includes airline direct channel purchases as well as via GDS and intermediaries. We need to understand the full “pie” of demand at a market/carrier level of detail. |
| I see you’re referencing OAG, (which makes that sound like a current supplier?) Are you currently subscribing to a solution providing such data? | OAG is not our current direct supplier, the product we currently have integrates OAG schedule data with a UI., and we'd expect the provider to incorporate industry-wide (domestic and international) schedule data into their product. |
| And if you are, are you currently getting all of what you’ve requested, or just part of it? | We only get part of what we are currently asking for. Currently we have schedule data with a UI and global passenger flow with fare data with UI’s for various views of the data (O&D and Leg). |
| Will the terms to the agreement, (should we win the award), be negotiable? If yes, are you willing to work from our paperwork? | Yes. Working from the Contractor's paperwork is also negotiable. |
| We would like to know if this is a brand new contract OR if there is (was) an incumbent performing these services. |
| If not brand new, could you please provide the current / previous contract number? | No, this is not a new contract. The incumbent contract number is 693JK421C600002. | |
| Under what contract number is the work currently performed? | 693JK421C600002 | |
| Can the DOT clarify where vendors can expect to receive data from? | Vendors can obtain the necessary data from whatever sources they have avaiable. Our current vendor generates a demand data set from more than ten different data sources in order to generate a global picture of traffic and pricing. | |
| The RFP document outlines the DOT's requirement for submissions to be submitted by March 27th, and for the system to be live by April 30th. By what date does the DOT anticipate awarding a contract | As stated on page 7 of 62 of the RFP, the approximate date are displayed under Section 8 (Period of Performance) | |
| Is the DOT seeking to integrate this system with any other systems? If yes, which systems? | No direct integration of other systems is necessary as long as requirments are addressed. | |
| What types of reports will the DOT generate using this system? Can the DOT provide examples of reports? | We have no canned reports. Our analysis consists of generating market share changes, price changes, schedule changes, and traffic flow changes over time and across many data dimensions including geography (Global, Continental, County, City, Airport levels of detail), the class of travel (First Class, Business, Economy) and carriers and carrier groupings (grouping carriers by alliance or JV membership). All reports are by nature custom depending on the items queried. | |
| Has the DOT seen any product demonstrations prior to issuing this RFP? If so, what solutions/vendors? | None as of yet. | |
| Will the DOT provide a demo script? | No | |
| Can the DOT confirm the expected demonstration length and format (e.g. 30/45/60 minutes), and whether time for Q&A is included in the alloted demo time? | Demo not to exceed 60 minutes unless there are relevant items to demonstrate that will exceed. Q&A can be alloted or integrated as the demo proceeds. What ever will be most effective. DOT is flexible. | |
| For the demonstration, can the DOT provide 2-3 representative scenarios or use cases that the DOT would like offerors to demonstrate? | Yes we can. How far in advance are these scenarios needed? 1) Please provide a year-over-year analysis of the market size between the U.S. and Italy for the past 10 years. On an annual basis, need market shares for all nonstop and one-stop airline competitors in the market, as well as yearly passenger market size and market size changes. 2) Please provide annual seat capacity for all carriers, as well as number of departures, for nonstop participants in the U.S.- Italy market for the past 10 years through y/e 2025. Who is the market share leader in terms of number of nonstop seats and nonstop departures? Who has grown and who has shrank in the market, both in terms of seats and number of departures? 3) In the U.S.-France nonstop airline passenger market, what are the largest U.S. gateway airports in terms of yearly passengers, for the last 10 years? Which U.S. gateway airports have grown, in terms of total passengers and total departures? Which have shrank? On the France side, which airports are the largest and smallest gateways for nonstop flights to the U.S.? 3a) We are aware that not all traffic flows nonstop between the U.S. and France. Please quantify how customers that do not fly on a nonstop market between the U.S. and France travel between the U.S. and France? For example, USA-KEF (Iceland)-France or USA-LHR (London, UK)-France are typical markets for several thousands of customers a year. What is the total annual number of passengers traveling between the U.S. and France via indirect routings over third party countries, and, on an annual basis for the last 10 years, what are the largest such routings, and which airline is the market share leader for this type of routing, annually, through y/e 2025? | |
| The SOW indicates historical data back to at least 2005. Can the DOT confirm whether this applies to all datasets (schedules, fares, demand, fleet, bookings), or only to certain datasets? | Preferably all but give us what you can do on a dataset by dataset basis. | |
| Can the DOT describe their current workflow? | There are many work flows for the group. Antitrust immunity (ATI) and merger case work comes as they happen. Once a case is opened there is a policy qualitative evaluation of case douments concurrent with analyical quantitative evaluation of the state of the overall market place impacted. We then use the document review and the inital market evaluation to inform on more detailed analytics that are case specfic. These outputs are then used to forumate a data justifiable policy which leads to a case decision. There are many iterative steps to the process. Other more "on demand" analysis can be brought anytime. If there is a specific issue such as a hurricane or orther natural disaster, or an aviation strike, that will have a medium term impact on the sector we will evaluate the impact of lost capacity. A final major work flow is a long term research agenda that is intended to inform on broader policy chocies such as consumer benefit returned as a result of ATI appovals over time and if the policy requires adjustment as a result of the analysis. For example, is airline and price competition increasing or decreasing as a result of past ATI decisions. | |
| How do they obtain and analyze airline schedules, fares, demand, fleet, and bookind data? Is this data publicly available? | I assume DOT is the "they" in the question? Currently airline schedules and demand data are obtained through the software tools provide by our existing third party contractor. | |
| Can the DOT confirm the required refresh cadence for each dataset (schedules, fares, demand, fleet, bookings), and whether weekly refresh is required for schedules only or for multiple datasets? | Weekly is for schedule data only. All other datasets should be as frequent as the collection cadence can be made. Our curent cadence for demand data (includes passenger and revenue and thefore price) is monthly. We do not currently have access to fleet data other than what is covered in standard schedule information. | |
| Is TSA desiring a tool that stores the data for retrieval only, or is the intent to have a capability that integrates data from disparate data sources so that insights can be gained from the data on a single query that reaches across multiple data sources? | ||
| We are not TSA but yes, "capability that integrates data from disparate data sources so that insights can be gained from the data on a single query that reaches across multiple data sources" is desired. It may be necessary to generate a comprehensive global demand source, but we are also capable of integrating data, such as schedule and demand data, on our own as well. The more automation we have the more time we have to expand the quality of our analysis. | ||
| Will the solution provider be required to procure the commercially available data as part of this contract, or will DOT provide the data sources and licenses for the data? | ||
| - If the solution provider is required to procure the data, please provide the desired list of data sets and sources so that the solution provider can accurately cost out the data | The solution provider will be required to obtain the data. It is up to the solution provider to develop the sources. Our list consists of those items mentioned in the request for proposal. | |
| Are there any system availability and data integrity requirements beyond those outlined in FIPS 200? | No, they should cover it. If there are areas of concern the vendor has we are happy to address during the propsoal process. | |
| There are multiple commercial services/APIs that provide strong international-international and truly global data coverage. Will the contractor be required to manage these licenses/subscriptions on behalf of this project? | Yes | |
| Are there specific data formats that the system must support for ingesting/exporting data? For example, should we prioritize or mandate support for common formats used by these providers, such as JSON, XML, and CSV | The office currently has expertise in working with TXT and CSV exports which we then ETL into enterprise RDBMS environment or more local tools such as Excel, Tableau, MS Access, Python as needed depending on the size of the download and what we need to do with it. We are open to other formats such as JSON and XML if there is a demonstrable gain to their use but that will need to be explained to us. We have no current requorments for such formats. | |
| In addition to the 10 users, are there any internal applications, systems, or downstream consumers that will pull data from this system? | No | |
| Will the website require multi-factor authentication (MFA/2FA) for all user access, including administrative, and/or internal consumers? | We have no specific authenication requrments and defer to industry standard configuations. | |
| Should the website be publicly accessible over the internet, or restricted to VPN/internal networks only? | This is up to the vendor. We would like to access the application and data from any where in the world at anytime of the day as needed but also want the site to be secure for both us and the vendor. We defer to the vendor to offer the best solution. We do ask that we not be required to install any software on our systems as CIO approval for installtion and configuation of nonstandard software in the DOT common operating envirenment is a very large hurdle. I believe our current vendor enables access to their hub website via MFA/2FA. No software installtion on our local machines has been required and no VPN is required. | |
| Are bidder questions due Wednesday, February 11, or Tuesday, February 10th? | Tuesday, February 10, 2026 at noon EST. A correction amendment 00001 was posted on SAM.GOV | |
| Regarding Section 30. WHAT TO SUBMIT: Offerors shall submit a proposal consisting of two (2) volumes: Volume I (Technical) and Volume II (Cost/Price). Clarification Question: Should Part V: Price, which is listed under Volume I, be part of Volume II (cost/price)? | Yes. Please include Price in Volume II. Keep the Pricing separate from Volume I. | |
| Acceptable Data Sources and Functional Equivalency | ||
| The Statement of Work references specific commercial data sources (e.g., OAG, Innovata, GDS-derived or screen-scraped advanced booking data). Will DOT consider functionally equivalent or blended commercial datasets—including proprietary or modeled data—provided they meet required accuracy, coverage, historical depth, and update-frequency standards, even if they are not sourced directly from those named providers? If so, what criteria will be used to determine acceptability? | Yes. We have no specific criteria in mind although bench marks against other sources that cover the same subject area would be nice. We are able to use DOT collected data, Origin Destination Survey, T100, OAG, and limited fleet information through BTS aviation data collection for rough comparisons. Providing us a clear undertanding of the work flows that go into a given product is an addtional way for us to evaluate and validate. | |
| Technical Evaluation Emphasis | ||
| In evaluating the “Technical Capability/Approach” factor, how will DOT balance the depth and completeness of historical data (e.g., coverage back to 2005) versus the analytical capabilities of the platform, such as scenario modeling, merger impact analysis, custom reporting, and decision-support workflows used by OAA analysts? | This is an open question. Having both reasonable historical depth and functionality are critical to our needs. We seek to have the best combination of both. At the same time historical completeness is a floor on capability. DOT must have access to the most complete data possible. | |
| Scope Evolution Over the Contract Term | ||
| Given the five-year Firm Fixed Price structure and the evolving nature of aviation policy analysis (e.g., pandemics, geopolitical disruptions, new statutory requirements), how does DOT anticipate handling material increases in data scope, analytical complexity, or user needs during the base or option years? Would such changes be addressed through contract modifications, or are offerors expected to accommodate them within the original FFP pricing? | Our experience is that the baseline datasets remain relative stable, it is the frequency of the analytical asks and the time to turn around the analysis that has changed the most. What we value most is the flexiblity to manipulate the data to the needs of the policy question and we use a layer of analytical tools on top of the data to accomplish this goal. To the extent data sources, such as demand data, grow in volumes we do expect the vendor technology to accomodate larger and larger data requests with sufficent prerformance. | |
| Is this solicitation a recompete of an existing contract? If so, could you please confirm the incumbent contractor(s)? | Sabre | |
| What is the current or historical contract value associated with this work? | Approximately $640,597.50 | |
| Will the Statement of Work (SOW) remain unchanged from the current contract, or have there been any updates or revisions? | There have been revisions with less emphasis on direct modeling of market impacts to capacity changes and more on data depth and breadth, and UI usability. | |
| Could you please provide the current or prior contract number associated with this requirement? | See answer to number 9 | |
| Is it possible to obtain the Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or other performance evaluations related to the incumbent contract? | DOT does not issue CPARS reports. Go to CPARS.gov and make a request. | |
| How has the incumbent performed on the current contract, particularly with regard to meeting performance objectives, deliverables, and timelines? | Contact CPARS.gov for a copy of the incubments CPARS report. | |
| Would the government (Or Client Name) consider granting an extension to the proposal submission deadline? | DOT anticipates an award by May 1, 2026. An extension is not needed at this time. | |
| Are the cover page and table of contents excluded from the overall page count limit? | No | |
| May we include additional pages for abbreviations and references, and will those be excluded from the stated page limit? | Yes, abbreviations and references can be added. I have increased to total page count for Volume I from 60 to 90 total page count. | |
| Can any portion of the scope of services be performed offshore, or is the work required to be fully performed onshore (within the U.S.)? | Performance must be USA based and from US company. | |
| Please provide a complete list of systems and data sources that must integrate with the solution. Are APIs available, or will custom interfaces be required? | There are no integration requirements. This is an end-user UI system. There is a requirment to be able to export data out of the system as .txt or .csv formatted files for OAA to then use for additional analysis with internal tools. | |
| What is the expected volume and historical range of data to be analyzed or migrated? | Data valume can range from single markets to all global city-pair O&D's with carrier market shares over many years. Historical range should ideally go back to at least 2000, further if possuble but 2005 is the minimum we are looking for. | |
| What are the primary scheduling optimization objectives, and are they ranked or weighted? | This question needs clarificatrion. We are not sure what is meant by scheduling optimization parameters. Our needs in terms of airline schedules are access to a wide range of schedule data in terms of dates, the ability to look forward up to 12 months at futured planned capacity, and the ability to extract a wide variaety of detail about schedule data. | |
| What FAA, DOT, international slot, or operational constraints must be embedded in the solution? | None | |
| Is real-time optimization required, or are batch scheduling runs acceptable? | Real-time optimization is required. We are okay with batch for larger jobs. | |
| What are the performance SLAs? | 24 hour access anywhere in the world. We have no defined SLA metrics but the tool has to be usable on an adhoc basic. | |
| Which Passenger Service, Revenue Management, or Crew Scheduling systems must the solution integrate with? | As long as the requirments for the data sets are met we are agnostic on how they are met. They do need to be validated in some way. | |
| What KPIs will define project success and acceptance? | We have no formal KPI's but if the data does not meet the needs as outlined in the requirments of the RFP then it will not be a success. | |
| What cybersecurity, hosting, and data residency requirements apply? | This will be a vendor system that we are granted access to, it will be up to the vendor to determine. | |
| What transition support and end-user training are expected? | See RFP. | |
| How long will be each demonstration? | 30 to 60 minutes but we are flexible depending on the level of detail of the content. | |
| Will the demonstration be evaluated based on specific use case scenarios, or should offerors propose representative analytical workflows aligned with DOT’s mission? | It can be either or both, we have provided three scenarios at line 18 | |
| The RFP lists the proposal due date as Thursday, March 27, but March 27, 2026 is a Friday. Please confirm the correct due date: Thursday, March 26, 2026 or Friday, March 27, 2026 | The proposals are due on Friday, March 27, 2026 at 10:00AM EST. A correction amendment will be posted SAM.gov. | |
| Please clarify how the required pre-submission Demo will be used in the evaluation process: | ||
| a. | Is the demonstration informational only, pass/fail, or scored? | |
| b. | Will DOT conduct any down-selection or disqualification based on the demonstration prior to written proposal submission? | |
| c. | If a down-selection occurs, when and how will offerors be notified that they may (or may not) proceed with a written proposal? | Each presentation will be evaluated on the merits based on the reviews of the policy experts that will be using the system. All informal scoring will be based on the requirments outlined in the RFP as well as the usability and functionality of the UI for policy supporting analytics. |
| Please confirm whether the 60-page limit applies to all of Volume I (Parts I–IV) or only Part I, and whether the 3-page limit for the Web-based Application section is included within the 60 pages. | The 60 Page limit for Part I. Part II, III, & IV are excluded. | |
| The RFP says two volumes (Technical and Cost/Price), but then lists Part V: Price within Volume I. Please confirm the correct Pricing structure: are we submitting two volumes (Volume I Technical and Volume II Cost/Price), and where should Price appear? | Price is a separate volume. Please separate the Price Proposal | |
| Please clarify whether they are open to leveraging/augmenting an existing FAA/ASPM-based platform versus insisting on a completely standalone new system. | We are agnostic to data sources or platforms as long as they meet the needs expressed in the RFP and have verifiable data sources. | |
| Please clarify whether offerors must fully comply with all listed data elements at proposal submission (e.g., historical depth, fare data), or whether partial compliance is acceptable with a plan to obtain additional data via third-party licensing/providers. If partial compliance is allowed, which elements are mandatory? | There are no mandatory requirments, we seek the solution that can provide the best overall coverage of the needs expressed in the RFP. Our current solution provides demand, fare, revenue, and capacity (schedule) so we do expect that at minimum we will continue to have access to those elements and we intend to receive all elements in the request. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .