Questions- COTP 091726.Finalv.docx

Questions: RFQ 70Z02326QNAV00002 (Captain of the Port Boundary Geospatial Dataset Production Support Services):

1. Factor 1 (Technical Approach) in the RFQ text references system architecture, cybersecurity, legacy migration, and ArcGIS Pro solution language that does not appear in the PWS data-production tasks (2.1–2.5). Please confirm which Factor 1 bullets apply to this acquisition, and whether offerors should map the Technical Approach primarily to the PWS deliverables and QA/PRS requirements. Factors have been updated. References pages 33-39. Yes. The revised factors address (1) understanding the objectives, tasks, schedule, and deliverables; (2) capability to produce the required data product and validate its accuracy, completeness, and usability; (3) quality control, defect tracking, acceptance testing, and documentation, and correction; and (4) technical and schedule risks and mitigation. Quoters should organize their technical approach around PWS Tasks 2.1–2.5, the deliverables in Section 8.0, the PRS in Section 9.0, and the PWS. The PWS excludes software development, system hosting, operations, production deployment, and modification of the Port Status application. Data protection and access obligations expressly included in the PWS still apply.

Source: Draft amendment Sections 9.0–11.0; PWS 1.2, 2.1–2.5, 4.1, 4.13, 8.0, 9.0 and A1.

2. Please confirm there are no optional CLINs or option periods beyond the single 6-month FFP base reflected in Attachment 2. Confirmed. The requirement is one firm-fixed-price base period of six months from award, with no optional CLINs or option periods.

Source: PWS 4.2; draft amendment 1.8; existing response in the questions document.

3. Harmonized Waterways Dataset / Explorer access: will the Government provide credentials and access timing as GFE after award, and is access required before the pilot (Deliverable 6) can begin?

The Government will provide access to the Port Status application and Harmonized Waterways Dataset Explorer, together with available source data and documentation, under PWS 5.0. Access and any required credentialing will be addressed at the post-award conference, held within five business days after award. The PWS does not establish a separate deadline for credentials or Explorer access. Access to the necessary source data is required to perform the crosswalk and demonstrate the pilot; planning and other work not dependent on that access may proceed. Full national production requires written COR approval of Deliverable 6.

Source: PWS 1.2, 2.1–2.2, 4.1, 4.6 and 5.0.

4. For the approximately 525 inventory items, what is the Government’s expected mix of 1:1 geometry vs merge/split/partial/supplemental geometries, or should offerors assume that mix is unknown until the baseline inventory is issued?

No verified percentage or count by geometry relationship is stated in the PWS. Quoters should account for the range of relationships expressly required: one-to-one, merge, split, partial-use, supplemental, and Government-adjudicated cases. The baseline inventory identifies the production items; Task 2.1 establishes their relationships through source review and the Source Crosswalk. Issuance of the inventory alone does not necessarily resolve that mix. The approximately 525 items are ports and waterways organized under responsible COTPs, not 525 legal COTP zones.

Source: PWS 1.2, 2.1–2.3 and A1.4–A1.5.

5. SF 1449 is required by the RFQ but was not posted as a SAM attachment with the RFQ/PWS/CLIN worksheet. Will the Government post SF 1449, or should offerors complete a standard SF 1449 with the quote? The Government has included SF 1449 with the amendment attachments. Quoters shall complete and sign the Government-provided form in accordance with the amended solicitation instructions.

6. Pilot gate: if COR approval of Deliverable 6 is delayed beyond Day 45, will the remaining deliverable dates be adjusted, or must the contractor still meet the Day 75 / 105 / 135 / 180 schedule inside the FFP? Day 45 is the pilot submission deadline. The normal Government review period is seven business days after receipt of a complete deliverable. Full production requires written COR approval. There is no automatic extension of the remaining deadlines if pilot approval occurs after Day 45. Deliverable 6 is due within 45 calendar days after award; that is the contractor’s submission deadline, not a guarantee of Government approval by Day 45. The normal review period is seven business days after receipt of a complete deliverable. Full national production may not begin until written COR approval. If review or access delays affect the schedule, the contractor should promptly document the impacts and proposed mitigation for the COR and Contracting Officer. Due dates remain as stated unless changed by written Contracting Officer direction or as otherwise permitted by the contract. The schedule includes Days 75, 105, and 135, but final publication-ready delivery is due no later than 15 days before the end of the six-month period—not Day 180.

Source: PWS 4.2, 4.9, 7.2–7.5 and 8.0.

7. Past performance: Factor 3 is Acceptable/Unacceptable for FAR 9.1 responsibility only. May offerors voluntarily include a short past-performance summary with the quote, or should PP references be omitted unless requested? Quoters may voluntarily include relevant experience or past-performance information in Volume I, Technical Approach and Capability, within its stated page limit. Factor 3 is price. Past performance is addressed separately on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination, rather than as a separately weighted tradeoff factor. Follow the final amended solicitation for submission and evaluation requirements.

8. Will imagery review be required to delineate or validate features? If so, will the Government provide the imagery access? There is no separate imagery-acquisition task or requirement to review imagery for every feature. Use Harmonized Waterways as the principal geometry source. Supplemental imagery must fit the approved methodology; Government imagery licenses should not be assumed. The PWS requires source comparison, geometry and topology validation, and manual cartographic/source-lineage review; it does not prescribe a separate imagery-acquisition effort or require imagery review for every feature. Harmonized Waterways data remain the principal geometry source. If imagery is proposed to support supplemental delineation or validation, its use and any resulting material geometry changes must be addressed through the approved methodology and Government decision process. PWS 5.0 provides for Government-approved supplemental data as applicable but does not promise access to a particular imagery service or license. The contractor furnishes software and licenses except for expressly Government-furnished resources.

Source: PWS 1.4.3, 2.2–2.4, 5.0, 6.0 and A1.3, A1.7.

9. Can the Government provide the baseline inventory items, or summary counts by feature type that will be reviewed and conflated under this program? The Government will provide the baseline Port and Waterway Production Inventory within five business days after award. It will establish the production quantity, anticipated to be approximately 525 items, and include at least the approved Port Status name and responsible COTP for each item. The supplied documents do not include a baseline attachment or verified summary counts by feature type for pre-award release.

Source: PWS 1.2 and 5.0.

10. Can the government provide GFI counts by feature type that will need to be reviewed?

No verified Government-furnished-information counts by feature type are provided in the supplied documents. The anticipated production quantity is approximately 525 inventory items; the number of source features may differ because an inventory item can correspond to one, multiple, or partial Harmonized Waterways features, or require supplemental geometry. Task 2.1 will document these relationships.

Source: PWS 1.2 and 2.1.

11. What format and fields will the baseline inventory contain? Will any items lack geometry or coordinates? The baseline inventory will contain, at minimum, the Government-approved Port Status name and responsible COTP for each item. The PWS does not specify its file format or guarantee that every inventory record will include coordinates or geometry. Missing geometry and ambiguous extents are expressly anticipated and must be addressed through source review and the Decision Register. The final output schema in A1.4 is a contractor-delivery requirement, not a guarantee that all those fields will be populated in the Government’s initial inventory.

Source: PWS 1.2, 1.4.3, 2.1 and A1.4.

12. For inventory items without geometry or coordinates, what source should the contractor use to determine the geographic extent? Use the Harmonized Waterways Dataset as the principal source of parent geometry and apply the Waterways Harmonization model. Where an inventory item requires multiple source features, partial use, or supplemental geometry, document the proposed extent, endpoints, sources, and relationship in the Source Crosswalk and Decision Register. Submit material ambiguities and conflicts to the COR for written technical resolution using Government-approved supplemental data where needed. Do not independently infer or alter legal COTP jurisdictional boundaries or materially change an inventory item without written Government approval.

Source: PWS 1.2, 1.4.3, 2.1–2.3 and A1.3, A1.5.

13. Can you provide an output feature list including the geometry types that should be included in the final unified output. The final feature list is the Government-approved baseline inventory. Required authoritative geometry is polygon; Government-approved multipart polygons may represent a single inventory item where appropriate and documented. Point and line feature classes are not required as final production outputs. The controlled feature-type categories include port, harbor, river, canal, channel, bay, waterway, anchorage area, or another approved type. Deliver an Esri File Geodatabase and GeoJSON export in WGS 84, EPSG:4326, with the required attributes, related tables, crosswalk, Decision Register, Validation Matrix, metadata, data dictionary, and validation documentation. Approximately 525 inventory items must be accounted for; the approved relationships govern their representation.

Source: PWS 1.2, 2.3, 2.5 and A1.2–A1.8.

14. Is this a follow-on requirement? If so, what existing data, documentation, scripts, or other materials will be provided to the awardee? This is a new requirement

15. Is there an incumbent contractor? This is a new requirement; therefore, no incumbent information is available

16. The RFQ requires a signed SF 1449, but a partially completed form was not attached within the RFQ. Will the Government provide the form, or should quoters use a blank SF 1449?

The Government has included the SF 1449 with the amendment. Quoters shall complete and sign that form in accordance with the amended solicitation instructions. See the response to Question 5.

17. The PWS tasks and deliverable do not appear to align with the solicitation evaluation criteria. The PWS lists five data development tasks with the resultant deliverable a dataset package; however, the majority of evaluation criteria aligns to systems and application environment elements (i.e., existing operating environment, technical constraints, and modernization goals; how the proposed solution will integrate with the Government’s existing ArcGIS Pro and Esri environment; proposed system architecture, data flows, interfaces, configuration management, and approach to maintaining compatibility with existing Government systems; and cybersecurity requirements identified in the PWS, including access controls, data protection, vulnerability management, system testing, and remediation.

Can the government please clarify how the two relate and/or explain if there are systems and application support requirements associated with this task that align to the evaluation criteria, or if offerors should expect an update to the evaluation criteria? The requirement is geospatial data production under PWS Tasks 2.1–2.5. The draft amendment revises Volume I instructions and Factor 1 to address those tasks, required outputs, validation, quality control, and technical/schedule risks. There is no separate requirement for application development, legacy-system migration, hosting, production deployment, or system operations under this PWS. Compatibility of delivered data with the prescribed formats and Government-approved acceptance tools remains required, as do the PWS’s expressly stated information-protection and access requirements. See the response to Question 1.

Source: PWS 1.2, 2.5, 4.1, 4.13, 4.14 and A1.2; draft amendment Sections 9.0–11.0.

18. In order to provide a better quality and more accurate responses to the solicitation, we kindly request at least a 2 day extension to the due date.

Due to the limited timeline, the Government is unable to grant a full 2-day extension. However, an extension is provided and quotes are now due 09/22/26 at 3pm EST.

19. May a single individual be proposed to fulfill more than one Key Personnel role (for example, Project Manager and GIS Analyst), provided that the individual independently satisfies the stated experience and qualification requirements for each position? Yes, provided the person meets each role’s qualifications and can perform the assigned workload. Identify the combined roles and allocation of effort without double-counting hours. Any required independent quality review must be maintained.

20. In Attachment 2, should Column C (“Fully Loaded Rate”) or Column D (“Discount Rate”) be used to calculate the extended labor cost? Please clarify how the two rate columns are intended to be used. Attachment 2 is for quoters to provide their supplemental pricing information

21. The RFQ states that quotations should consist of one attachment per part, but Volume II requires both PDF-format proposal materials and the completed Attachment 2 Excel workbook. Should Attachment 2 be submitted as a separate native Excel file? If so, should the detailed pricing narrative/breakdown be included in the Volume II PDF? Quotations shall be organized in volumes. Volume I will include non price information and volume II should be price information. For price, a PDF with the pricing narrative should be provided but the supplemental excel spreadsheet will be accepted as a second attachment.

22. The Technical Approach instructions reference legacy-system migration, deployment, transition, training, and knowledge transfer, while the PWS is focused on production of a publication-ready geospatial dataset. Should these elements be addressed only as they relate to the geospatial data-production workflow and delivery? The technical approach language has been updated

23. Can the Government provide an estimated distribution of the approximately 525 inventory items by anticipated crosswalk category (direct 1:1 existing feature, combination of multiple features, subdivision of an existing feature, supplemental geometry, or Government adjudication)? A verified breakdown is not available. Determining the relationships is part of Task 2.1. See Question 4.

24. Task 2.1 states, "The pilot shall demonstrate the Contractor’s application of the Waterways Harmonization model, use of existing parent geometry, creation of supplemental geometry, attribution, source lineage, topology validation, and decision-register process. The Contractor shall not begin full national production until the COR provides written technical approval of the methodology, schema, and pilot."

Can the demonstration/pilot be performed within ArcGIS Pro (desktop) or must it be demonstrated within the Harmonized Waterways Data Explorer? Similarly, for this data development effort, would having full data model functionality available in ArcGIS Pro constitute an acceptable production environment or is the definition of production limited to the Harmonized Waterways Data Explorer? Yes, provided the workflow meets the PWS model, validation, documentation, and delivery requirements. Production is not limited to the Harmonized Waterways Data Explorer. Full production still requires written COR approval of the pilot.

25. Personnel eligibility - citizenship. Does this requirement mandate U.S. citizenship for personnel, or is the ability to pass an SF-85 (Tier 1, Low-Risk) background investigation sufficient? Specifically, are Lawful Permanent Residents (green-card holders) who otherwise meet the qualifications and can pass the SF-85 acceptable for these positions? Personnel should have U.S. Citizenship status and be able to pass necessary background checks

26. Place of performance. Please confirm that performance from the contractor's own remote facilities is acceptable for this effort, with on-site engagement in the National Capital Region only as the Government specifically requires. If any on-site presence is mandatory, please identify the location(s) and the expected frequency or percentage of on-site work. Yes. Performance from the contractor’s own facilities is acceptable. No on-site visits are required. Applicable security, access, and delivery requirements still apply.

27. Government-furnished resources. Will the Government furnish the ArcGIS/Esri production environment, software licenses, and access (e.g., ArcGIS Enterprise/Portal, VPN) needed to integrate with the Government's system, and will it provide the baseline dataset and authoritative source data referenced in the PWS? Or is the contractor expected to provide its own software licenses and production environment? The contractor provides its own software, licenses, and production environment except for resources expressly identified as Government-furnished. The Government will provide the baseline inventory and available data, documentation, and access identified in PWS Section 5.0. Do not assume additional Government licenses, Portal, or VPN access

28. Would the Government clarify how quoters should address the system-oriented language in Section 8.0 and Factor 1 of Section 11.0, including references to legacy-system migration, modernization goals, system architecture, interfaces, deployment, and transition, given that the PWS limits the effort to geospatial data production, validation, documentation, and delivery and expressly excludes software development, system hosting, system operations, and production deployment? Please confirm that these requirements should be addressed in the context of the contractor’s geospatial data-production workflow, compatibility with existing Coast Guard/Esri systems, and transition of publication-ready data rather than development or deployment of a new software system. Yes. Address the data-production workflow, validation, documentation, compatibility, and delivery. No new software system or production deployment is required. See Questions 1 and 22.

29. Factor 1, Item 2 references integration with the Government’s existing ArcGIS Pro and Esri environment, “environmental datasets,” and other Government data sources. Would the Government identify the environmental datasets contemplated by this evaluation criterion, or confirm that this reference is intended to encompass the Government-furnished and Government-approved geospatial data sources identified in the PWS? Please review revised factor 1 language. This reference means the Government-furnished and Government-approved geospatial sources identified in the PWS. It does not establish an additional environmental-dataset requirement.

30. Would the Government clarify the intended scope of the cybersecurity evaluation under Factor 1, Item 5? Specifically, please confirm whether quoters should address the access-control, data-protection, backup/version-control, and information-handling requirements in PWS §§4.1 and 4.13, or whether the Government expects a separate vulnerability-management, system-testing, and remediation program for contractor-furnished infrastructure. Please review revised factor 1 language. Address the applicable access-control, data-protection, information-handling, and backup or version-control requirements in the PWS. No separate vulnerability-management, system-testing, or remediation program is added by the evaluation language. Applicable contract security requirements remain in effect.

31. The RFQ states that quotations shall consist of one attachment per part, while Volume II also requires a completed and signed SF 1449 and pricing in the Government-provided Excel workbook. Please confirm the required submission-file structure and whether it is acceptable to submit Volume I as one PDF, Volume II as one PDF containing the Business Introduction and required solicitation forms, and Attachment 2 as a separate native Excel file. See response to question 21

32. Please confirm whether the 10-page limit for Volume II applies only to the Business Introduction and pricing narrative, and whether the completed SF 1449, solicitation provisions/representations/certifications, and Attachment 2 Excel pricing workbook are excluded from that page limit. Correct. 10 page limit is for business introduction and pricing narrative

33. Section 8.0 instructs quoters to include all optional CLINs for each period of performance, and Section 11.0 includes an options-evaluation provision; however, the PWS identifies a single six-month period of performance and Attachment 2 contains only a “Base Period” worksheet. Please confirm that this requirement contains no option periods or optional CLINs and that quoters should price only the six-month base period. The resultant award is for one base period of 6 months.

34. Would the Government clarify the intended use of the “Fully Loaded Rate” and “Discount Rate” columns in Attachment 2? The existing formulas for the Project Manager and GIS Analyst calculate task costs using the Discount Rate column, while the Cartographer and additional-LCAT cost cells do not contain corresponding formulas. Please confirm which rate should be used to calculate extended labor cost and whether quoters should add formulas to the currently unpopulated cost cells or otherwise modify the workbook. Use the proposed fully loaded hourly rate, including any discount. Extended labor cost is the proposed hours multiplied by that rate. The revised Attachment 2 will use one rate column.

35. Section 8.0(c) states that the Excel spreadsheet shall include a detailed pricing narrative and breakdown and that other-than-certified cost or pricing data is required. Would the Government clarify (1) whether the detailed pricing narrative should be provided in Attachment 2, the Volume II PDF, or both, and (2) what specific other-than-certified cost or pricing data the Government expects beyond the labor, material, and other-cost breakdown required by the RFQ? See response to question 21

36. The PWS states that the Government-furnished baseline inventory, to be provided within five business days after award, will establish the contract production quantity, while the solicitation requires a firm-fixed-price quotation and the PWS currently anticipates approximately 525 inventory items. Would the Government provide the current expected inventory quantity or an anticipated quantity range and clarify how a material variance from approximately 525 items would be addressed under the firm-fixed-price contract? Base the quotation on approximately 525 items and the work described in the PWS. The baseline will be provided within five business days after award. Refer any material variance affecting scope, price, or schedule to the Contracting Officer for review and any necessary written contract modification. Issuance of the inventory does not itself change the contract price or deadlines.

37. The representative pilot is due within 45 days after award, must contain a Government-selected sample of approximately 15–25 inventory items, and must receive written COR approval before full national production may begin. Please clarify when the Government expects to identify the pilot items. In addition, if Government review or approval of the pilot extends beyond the stated review period, please confirm whether downstream production milestones will be adjusted as appropriate by the Contracting Officer. The Government will select approximately 15–25 pilot items. The pilot is due within 45 calendar days after award. Report Government review delays affecting later milestones promptly to the COR and Contracting Officer; deadline changes are not automatic.

38. For inventory items that require Government adjudication through the Port and Waterway Decision Register, please confirm that time awaiting a required Government technical decision will not be treated as contractor-caused schedule delay or a contractor performance deficiency. Where a pending Government decision materially affects a contractual milestone, please confirm that the Contracting Officer may adjust the affected due date as appropriate. Not automatically. Document the pending decision and its schedule impact, notify the COR and Contracting Officer, and continue unaffected work. The Contracting Officer will assess responsibility and determine whether a contractual adjustment is appropriate.

39. The RFQ states in Section 11.0 that the Government will evaluate past performance on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in support of the Contracting Officer’s responsibility determination under FAR Subpart 9.1; however, Section 8.0 does not identify a past performance submission requirement or request past performance references. Please confirm whether quoters should submit any past performance information with their quotations, or whether the Government intends to conduct this evaluation solely using Government databases, exclusions records, and other information available to the Contracting Officer. See response to question 7

40. The PWS identifies approximately 525 inventory items and establishes several possible Harmonized Waterways relationship types, including one-to-one, merge, split, partial-use, supplemental, and Government-decision cases. Because the relative mix of these categories will materially affect the level of manual GIS production, cartographic review, and quality-control effort required, would the Government provide its current estimate of the number or percentage of inventory items expected to fall within each relationship type? If a detailed breakdown is not available, would the Government provide an estimate of the percentage of inventory items for which existing Harmonized Waterways geometry is expected to be adequate without material modification? Providing this information would enable quoters to develop more accurate and competitive firm-fixed-price quotations and reduce the need for differing bidder assumptions regarding the anticipated complexity of the approximately 525 inventory items. A verified percentage is not available. Determining which geometry can be used and which requires modification is part of Task 2.1. See Question 4.