9052 - Questions and Answers.pdf

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Procurement Office

605 Suwannee Street, MS 20 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Phone: (850) 414-4381

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DATE: December 14, 2023

BID No.: DOT-RFP-24-9052-SJ

BID Title: Development of an ITSFM GPS Mapping System

OPENING DATE: Thursday, December 21, 2023 @ 10:00AM

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS PROVIDED BELOW

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Procurement Office

605 Suwannee Street, MS 20 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450

Phone: (850) 414-4381

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS DATE: December 14, 2023

BID No.: DOT-RFP-24-9052-SJ

BID Title: Development of an ITSFM GPS Mapping System

OPENING DATE: Thursday, December 21, 2023 @ 10:00AM

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Question 1

I have a question regarding this RFP. In the introduction section it states “An assessment has been completed recommending the hardware for use in this process, as referenced in the document titled “NextGen ITSFM GPS Mapping Summary” however I do not see that document anywhere. Is that something you can send to me?

Answer 1 Please refer to Addendum No. 1 advertised within the Vendor Information Portal under this solicitation.

Question 2

We just received the addendum as it relates to the “NextGen ITSFM GPS Mapping Summary” and will likely have more questions. Will there be an extension to the technical question deadline due to this addendum just being released today December 7, 2023?

Answer 2 The hardware research document does not modify or change the proposed software creation/modification, no extension will be provided.

Question 3

ITSFM GPS Mapping Summary states “Windows mobile operation systems”, however Microsoft stopped supporting the Windows Mobile Operating a few years back and is no longer being supported in the GPS hardware and software. Will your mobile phones and tablets need to operate on Windows Mobile?

Answer 3 The Trimble app is the primary software for mobile devices and is COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf), please refer to the OS support of this mobile application.

Question 4

Integrate a laser rangefinder and an electronic compass (providing distance, inclination, and azimuth) to measure single reading or “one shot” offsets to ITS features by recording both a GPS position and an associated distance, inclination, and direction to the ITS feature. Trimble TerraFlex uses the distance, inclination, and azimuth to calculate the point offset and store the point feature in the new location.

Are you asking to store the associated distance, inclination, and direction as an attribute as well?

Answer 4 No. The final absolute (actual) position of the feature should be stored as coordinate value attributes in that feature.

Question 5

The RFP specifies the development of an API for data transfer between Trimble Connect/TerraFlex and ITSFM. However, the functionality requested in the RFP seems more suited to a cloud service that is using existing API’s to achieve the desired functionality and data synchronization operations. Our assumption is that the development of this custom cloud service is part of the intended scope of the RFP. Is that a correct assumption? Is it desired that this cloud service exposes an API or user interface to allow for configuration of operations (this can be an optional extension to the scope if preferred)?

Answer 5 The scope is to create the desired functionality and will utilize or modify the existing API functionality of the referenced software programs (ITSFM) and (Trimble). The FDOT envisions a middleware product created to perform the desired functionality.

Question 6

Site Id Name generation: “County Code shall only be included during concatenation for Site ID Names where the Mile Marker values reset at the County line”. Could you please explain this statement in more detail? Perhaps also explain the decision rules here on how we might know that the mile markers have reset? Please note: This question could be deferred until the implementation phase if it is too technical at this time.

Answer 6

This would equate to all State route roadways and County Roads, but will specifically exclude Toll roads (which also have a SR designation. This is the simplest way to explain where the County Code will be necessary and where it will not. SR and CR corridors, the mile marker values reset at a county line, however on toll routes the mile markers will not reset at any county line.

Question 7 The roadway name choice list is to be automatically populated based on the project shapeid. Is that spatial road name dataset available from FDOT sources via WFS or…?

Answer 7 That is the desired functionality. The road name dataset will be available.

Question 8

Where should road mile marker data be sourced from? Is this to be associated to the geo-feature attribute by the field crew, or spatially queried by the custom cloud service? If the latter, then should this occur during upload to ITSFM, or earlier (i.e., before field QA)?

Answer 8 This data is available in the currently utilized “base” mapping files (ITSFM Seed Files contain the .1-mile marker indications as an attribute and are spatially located along the respective corridor(s) in the mapping files).

Question 9 The ITSFM schema has been assumed to be stable (with the exception of field lookup codes) and so an automated mechanism for schema update of the projects is out of scope. Is this correct?

Answer 9 Correct. Addition of new features would require a new scope / effort for integration;

however, this process should be able to follow with the same framework as current features (standard process).

Question 10 Does FDOT have a software monitoring/alert system they would prefer for any exception alerts to be sent to? Additionally, would it be beneficial to expose some health monitoring endpoints?

Answer 10

Monitoring / alert notifications should be delivered to one or more email addresses.

Regarding health monitoring endpoints, yes, but would require some further clarification on how these endpoints will be utilized / function for monitoring functionality.

Question 11

Regarding this statement, “The API shall: … Sync with ITSFM every 30 mins…” The assumption is that this sync is between the Trimble Desktop software and ITSFM rather than between the mobile units and desktop. Which of the following operations should this sync do?

a. Update the read-only road mile marker layer based on the project extent shape

b. Update TerraFlex choice lists with any changes to ITSFM code lists

c. Associate, resize and transfer photographs to the ITSFM system

d. Upload any “completed” features from the TerraFlex Desktop system to the ITSFM system

e. Download any newly identified “In-Place” geo-features from the ITSFM system to TerraFlex

Answer 11

a. Once per project

b. If/when new code values are added, they should be available to the field mapping crew within 12 hours or less.

c. The photos will follow the transfer or sync of their associated equipment location or device sync schedule.

d. 30 minutes

e. 30 minutes

Question 12 Can you please confirm the assumption that ITSFM already supports the creation of the necessary geo-features (incl. Ducts and children of ducts, conduit groups) via a WFS API (or similar)?

Answer 12 The WFS functionality may not currently support this. However, there is an effort underway to insure this will be supported.

Question 13

There are some early project activities that are to be provided by or coordinated with FDOT (such as provision of AWS resources, creation of initial TerraFlex schemas, access to test environments), and there are a small number of processes that will need to be further defined as the custom API element is developed (such as specific QA workflows, means of marking a geo-feature as ready for uploading to ITSFM).

To facilitate these, we are hoping to incorporate time in the delivery schedule for collaboration meetings and further refining designs/specifications as part of implementation. To this end we would like to relax the schedule somewhat to ensure the best decisions are made rather than the fastest. Is the schedule an element of the project that can be flexible?

Answer 13

• provision of AWS resources, o No, as this may be provisioned quickly.

• creation of initial TerraFlex schemas, o This is mostly complete from my initial understanding.

• access to test environments) o The Development environment (Dev. Sandbox) exists and is available now.

• specific QA workflows, o These are defined and should only require technical process confirmation.

• means of marking a geo-feature as ready for uploading to ITSFM).

o The FDOT understands that provisioning of AWS resources is a straightforward process and can occur quickly. Furthermore, it is the FDOT's understanding that TerraFlex schemas, test environments, and QA workflows are already defined and/or nearly completed.

That said, the FDOT can be somewhat flexible with the schedule. However, due to limitations for support of the existing platform, the FDOT expects the project timeline as defined in the scope to be met as closely as possible.

Question 14 Project Management - the RFP specifies a particular PM reporting format. Is this to be performed by the vendor’s representative or will FDOT assign a PM?

Answer 14 There shall be a Project Manager designated by the vendor who shall provide project status reports to the FDOT Project Manager and/or their designee.

Question 15 We have questions regarding the ESCROW OF SOURCE CODE.

Answer 15 All questions were to be submitted by the Technical Questions due date of December 7, 2023, at 5:00pm.

Question 16 Performance Bond - Section 4, D (Page 32), states that a performance bond is required. Previously, on page 19, it says that a bond is not required. Which is correct?

Answer 16 A performance bond is not required for this project

Question 17 For a project of this size and complexity, what is the expected compliance overhead relevant to the “Chapter 60GG-1 F.A.C. - Information Technology Project Management and Oversight Standards”?

Answer 17

Per Chapter 60GG-1.001(1)(b)1., since this project is performing operational and perfective maintenance on an existing application to maintain "conformance with its originally intended specifications, functionality, and service level" this project is exempt from the Information Technology Project Management and Oversight Standards.

Question 18 Chapter 60GG-2 F.A.C. - Florida Cybersecurity Standards: For this project, will a cybersecurity audit be required, and if so, what is the expected timeframe for completion once submitted?

Answer 18 Although the vendor will not be subject to a future audit, the vendor may receive questions from the FDOT related to an audit appertaining to this project following the project's conclusion.

Question 19 Chapter 60GG-2.002 F.A.C. - Florida Cybersecurity Standards: Does this need to be developed for this project? If so, what is the expected timeline for review and approval of the plan?

Answer 19

The awarded vendor should be prepared to engage with the FDOT to perform a risk assessment with respect to Chapter 60GG-2.002 items ID.AM-1 through ID.AM-4, ID.BE-3 through ID.BE-5, ID.SC-3, and ID.SC-5. Following award of the project, the vendor shall initiate this engagement and arrive at consensus with the FDOT within 45 days.

Question 20 “Project Plan Scope Language” (Page 41): Does the specified delivery timeframe consider the development, delivery, and ratification of the Project Plan?

Answer 20 Refer to Answer 13.