Addendum 1 - QA .pdf

Ron DeSantis GOVERNOR J. Alex Kelly SECRETARY

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SOLICITATION TYPE: Request for Proposal (RFP)

SOLICITATION NUMBER: 26-RFP-002-KP

SOLICITATION TITLE: Florida Defense

RESPONSE OPENING DATE: 2/27/2026 @ 3:00 PM

ADDENDUM NUMBER: 1

ADDENDUM PURPOSE: Questions and Answers

ADDENDUM DATE: 2/20/2026

The Department hereby amends RFP No. 26-RFP-002-KP as noted within this Addendum.

For revisions, underlines represent additions and strikethroughs represent deletions. In the event of a conflict between previously released information and the information contained herein, the information herein shall control. The information in this addendum is hereby made part of this solicitation. All other terms and conditions of the RFP remain in effect.

FAILURE TO FILE A PROTEST WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 120.57(3),

FLORIDA STATUTES, OR FAILURE TO POST THE BOND OR OTHER SECURITY

REQUIRED BY LAW WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED FOR FILING A BOND SHALL

CONSTITUTE A WAIVER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA

STATUTES.

Any protest concerning this agency decision or intended decision must be timely filed with the Agency Clerk. Protests may be filed by courier, hand delivery, or U.S. mail at: Agency Clerk, Florida Department of Commerce, Office of the General Counsel, 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110, Caldwell Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4128. Protests may also be filed by fax at (850) 921-3230, or by email at agency.clerk@commerce.fl.gov within the time prescribed in section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 28-110, Florida Administrative Code (“F.A.C.”). It is the filing party’s responsibility to meet all filing deadlines. The Procurement Officer should be listed and copied in such filings.

The enclosed information has been provided for consideration in the preparation of your response to the above-mentioned solicitation.

This Addendum also includes the following:

mailto:agency.clerk@commerce.fl.gov

Ron DeSantis GOVERNOR J. Alex Kelly SECRETARY

Question Number

RFP Page Number, Section Number, Subsection

Reference

Question

Answers

1.

Pg. 13-14 / Sec. B / Subsec.

B.21 (contract period); Pg. 13 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.21; Pg. 19 / Sec. — / Subsec. Tab 2 (term discrepancy)

Contract term and schedule control: The RFP references a 12-month contract period but appears to list two different anticipated term windows (Apr 1, 2026-Mar 31, 2027 vs Feb 1, 2026-Dec 31, 2026). Can Commerce confirm which term window controls for planning, and whether the six-month deliverable timeline is measured from (a) contract execution date, or (b) the stated term start date regardless of execution timing?

The anticipated term window is Apr 1, 2026-Mar 31, 2027. The six-month deliverable timeline is measured from contract execution date.

2.

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (two-year requirement FY2024 and FY2025)

Two-year work product structure: The RFP requires analysis for both FY2024 and FY2025. Can Commerce confirm whether Commerce expects (a) two independent model runs and writeups (one per year), or (b) one integrated analytic package with embedded year-over-year comparison and consistent reporting tables?

Commerce requires two independent model runs and writeups (one per year).

3.

Pg. 28-29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.2-C.3; Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec. Deliverable 4; Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.1 and C.5.4 (REMI PI+ continuity)

REMI PI+ continuity and configuration package (applies to FY2025 study and FY2024 reanalysis):

1) How is Commerce defining 'modeling continuity' for this solicitation (e.g., same region definitions, model version/build, sector mappings, baseline year, calibration, scenario settings, and any required multipliers)?

Commerce requires the same type of economic model which was used in reports prior to 2024. It’s not defining modeling continuity solely in terms of model inputs.

4.

Pg. 28-29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.2-C.3; Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec. Deliverable 4; Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.1 and C.5.4 (REMI PI+ continuity)

REMI PI+ continuity and configuration package (applies to FY2025 study and FY2024 reanalysis):

2) Can Commerce specify the required REMI PI+ version/build and any required module/regional configuration?

Version 3.2 or newer.

DATE

5.

Pg. 28-29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.2-C.3; Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec. Deliverable 4; Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.1 and C.5.4 (REMI PI+ continuity)

REMI PI+ continuity and configuration package (applies to FY2025 study and FY2024 reanalysis):

3) FY2024 reanalysis: Should the reanalysis use the original FY2024 model configuration, or be run using the same common configuration used for FY2025 to maximize trend comparability? If a common configuration is required, can Commerce identify the authoritative configuration source?

The reanalysis must be run using the same common configuration used for FY2025 to maximize trend comparability. Commerce cannot identify the authoritative configuration source.

6.

Pg. 28-29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.2-C.3; Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec. Deliverable 4; Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.1 and C.5.4 (REMI PI+ continuity)

REMI PI+ continuity and configuration package (applies to FY2025 study and FY2024 reanalysis):

4) Will Commerce provide any configuration artifacts (e.g., model project file, parameter lists, run logs, screenshots)? If yes, can Commerce specify the intended format(s) and when they will be provided?

Commerce will not provide any configuration artifacts.

7.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1 and C.5.4 (references to 'State of Florida fiscal year');

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (FY2024 and FY2025)

Fiscal-year definitions and cutoffs:

FY2025: Can Commerce confirm the definition of 'State of Florida fiscal year 2025' (start/end dates and any data cut-off policy)?

The state of Florida fiscal year 2025 is defined as 7/1/2024-6/30/2025.

Commerce does not have a data cut-off policy for this effort.

8.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1 and C.5.4 (references to 'State of Florida fiscal year');

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (FY2024 and FY2025)

Fiscal-year definitions and cutoffs:

FY2024 reanalysis: Can Commerce confirm the definition of 'State of Florida fiscal year 2024' (start/end dates and any data cut-off policy)?

The state of Florida fiscal year 2024 is defined as 7/1/2023-6/30/2024.

Commerce does not have a data cut-off policy for this effort.

9.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1 and C.5.4 (references to 'State of Florida fiscal year');

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (FY2024 and FY2025)

Fiscal-year definitions and cutoffs:

Because many federal source datasets are reported on the Federal fiscal year (Oct 1-Sep 30), please also confirm whether the required reporting basis is Florida State FY (Jul 1-Jun 30), Federal FY (Oct 1-Sep 30), or a specified hybrid/bridging approach (and the required conversion/allocation rules)?

The required reporting basis for each data point is dependent on the source data. If a data source is based on federal data, it will be reported using a federal fiscal year.

If a data source is based on state data, it will be reported using a state fiscal year.

10.

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 'FY 2024 and FY 2025'; Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.1 FY2025 factor list; Pg. 46-47 / Sec.

Attachment I / Subsec.

assumptions/limitations

FY2025 'data year' clarification: Is the FY2025 analysis intended to reflect actual FY2025 activity as defined by Commerce, or (consistent with lagged federal datasets used in some prior studies) should the FY2025 publication be based on the most recently complete data year, potentially two years prior (e.g., FY2023)? If lagged data is expected, can Commerce specify (a) the authoritative data year, and (b) whether the governing fiscal-year convention is Florida State FY, Federal FY, or a required bridging method?

Commerce seeks the most recent full year data available at the time of analysis.

11.

Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 4 FY2024 reanalysis; Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 FY2024 and FY2025 framing

FY2024 reanalysis 'data year' clarification: Some stakeholders understand the previously published '2024' report may have relied primarily on FY2022-era federal datasets due to reporting lags. For Deliverable 4, can Commerce clarify whether the reanalysis is intended to (a) reanalyze the same effective underlying data year used in the published FY2024 study (e.g., FY2022), (b) reanalyze FY2024 as stated in the RFP, or (c) reconcile both by documenting the lag structure and applying a consistent fiscal-year basis?

Commerce will require the contractor to reanalyze the same effective underlying data year used in the published FY2024 study (e.g., FY2022).

12.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (Commerce responsibilities);

Pg. 4 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.5 (prior study links); Pg. 16-17 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.34 (rights to data); Pg. 35 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.18 (confidentiality)

Commerce-furnished materials and datasets:

1) Can Commerce specify exactly which 'previous studies' Commerce will make available to ensure methodological continuity (reports, brochures, technical appendices, workpapers)?

Yes, previous editions of the Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis

13.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (Commerce responsibilities);

Pg. 4 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.5 (prior study links); Pg. 16-17 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.34 (rights to data); Pg. 35 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.18 (confidentiality)

Commerce-furnished materials and datasets:

2) Beyond publicly linked PDFs, will Commerce provide supporting source files (e.g., tables behind charts, factor-by-factor inputs, intermediate calculations, region/county breakout tables)? If yes, in what formats (Excel/CSV/etc.)?

No, Commerce will not provide supporting source files.

14.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (Commerce responsibilities);

Pg. 4 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.5 (prior study links); Pg. 16-17 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.34 (rights to data); Pg. 35 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.18 (confidentiality)

Commerce-furnished materials and datasets:

3) Deliverable 4: Will Commerce provide the FY2024 'defense input dataset' or any baseline REMI input package used in the prior FY2024 study (payroll, spending, contracts, mappings), or should the Contractor reconstruct these inputs from public sources?

No, Commerce will not provide the FY2024 'defense input dataset' or any baseline REMI input package used in the prior FY2024 study

15.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (Commerce responsibilities);

Pg. 4 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.5 (prior study links); Pg. 16-17 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.34 (rights to data); Pg. 35 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.18 (confidentiality)

Commerce-furnished materials and datasets:

4) Will Commerce provide any restricted or non-public datasets for either year (payroll, contracts, spending, crosswalks), or must the Contractor source all inputs independently? If provided, can Commerce specify data-sharing method and any use/redistribution constraints?

The contractor shall source all inputs independently.

16.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (Commerce responsibilities);

Pg. 4 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.5 (prior study links); Pg. 16-17 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.34 (rights to data); Pg. 35 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.18 (confidentiality)

Commerce-furnished materials and datasets:

5) Can Commerce clarify whether any Commerce-provided datasets/workpapers are considered public records/releasable, and whether there are restrictions on publishing intermediate tables or input datasets as part of deliverables?

Commerce will not provide any datasets.

17.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1 and C.5.4 (factors a-m);

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (coordination)

Data templates and dictionaries: Will Commerce provide an inputs-by-factor (a-m) template and data dictionary defining required fields, units, geographies, and category lists (e.g., salary bands; contract types; expenditure types) to ensure consistent FY2025 analysis and FY2024 reanalysis? If yes, can Commerce specify the expected file formats and any required naming conventions?

No. Commerce will not provide data templates and dictionaries

18.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (coordination/review); Pg. 29- 30 / Sec. — / Subsec. (six-month timeline); Pg. 46-47 / Sec. — / Subsec. (evaluation emphasis on QA/QC)

Timing, version control, and change management for Commerce-provided inputs:

1) When will Commerce provide the 'previous studies' package, any input datasets, crosswalks, and any REMI configuration artifacts (e.g., at kickoff or within X days of execution), given deliverables are due within six months of contract execution?

Commerce will provide the 'previous studies' package within three business days of contract award.

19.

Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (coordination/review); Pg. 29- 30 / Sec. — / Subsec. (six-month timeline); Pg. 46-47 / Sec. — / Subsec. (evaluation emphasis on QA/QC)

Timing, version control, and change management for Commerce-provided inputs:

2) If Commerce-provided data/assumptions are updated during execution, what is the required version-control process (data freeze date, change log, re-run expectations), and how will schedule/acceptance be handled if updated inputs require rework?

Commerce does not envision changes to the data/assumptions during the contract period. Any necessary changes to the scope of services would be handled through a formal contract amendment in accordance with the terms of the Contract.

20.

Pg. 35 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.18 (confidentiality and safeguarding); Pg. 46-47 / Sec.

Attachment I / Subsec.

evaluation emphasis on confidentiality controls

Data protection and confidentiality requirements: If Commerce provides any non-public or sensitive data (e.g., granular payroll, contractor identifiers), can Commerce specify minimum data management controls (encryption at rest/in transit, access controls, subcontractor access rules, retention/disposal), any incident reporting expectations, and whether the Commerce-provided confidentiality statement is the only required instrument or whether additional data-use restrictions apply?

Commerce will not provide the contractor with non-public or sensitive data.

21.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1 and C.5.4 (factors a-m);

Pg. 46-47 / Sec. Attachment I / Subsec. evaluation emphasis on data sources

Preferred/authorized data sources: Can Commerce confirm whether Commerce has preferred/authorized source systems for each factor (a-m), or whether the Contractor may propose sources (with validation) so long as continuity and defensibility are maintained?

The contractor may propose sources (with validation) as long as continuity and defensibility are maintained.

22.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. — / Subsec.

scope statement and factors;

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.1- C.2 (purpose/background)

Definition of 'defense industry in Florida': How should 'defense industry' be defined for inclusion/exclusion (e.g., by NAICS/PSC, prime awards, place of performance vs vendor location, employment location, HQ vs establishment, tenant activities), and should the same definition be enforced for FY2024 reanalysis and

To maintain continuity of data with previous reports, please see the excerpt from the 2022 Economic analysis:

FY2025 study to preserve comparability? “For the National Guard figures, we rely on the state report on National Guard spending in Florida and calculate associated employment totals utilizing those figures and then distribute those spending flows per the BEA estimates on employment and compensation.

However, these data are not parsed by federal workers, who are associated with the Military/National Guard/Coast Guard, etc. To obtain those figures, we utilized a ratio of federal military salaries to federal civilian salaries and federal military payrolls to military and civilian employees in order to calculate the share of federal workers in a particular region that is associated with the DoD. For the Coast Guard, much like with the federal military, we rely on REMI employment and compensation estimates and their respective distributions. To estimate the impacts, we impute employment data, not salary data.

Salary data are, however, a good benchmark for the employment totals.

On the procurement side, we obtained data from the

USAspending.gov (maintained by the U.S. Department of Treasury), which hosts every contract for DoD and DHS. We separate DoD expenditures for the National Guard and “other” to get procurement totals for National Guard and federal military. We then utilize Coast Guard procurement flows through DHS to estimate Coast Guard procurements that flowed into the state. Those data are available for each contract at the individual contract level. We aggregate those dollar values up to the county level by NAICS (North American Industry Classification System) code to get the dollar values that flow into each industry sector in each county. We then converted those dollar values into employment totals and utilized a matrix, which allowed us to calculate jobs based on spending in each six-digit industry sector. Then, we aggregate those job totals up to the two-digit NAICS sector. To ensure that the data were comparable with the employment data utilized previously, we utilized direct job impacts in each sector at the county level. For transfer payments, we calculated those totals at the county level for each county in the State of Florida for the Coast Guard, National Guard, and military. Those data include retirement payments to military retirees, inclusive of the National Guard.

Also included were Coast Guard retirement payments, medical benefits, etc. We include, in this category, payments made through the DVA to disabled veterans for pensions, health care, etc. We then enter those data into the REMI PI+ model for every county in the State of Florida and for each segment of impacts, yielding a 3x3 matrix of impact outputs. We detailed impacts for military, National Guard, and Coast Guard for salaries and wages and base operating support contracts (encompasses the total installation operational footprint), off-base procurement contracts, and transfer payments.

Those, in turn, are summed together to estimate the total economic impact across the various types of spending and for “defense activities” as a whole.”

23.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. — / Subsec.

(statewide, regional, county results); Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (statewide/regional/county impacts)

Regional geography definitions (both years): The deliverables require statewide, regional, and county results. What are the official regions (Commerce-defined regions, regional planning councils, or other), and will Commerce provide the authoritative region-to-county mapping? For FY2024 reanalysis, must regions match FY2025 exactly?

The regions are defined in the 2022 Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis on page 57. For the FY2024 reanalysis, regions must match FY2025 and 2022 exactly.

24.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(l) and C.5.4(l) (installation inventory); Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. — / Subsec. scope includes 'all active military installations'; Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (coordination)

Installation coverage and attribution (both years):

1) Will Commerce provide the authoritative list of 'all active military installations' for Florida, and how should tenant units, detachments, and joint bases be treated?

Yes, Commerce will provide the authoritative list of 'all active military installations’ for Florida.

Tenant units, detachments, and joint bases, where enabled by the data, should be analyzed separately.

25.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(l) and C.5.4(l) (installation inventory); Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. — / Subsec. scope includes 'all active military installations'; Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (coordination)

Installation coverage and attribution (both years):

2) FY2024 reanalysis: Should coverage mirror the published FY2024 study's installation list, align to the FY2025 installation list, or use a Commerce-provided harmonized installation list of record for both years?

The FY2024 study's installation list must align with the FY2025 installation list.

26.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(l) and C.5.4(l) (installation inventory); Pg. 31- 32 / Sec. — / Subsec. scope includes 'all active military installations'; Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (coordination)

Installation coverage and attribution (both years):

3) Will Commerce provide required crosswalks (installation-to-county, installation-to-region) and unit attribution rules?

No, Commerce will not provide required crosswalks and unit attribution rules.

27.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(a) (FY2025 payroll by salary level)

FY2025 - Payroll by salary level: For 'Total payroll (Active-Duty Military and Civilians, Federal Reserves, National Guard and Coast Guard, by salary level),' what salary banding scheme is required (GS bands, military paygrades, civilian categories, percentiles, or bespoke buckets), and what compensation components must be included/excluded (e.g., allowances such as BAH/BAS, bonuses, locality pay)?

To be determined by contractor, general guidance is not to deviate from previous analyses.

28.

Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.4(a) (FY2024 reanalysis payroll by salary level)

FY2024 reanalysis - Payroll by salary level: Can Commerce confirm what constitutes 'payroll' for FY2024 (including whether to include allowances such as BAH/BAS, bonuses, locality pay), the required salary banding scheme, and whether FY2024 treatment must match FY2025 for comparability?

See answer to question 27.

29.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(b)-(c); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(b)-(c) (expenditures and contracts);

Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4 double-count prevention considerations

Non-payroll expenditures and contract values - taxonomy, attribution, and double-count prevention (both years):

1) Non-payroll local expenditures: Is there a required taxonomy for 'type' (e.g., PSC/NAICS/category set) and how is 'local' defined (county/region/Florida)?

See answer to question 27.

30.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(b)-(c); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(b)-(c) (expenditures and contracts);

Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4 double-count prevention considerations

Non-payroll expenditures and contract values - taxonomy, attribution, and double-count prevention (both years):

2) Contracts by type: What contract-type grouping is required (FAR contract types; product vs service vs construction; prime vs sub), and should the analysis use award value, obligations, or expenditures/outlays?

See answer to question 27.

31.

C.5.1(b)-(c); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(b)-(c) (expenditures and contracts);

Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4 double-count prevention considerations

Non-payroll expenditures and contract values - taxonomy, attribution, and double-count prevention (both years):

3) Attribution: Should expenditures and contract values be attributed by place of performance, vendor location, or a specified hybrid method?

Expenditures and contract values shall be attributed by place of performance.

32.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(b)-(c); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(b)-(c) (expenditures and contracts);

Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4 double-count prevention considerations

Non-payroll expenditures and contract values - taxonomy, attribution, and double-count prevention (both years):

4) Double-count prevention: What rules should be used to avoid overlap between non-payroll expenditures and contract values when both may represent procurement outlays?

See answer to question 27.

33.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(d); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(d) (inflows)

Estimated inflows to contractors (both years): How is Commerce defining 'inflows' (what financial flows are being estimated), how domestic vs international inflows should be identified/estimated, and whether inflows should be attributed by place of performance, vendor location, or a hybrid rule?

Commerce defines 'inflows' as other defense spending not related to a-c and e-m on the list of data points associated with Deliverable 4.

34.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(e); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(e) (retiree spending)

Retiree spending (both years): For 'value of retiree spending,' is the desired measure direct retiree pay spending in Florida only, modeled indirect/induced effects, or both? Can Commerce specify required assumptions (residency rates, local share, consumption patterns) and whether assumptions must be consistent between FY2024 reanalysis and FY2025?

Commerce seeks retiree pay spending in Florida only modeled with both indirect and induced effects. Commerce is not specifying required assumptions; however, it will require assumptions be consistent between the FY2024 reanalysis and FY2025.

35.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(f); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(f) (student trainee payroll/spending)

Student trainee payroll and spending (both years): Which programs qualify (e.g., ROTC stipends, DoD internships, National Guard tuition-related stipends, etc.), and does Commerce have preferred data sources or definitions to ensure consistency across years?

Any related trainee payroll and spending data that is available to the contractor. Commerce has no preferred data sources or definitions to ensure consistency across years.

36.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(g); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(g) (reserve spending flows)

Reserve spending flows (both years): Can Commerce clarify which components must be counted (drill pay only, training TDY, procurement, installation O&M attributable to reserve centers, etc.) and any required allocation rules to counties/regions?

Any related Reserve spending flow data that is available to the contractor. Commerce has no preferred data sources.

37.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(h); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(h) (education and medical spending)

Military educational and medical spending (both years): Can Commerce clarify what must be included (e.g., in-state MTF operations, TRICARE spending, VA spending if applicable, education benefits, dependent programs) and any required method to prevent overlap with other factors?

Commerce has not defined what elements are included in the umbrella terms “military educational and medical spending.”

38.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(i)-(j); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(i)-(j) (spouse/dependent employment)

Military spouse and dependent employment (both years): Is the expected output employment counts, wages/earnings, labor-force participation, modeled economic contribution, or a combination? If modeled, what linkage to REMI sectors is required, and should treatment match between FY2024 reanalysis and FY2025?

It's Commerce’s desire to have spousal/dependent economic contributions denoted separately from other forms economic contribution. Commerce prefers the analysis of FY2024 and FY2025 to be consistent.

39.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(k); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(k) (technology transfers)

Technology transfers (both years): How is Commerce defining 'technology transfers' for valuation purposes (e.g., patents/licensing, SBIR/STTR commercialization, university tech transfer, DoD lab transitions) and specify whether Commerce expects quantitative valuation, qualitative narrative, or a hybrid. For FY2024 reanalysis, should the valuation method match FY2025, and are any specific valuation methods required?

It's Commerce’s desire to have technology transfers economic contributions quantitatively valuated separately from other forms economic contribution.

Commerce wants the analysis of FY2024 and FY2025 to be consistent.

40.

Pg. 31-32 / Sec. C / Subsec.

C.5.1(l); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(l) (servicemember inventory)

Servicemember inventory (both years): For the inventory of total number of servicemembers at each Florida installation, should the output be headcount only or include dependents;

and should it be point-in-time, end-of-year, or an average over the fiscal year? Can Commerce specify any preferred data sources?

Dependents should be included but reported separately. Data used should be the last period reported for a full fiscal year. Commerce cannot specify any preferred data sources.

41.

C.5.1(m); Pg. 32 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.5.4(m) (categorical regional analysis)

Categorical economic impact of geographic regions (both years): How is Commerce defining categories must be reported in the 'categorical economic impact analysis of geographic regions,' and confirm the official region boundaries to be used for both FY2024 and FY2025?

The categories for analysis are items listed as a-l for deliverable #4. The regional boundaries are defined in the 2022 Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis on page 57.

42.

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (economic impacts); Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec. Deliverable 4; Pg. 29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 2 (report content)

Required outputs and decomposition (both years): Can Commerce confirm which output measures must be reported (e.g., jobs, labor income, GDP/GRP, output, state/local tax impacts) and whether results must be presented as direct/indirect/induced effects (or REMI-equivalent components) for FY2025 and for the FY2024 reanalysis?

Commerce defers to the contractor’s decisions regarding necessary data points for the purpose of completing the analysis.

At a minimum, the following data points will be analyzed:

• Procurement spending

• Jobs (numbers)

• Salaries

• GDP/GRP

• Transfers

• Population data

For examples, please see previous edition of the Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis.

43.

Pg. 29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 1 vs Deliverable 2 (final report language)

Deliverable structure (FY2025): Deliverable 1 requires submission of a 'final Economic Impact Analysis Report,' while Deliverable 2 requires a designed report (<=350 pages) for publication. Can Commerce clarify whether Deliverable 1 is (a) a standalone technical report distinct from Deliverable 2, or (b) Deliverable 2 is the formal report deliverable and Deliverable 1 refers to completion of the underlying analysis?

Commerce requires Deliverable 2 to be the formal report and Deliverable 1 the underlying analysis (underlining analysis, data and methodology).

44. Pg. 29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 2 (<=350 pages)

Report length limit (Deliverable 2): For the '350 pages or less' cap, does the page count include appendices, methodological notes, county/region tables, references, and graphics? Can Commerce specify any required layout or sectioning conventions?

The report length of 350 pages or less includes appendices, methodological notes, county/region tables, references, and graphics. Commerce does not specify any required layout or sectioning conventions. It’s left to the discretion of the contractor.

45.

Pg. 29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 2 and Deliverable 3 (review and approval); Pg. 34 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.14 (review timeframes)

Review/approval cycles and turnaround: How many draft/review cycles should be assumed for the report and brochure, what is the review/approval workflow (Commerce vs FDSC Executive Director), and what is the expected feedback turnaround time for each cycle?

Commerce cannot provide an estimated timeline for review and approval.

46.

Pg. 29 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 3 (6,000 brochures)

Brochure print production (Deliverable 3): Can Commerce specify required print specs (size, paper weight, finish, color, binding/fold), proofing requirements, delivery quantities, shipping destinations, and required delivery date(s) for the 6,000 copies?

The brochure is 8” X 8.5” folded in half for a final dimension of 4” X 8.5”. The paper used is semi-glossy and stiffer than normal copy paper.

Print is in color and the destination will be Commerce headquarters in Tallahassee. Required delivery date(s) is TBD.

47.

Pg. 30 / Sec. — / Subsec.

Alternate No. 1 (GIS/interactive tool)

Optional GIS/interactive tool (Alternate No. 1): Can Commerce specify minimum functional requirements and constraints, including hosting/security requirements, user roles and access controls, data refresh cadence, required deliverables (source code, data layers, admin guide), and acceptance criteria?

Commerce cannot specify any requirements for the optional GIS/interactive tool.

48.

Pg. 46-47 / Sec. Attachment I / Subsec. evaluation criteria (assumptions/robustness); Pg.

28-29 / Sec. — / Subsec.

(analysis rigor)

Sensitivity analysis requirement: Are sensitivity analyses required or optional? If required, which variables must be stress-tested (e.g., payroll, contracts, multipliers, inflows assumptions) and what scenario ranges should be used?

The sensitivity analysis is optional.

49.

Pg. 29-30 / Sec. — / Subsec.

(deliverable timelines and late deductions); Pg. 13-14 / Sec.

— / Subsec. (contract terms)

Late delivery deductions: The RFP describes a 1% per business day deduction for late deliverables due within six months of contract execution. Can Commerce confirm (a) whether deductions are capped, (b) whether any cure period applies, and (c) whether the deduction is applied per deliverable based on the deliverable's line-item cost (including whether Deliverable 4 is treated the same way as Deliverables 1-3)?

Commerce confirms deductions are not capped and there is no automatic cure period for late deliverables. However, pursuant to Section C.15, Commerce may, in its sole discretion, agree to a Corrective Action Plan prior to assessing financial consequences.

The 1% deduction is applied to each deliverable separately.

50.

Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 4 (reanalysis objective and continuity); Pg.

28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (trend comparability)

FY2024 reanalysis objective and method alignment: Can Commerce confirm whether the FY2024 reanalysis should (a) replicate the published FY2024 results as closely as possible using the same structure/assumptions, or (b) align FY2024 to the FY2025 model configuration/definitions to maximize trend comparability (even if FY2024 results change). If alignment is required, should the Contractor hold methods constant and only update FY2024 inputs, or fully re-baseline FY2024 under the FY2025 configuration?

The FY2024 reanalysis should align FY2024 to the FY2025 model configuration/definitions to maximize trend comparability (even if FY2024 results change). As a result of this requirement, the contractor should or fully re-baseline FY2024 under the FY2025 configuration.

51.

Pg. 4 / Sec. B / Subsec. B.5 (prior FY2024 links); Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec. Deliverable 4

FY2024 'report of record' confirmation: Can Commerce confirm the exact FY2024 report/brochure that the reanalysis is intended to align with (the official baseline for comparability), including the publication date/version that should be treated as the report of record?

The official and current FY2024 'report of record' for the brochure and full report are provided below.

Brochure:

https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida- Military-and-Defense-Economic- Impact-Summary.pdf

Full report:

https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Military-and-Defense-Economic-Impact-Summary.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Military-and-Defense-Economic-Impact-Summary.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Military-and-Defense-Economic-Impact-Summary.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Military-and-Defense-Economic-Impact-Summary.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf

Defense-Industry-Economic- Impact-Analysis.pdf

52.

Pg. 28 / Sec. C / Subsec. C.2 (need for enhanced specificity/continuity); Pg. 29- 30 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 4

FY2024 study improvements: The RFP notes the prior FY2024 EIA identified a need for enhanced specificity and continuity.

Can Commerce specify the deficiencies/desired improvements the reanalysis must address (e.g., missing categories, regional breakdown issues, installation coverage gaps) and how those improvements should be documented in the Deliverable 4 report?

The improvements Commerce seeks are more focused on continuity issues. Commerce has specified the use of a Remi model to help ensure the results of the analysis are comparable to previous results.

53.

Pg. 29-30 / Sec. C / Subsec.

Deliverable 4 (electronic report of findings)

Deliverable 4 report expectations: Can Commerce specify the expected format and level of narrative detail for the FY2024 reanalysis findings (standalone report vs technical memo), expected page range (if any), and whether it must be publication-ready or primarily technical/for internal use?

The expected format and level of narrative detail for the FY2024 reanalysis findings is a standalone report and it will be for internal Commerce use.

54.

p. 3 Section B.5 Introduction to the Procurement

Should the cost of REMI PI+ be included in the cost proposal or will the Department of Commerce provide a license?

The competing contractors will include the cost of REMI PI+ in their Attachment B for the cost proposals. Commerce will not provide a license.

55.

p. 28 Section C3, Deliverable No. 1

"Contractor shall, in coordination with Commerce, conduct an economic impact analysis..." What is the nature of 'coordination'? Will Commerce facilitate the communication with, and gathering of, data from the various military establishments? Will Commerce provide a Single Point of Contact for this purpose?

Commerce’s expected contractor coordination will consist of (but not limited to) the following methods conducted by the designated Commerce Contract Manager:

• A “kickoff” meeting (in-person or MS Teams)

• Monthly progress check meetings https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf

• Ad hoc meetings if problems or questions need to be addressed

• Meeting(s) related to report and brochure drafts (if needed separately from monthly meetings)

• Phone calls and email correspondence as needed.

• A close out meeting

It’s expected the contractor will gather data from the various military establishments.

56.

p. 29 Section C3, Deliverable No. 4

"Contractor shall conduct a REMI PI+ reanalysis for Florida fiscal year 2024 defense data to ensure modeling continuity and trend comparability with 2025 findings, as specified in Section C.5.4." Will the Department of Commerce make available the data and models used for the 2024 report?

Commerce is providing the 2024 data report located at https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida- Defense-Industry-Economic- Impact-Analysis.pdf Commerce will not provide native model files or raw input datasets.

57.

p. 32 Section C.5.A Contractor’s Optional Task

"Contractor shall utilize GIS software or a similar internet accessible, manipulatable data analysis tool to create visual mapping of installations..." Will the Department of Commerce provide a license for any GIS software or should the license cost be included in the cost projections?

The contractor should include the GIS license cost in the cost projections. Commerce will not provide a license.

58.

p. 29 Deliverable No. 5 Reprint Brochures

Assuming a FFP contract, will this effort be considered an option and should we present it that way in the proposal?

Yes, consider the reprinting of brochures as an option. While Reprints are an "option," the price must be included in the Grand Total for evaluation.

https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf https://selectflorida.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-Florida-Defense-Industry-Economic-Impact-Analysis.pdf

59. Pg 29, Section C, Subsection C.3. (Deliverable No. 3)

Can the selected firm subcontract the printing of the brochures, if yes, does the subcontracted entity need to be explicitly mentioned in the proposal? Further are there any specific criteria that should be followed for this requirement (e.g., paper quality, size, color)?

Yes, the selected firm may subcontract the printing of the brochures and the entity does not need to be explicitly mentioned in the proposal.

60. Pg 29, Section C, Subsection C.3. (Deliverable No. 4)

In regard to "Reanalysis of FY 2024 Economic Impact", are the results from this exercise meant to be reflected in the 2025 report? OR is this meant to represent a check to ensure that we are able to replicate the results provided in the 2024 report?

The "Reanalysis of FY 2024 Economic Impact" is to be done utilizing the model and methodology used for the FY 2025 report.

61. Pg 29, Section C, Subsection C.3. (Deliverable No. 5)

Regarding Reprint Educational / Informational Summary Brochures. Would you like to see a cost proposal that shows the cost per print of x amount of brochures OR would you like us to include withing the fixed price proposal a set amount of prints? Also, is it expected that there will be attribution to the consultant on these brochures?

Commerce requires prospective contractors to provide a unit price for reprints in increments of 1,000 as specified in Attachment B (Cost Proposal). This should not be included in the fixed price for Deliverable 3 but listed separately as requested in the Cost Proposal.

62. Pg 30, Section C, Subsection C.3. (Alternate No. 1)

Is there a specific platform that you use for GIS mapping? Will this be added as a layer to existing maps

FloridaCommerce does not have a GIS platform for this data currently.