Responses_to_Questions_(DTNH2216R00001).pdf

DTNH2216R00001

Title: Older Driver Rearview Video Systems Responses to Questions

Q1. Should Offerors assume normal daytime driving conditions for all participant tests?

NHTSA Response 1: Yes, Offerors should assume normal daytime driving conditions.

Q2. In the Cost Proposal Spreadsheet (Attachment_J.5_Cost_Proposal.xls), should the rate used be ‘fully burdened’?

NHTSA Response 2: Offerors shall refer to Section L.11 Cost/Business Proposal Instructions.

Q3. In section F.3.1 Deliverables/Milestones Schedule, the project timeline is presented. Are alterations to the schedule permitted provided the Contractor deliver all the deliverables as per the Government schedule?

NHTSA Response 3: Yes, alterations to the schedule are permitted.

Q4. B.2.1 ESTIMATED COST AND FEE AMOUNTS

Question: Can the government provide a Level of Effort estimate for this project?

NHTSA Response 4: It is the Government’s expectation that the offeror will propose their best solution to satisfy the Government’s requirement based on the Offeror’s assessments and understanding of the project.

Q5. L.9 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Question: Will the government consider excluding figures and tables from the 20 page limit in the Technical Proposal?

NHTSA Response 5: No. The 20-page limit for the technical proposal includes figures and tables.

Q6. L.10 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS PART III – CORPORATE

EXPERIENCE/ PAST PERFORMANCE

In Part III the government says: “The Offeror shall provide a list of recent projects completed that were similar to the effort described in this solicitation.”

Question: Can the government remove the requirement for the list of past performance to include only COMPLETED projects?

NHTSA Response 6: No.

Q7. C.3 OBJECTIVE

Question: Can the government provide additional information on the desired or expected training protocol and how it is expected to be administered / media? (i.e. PowerPoint slides, IMI, interactive simulation, paper-based, etc.)

NHTSA Response 7: The Offeror is free to recommend the training protocol and administration method it considers most appropriate for this task and population.

Q8. C.5.4 Finalize Backing Performance Data Collection and Analysis Design

This section states: Backing Performance Data. Each participant’s backing performance shall be evaluated by a driving rehabilitation specialist (DRS) who shall accompany participants during driving sessions that include multiple backing tasks.

Question: We feel that a Research Associate should be sufficient to accompany participants, provide required direction/supervisor, collect data, etc. The requirement for a DRS will increase the cost to perform the study. Will the government consider removing the requirement for a DRS to accompany participants during driving sessions? If not, will the government provide rationale for us to better understand the purpose for a DRS versus using a Research Associate and a description of DRS qualifications?

Or

Would NHTSA be willing to consider alternative approaches, whereby DRS collaboration comes in the detailed planning of the research procedures and performance evaluation methods, with data collection being conducted by researchers experienced in instrumented vehicle data collection?

Related to the question above, the Anticipated Labor Categories section (L.10 Part II) does not include any category that seems to be associated with a DRS.

NHTSA Response 9: Offerors may propose evaluation of driving performance by someone other than a DRS; however, the Offeror must demonstrate that the evaluator is capable of evaluating driver performance accurately and to simultaneously assure the safety of the participant, research staff, and any people and property potentially at risk should the participant make a driving error. The evaluator must also be acceptable to an IRB.

Q10. SOW section C.5.4 states the following:

Participants shall complete each task under four conditions (for a subtotal of 12 trials):

1. using mirrors with no obstacle,

2. using mirrors with an obstacle,

3. using an RVS with no obstacle, and

4. using an RVS with an obstacle.

QUESTION: It is clear that in conditions 1 and 2, there will be no RVS in the vehicle. For conditions 3 and 4, does NHTSA wish the driver to rely solely on the RVS (mirrors removed or obscured), or to use the RVS in combination with the standard mirrors? Does the same response apply to ‘Trial 13’?

NHTSA Response 10: Generally an RVS provides limited coverage of areas to the left and right of the vehicle; therefore, the driver would be expected to have access to standard mirrors in the RVS trials, including “Trial 13.”

Q11. For budgeting and scheduling purposes, can NHTSA confirm whether June 1 remains the projected start date for this project?

NHTSA Response 11: At this time, NHTSA cannot confirm whether June 1st will be the actual award date. June 1st is only an estimated award date.

Q12. Is it acceptable for data collection to evaluate the RVS training protocol to be performed by non-DRS personnel?

NHTSA Response 12: See response to Q8; the same applies to the training protocol.

Q13. Is it acceptable to use an after-market (instead of OEM) RVS to meet data collection requirements in this project if display properties meet the criteria stated in the NHTSA solicitation?

NHTSA Response 13: Yes.