Amendment_000001.pdf

(x)

DTNH2217R00003

x x copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted ; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT

THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted , such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

x

DOT/NHTSA

Washington DC 20590 1200 New Jersey Ave SE

DOT/NHTSA

05/01/2017000001

13. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO MODIFICATION OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS. IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required) is not extended.is extended, Items 8 and 15, and returning

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended , by one of the following methods: (a) By completing

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

FACILITY CODE CODE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)CODE 6. ISSUED BY

PAGE OF PAGES

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.3. EFFECTIVE DATE2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO. (If applicable)

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

03/23/2017

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority) appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return __________________ copies to the issuing office.

ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Title: Human Factors

The purpose of this Amendment 000001 is to provide: 1)responses to questions; 2) correct, update or add sections B.4.1.1.1 Unloaded Hourly "Low" Rates, B.4.1.1.2 Unloaded Hourly

"High" Rates, B.6 Price Schedule, L.9, Attachments J.5 Small Business Subcontracting Plan, and J.6 Hypothetical Task Order; and 3) extend the Request for Proposal (RFP) From May 8, 2017 To May 22, 2017, 12:00 p.m., EST.

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR 16C. DATE SIGNED

(Signature of person authorized to sign) (Signature of Contracting Officer)

JANELLA DAVIS

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

NSN 7540-01-152-8070

Previous edition unusable

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9 A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect .

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 1 of 26 Human Factors Amendment 000001

Question 1:

Section B Cost/Price Information Breakdown, B.4.1 and B.4.2 on Pg. 3 – Guidance for the sections on Subcontract Labor for CPFF, Cost (no fee) and Cost Sharing Hourly Rates compared to Section L.10 Part I.B, Cost/Price Information Breakdown, pgs. 68 and 69 is not clear. Can you please confirm that hourly rates and associated backup listed on pages 68 and 69 for proposed subcontractors at the IDIQ level are not required but that if we are proposing subcontractors for the hypothetical task, we need to submit the rates and the backup?

NHTSA Response:

Yes, the hourly rates and associated backup listed on pages 68 and 69 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) are required for subcontractor personnel proposed for the Hypothetical Task Order.

Question 2:

Section B.6 Price Schedule, pg. 6: For the purposes of providing cost estimates what should be used as the presumed start date of the IDIQ master contract?

NHTSA Response:

An anticipated start date for the IDIQ contract is July 31, 2017. However, this date is estimated and subject to change.

Question 3:

Section L.10, Part I, Cost/Price Information, Section A. Cost/Price Information Assumptions, pg. 68. There is a reference to an attachment Exhibit E.1 for the cost proposal template. Is this a typo or can you please provide the exhibit?

NHTSA Response:

Please find attached to this amendment, Exhibit E.1.

Question 4:

Section L.9 Technical Proposal Instructions, pg. 65: Regarding the 1st paragraph of the Technical Proposal Instructions in Section L.9, can text used in tables, figures and captions be less than 12pt in size; if yes, what is the minimum font size in tables and figures that can be used?

NHTSA Response:

Yes, the text used in tables, figures and captions can be less than 12pt in size. The font size selected could vary based on the offeror’s discretion. However, the proposal should be easily readable and understandable for the reviewers and be similar to what would be expected in a final report of a research effort.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 2 of 26

Amendment 000001

Question 5:

Section L.9, Part III Corporate Experience and Past Performance, pgs. 66-67: Regarding the requirements discussed on pages 66 and 67 of the Solicitation, how many completed questionnaires are required?

NHTSA Response:

Three questionnaires per Offeror is required and shall be from independent sources.

Questionnaires shall be submitted directly to the Contract Specialist at nhtsaoam@dot.gov .

Question 6:

Section L.9, Part III Corporate Experience and Past Performance, pgs. 66-67: the government indicates (on page 67) that: ‘The completed questionnaires shall be from independent sources and submitted directly to the Contract Specialist.” Can the government clarify what is meant by “independent sources”? Specifically, would it be acceptable to submit more than 1 completed questionnaire from the Human Factors Division within NHTSA?

NHTSA Response:

An independent source is an organization or person that the proposed Offeror has worked with in the past. The independent source would submit to the Contract Specialist, the Past Performance Questionnaire with its review and comments of the proposed Offeror’s past performance. It would be acceptable to submit more than 1 completed questionnaire from the Human Factors Division within NHTSA. However, it is recommended that the questionnaires represent a variety of sources, if possible, to demonstrate the Offeror’s range of experience.

Question 7:

Attachment J.6, Hypothetical Task Order: can the government provide a total budget estimate for the Hypothetical Task Order?

NHTSA Response:

A total budget estimate will not be provided for the Hypothetical Task Order. Offerors should propose a total budget estimate based on their understanding of Task Order requirements.

Question 8:

Attachment J.6 – Hypothetical Task Order, C.4 General Requirements, pg.2: The Solicitation states that ‘it is important for the offeror to submit alternative approaches.’ Can NHTSA clarify what exactly is required of offerors? Specifically, does NHTSA require a separate technical plan (as detailed in Section C.5) and a separate cost proposal for each ‘alternative approach’ that we propose?

mailto:nhtsaoam@dot.gov

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 3 of 26

NHTSA Response:

The hypothetical Task Order include a Statement of Objectives to allow optimal expression of proposed approaches. Offerors are requested to propose their technical solution to achieving the objectives of the Task Order, based on their understanding of NHTSA’s requirements Only one innovative approach is required, requiring one technical and cost proposal.

Question 9:

L.9, Part I: Technical Plan and Capabilities states that “The Offeror shall also provide a technical plan of how the Offeror will complete the Hypothetical Task Order in attachment J.6.”. Attachment J.6 Section C states “The purpose of this hypothetical Task Order is to obtain a technical plan of how the Offeror will complete the order, which includes a discussion of problem identification, study and evaluation techniques, and reporting methodology.”. Can you confirm that the plan for the Hypothetical Task will be in Part I only, and that there is not a requirement for a separate Hypothetical Task Order?

NHTSA Response:

Two technical plans shall be submitted by each Offeror: the first technical plan shall describe how the Offeror intends to meet the contract objectives and the second technical plan shall describe how the Offeror will complete the Hypothetical Task Order.

Question 10:

Section B.6, Price Schedule on Pages 6-8. If we are proposing more than one staff member for a labor category, can we add additional rows for the unloaded hourly rates or should we blend the unloaded hourly rates for the staff members to only show one rate per category?

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA has established a range of rates for each specific Labor Category (i.e. a low and a high rate between which the Offeror may bill the government). With this structure, the Offeror may propose rates for multiple staff members under one labor category, providing that the rates remain within the range of high and low rates. Due to the change in pricing structure, the Offeror should not add additional rows for the unloaded hourly rates for multiple staff members listed under one category. The Offeror should not blend the unloaded hourly rates for the staff members to only show one rate per category.

Question 11:

The solicitation is structured for Cost or Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Will any contracts require Cost or CPFF pricing, or will the government be willing to accept commercial, fully burdened, fee included rates, either as a firm fixed price or time and materials pricing?

NHTSA Response:

The solicitation is structured to allow for Cost (no fee), Cost-Sharing, and Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Task Orders. Offeror’s may propose alternative contracting types for

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 4 of 26

NHTSA to consider. However, the benefit to NHTSA for considering/accepting alternative contract types should be specified.

Question 12:

B.2 –Kickoff meeting (not to exceed value)?

a. Kickoff meeting location?

NHTSA Response:

The Kick-off meeting not to exceed value will be specified at the time of a potential award and this amount will be established based on the Offeror’s proposed costs for this activity. The location of the kick-off meeting will be at DOT/NHTSA Headquarters in Washington, DC.

Question 13:

Labor Categories/Hourly rates, section B.6.1-B.6.5 (60 Month Contract)

a. Rates would increase between years 1-3 by cost of living, is this what is expected in these charts?

NHTSA Response:

Offeror’s may choose to include an escalation rate, where rates could begin increasing between years 2-5. All proposed escalation rates should be substantiated to verify the reasonableness of proposed charges.

Question 14:

Labor categories doesn’t include Project Management, is that excluded on purpose?

NHTSA Response:

The labor categories proposed by NHTSA are advisory. Offeror’s may propose labor categories that are appropriate for this requirement, based on their understanding of NHTSA objectives. However, the following three key personnel shall be included in Offeror’s proposals: Senior Technical Program Manager, Senior Researcher, and Senior Instrumentation Engineer. It is acceptable for a key person to be proposed as the Contract Project Manager. In addition, additional labor categories (outside of those listed in Section B) can be included in the proposal.

Question 15:

Objective, section C.2

a. Are there specific expectations about the test track

i. All-weather

ii. Incline/decline, etc.

NHTSA Response:

There are no specific expectations for the test track, as there will be a wide variety of research questions that are expected to have differing requirements. Test tracks used in any task order should be appropriate for the task order objectives.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 5 of 26

Amendment 000001

Question 16:

Are Simulators required or preferred?

NHTSA Response:

Simulation is one method to carry out any research project, and is appropriate for some research questions, but may not be appropriate for others.

Question 17:

Format of the RFP response

a. How/where to demonstrate overall experience

b. Relevant experience

Offeror’s shall describe in writing, their relevant experience in Volume I, Part III (Corporate Experience and Past Performance) of the Technical Proposal

Question 18:

Consolidated Status Report Description, Section F.4.3

a. Is this report cumulative to the year, month or total contract (reporting period)?

NHTSA Response:

The report would be cumulative to the starting date of the overall IDIQ. Once a project is completed, it would be indicated as such in the consolidated status report and continue to be listed in the report going forward as a completed project.

Question 19:

G.8 Purchase Approval

a. What is the time interval between award of Purchase Approval and start of the project-estimated two weeks?

Purchase approvals for items, including supplies and equipment, are task order driven.

In other words, purchase approvals will be provided at the Task Order level. As noted in Section B.2.1 of the RFP, the minimum obligation (and the first initial order from any resultant contract from this RFP) will be the kick-off meeting only.

Question 20:

What is the format for submitting bidders skills and all of the potential task orders?

Table or corresponding?

Offeror’s skills should be provided in resumes that describe the qualifications of its proposed professional and technical personnel (including any proposed subcontractor personnel).

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 6 of 26

The format for responding to any potential Task Order, will be specified in the form of a Task Order Request for Proposal.

Question 21:

B.6 Page 6. How do we calculate the Base Period, Contract Year Ceiling Amounts? Do we leave that line blank for now, since we do not know how many Task Orders we will be awarded?

Section B.6 will be completed at the time of proposed award. Please note that the ceiling amount for this Human Factors IDIQ Program is $35 million. This ceiling amount will be dispersed among all awardees for “each” contract performance period." The amount allocated to each awardee will vary based on the number and quality of offers received.

However, the combined awarded value, inclusive of all awards, will not exceed $35 million.

Please complete Exhibit E.1. Business Proposal Template for all contract years. This template also shall be used for the Hypothetical Task Order’s cost.

Question 22:

On page 4, the B.5 header states, “LABOR CATEGORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS – Key Personnel”, and includes the list of all labor categories.

Section L.9 (Part II) states “The following positions shall be considered key personnel for this requirement: Senior Technical Program Manager, Senior Researcher, Senior Instrumentation Engineer.”

Section M.3 (Factor 2) states “The Offeror will be evaluated on the quality of its proposed professional and technical personnel (including any proposed subcontractor personnel). This includes identifying qualified staff in the following key positions…” followed by a list of all labor categories.

Would NHTSA please clarify which labor categories are considered key?

The key personnel are as listed in Section L.9 (Part II): Senior Technical Program Manager, Senior Researcher, and Senior Instrumentation Engineer. The header listed in B.5 is a typographical error and should read: LABOR CATEGORIES AND

DESCRIPTIONS.

Question 23:

Section L.9 (Part III) states, “The Offeror shall provide the following information:

Completed questionnaires must be submitted by current (within the last three years) customers involving similar or related services. Questionnaires from commercial and/or

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 7 of 26

Government customers are acceptable. (See attachment J.2., Past Performance Questionnaire.)”

How many past performance questionnaires are required at a minimum?

See response to question #5.

Question 24:

Page 2, item B.2.2. states that the Kickoff-Meeting shall be “(inclusive of all costs and fixed fee as applicable).”

Page 68 under A. Cost/Price Information Assumptions states that “Offerors must fill out the price schedules in Section B (including the required kick-off meeting firm fixed price) …”

Should the cost of the Kick-Off Meeting be bid as CPFF or FFP?

NHTSA Response:

Page 68 of the RFP “including the required kick-off meeting firm fixed price” is a typographical error. The kick-off meeting shall be inclusive of all cost and fixed fee.

Question 25:

Page 47 lists an E.1. Business Proposal Template under Section J – List of Attachments that is not included with the solicitation. Will NHTSA please provide the attachment?

NHTSA Response:

See response to question #3.

Question 26:

SOW Section B.5.1, “Senior Technical Program Manager” (Page 4 of 75) Question: If multiple people qualify for this category, it is acceptable to have more than one person for this category?

NHTSA Response:

See response to question #10. It is acceptable to have more than one person proposed for Section B labor categories.

Question 27:

SOW Section B.5.2, “Senior Researcher” (Page 5 of 75) Question: In a sense of “combination” of education and experience, can one qualify for this category with strong fit in terms of expertise, but less so in terms of education, or vice versa? For example, a researcher having rich experience with driver performance studies, but with education in civil engineering.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 8 of 26

NHTSA will review all of the experience and education provided in order to determine if a person would fit in this (or any other) category. We recognize that some experienced personnel may not have advanced degrees, or perhaps started their career with a different focus or educational background than is typically associated with a particular expertise.

Question 28:

SOW Section B.5.3 “Associate Researcher” (Page 5 of 75) Question: How far can we project the “related field” of one’s education background with respect to psychology, Human Factors and medicine? For example, if one has received a PhD in biomechanics from mechanical engineering department, does it count as a related field?

NHTSA Response:

Knowledge and experience is at least as important as an exact degree. For example, a person could have a mechanical engineering degree, but have a tremendous amount of statistical expertise as part of their education. Supporting information is important to include in the proposal.

Question: Could you provide examples for research experience under the Associate Researcher category?

NHTSA Response:

Please refer to B.5.3 for a definition of an associate researcher. There are no additional definitions for this category.

Question 29:

SOW Section C.2., “Objective” (Page 10 of 75) Question: NHTSA expects a contractor to carry out experiments in a laboratory setting, on a test track, or on public roads. If all other conditions are equal, how much evaluative weight is given to a proposal with a combination of multiple experimental setting, over one under a uniform setting?

NHTSA Response:

The weights would not be based on whether or not a proposal indicated use of one, two or three different experimental settings, but rather how well the approach planned to answer the research questions. Sometimes a question can be better answered in a simulator using tightly controlled conditions while others can be better answered in an actual driving situation on real roads or test tracks. Real world data is critical for NHTSA’s ability to create new safety standards or guidelines; however, not every question or research approach needs to be on an actual road. NHTSA has historically

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 9 of 26 awarded task orders in the past to teams with innovative approaches that showed a deep knowledge of the subject matter, yet approached the study in novel or unexpected ways.

Question: If multiple experiments are designed under the hybrid setting (e.g. in simulation and on public roads), does NHTSA expect a contractor to establish a gauge to compare and interpret the findings from each setting? For example, the meta-knowledge of how much of the performance level in a simulation setting can transfer to the public road.

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA would expect contractors in task order proposals to indicate their understanding of the problem/question(s), their approach to answering or solving the problems or questions, and their ability to conduct the research and analyze the results successfully in the multiple settings. If one contractor/team demonstrates that ability while another does not, the team that clearly demonstrates that ability in their proposal may be awarded the task order effort.

Question: NHTSA lists an example of crash avoidance systems of interest. Will NHTSA provide a sample for novel system of interest for study, or does NHTSA expect a contractor to design and implement an appropriate system of interest for the sake of testing it? In other words, does NHTSA expect a contractor to lay out a research plan to build a system of interest?

NHTSA Response:

Requirements of each task order will differ based on the research questions being asked.

In some cases, a technology may have been developed but not yet deployed. Or a requirement may be to test out different levels of warning for a system, including combinations of visual, haptic, and auditory signals. In those cases, a system may need to be developed or a mockup of a system installed to be able to test out the various conditions required.

Question: NHTSA lists an example of crash avoidance systems of interest. Is the main goal of the current solicitation more geared towards novel systems/subsystems, or no preference between novel and traditional crash avoidance systems?

NHTSA Response:

Technology is evolving rapidly, so what may be novel today may not be novel next year.

While the typical task order in the past was often generally focused on specific characteristics of a system and how they work together to alert the driver, the research questions will determine what the focus of each future effort is. NHTSA does not endorse specific products, but instead issues guidelines, safety standards, and requirements to ensure that systems installed in vehicles are safe.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 10 of 26

Question: NHTSA expects a contractor to collect detailed information on how drivers interact with a variety of vehicle subsystems. In potential task orders, does NHTSA provide a set of ‘standard’ task scenarios, ‘average’ user profiles, and ‘normal’ level of automation? Or, does NHTSA expect a contractor to formulate a set of task scenarios, user profiles and level of automation by themselves?

NHTSA Response:

How NHTSA approach test scenarios (i.e. to either provide to Offerors or request Offeror formulation) will depend on the research questions and the expected output of the project as to what is provided, specified, or required in each RFP. Each task order may differ in specificity depending on the agency need and previous work on the topic.

Question: NHTSA expects a contractor to collect detailed information on how drivers interact with a variety of vehicle subsystems. Is a preferred form of information in this context, statistical/mathematical/cognitive models, or statements of interaction patterns based on descriptive statistics?

NHTSA Response:

This will depend on the research question and agency requirements for each task order.

In addition, NHTSA looks for innovative ways to solve complex questions/problems.

Question 30:

SOW Section C.4, “Potential Task Orders” (Page 11 of 75) Question: NHTSA lists a number of research topics for which Task Orders may be issued, including advanced technology, advanced driver assistance systems, driver emergency response, alcohol and drug impairment, in-vehicle information systems, ergonomics, vision and perception, etc. Is it expected that a successful applicant would have demonstrable expertise in all of the possible research topics listed, or is it sufficient to have demonstrable expertise in a portion of the listed research topics, knowing that such expertise would dictate the types of Task Orders for which the applicant may be eligible?

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA expects that the successful applicant(s) will have demonstrable expertise in the possible research topics listed. This experience may be obtained in-house or may be acquired via contracting/subcontracting team arrangements. Many of our research questions touch on multiple topic areas, so having expertise in multiple areas is often critical to the successful completion of a research effort.

Question: NHTSA lists a number of research topics for which Task Order SOW may be issued. Under the overall goal of understanding interaction with crash avoidance systems, all topics listed here assume certain form of driver/vehicle interaction with such system/subsystem?

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 11 of 26

Amendment 000001

NHTSA Response:

The majority of task orders will be issued under this IDIQ from the Human Factors/Engineering Integration division within NHTSA, where the (Driver-Vehicle Interface/Human Machine Interface (DVI / HMI) is critical to the effectiveness of the crash avoidance system.

Question 31:

SOW Section C.4, “Potential Task Orders” (Page 12 of 75) Question: NHTSA lists a number of different test environments under which research may be conducted, including test tracks, simulators, etc. Is it expected that a successful applicant would have access to all of the test environments listed, or is it sufficient to have access to a portion of the listed test environments, knowing that such access would dictate the types of Task Orders for which the applicant may be eligible?

An Offeror who has access to all possible test environments may be more beneficial to NHTSA compared to Offerors with access to a portion of the listed test environments.

However, Offerors would not be disqualified if they did not have access to all test environments. Because many task orders often require more than one environment to answer the research questions, there may be fewer opportunities to be selected for task order awards.

Question 32:

SOW Section C.5, “Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program” (Page 13 of 75) Question: NHTSA requires data reduction will follow the specification of performance measures in the standard library, and be ready before the first pilot study is executed. Are there particular expectations about generating and maintaining this standard library, or a contractor can create and comply with consistent protocols?

There are no particular expectations, although each Offeror should work with the NHTSA COR on any specific project to ensure that the data reduction approach is appropriate for the specific task requirements.

Question 33:

SOW Section D.2.1, “Text” (Page 14 of 75) Question: NHTSA regulates the text be delivered in Microsoft WORD 2016 format. The lower versions, e.g. 2013 or 2010, are acceptable?

Lower versions of Microsoft Office may be acceptable, only if those versions are compatible with Microsoft Office 2016.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 12 of 26

Question 34:

SOW Section F.3, “Place of Performance” (Page 17 of 75) Question: NHTSA regulates the contract will be accomplished at the contractor’s facility or other place designated by the contractor. In case of subcontract, should the contractor designate the subcontractor’s facility in the subcontractor plan?

NHTSA Response:

Yes. The potential facilities to be used in the accomplishment of this work should be specified.

Question 35:

SOW Section F.4.3, “Consolidated Status Report Description” (Page 19 of 75) Question: In item 11, NHTSA expects a report of problems that the contractor has experienced and proposed solutions. Is there a well-known set of problems that typically occurs in the report?

These can vary widely depending on the factors involved, so there is no specific list However, NHTSA expects each contractor to identify risks and problems that occur during each project (and based on experience), and to identify solutions. Problems will differ with every project, but common issues include weather delays, equipment delays, etc.

Question 36:

SOW Section G.10.1, “Contracting Officer’s Representative” (Page 28 of 75) Question: COR serves as the technical liaison with the contractor by providing technical review of task orders. Is it appropriate to assume that the COR(s) will have common background in Psychology, Human Factors, or other areas of engineering, just as the key personnel do? Or, should the contractor in its reporting spell out domain-specific knowledge and concepts?

NHTSA Response:

The designated COR will have the appropriate education and experience necessary to administer a contract of this nature. This includes having a background in Human Factors, Engineering, etc. However, the contractor should coordinate with the COR to determine the best approach for reporting required content.

Question 37:

SOW Section H.1.2, “NHTSA Review of Announcements or Publishing” (Page 31 of 75) Question: NHTSA regulates that the contractor shall not make public releases of information without the prior written approval of the CO. Are there well-known conditions in which the CO refuses to approve publication? For example, if the system of interest for testing is novel, does it complicate the approval process for publication?

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 13 of 26

The agency will assess each request to make a public release of information on a case-by-case basis. Although the agency will typically grant releases of information for the Contractor’s stated good reasons, we do not favor releases of information that precede the agency’s ability to review and approve contractor work or required deliverables.

Question 38:

SOW Section H.5, “Non-personal services contract” (Page 36 of 75) Question: NHTSA states that the contractor, contractor’s employees and subcontractors shall perform the services as “independent” contractors, not as employees of the Government, thus, free from supervision or control by any Government employee with respect to the method of performance. What is the best, recommended practice for having other federal government personnel as a part of the contractor/subcontractor? Should the personnel be also perceived as a member of “independent” contractors by NHTSA?

NHTSA Response:

Please note, that federal government personnel cannot perform work as a part of the contractor/subcontractor proposed team arrangement.

Question 39:

SOW Section I.3.4, “Indefinite Quantity” (Page 45 of 75) Question: In (b), the Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations. Are the multiple locations confined to the contractor’s facilities or the locations designated by the contractor, or could be a third place designated by the Government?

NHTSA Response:

I.3.4 (c) states that the Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations. The performance at multiple locations are confined to the contractor’s facilities or the locations designated by the contractor.

The places and format for delivery of all deliverables will be specified in Section F of any resultant contract and task order awards.

Question 40:

SOW Section K.1, “Representations and Certifications” (Page 48 of 75) Question: In this clause, the term offeror is used while in other sections the term contractor has been used. How are they different in their definitions?

NHTSA Response:

The term “Offeror” is used when referencing the solicitation and up to award. The terminology changes to “Contractor” after an award has been established to the awardee. It is common in NHTSA solicitations for Sections B-I to reference the term

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 14 of 26

Contractor (as these sections are incorporated in any resultant contracts) and K-M to reference Offeror (these sections with the exception of the Section K representations, are not incorporated in resultant contracts).

Question 41:

SOW Section L.3, “Type of Contract” (Page 61 of 75) Question: In the note, NHTSA anticipates a contractor may possess essential expertise independently, or through supplementary arrangement of contractor teaming or subcontracting arrangements. How is contractor teaming different than subcontracting arrangement? What characterizes contractor teaming and subcontracting arrangement, respectively?

NHTSA Response:

A contracting team arrangement differs from a partnership between a prime contractor and subcontractor in that all members of the team are equal parties to the contract.

Contractor teaming involves two organizations coming together to collaborate on a requirement as one team. However, for NHTSA awards, there must be an understanding regarding which team will be designated as the primary awardee/offeror. Whereas, for subcontracting arrangements, only the prime contractor has privity of contract with the government and can interact with the government. The prime contractor is also responsible for its subcontracting activities. Prime/Subcontractor relationships has been used historically for this type of work.

Question: In evaluating the qualifications of project personnel, do they evaluate better if a contractor possesses essential expertise independently rather than through supplementary arrangement?

NHTSA evaluates the information provided in each proposal to determine whether the team would be able to conduct the type of work expected. Simply put, we assess whether a contractor or team has shown they are qualified and capable of successfully completing task orders awarded under this IDIQ.

Question 42:

SOW Section L.9., “Part I: Technical Plan and Capabilities” (Page 65 of 75) Question: NHTSA expects the technical plan to include statements on technical capabilities. Should the capability statements be confined to the ones necessary to perform potential task orders listed in the Section C.4, or can it be extensive to cover a broader range of task orders. For example, one could use drug-induced tracking or advanced medical imagining systems to measure a driver’s level of drowsiness.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 15 of 26

Any information that would help the reviewers understand the technical capabilities of a team is welcome and encouraged. We hope to have teams that have the capability to conduct research on a wide variety of topic areas using innovative approaches.

Question: Do the capability statements include intangible research methods/frameworks developed by the key personnel?

NHTSA Response:

NHTSA will review all information provided.

Question: NHTSA expects the technical plan for the Hypothetical Task Order, including a discussion of problem identification, study and evaluation techniques, and reporting methodology. What does it mean by reporting methodology? Any examples could help clarify it.

NHTSA Response:

In general terms, a reporting methodology is often a summary of what reports are produced, when they are delivered, the level of detail to be included, data sensitivity issues etc. NHTSA is looking for how would the results of the task order be delivered to agency (this could be a combination of reports and briefings, for example).

Question 43:

SOW Section L.9., “Part II: Qualifications of Project Personnel” (Page 66 of 75) Question: NHTSA expects the offeror to classify its personnel according to the seven labor categories, including Senior Technical Program Manager, Senior Researcher, etc.

Should these categories also be used to classify personnel in the supplementary arrangement through contractor teaming or subcontracting?

NHTSA Response:

Yes, labor categories shall also be used to classify personnel through contractor teaming and subcontracting arrangements.

Question: NHTSA requires an individual resume is limited to 10 pages. Is there a particular format guideline for the resume, such as NIH or NSF format?

NHTSA Response:

No, there are no formats to submit resumes. However, the qualifications of proposed personnel must be clear.

Question: NHTSA requires tall proposed personnel to provide “evidence” that they will be available and committed to fulfill requirements specified for each associated labor category. What could count as such evidence for example?

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 16 of 26

NHTSA Response There is no specific guidance as to what would be considered evidence. NHTSA’s concern would be that personnel would be listed in the proposal, but due to other commitments, when a task order would be awarded, would either not have the time to conduct the work or be too involved/busy in other ongoing work or other projects outside of this IDIQ. If the personnel listed are the ones whose experience and background are used to make the case that the team is qualified and capable of performing the work, then NHTSA expects that those personnel would be the ones available and assigned to work on upcoming task orders.

Question 44:

SOW Section L.9., “Part III: Corporate Experience and Past Performance” (Page 66 of 75) Question: NHTSA expects the contractor to provide a list of recent projects completed that were “similar” to the ones in the solicitation. There could be a few variations to decipher this similarity, such as the similarity in the general topic of Human Factors, in the method of human-subject experiments, in the object of crash avoidance technologies, or in the target of behaviors and performance. Any guidance would be helpful to interpret this similarity.

NHTSA Response:

Any reports that indicate past experience in one or more of the topic areas listed in the solicitation would be used to support this requirement. The vast majority of projects under this IDIQ will be focused on human factors issues related to advanced technologies, so recent projects conducted in these areas would be most useful.

Question: Does the list of recent projects should count for all labor categories, or for key personnel (Senior Technical Program Manager, Senior Researcher, and Senior Instrumentation Engineer), or including subcontractors?

Reports and other supporting information will be used to provide experience and qualifications of any personnel that were involved in the projects listed (provided they were an author or co-author, or are mentioned in the published report).

Question 45:

SOW L.10. “Cost/Business Proposal Instructions” (Page 68/69/70 of 75) Question: In B.4. “Subcontracts/Consultants”, can the federal government personnel or organization as a part of the contractor team count as this category?

NHTSA Response:

Government personnel or organizations cannot be considered as a part of the contractor team.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 17 of 26

Question: In Part III (Small Business Subcontracting Plan), NHTSA expects the plan if in excess of $700,000. Does it imply no small business subcontracting plan is needed if under $700,000?

NHTSA Response:

The total estimated value for this requirement as mentioned in B.6 is expected to exceed $700,000. Therefore, NHTSA expects Offerors (large organizations) to submit a subcontracting plan in accordance with the requirements of Part III of the RFP. An Offeror’s failure to submit and negotiate an acceptable small business subcontracting plan or a statement supporting the absence of small business subcontracting opportunities shall render the Offeror ineligible for award of a contract.

Question 46:

SOW M.2 “Basis of Award” (Page 72 of 75) Question: NHTSA states it will award the contract(s) to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the “best value” after evaluation. In order to identify best value, does NHTSA intend to assign a rating for the evaluation factors in Section M?

NHTSA Response:

The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will evaluate and score each Technical Proposal;

this process involves assigning specific ratings (numerical, adjectival, etc.) to the technical factors. Costs will not be accorded any specific numerical rating.

Under this solicitation, the “best value” will be made using a method in which Technical Proposal information is more important than Cost/Business Proposal information allowing the Government to consider award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically acceptable rated Offeror.

Question: NHTSA states it will award the contract(s) to the responsible Offerors whose proposals represent the “best value” after evaluation. In order to decide the awardee, does NHTSA intend to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions?

NHTSA Response:

Entering into a competitive range and entering into discussions are not known at this time. Per M.1 (b), negotiations may be conducted with those Offerors whose responsive and technically acceptable proposals, combined with their cost proposals, place them in the competitive range. Negotiations will be conducted to the extent deemed necessary by the Government. However, Offerors are cautioned to submit proposals on the most favorable basis since the government reserves the right to make an award without discussions, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, instructions to Offerors-competitive acquisition.

All factors are listed in descending order of importance for this requirement.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 18 of 26

Question 47:

SOW M.3, “Evaluation Factors” (Page 73 of 75) Question: NHTSA states all factors are listed in descending order of importance. Does NHTSA intend to weight the evaluation subfactors in Section M3?

NHTSA Response:

See response to question #46.

Question: To evaluate qualifications of project personnel, NHTSA will evaluate each individual’s level of experience and the ability to meet the relevant labor category descriptions, as well as availability to the agency during contract performance. Are there established rubrics to gauge the professional and technical personnel?

NHTSA Response:

There are no established rubrics to gauge the professional and technical personnel.

However, the qualifications of project personnel will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria listed in M.3, Factor 2.

Question 48:

SOW M.4 “Cost/Business Proposal Evaluation” (Page 74 of 75) Question: Does NHTSA intend to perform price analysis to supplement cost analysis?

Cost will be evaluated in accordance with M.4. NHTSA may apply various proposal analysis techniques to determine if the Offeror’s proposed cost reasonably reflects that the Offeror understands and addresses the Government’s requirements.

Question 49:

SOW M.5, “Small Business Subcontracting Plan” (Page 75 of 75) Question: Could SB concerns be explained in more detail?

Small business concern means a concern, including its affiliates, that is independently owned and operated, not dominant in the field of operation in which it is bidding on Government contracts, and qualified as a small business under the criteria and size standards in 13 CFR part 121 (see FAR 19.102).

Small business sizes vary by industry. This designation may depend on the average number of employees or the average of annual receipts. In accordance with the RFP section L.5, General Information, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is 541712, which has a small business size standard of 1,000 employees for this procurement.

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 19 of 26

Amendment 000001

Question 50:

Attachment J.6, “Hypothetical Task Order” Question: The Purpose and Background stated in the Hypothetical Task Order are intentionally vague regarding the hypothetical technology being evaluated. To ease construction and readability of the hypothetical task order proposal, may the applicant select a specific technology to be evaluated under the hypothetical task order (e.g., auditory feedback from a lane-departure warning, etc.)?

NHTSA was intentionally vague to allow for innovative thought in how each team approaches the task order. The Offeror can approach the task order in the way they feel best indicates their knowledge of the topic and the way they generally approach a task order requirement.

Question 51:

Attachment J.6, “Hypothetical Task Order”, Section C.4 “General Requirements” Question: NHTSA states that “it is important for the Offeror to submit alternative approaches…”. Is it NHTSA’s intention that the applicant submits multiple project/research plans to demonstrate potential alternative approaches for the hypothetical task order, or should the applicant submit a single research plan describing the approach the applicant deems the most appropriate?

NHTSA Response:

The term “alternative approaches” has been corrected in the Hypothetical Task Order to “innovative approaches”.

It is up to the Offeror to submit the approach or approaches that best show an understanding of the type of work that might be required in the IDIQ and how they may approach a problem going forward. It is NHTSA’s intention that the Offeror submit two research plans describing the approach deemed the most appropriate to accomplish the requirements of the IDIQ contract and the Task Order. See NHTSA response #9.

Question: In data analysis plan, is it possible to refer to different sources of information (e.g. SHRP2) other than the direct data collection through simulation and field testing?

NHTSA Response:

Yes.

Question 52:

SOW Section, Part I. B. 1. Labor Rates/Categories (pp 68):

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 20 of 26

Question: Should contractors use the ceiling rates divulged in the Hourly Labor Rates with labor categories in the hypothetical proposal, or can the contractor choose other team members with the same labor category but lower pay?

NHTSA Response:

Offerors shall propose personnel with the qualifications to accomplish NHTSA requirements. The experience, education, and salary of personnel may fluctuate based on the specific skillset required to accomplish each activity. It is within the Offeror’s discretion to choose other team members, providing that the labor category descriptions in Section B are met.

Question 53:

SOW Section, Part I. B. 2. Productive hours (pp 68):

Question: Our organization’s cost accounting disclosure statement (DS2) describes how we account for annual and sick leave. Will this be sufficient to address “productive hours”?

NHTSA Response:

Direct labor hours are typically defined as actual work hours exclusive of vacation, holidays, sick leave, and other absences. Addressing productive labor hours does include a description of how annual, sick, and other types of leave are accounted for.

Question 54:

SOW Section L.9 (pp. 64-65): “The Technical Proposal should contain a cover sheet that clearly identifies the Offeror’s name, RFP number [DTNH2217R00003 and date] and a Table of Contents” and “The proposal page limit does not include the table of contents, list of figures/tables…” Question: Is it necessary to include the table of contents on the cover page itself?

NHTSA Response:

The table of contents should not be on the cover page. The statement is referencing what the Technical Proposal should include, which is a cover sheet and a table of contents.

Question 55:

H.3.2, Access to Sensitive Information (Page 34): We understand that an alien who has been lawfully admitted for employment could include foreign nationals who have obtained a visa or other authorization to be in the United States. Although not a foreign national restriction, it does appear to limit participating contractors to those who employ U.S. citizens or resident/non-resident aliens in the U.S.

NHTSA Response:

Section H.3.2. is a shortened version of a long-standing U.S. DOT clause under the Transportation Acquisition Regulation (TAR ¶ 1252.237-70 Qualifications of contractor employees (APR 2005)). (Please note this TAR clause is also incorporated by reference in the solicitation.) These clauses require that where access to Federal facilities or

RFP DTNH2217R00003 Page 21 of 26 sensitive government information is required to complete contract work, contractors must ensure that employees who need that access are either citizens of the United States of America or aliens who have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence or employment (indicated by immigration status). Although it is impossible to predict the exact nature of task orders that may be issued in the future under the contract, most task orders will not require a contractor to receive access to a Federal facility or sensitive information (as that term is defined in the TAR clause) to complete work. For a frame of reference, no task orders required this type of access under the preceding contract.

Question 56:

Per the solicitation we need prior approval from you, the contracting officer, to add a labor category not currently listed in Section B

NHTSA Response:

See response to question #14.

Question 57:

B.5, Labor Categories: May additional labor categories be included in the proposal? The RFP indicates they may be added “subject to prior written approval of the Contracting Officer.” It is not clear if they may be added at the time of the proposal submission.

NHTSA Response:

See response to question #14.

Question 58:

B.6, Price Schedule, pp. 6-8: Please confirm that the “Unloaded Hourly Rates” Offerors are being asked to provide are rates that are representative of costs we expect to incur (such that and in accordance with FAR 16.301, awardees will bill the cost amounts actually incurred), or if they are intended to be maximum ceiling rates per labor category.

NHTSA Response:

The unloaded rates are representative of what Offerors expect to incur.