F1634411142_Addendum2.pdf

Florida Department of Transportation

RON DESANTIS

GOVERNOR

1109 S. Marion Avenue

Lake City, FL 32025-5874

KEVIN J. THIBAULT, P.E.

SECRETARY

Improve Safety, Enhance Mobility, Inspire Innovation www.fdot.gov

DISTRICT TWO

PROCUREMENT OFFICE

ADDENDUM 2

DOT-RFP-22-2007-JB

Gainesville Pedestrian-Bicyclist Connected Vehicle Safety Application

Demonstration

Addendum No. 2 hereby incorporates the following:

1. Provides Answers to Questions received related to the TERL Test Case.

The Respondent must acknowledge receipt of this Addendum by completing and returning to the Procurement Office. Failure to do so may deem the Respondent non-responsive.

Company Name

Signature

Date

Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in subsection 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.

Note: All written questions are reproduced in the same format as submitted by the Respondent.

Question Answer

1. Can you please confirm my understanding of the requirements:

• Span wire mounting is optional. We plan to mount the RSUs on the poles or on the mast

• The remote antenna mounting is optional. We have deployed the remote antenna mounting at the few intersection Tampa (see attached picture) proving that we have the ability.

Vast majority of the installation in Tampa and other Florida sites don’t use remote antennas. And Tampa is the only location in the USA that used the remote antenna installation. Yunex Traffic provided over 3000 RSUs in the last 4 years. With the a very short time left before testing it will be difficult to obtain all the necessary remote antenna components. In addition we only have one day to install all test components. I believe that deployment of the remote antennas does not add specific value for the product evaluation.

1. Span wire mounting is optional if the product can produce the desired results by being mounted on the poles. The remote antennae will be required and not an option.

2. Can you please let me know what poles at each of the two intersections we can use for mounting the RSUs and cameras?

2. The pole that shall be used will be the one closest to the traffic signal cabinet.

There is no space in the conduit from the furthest poles to access the cabinet. If this poses a problem for vendor performance, the vendor can use the furthest pole, but will have to provide their own means to cross the road to access the cabinet and controller.

3. Will we run tests for each test case independently? For example, will test cases 1.1 and 1.2 (as per Attachment G) be tested separately or together?

3. Each test case needs to be tested separately. Although similarities exist, there are unique objectives to be met per case and unique processes that demonstrate functionality for different hardware components and software modules.

4. For test cases 2.1, 2.2, 4.1 & 4.2 (as per Attachment G), please clarify what is meant by ‘mode’ in the vehicle information that is to be sent to the

RSU?

4. It was used in general terms. It could be any pertinent information in the BSMs as they are transmitted from the OBU to RSU.

5. Will a more detailed test plan be provided by the Department or should we assume the test plan will be a pass/fail of each of the bulleted items for each case’s listed objectives?

5. No; there won’t be another detailed test case. It will be a pass/fail for each case listed in the objectives.

6. Test cases 1.3 and 3.3 (as per Attachment G) imply the pedestrian test is to be done with the pedestrian detection being passive, is this a correct assumption or may we use a virtual push button as described in the ConOps as part of our mobile app solution?

6. It can be both passive ped detection from having the ped app working in the background on the PID or a virtual push in the pedestrian application running on the PID.

7. Can we get documentation on how to access the Gainesville Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS) referenced in Attachment D?

7. Not yet, pertinent details to CORS access will be provided to the selected vendor.

This is not required for the TERL testing.

8. Which RRFB branded model will be provided at the TERL? We want to ensure we have the correct interface.

Can we bring and use our own radio if desired?

8. According to Request For Proposal, DOT-RFP-22-2007-JB, Exhibit A, Scope of Services, Page 5 of 17, “The Vendor shall also provide an RRFB for testing at the TERL mid-block crossing.” The following link to the FDOT APL lists the approved RRFBs:

https://fdotwp1.dot.state.fl.us/ApprovedProductList/ProductTypes/Index/491

9. Will the tests be performed with 1609.2 security ON or OFF?

9. As vendor is going to provide RSU and OBU it is up to the Vendor. Preference is

ON.

10. Can we obtain map data for the TERL test locations (including the 2 signalized intersections and the 1 mid-block crosswalk)?

10. Attached are the MAP files from the 2 TERL signalized intersections. The vendor will have to verify, validate, and adjust to create their own MAP files. The vendors are not required to utilize the MAP files provided and are responsible to create their own MAP files. A MAP file for the 1 mid-block crosswalk will need to be created by the vendor.

https://fdotwp1.dot.state.fl.us/ApprovedProductList/ProductTypes/Index/491