FWC 23.24-04 A#1 Final.pdf

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Commissioners Rodney Barreto Chairman Coral Gables

Steven Hudson Vice Chairman Fort Lauderdale

Gary Lester Oxford

Albert Maury Coral Gables

Gary Nicklaus Jupiter

Sonya Rood St. Augustine

Robert A. Spottswood Key West

Office of the Executive Director Dr. Thomas H. Eason Acting Executive Director

Jessica Crawford Chief of Staff

850-487-3796

850-921-5786 FAX

Finance and Budget Office

(850) 488-6551

Mana gin g fish and wildlife resourc e s for their long-te rm well-b ei n g and the benefi t of peopl e .

620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Voice: 850-488-4676

Hearing/speech-impaired:

800-955-8771 (T) 800 955-8770 (V)

MyFWC.com

DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2024

ADDENDUM NO.: 1

RFP NO.: FWC 23/24-04

RFP TITLE: CORAL REEF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM

UPDATE: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

The enclosed addendum has been issued for consideration in the preparation of your response to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) Solicitation No. FWC 23/24-04, “Coral Reef Decision Support System”.

All responses to the subject solicitation must be received no later than 2:00 PM (ET) on Tuesday, February 20, 2024.

A response received after the exact time specified will not be considered.

Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), 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. Written notices, formal requests and proceedings must conform with the requirements set forth in Chapter 28-110, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Protests must be filed with the Purchasing Office, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 1875 Orange Avenue East, Tallahassee, Florida 32311-6160 within the time prescribed in Section 120.57(3), F.S. and Chapter 28-110, F.A.C.

Sincerely, Ruth Heggen FWC Procurement Manager

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 2

BEGIN ADDENDUM #1

Item #1 –Questions and Answers Question #1: Regarding 7.14 “The Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner decision support tool provides a reasonable initial template for the development of the CDSS. It includes the primary components; database, user interface, tools to help build a decision, and a way to preserve the decision process.”

a. Would you please provide additional information about the Florida

Reefs Marine Planner tool such as systems or requirements documentation, its data model, functionality, and/or primary use cases.

This information will help us better understand your recent experience with decision support tools.

Answer #1: The Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner Final Report is available at the link:

https://ourfloridareefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FULL-OFR-Report- FINAL_5.4.18_PDF.pdf

Relevant sections to the decision support functionality and use cases are outlined in Section 2.2.1.1.15 through 2.2.1.1.17.

1. The Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner: To allow for visual representation of the most current data and information on the coral reef ecosystem to all stakeholders.

2. The Our Florida Reefs Coastal Ocean Use Survey: To allow for additional knowledge and expertise from the broader community (local and national) by collecting opt-in survey data on coastal recreation activities.

3. The Our Florida Reefs Decision Support Tool: To provide Community Working Group (CWG) members with a tool to conduct real-time analysis and planning, and to model management options.

Question #2: Regarding decision making or adaptive management framework preferences:

a. Question – Can you describe your experience with, and any preference for, specific decision making or adaptive management frameworks?

b. For example, have you worked with the Conservation Standards (old name: Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation) or Structured Decision Making (SDM)? If so, what is the Commission's interest or appetite for using a framework like these as the foundation for this new Decision Support System (DSS)?

Answer #2: We have not selected a specific decision making or adaptive management framework for the CRDSS. While the CRDSS was envisioned to be developed in the context of various decision support frameworks, we expect the CRDSS to be used by a wide variety of stakeholders and for a range of conservation issues. Thus, the design of the CRDSS should be iterative, adaptable, and modular to allow for users and teams to utilize the decision-making frameworks they are comfortable and familiar with.

https://ourfloridareefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FULL-OFR-Report-FINAL_5.4.18_PDF.pdf

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 3

Question #3: The Respondent Acknowledgement Form (RFP p. 1) asks for an “Authorized

Signature (Manual).” Does that need to be a “wet” signature in ink, or is it acceptable if that is a printed digital signature from an authorized representative of the bidder company?

Answer #3: An irrefutable digital signature such as VeriSign or Adobe is acceptable.

However, the Acknowledgement Form cannot be altered in any way.

Question #4: Do you have a preference for hosting on-site or in Azure?

Answer #4: The preference is for an externally hosted Cloud environment. Azure is utilized by FWC and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection so Azure would be preferred, but any cost-effective alternatives would be considered.

Question #5: If this is hosted in Azure, does the Azure hosting cost come out of the $850K budget?

Answer #5: Yes, hosting cost does come out of the budget.

Question #6: Do you intend to provide a full development environment and/or production mirror?

Answer #6: This aspect has not been determined and will be decided upon once a vendor is selected.

Question #7: Is the budget for this intended to be an even split across the 5 years or is it acceptable to utilize a larger portion of the funding in the first year to get the application set up?

Answer #7: It is acceptable to utilize a larger portion of the funds in the first year to get the application set up. However, funding availability and total budget is contingent upon yearly state appropriations to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Question #8: Do you anticipate any workflow requirements in the tool? If so, can you please describe them?

Answer #8: A high-level workflow may follow the steps:

• Determine a question

• Select relevant data layers

• Define the parameters

• Conduct the decision process

• Save and export results

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 4

An example from the Marine Planner: ‘The Planning Unit Filtering Tool allowed Community Working Group (CWG) members to identify data features that were important to a given recommendation, set parameters on that feature (usually a numerical value or an include/exclude command), and view areas in the region that met their specified features and parameters. This allowed a data-based area of interest to be identified with the potential to meet the goals and objectives of their recommendations.’

Question #9: Do you know how many factors that you will require to evaluate as part of the sample task? If not, is it reasonable to put a limit of 10 factors on the decision support system during the sample task?

Answer #9: The purpose of the sample task is for the evaluation of the Cost element of the proposals. The written product shall provide a detailed budget and total cost for the sample task. There is no minimum or maximum number of factors that will be evaluated as part of the sample task. Respondents should do their best to propose a budget for the example 10-month timeframe to satisfy the sample task requirements. The budget should reflect a workplan that addresses items in the System Requirements Matrix and can be successfully completed within the timeframe.

Question #10: Do you anticipate having all of the data sets stored locally in the CRDSS? If not, can you provide anticipated external sources and format?

Answer #10: It is anticipated that the CRDSS can handle both local and external sources of data. We assume that a local database will house most of the raw/cleaned/derived GIS data products. System options should also include the ability for users to pull in external data sources from online services, personal files, etc. These may include KMLs, REST services, shapefiles, and the like.

Question #11: Does changing the formula/variables for the decision support system calculation modifications need to be available via a web interface or can it be done in the database?

Answer #11: Calculations should be done on the web side (on-the-fly). Users should have the ability to modify certain variables, including changing weights associated with datasets relevant to their decisions.

An example from the Marine Planner: …'if (the) Community Working Group (CWG) wanted to understand areas where mooring buoys could be placed to help reduce impacts to reefs; they could choose boater intensity, water depth, and areas with reef as three data features, and set parameters such as high boater use, depths less than 50 feet, and planning units with at least 50% reef

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 5

habitat. The filter would then identify the areas in the coastal region that met those parameters.’

This would all occur through the web interface.

Question #12: Is the Users / Decision Makers role the only public role that is envisioned for the system?

Answer #12: Yes.

Question #13: Does all of the work to develop this system need to be done in the US?

Answer #13: FWC is not aware of any statutory prohibition for contracting with companies working outside the US unless they are being given access to personally identifiable information. FWC cannot contract with companies on the Convicted Vendor List or on the Scrutinized Companies List. If the question is referring to employees who work outside the US for a US based company, that is acceptable. However, data/servers cannot be hosted off US soil. (See Question 27 below.)

Question #14: Do you use office 365 internally and if so, would you be open to utilizing MS

PowerBI for dashboards/reports?

Answer #14: The stakeholders for this tool are from federal, state and local agencies, non-governmental organizations, universities, and members of the community.

End users could be non-FWC, such as the general public and NGOs. Licensing needs to be factored into the tool that is developed. It can’t require end users to have the necessary licensing or to be Office 365 users.

Question #15: Are we permitted to recreate attachment D and E if we need additional space to prepare a complete response?

Answer #15: No. You can attach additional pages if necessary.

Question #16: Is FWC familiar with Agile software development methodologies and would those methodologies be accepted for this project?

Answer #16: Yes, those methodologies would be accepted.

Question #17: Has FWC identified their project team for the management, requirements gathering, testing, and feedback phases of the project and are they prepared for the time commitments necessary to participate in those phases?

Answer #17: Yes, FWC has identified a project team and is aware of the time commitments.

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 6

Question #18: Since open source is a requirement of this project, can you please clarify what, if any, interaction is expected with ESRI ArcGIS Enterprise or ArcGIS Online databases, services, or APIs?

Answer #18: The goal of having open-source development for the tool is to ensure that users will have access to the CRDSS without needing to consider costs like licenses, credits, or tokens. We also do not want to tie access to the CRDSS to ArcGIS Online or a similar system. However, we are open to cost-effective options. It is anticipated that the CRDSS can handle both local and external sources of data. We assume that a local database will house most of the raw/cleaned/derived GIS data products. System options should also include the ability for users to pull in external data sources from online services, personal files, etc. These may include KMLs, REST services, shapefiles, and the like.

Question #19: Is there an offline functionality component to the CRDSS? If so, please describe what functionality would be required for offline use.

Answer #19: Offline functionality is not currently a requirement of the system.

Stakeholders may request access to survey tools from an offline environment, but those options would be discussed with the awarded vendor prior to development and feasibility would be determined. However, outputs/results of the decision process (such as maps) should be independent of the tool and available for export in a universal format.

Question #20: Please describe the intended functionality for mobile use. Would this be strictly viewing data and information? Or would this include data entry and/or running data analysis tasks?

Answer #20: The CRDSS should be accessible from any device with a web browser and connection to the internet. We anticipate that the main mobile/tablet functionality would be viewing data/maps/information. The platform should be designed to be responsive and adaptive to different screen sizes. We understand that many features and tools such as data entry and/or running analyses are better suited to desktop or laptop use, due to the complexity of the task being performed. It is expected that a desktop or laptop will be the main mode of access to the system itself.

Question #21: The requirements for the CRDSS include presenting many data layers and analysis results. Does the scope of work for the contractor include identifying and developing those data layers and products? Or will those be provided by

FWC?

Answer #21: Data layers will be identified, aggregated, developed, and provided by FWC.

There may be analyses requested by stakeholders that would have to be built

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 7

into the functionality of the tool by the awarded vendor. Adding additional analytical functions to the system could take place throughout the course of the contracted term.

Question #22: Please provide the participants and questions with responses from the

Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference Call.

Answer #22: A copy of the list of Pre-Proposal Call Attendees has been uploaded as a separate document We do not have a written list of the questions asked and answers provided during the call. As noted on the call, any verbal questions which a vendor would like to become part of the Question & Answer addendum must be provided in writing.

Question #23: Scope of Work, Section 4.4, Geodesign. How should the system leverage advancements in Geo-design tools—such as interactive spatial planning platforms, GIS-based analysis for coral reef conservation, and frameworks for engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process—to support the overarching goals of coral reef preservation and restoration initiatives

Answer #23: The CRDSS is envisioned as an adaptable and modular platform that can aggregate data from a variety of sources and types, and there should be basic spatial planning, GIS analysis, and stakeholder engagement tools included in the system; or ways to incorporate them along the development process.

However, we do not expect that the CRDSS will be processing raw or real-time data. Instead, the CRDSS should provide users a ‘one-stop-shop' for coral reef data and tools to leverage the pre-existing data.

Question #24: Scope of Work, Section 4.5 Resilience Assessment. Could you specify which resilience assessment tools or methodologies it envisages integrating into the CRDSS? T. Given the variety of available methodologies, such as ecosystem-based adaptation approaches, resilience metrics analysis, and predictive modeling for climate change impacts, pinpointing the preferred tools would be instrumental. How do these tools intersect with the FWC's goals for sustainable coral reef management, particularly in areas of ecological preservation, restoration efforts, and climate adaptation planning?

Answer #24: The CRDSS should not be the tool that will be used by stakeholders and researchers to conduct resilience analyses or predictive modeling. The CRDSS should instead provide a platform that can assimilate the results of these types of analyses (conducted by outside researchers) into existing analyses, geospatial layers, and decisions. We expect that these types of analyses, models, and approaches will continue to grow in use on Florida’s Coral Reef, so the design of the CRDSS should ensure that new and different data are easily accessible and well-integrated.

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 8

Question #25: Scope of Work, Section 5.4. Could you clarify if there are specific testing protocols or benchmarks that need to be met? We seek to ascertain whether the Commission has predetermined criteria that the system should be evaluated against or if there is flexibility for us to design a comprehensive testing framework that aligns with industry best practices.

Answer #25: FWC is open to developing testing protocols or benchmarks with the awarded vendor, or designing a framework that aligns with industry best practices.

FWC’s Office of Information Technology has developed an accepted application testing standard which may also be modified to fit the expectations of this project. A period of time will be committed to collecting stakeholder feedback to develop the look and feel of the user interface.

Question #26: System Specification and Design Consideration, Section 7.5. Could you specify the desired features for interactive graphics within the CRDSS, particularly focusing on dynamic maps, interactive charts, and real-time data visualization tools? How important are customizable dashboards, data filtering, and visualization of predictive analytics for enhancing user engagement and analytical capabilities?

Answer #26: Graphics should be simple, interactive, and intuitive. We do not want the CRDSS to conduct advanced analytics within the tool, and it will not process any raw or real-time data. The CRDSS should provide a platform for users to interact with existing pre-processed data through summarization, filtering, spatial relationships, etc. However, we expect that interactive charts, dashboards, and visualization tools will be very important for the decision support and stakeholder engagement process and should be included.

Additionally, FWC products are required to be accessible and ADA compliant, so graphical features should be designed with that consideration.

Question #27: System Specification and Design Consideration, Section 7.9. Could you specify any particular data security standards or certifications that the system should adhere to such as ISO 27001 for information security management and NIST frameworks for cybersecurity? Are there specific protocols, such as encryption methods or access controls, that the FWC deems essential for safeguarding the integrity and confidentiality of coral reef data?

Answer #27: Data security standards have been discussed with FWC’s Office of Information Technology and are listed below. We are open to addressing any potential alternatives or enhancements with the awarded vendor when the system is being developed.

7.18 System and data security considerations:

7.18.1 Secure Sockets Layer Connections to keep internet connections secure and safeguard sensitive data that is being sent between two systems.

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 9

7.18.2 Data will be stored on United-States-based servers.

7.18.3 Data is encrypted in transit and at rest with at least 256-bit encryption.

7.18.4 Accountability and auditing for every security-related event/change such as when accounts are created, accounts assigned, etc.

7.18.5 Ability to redact PII (personal identifying)/sensitive data such as email addresses or phone numbers if requested.

7.18.6 Secure login for developers and partners.

7.18.7 Single sign-on to enable users to securely authenticate with multiple applications and websites by using a single set of credentials. Not required.

7.18.8 Role-based access to restrict systems access to authorized users. This will involve setting permissions and privileges to enable access.

7.18.9 Federal Information Processing Standard 140-2 to validate effectiveness of cryptographic hardware.

Question #28: System Specification and Design Consideration, Section 7.11. Given the dynamic nature of coral reef monitoring data and the critical need for both real-time access and robust data security, Are there specific considerations, such as data sovereignty, scalability, or integration with existing IT ecosystems, that could influence the preference for cloud services (e.g., AWS, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure) over traditional on-site deployments

Answer #28: The preference is for an externally hosted Cloud environment. Azure is utilized by FWC and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection so Azure would be preferred, but any cost-effective alternatives would be considered.

Question #29: System Specification and Design Consideration, Section 7.10. Could you detail any preferences for integrating satellite or other remotely sensed data sources within the CRDSS? This inquiry seeks to understand which specific datasets are viewed as pivotal for enhancing coral reef management decisions. Given the array of available remote sensing technologies—ranging from high-resolution optical imagery to SAR and multispectral sensors—it would be insightful to know how these data types are expected to contribute to the system's analytical capabilities. Are there particular remote sensing products or platforms (e.g., NASA's MODIS, ESA's Sentinel series) whose data compatibility should be prioritized to support the CRDSS's objectives in monitoring, assessing, and responding to coral reef health and stressors?

Answer #29: The CRDSS does not need to include the ability to analyze satellite or remotely sensed information, and there is no requirement for real-time analytics. The CRDSS should be able to incorporate access to data products (time-frame products) derived from satellites or other remotely sensed data sources if available - for example, Coral Reef Watch. Specific products will be determined through the stakeholder engagement process. The system should be programmed to be nimble to address emerging issues and be sufficiently generalized to support a wide variety of decisions efficiently.

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 10

Question #30: System Specification and Design Consideration, Section 7.12. Could you provide further details on your expectations for these processes? Specifically, it would be beneficial to understand if there are any preferred technologies, frameworks, or platforms (e.g., Docker for containerization, Jenkins for automation, GitHub for version control) that the Commission envisions facilitating these requirements. How do you perceive the role of these tools in maintaining system integrity and ensuring seamless updates, particularly in the context of real-time data processing and user experience optimization?

Answer #30: The CRDSS should be updated and managed using systems like automated continuous deployment as well as rapid dependency management. These processes should be compatible with industry standards and non-proprietary when possible. FWC is open to cost-effective and manageable solutions, but no preference has been identified. We are willing to address any potential alternatives or enhancements with the awarded vendor when the system is being developed.

Question #31: System Specification and Design Consideration, Section 7.14. Could you pinpoint specific features or capabilities from the Marine Planner that are deemed essential to replicate or enhance within the CRDSS framework such as spatial planning tools, stakeholder engagement mechanisms, or data visualization techniques—that have been particularly effective in the Marine Planner? Are there lessons learned or user feedback from the Marine Planner's deployment that the FWC wishes to address or build upon in the development of the CRDSS?

Answer #31: The Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner Final Report is available at the link:

https://ourfloridareefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FULL-OFR-Report- FINAL_5.4.18_PDF.pdf

Relevant sections to the features and capabilities are outlined in Section

2.2.1.1.15 through 2.2.1.1.17.

1. The Our Florida Reefs Marine Planner: To allow for visual representation of the most current data and information on the coral reef ecosystem to all stakeholders.

2. The Our Florida Reefs Coastal Ocean Use Survey: To allow for additional knowledge and expertise from the broader community (local and national) by collecting opt-in survey data on coastal recreation activities.

3. The Our Florida Reefs Decision Support Tool: To provide Community Working Group (CWG) members with a tool to conduct real-time analysis and planning, and to model management options.

Specific feedback and lessons learned can be provided by collaborators once a contractor is determined.

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 11

Question #32: Section 7.17 Anticipated Roles. Could you elaborate on how you foresee the dynamic interaction and operational workflow among various system roles, particularly focusing on Administrator Roles, Workflow Designers/Decision Making Leads, and Users/Decision-makers? Are there specific protocols or models (e.g., role-based access control, attribute-based access control) that the FWC prefers to streamline these interactions?

Answer #32: It is anticipated that the CRDSS will use role-based access to restrict systems access to authorized users. This will involve setting permissions and privileges to enable access. These processes should be compatible with industry standards. We are open to addressing any potential alternatives or enhancements with the awarded vendor when the system is being developed.

7.17.1 Administrator Roles – Only Role that can modify raw data and system.

7.17.2 Workflow Designers / Decision Making Leads (likely 1 individual selected by the designer team. This could be FWRI even if FWC not engaged in the decision process). These individuals are the actual ones using the CRDSS to make a decision. The Administrator Role would assign this role as needed and provide this individual with the ability to modify workflow, data, and generate maps.

7.17.3 Users / Decision Makers - They are read only, but could download generated maps and data to explore, or possibly modify, on their own. The only official outputs can only be modified by the roles in 7.17.1 and 7.17.2.

Question #33: User Interface and Experience. Could you shed light on specific user interface features or functionalities it considers essential for the CRDSS, such as the incorporation of interactive dashboards that allow users to manipulate data visually, real-time data visualization tools that can represent changes in coral health or customized reporting features for varied user needs? How critical are these or other functionalities in achieving the FWC's objectives for user interaction with the CRDSS, and are there particular design principles, such as mobile responsiveness or accessibility standards, that the system should embody to ensure it serves a broad user base effectively?

Answer #33: At its base, the user interface and functionalities contained within the CRDSS should be easy to use. Graphics should be simple, interactive, and intuitive.

We do not want the CRDSS to conduct advanced analytics within the tool, and it will not process any raw or real-time data. The CRDSS should provide a platform for users to interact with existing pre-processed data through summarization, filtering, spatial relationships, etc. However, we expect that interactive charts, dashboards, and visualization tools will be very important for the decision support and stakeholder engagement process and should be

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 12

included. Additionally, FWC products are required to be accessible and ADA compliant, so graphical features should be designed with that consideration.

The CRDSS should be accessible from any device with a web browser and connection to the internet. We anticipate that the main mobile/tablet functionality would be viewing data/maps/information. The platform should be designed to be responsive and adaptive to different screen sizes. We understand that many features and tools such as data entry and/or running analyses are better suited to desktop or laptop use, due to the complexity of the task being performed. It is expected that a desktop or laptop will be the main mode of access to the system itself.

Question #34: Scalability and Future Expansion. Could you specify particular areas of expansion you envisaged for the CRDSS, such as the introduction of additional data layers, expansion in user functionalities, or integration with emerging technologies?

Answer #34: Although the initial focus of the CRDSS involves coral restoration and restoration site selection, likely additional decision scenarios include watershed management/water quality runoff, green infrastructure, fishing and recreational uses, climate change adaptation, colonization, permitting (coastal construction, maritime industry, other), response to bleaching events, stony coral tissues loss disease response, and Diadema die-off response/restoration. Other applications might include public outreach to increase awareness of the reefs and its conservation and K-12 education curricula. The system should be programmed to be nimble to address emerging issues, add user functionalities, and be sufficiently generalized to support a wide variety of decisions efficiently. Questions should be able to be compartmentalized within the system.

Question #35: Real Time Data Processing and Analysis. Could you elaborate on its preferences regarding the specific technologies or frameworks envisaged to facilitate this? For instance, there are multiple state-of-the-art stream processing engines, such as Apache Kafka for real-time data ingestion and Apache Spark for in-memory data processing, each offering unique advantages. How do these preferences align with your current technological ecosystem, and are there expectations around compatibility and integration with existing data sources and analytical tools?

Answer #35: The CRDSS should be built using a solution that is open-source and does not put any costs such as licenses or credits onto the end user. The system will not be deployed on FWC’s technological ecosystem, so we are open to using the most state-of-the-art technology as long as they are cost-effective and fulfill the needs of the CRDSS. Additionally, we do not expect that the CRDSS will

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 13

require real-time data ingestion or processing and instead should focus on providing tools to explore relationships between pre-existing datasets and provide a framework for decision making.

Question #36: Geospatial Data Analysis. Could you specify which geospatial analysis tools or software suites, such as ESRI ArcGIS or QGIS, are essential for the CRDSS to support? Is there a requirement for integration with specific web mapping services or support for particular spatial data formats?

Answer #36: Products and exports should be available in a universal format and compatible across geospatial analysis tools and software suites such as ESRI ArcGIS or QGIS. The CRDSS should support both proprietary (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.) and Open Geospatial Consortium standard map services (e.g., Web Map Service, Web Map Tile Service). System options should also include the ability for users to pull in external data sources from online services, personal files, etc. These may include KMLs, REST services, shapefiles, and the like.

Question #37: Compliance and Environmental Regulation. Could you specify which environmental regulations, like the Coral Reef Conservation Act or NOAA guidelines, the CRDSS is expected to comply with? Are there specific compliance metrics, reporting requirements, or data management practices that the CRDSS needs to incorporate to aid in these efforts?

Answer #37: Specific regulations/rules would be compiled as data layers or limiting factors in the decision support framework. These would be determined through the stakeholder engagement process. There are currently no specific compliance or reporting requirements, but data management practices should follow the security and access needs outlined in section 7.18 of the RFP.

END ADDENDUM #1

FWC 23/24-04 ADDENDUM #1 14