Questions and Answers.pdf

Request for Proposals

Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Community Safety Audit Technology

Questions and Answers

1. Q. How does ARC envision communications and coordination between the two SS4A contractors and local school partners? Specifically, will one consultant serve as the primary point of contact for each school, or will both consultants communicate directly with schools independently while coordinating with each other and ARC to ensure alignment?

A: Yes, it is intended that contractors for RFP 539 will serve as primary contacts for schools, districts, and partners in tandem with ARC to streamline planning and ensure alignment. However, the selected contractors for this RFP (RFP 594) will not be precluded from communicating directly with the school, following conversation between ARC, the RFP 539 contractor(s) and this selected contractor about need.

2. Q. Will ARC or the contractor for RFP 539 facilitate introductions and coordination with all participating schools, or is the selected contractor for RFP 594 expected to independently establish some school relationships, including outreach to schools not yet engaged in the program?

A: Yes, ARC or the contractors from RFP 539 will facilitate introductions and coordination with the participating schools/districts to streamline communications. On a case-by-case basis, the selected contractor(s) for this RFP may reach out to schools directly following discussion with the ARC team.

3. Q. Does ARC currently have an estimate for an approximate number/range for how many schools will likely take part in the data collection activities via the route feedback platform? 90 schools are mentioned in RFP 539, but also working more closely with a subset, so we wanted to clarify expectations.

A: For the work outlined in this RFP, ARC would like to get as many schools from the approximately 90 across the 3 localities as possible to participate. However, at minimum the selected firm(s) should plan to collect data from any schools that are identified as targets for the demonstration activities outlined in RFP 539 –approximately 50.

4. Q. Does ARC have an estimated number of schools expected to participate in data collection activities via the digital audit platform? RFP 539 references approximately 90 schools, but RFP 594 does not specify a number. Clarification would help to accurately scope outreach efforts and budget.

A: For the work outlined in this RFP, ARC would like to get as many schools from the approximately 90 across the 3 localities as possible to participate. However, at minimum the selected firm(s) should plan to collect data from any schools that are identified as targets for the demonstration activities outlined in RFP 539 –approximately 50.

5. Q. Can we offer any kind of prize, giveaway, or participation incentive (donated or funded) for parents, families, teachers and schools to participate in the data collection effort of the program? Both the digital route audit tool and follow-up survey incentives/prizes.

A: No prizes or giveaways can be provided using the funding provided by the SS4A grant money from FHWA and through this RFP. However, donated giveaways may be used to incentivize participation in the program.

6. Q. Will there be on-the-ground community engagement staff (i.e. from the RFP 539 contractor, existing SRTS professionals, or other partners) who will engage directly with parents, families, and schools to promote participation in the data collection platform? If so, is it the intention of the RFP 594 contractor to equip those staff with the data-collection platform, engagement plan, and promotional materials? Or is the RFP 594 contractor expected to provide its own on-the-ground outreach staff for in-person engagement activities?

A: Interested contractors should plan to have some degree of on-ground support if it is necessary to complete this work and should be planning outreach in tandem with the contractor selected for RFP 539 and ARC staff. ARC staff will be able to support engagement with the local stakeholders about the data collection platform but will have limited on-the-ground time to allocate to the effort. Engagement and outreach may also be conducted online.

7. Q. What specific data fields and geospatial layers must the web/app platform capture during the family bike safety audits, and are there existing data standards ARC expects us to follow (e.g., MUTCD, local GIS schemas)?

A: There are no specific fields or geospatial layers that must be included in the web/app platform. Layers should be selected based on what is relevant and useful to data evaluation and project planning. Any existing data standards, if applicable, for would be reviewed in consultation with the ARC team at the time of contracting.

8. Q. How many schools (and estimated student/family participants) are in scope across Clayton County, Spalding County, and the City of Brookhaven to help size user volumes, outreach events, and translation needs?

A: For the work outlined in the scope of this RFP, at minimum the selected firm(s) should plan to collect data from any schools that are identified as targets for the demonstration activities outlined in RFP 539 – approximately 50. However, this work could include as many as the 90 schools covered across the three jurisdictions, depending on the outreach and planning scope and capacity as discussed in coordination with ARC.

9. Q. Does ARC require the selected platform to integrate with any existing ARC systems (e.g., Esri ArcGIS Online, StreetLight, or regional open-data portals), and if so, what authentication and API standards are mandated?

A: There is no requirement for the selected platform to integrate with existing ARC systems. However, whatever platform is used must be consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 21, “Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience” (Feb. 12, 2013), and the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems (July 28, 2021). The selected contractor(s) shall consider physical and cyber security and resilience in planning, design, and oversight of the project. Additionally, whatever platform is used must be able to turn over all relevant data and materials related to this project to ARC at the close of the contract period.

10. Q. For budgeting purposes, how many on-site or virtual outreach sessions does ARC anticipate per jurisdiction, and what level of ARC staff support will be available?

A: There is no pre-set number of on-site or virtual outreach sessions. This should be advised by the selected contractor(s). ARC will have some staff time to dedicate to support this work, the time for which can be determined in partnership with ARC at the time of contract.

11. Q. Will ARC accept a software-as-a-service deployment hosted in a FedRAMP- Moderate AWS GovCloud environment to satisfy SS4A federal funding requirements, or are additional security attestations required?

A: Software or platforms used for the purpose of this project work should be consistent with Presidential Policy Directive 21, “Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience” (Feb. 12, 2013), and the National Security Presidential Memorandum on Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems (July 28, 2021). If the software-as-a-service (SAAS) deployment is compliant with the above through a FedRAMP- Moderate AWS GovCloud environment, then it would be acceptable to use.