FDT_AFE_RFI_Questions_20260330_V2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 23 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFI-HM0476-03052026
About this file
This file is a Questions and Answers (Q&A) document clarifying requirements for the Foundation Digital Twin Automated Feature Extraction (FDT AFE) Request for Information (RFI) issued by the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA). The RFI seeks industry input on out-of-the-box Automated Feature Extraction capabilities provided as a service to automatically detect and extract geospatial features from imagery and raster maps. Responses are due by 5:00 pm ET on April 6, 2026, submitted via email to Daniel.R.Fadely@nga.mil and Delores.M.Hill@nga.mil. The RFI is for information and planning purposes only and does not constitute a commitment to contract.
The Q&A document addresses 12 key clarifications: (1) font sizes of 10pt are acceptable for tables and graphics; (2) maximum page count for all six use cases is 27 pages total (9 pages for the general RFI response plus 3 pages per use case); (3) responses may include Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) if properly marked; (4) individual use cases should focus on Attachment 4 content while the 9-page RFI response addresses Attachments 2 and 3; (5) the SOO reference should be to section 3.0, not 4.0; (6) vendors are not ineligible for lacking TS/SCI clearances, though the clearance level has not been determined and unclassified work is anticipated; (7) responses must be unclassified or Unclassified//FOUO only; (8) use cases will be evaluated independently; (9) page count will not be increased, though fonts below 12pt are acceptable in tables if not below 10pt; (10) the deadline will not be extended; (11) proprietary APIs that are not open source do not disqualify vendors if service interaction with open APIs is demonstrated; and (12) the response deadline cannot be extended to April 16th.
View the file
Other files
Show all 12
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
RFI Questions
| FDT AFE RFI Questions | |||||
| Item # | Document | Requirement | Section | Comment/Question | NGA Response |
| 1 | RFI | 4.2 | Will the Government please confirm that font sizes smaller than 12pt can be used for graphics and tables? | 10 font for tables and graphics is acceptable | |
| 2 | RFI | 4.1, 4.2 | In Section 4.1, The Government provides an example of the maximum page count if respondents address three (3) individual use cases. Would the Government please confirm that the maximum page count for responding to all six (6) use cases in the subject RFI is 27 pages, as specified in section 4.2? This total consists of a maximum of 9 pages for the RFI response and a maximum of 3 pages for each use case? | That is correct. If a respondent addresses all 6 use cases, the maximum page length for the RFI response would be 27 pages. If the respondent addresses 5 use cases, the maximum page length for the RFI response would be 24 pages. If the respondent addresses 4 uses cases, the maximum page length for the RFI response would be 21 pages. And so on and so forth. | |
| 3 | RFI | Can our response include CUI? | The respondent may include CUI in their response as long as it is appropriately marked. | ||
| 4 | RFI | We would like clarification or an example for what content should be in the 3 page per feature "individual use cases" vs the 9 page "RFI response to questions". A. What information do you want included in each feature's individual use cases (3 Pages)? B. Do the RFI response to questions (9 pages) include the Attachment 3 Questions as well as all of the content in Attachment 2 (e.g; 3.1 Administrative, 3.2 Experience, ...)? | A. You should focus your individual (3) page use case responses to specifically addressing attachement 4 content. It is not necessary to repurpose your general (9) RFI response, but instead, focus your (3) page use case responses to how you specifically address the content in attachment 4. |
B. Yes
| 5 | RFI | 2.0 | IN the RFI section 2.0, it states "…meet the objectives described within the AFE Statement of Objectives (SOO), section 4.0. The SOO only has 3 sections. Is thie section 4.0 reference meant to be Appendix A: Prioritized Geography Features for AFE in the SOO? | The reference should have been to section 3.0 in the SOO. We have updated the RFI attachment. | |
| 6 | RFI | Are vendors considered ineligible if every person working on the project does not have a TS/SCI and/or because their facility is not cleard at the TS level? Would the Government consider Secret level work? | No, vendors are not ineligible if every person working on the project does not have a TS/SCI or because the facility is not cleared at the TS level. The requirement for a contractor to work at the TS level or Secret level has not been determined. However, the government anticipates that the majority of work will be performed at the unclass level. The government will Utilize the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) policy. | ||
| 7 | RFI | Would it be possible to release this RFI via ARC to afford vendors the opportunity to include innovative work that is being executed today on classified networks? | No. The government does not want to exclude commercial vendors who may not have access to classified networks. Vendors should be able to present the RFI to the government as Unclassified or Unclassified//FOUO. | ||
| 8 | RFI | Will the responses to each use case be evaluated independently or as a complete package? More specifically, will we be able to reference oother use cases or should we consider them as separate submissions? | The use cases will be evaluated independently so please consider them as separate submissions. | ||
| 9 | RFI | would like to request the page count be increased by 3 pages for the direct responses to the questions contained in the RFI (i.e., not the use cases). The 3 pages currently allotted for each individual use case is sufficient. The increase in page count will allow industry to provide a more detailed response and provide better recommendations to NGA. In addition, can the Government please confirm if it's acceptable for industry to use less than Times Roman 12-pint font in the talbe s included in the RFI response? | It would not be fair to increase the page count by 3 for direct responses since the due date is approaching. It is acceptable for industry to use less than Times Roman 12-point font in tables included in the RFI response, but not less than 10 font. | ||
| 10 | RFI | Can this RFI be extended? | No, the RFI will not be extended. | ||
| 11 | Attachment A Statement of Objectives | Objective 3 | 3 | THTBC/Aechelon would like to clarify the intent of the “Open API.” This SOO calls for a service, which we provide with the use of our API. The API, however, is not open source; and we maintain the rights to source code. This would mean the customer cannot modify or reproduce the API outside of the service. Is this a disqualifying factor under this RFI? | |
| No this is not a disqualifitying factor; but the governement will need to understand how this service will interact with other services with Open APIs. | |||||
| 12 | Attachment 2 RFI | Responses | 4 | Will the Government extend the deadline to April 16th for responses? Thanks | No, the RFI will not be extended |
&"Courier"&12UNCLASSIFIED
&"Courier"&12UNCLASSIFIED
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .