State_Response_to_Vendor_Questions_CARB.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Satellite Data Purchase Project
- Solicitation number
- 0000027246
- Issued by
- Sacramento County, Sacramento City, California
About this file
This document is a response to vendor questions related to a State of California Request for Proposal (RFP) for the "Satellite Data Purchase Project". The State is seeking to procure services and data, including methane data and other environmental indicators, derived from earth-orbiting, small satellite constellations operated by non-government entities. The RFP requires narrative responses for technical items such as Technology Readiness Level, Methane Observational Capacity Simulation, Data Validation, and Functional Requirements. The State has provided clarification on requirements related to exceptions, licenses, data transparency, service level agreements, and portal system availability and performance. The RFP has a proposal due date of October 23, 2023 and the selected vendor will be solely responsible for the construction, launch, operation, and maintenance of any satellite(s), sensor(s), and hardware.
The RFP includes pricing terms, with the lowest proposed total cost receiving the maximum score. The State has a minimum DVBE participation goal of 3% and indicates funding is currently available for the project. The State will not accept documents that are not referenced in the RFP, and confirms it is only seeking a data feed to meet the requirements, not the construction, launch, operation, and maintenance of any satellite(s), sensor(s), and hardware.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 1.Satellite_Data_Purchase_Project_RFP.pdf | ||
| 3._CA_Methane_Example_Deck_2026.zip | ZIP file | |
| Satellite_Data_Purchase_Project_Addendum_2_Clean.pdf | ||
| 2._Exhibit_D_Cost_Worksheets.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 4._Observational_Capacity_Simulation_Results_Table.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5._Global_Observation_Deck_Example.zip | ZIP file | |
| SDPP-2023_Addendum_1.zip | ZIP file | |
| Satellite_Data_Purchase_Project_Addendum_2_Redline.pdf |
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
Sheet1
QUESTION # RFP DOCUMENT SECTION PDF PAGE# QUESTIONS OR COMMENT STATE RESPONSE
1 Part 1 6.5 62-63 It does not appear that there is any Technical Proposal narrative content required except for the following:
Attachment 24 CA Methane Observational Capacity Simulation narrative Attachment 25 Data Validation narrative Attachment 26 Methane Data Outside CA narrative Attachment 27 Non-methane data narrative Exhibit B Functional Requirements narrative
Please confirm if this is the case. If not, and a technical proposal is required, please provide a template or formatting requirements ASAP. Narrative Respones are required for the following:
Attachment 23 Technology Readiness Level Attachment 24 CA Methane Observational Capacity Simulation Attachment 25 Data Validation Attachment 26 Methane Data Outside CA Attachment 27 Non-methane Data Exhibit B Functional Requirements
| 2 | Part 1 | 2.1 | 17 | Section 2.1, item 4 states "Do not include conditional statements, assumptions, or exception language with Proposals." If there are items to call out for context/awareness, please clarify where and when it is appropriate to communicate those items. | Such items may be requested by the State during the Negotiation phase. |
| 3 | Part 1 | 3.13.2.1 | 32 | Regarding minimum DVBE participation goal of 3%, is there a DVBE resource we can contact to find qualified DVBE subcontractors? | A list of DVBE subcontractors can be found at the following link: |
https://caleprocure.ca.gov/pages/PublicSearch/supplier-search.aspx 4 Part 2 25 145 Last sentence on pg.145 notes that rates for Unanticipated Tasks shall be provided on the Cost Worksheets. Please clarify where on the Cost Worksheets these should be provided. Please refer to Addendum 1, Part 2, Section 25.
Exhibit D Cost Worksheet, Tab 2, Row 43. The ten percent (10%) unanticipated tasks cost is pre-seeded into the formula. Vendors do not need to provide input here.
| 5 | Part 1 | Sec 2.1, 7.2.1, 7.3.1 | 17, 64, 68 | The RFP states that offerors “may” be disqualified for taking exception to the terms of the RFP. Given the highly innovative and commercial nature of this procurement, is the State amenable to Offeror proposed language that are not full exceptions to the State's RFP? What types of exceptions would result in disqualification? | Please refer RFP Part 1 Section 2.4.1 Identification and Classification of Solicitation Requirements. |
| 6 | General Provisions | 38 | 18 | Please confirm the licenses specified in the SOW supersede and replace this Section 38. | The licenses specified in the SOW control to the extent applicable, but do not supersede Section 38. |
| 7 | General Provisions | 40 | 19 | Please confirm the licenses specified in the SOW supersede and replace this Section 38. | The licenses specified in the SOW control to the extent applicable, but do not supersede Section 38. |
| 8 | Part 1 | 2.4.5 and 2.5.3 | 22 | The State requires Final Proposals through this RFP and requests that items are not marked as confidential or proprietary. However, the State asks for data about Offeror systems, personnel, past performance, and price that may be considered proprietary. Please clarify if an Offeror may submit an addendum or other separate document outside the required attachments in order to fully comply with the State's RFP but at the same time protect acquisition competitive information. | The State will not accept documents that are not referenced in the RFP. Please refer to RFP Part 1, Section 6, as well as Part 1 Sections 2.4.5, 2.5.3 |
| 9 | Part 1 | 3.1.1 | 27 | The State requires terms and conditions for eVAQ. Several of these terms and conditions conflict with the terms that the State has placed in this RFP and the SOW. How should Offerors notate in a proposal back to the State which eVAQ terms are overriden by this procurement? | Please refer to RFP Part 1 Section 3.7.1 and to Clause 11 of the General Provisions - Information Technology (Revised and Effective 06/21/20222) |
| 10 | Part 1 | 3.6.1.1 | 29 | What information should be included in the "Letter from the Bidder's banking institution"? | Per RFP Part 1 Section 3.6.1.1 Financial Statements. Such documents would be submitted only upon requrest from the State, and the State would at that time determine what information would be requested. |
| 11 | Part 1 and Part 2 | Bidder Instructions and Bidder Response | 56, 58, 59, 116 | We understand that the Government Purpose Rights license are intended to extend to derived data products as well as to any purchased (licensed) or otherwise provided satellite data; and that the license to distribute/publish is limited to derived data products, and does not extend to the underlying satellite data, which constitutes background intellectual property. Please confirm. | Confirmed. The State only intends to publish/distribute derived data products, and has no intent to publish/distribute the raw data archive product except to the extent necessary to support regulatory implementation and/or enforcement. The State is not asking for underlying satellite data (i.e., raw photon counts). |
| 12 | Part 1 and Part 2 | Bidder Instructions and Bidder Response | 56, 58, 59, 116 | The SDPP refers to "purchased data". Please confirm all references to "purchased data" are meant to say "licensed data." | The language will remain as is. |
| 13 | Part 1 | 5.2 | 56 | Please confirm that "all derived data products procured by the State can be made publicly available through a State web portal 30 days after receipt by the State" is limited to data within the state of California, and that data from outside California will be made publicly available after through a State web portal 90 days after receipt by the State. | See Addendum 1, Part 1 Section 5.2 |
| 14 | Part 1, Attachment 24, Exhibit D | Section 5.2, Attachment 24, Exhibit D Cost Worksheet | 57, 224-225 | Does CARB want to see a budget narrative for inside California and if so, where should this go? In Section 5.2 Cost Requirements and Exhibit D Cost Worksheet, CARB asks for the "Methane plume data" costs for CA-only for 2025-2027 on the Minimum Contract Value tab of the cost worksheet and there is no explicit opportunity for an accompanying narrative in the attachments. In contrast, CARB wants to see cost for "methane data outside of California" for 2026 on the Mandatory Option tab of the cost worksheet while asking for an accompanying narrative in Attachment 26. | No, CARB is not requesting a budget narrative for inside California. |
| 15 | Part 1 | 5.2 | 58 | Please confirm that "multi-site, unlimited, fully-transferable, fully-assignable, nonrevocable nonexclusive license for use, copying, reproduction, disassembly, modification, and alteration of purchased data, products, and metadata" does not allow for the State to transfer or assign the rights and obligations under this Agreement, but rather means that the State can sublicense its rights to third parties in accordance with the terms of this agreement. | The language will remain as is. |
| 16 | Part 1 | 5.2 | 59 | Please confirm that "multi-site, unlimited, fully-transferable, fully-assignable, nonrevocable nonexclusive license for use, copying, reproduction, disassembly, modification, and alteration of purchased data, products, and metadata" does not allow for the State to transfer or assign the rights and obligations under this Agreement, but rather means that the State can sublicense its rights to third parties in accordance with the terms of this agreement. | The language will remain as is. |
| 17 | Part 1 | 5.3 Project Payment Terns | 60 | The State has included reference to Public Contract Code (PCC) §12112, that allows the State to withhold funds for IT goods or services that are made just for the State and not in the ordinary course of business. Since CARB is purchasing licensed data sets and products that are anticipated to be sold commercially in the ordinary course of business, it appears that such withhold may not be required by the PCC. If the State will not remove this withhold section, may an Offeror propose a definition for the withholds and delivery criteria to ensure funds are promptly released as the licensed data sets and products are produced? | The language will remain as is. The State may consider discussing withholds during the Negotiation Phase. |
| 18 | Part 1 | 7.3.6 | 85-86 | Please clarify: the paragraph at the bottom of pg 85 says “the Bidder with the lowest proposed total cost will receive the maximum score of 450 points” Then the paragraph describes calculating scores for all other bidders “using the ratio of the lowest proposed total cost to the Bidder’s proposed total cost applied to the maximum points of 1110”. Table 7.3.7-2 also shows the proportional cost multiplied by 1110 points. If this is accurate, how is the lowest cost score only worth a maximum 450 points? | Please refer to Addendum 1 Part 1 Section 7.3.6 |
| 19 | Part 2 | 5 - Task 3.3 | 104 | Please provide an upper bound for "unlimited" in this requirement "3.3 Implement updates to the Observation Deck as provided by CARB on a continuous and unlimited basis within 24 hours of request from CARB (or sooner for high priority updates)" CARB should be aware that "unlimited" updates for tasking to be fulfilled within 24 hours will result in increased pricing. | The State is not requesting that tasking orders be fullfilled within 24 hours, but rather, that State-submitted observation decks shall be implemented (i.e., integrated into the bidder's operational satellite tasking system) within 24 hours. Please refer to Exhibit A Functional Requirement #35. The State desires that there be no limit to how many times it can submit new or revised observation decks. |
| 20 | Part 2 | 6 - Tables 1 and 2 | 111-114 | Quick view and final methane product specs include "contemporaneous visible image file with 1 meter resolution". (a) Is this required for ALL methane products globally or just within California? (b) Also, in some places the RFP says "where required" - ? Please clarify if CARB requires contemporaneous high resolution visible imagery for ALL methane products or only "where required" (if the latter, please define "where required.") | Please refer to Addendum 1, Part 2 Section 6 Tables 1 and 2 |
(a) Contemporaneous visible imagery shall be provided globally. Please refer to Addendum 1, Section 6, Table 2. If a bidder is unable to provide visible imagery due to observational or redistribution restrictions, visible imagery may not be required as part of the data product pending CARB approval.
(b). The RFP does not incude the phrase "where required" in its text. In the context of contemporaneous imagery, the criteria for when an updated contemporaneous is necessary is clearly defined in the RFP
| 21 | Part 2 | 6 - Table 2 | 114 | Does CARB want bidders to exclude emission estimates for plumes where the single measurement uncertainty exceeds 60% for reasons beyond control of the satellite (e.g,. bad wind speed data)? Please also clarify the asterix reference in table 2. | Please refer to Addendum 1, Part 2 Section 6 Table 2 |
| 22 | Part 2 | 6 - Licensing and Transparency Requirements | 116 | Please confirm that "sharing QV data with operators of methane emitting infrastructure and other regulatory partners in the state" means that the State can share such QV data with those parties in connection with compliance enforcement activities. | Confirmed. |
| 23 | Part 2 | 6 - Licensing and Transparency Requirements | 116 | Please confirm that "Nothing stated herein will preclude the State from engaging in Reverse Engineering to obtain information necessary to validate the purchased Data (including its metadata) or as otherwise permitted by applicable law." means that the State will confer with the Awardee prior to engaging in any Reverse Engineering for the purposes of validating data. | The language will remain as is. |
| 24 | Part 2 | 6 - Non-California Data and Licensing Capability Requirements | 117 | Please confirm "low-latency data (with the same data latency requirements described for California methane data) for motivated jurisdictions who partner with the State." means that such data will be shared no earlier than 30 days for "motivated jurisdictions" within the State of California, and no earlier than 90 days for outside of California. | The statement in question conveys that the State may desire to share low-latency data, including methane quick view data, in the future. The statement in question should not affect the bidder's cost estimate for this RFP - The State is merely stating that it would like to have the option to share QV data with other jurisdictions in the future, if needed. |
| 25 | Part 2 | 17 - Disaster Recovery | 130 | The State is requiring an uptime of at least 99.7% for download portals, API, and archive of data products. Please confirm that this uptime does not include the Offeror's satellite program operations (e.g. tasking, downlink, processing, etc.) which may be subject to certain force majeure events beyond the reasonable control of a Satellite operator (e.g. solar flares, acts of war, terrorist cybersecurity attacks, etc.). | Please refer to Section 24, General Terms - Information Technology (revised and Effective 6/21/2022) |
| 26 | Part 2 | 23.2- Service Level Agreement | 138 | Is there a formal definition of an "assessment"? Is this a fine or a reduction in overall contract value? | The language shall remain as is. |
| 27 | Part 2 | 23.4.2.1 - Service Level Agreement | 139 | Sec 23.4.2.1, General Responsibilities, #2 says Contractor shall provide a "Project Manager" as single POC. Then in the next sentence it refers to a "Service Manager” that shall be available 24-7-365. Is that the same role? Is it the same or different as the “Project Manager" required as part of the "Key Roles?" | Please refer to Addendum 1 Part 2 Section 23.4.2.1 |
| 28 | Part 2 | 23.5 - Portal System Availability and Performance | 139 | The State is requiring a load time of 1 second for screens and 5 seconds for search results and reports, and portal availability 99.9% of the time; in addition to 100% accuracy for all data, products, and reports. Can the State clarify whether the performance and response times can be specified to be from the derived data products server to the first internet gateway, and using modern client workstation hardware, bandwidth, etc.? | Confirmed |
| 29 | Part 2 | 23.5 - Portal System Availability and Performance | 139 | The State is requiring a load time of 1 second for screens and 5 seconds for search results and reports, and portal availability 99.9% of the time; in addition to 100% accuracy for all data, products, and reports. Please confirm these requirements do not apply to errors (i) caused by factors outside of Offeror's reasonable control; (ii) that result from the State's software or hardware or third party software or hardware, or both; (iii) that result from the State's use of the platform in excess of the State's quota. | The language will remain as is. |
| 30 | Part 2 | 23.5 - Portal System Availability and Performance | 140 | What is the definition of "accurate" in this statement "The Contractor shall ensure that all Portal data, products and reports accessed or generated are 100% accurate." | Please refer to Addendum 1, Part 2 Section 23.5 |
| 31 | Part 2 | Sec 23.6.8.2 Response Time and Incident Resolution Timeframes | 143 | Do we need to support Internet Explorer? It is no longer supported by Microsoft itself. | Please refer to Addendum 1 Part 2 Section 23.6.8.2 |
| 32 | Part 2 | Part 2 - Section 26.5 | 146 | Section (b) of the paragraph allows the State to terminate the agreement for its convenience in the event there are not fiscal year procurement funds available. There still may be termination liability attaching for a final billing for satellite data products provided up and until the notice of termination is provided to the Awardee. Please confirm that the Awardee has the ability to submit the final billing invoice notated in 6(a) and such will be considered as an outstanding liability by the State until paid. | Please refer to Section 21 of the General Terms - Information Technology - (Revised and Effective 6/21/2022) |
| 33 | IT General Provisions | 27 | 147 | The State has included IT General Provisions and indicated that such will be a part of the Awardee's contract. May an Offeror infer that any provisions of the terms that reference hardware or goods (including packing, transportation, delivery, inspection, warranty, substitution, etc.) topics will be tailored and marked as "Reserved" in an Awardee's contract after negotiations? | No |
| 34 | Part 2 | SOW - Section 11(A)(2)(a) | 151 | Section 11(A)(2(a) requires an Awardee to comply with the California Information Practices Act. Can the State provide clarification on what Personal Information is anticipated to be transmitted by the State to an Awardee under the CIPA for Awardee usage? | At this time the State does not believe there is Personal Information to be transmitted. Please consult the California Information Practices Act. |
| 35 | Part 2 | SOW Section 28.29 | 154/155 | Section 29 requires a contractor to comply with Section 508, although Federal information and communication technology is not being purchased. Imagery and derived imagery products being sent through API methods, by their very nature are not Section 508 compliant. Please clarify if the State will be providing an Awardee an exception (such as E202.6) to certain Section 508 requirements enumerated in the SOW. | It is the Contractor's responsibility to comply with all applicable accesibility requirements. |
| 36 | Attachment 4 | 163 | Cover Form instructions include an attestation that "The Bidder has completed and submitted the eVAQ application and has been deemed approved by STP." However, the key dates table on page 20 indicate that the "last day to be eVAQ approved" is November 13-17 which is after the RFP submittal due date of October 23. Please clarify whether bidders need to have an approved eVAQ application by 10/23 or 11/17. Please also clarify if CARB is requiring the eVAQ application number or an assigned eVAQ vendor number. | Please refer to Addendum 1, Attachment 4 Cover Letter, and please refer to the Key Action Dates in Part 1 Section 2.3 for the last day to be deemed eVAQ approved. | |
| 37 | Attachments 14-22 | 186-220 | Please confirm whether “project contract amount” is truly required and if CARB will deem the bid to be “non-responsive” if the contract amount is not included. If using reference projects from key staff employment prior to the being employed by the Bidder, then project contract amount is likely to be business confidential information for the previous employer. | Please see Addendum 1 | |
| 38 | Attachment 27 | 229 | Will the State consider various licensing scenarios for Non-Methane products if the Bidder lays out multiple pricing options? | Bidder's may propose alternative licensing scenarios only in the Negotiation Phase. | |
| 39 | Attachment 27 | 229 | Is this a typo? "Bidder must include with its proposal, narrative responses to prompts about calibration and validation plans." It's the only place it's mentioned and seems out of place. This appears to be a copy and paste error from the Attachment 25 Data Validation Plan instructions. | Please refer to Addendum 1, Attachment 27. |
40 Attachment 27 and Exhibit A, requirements 20 - 25 229, 258-259 Are non-methane products required or optional and what is the penalty for not saying "yes" to all of them? Would the state be willing to consider other options for making non-methane products publicly available such as the bidder providing a suite of licensing options with different pricing and publication rights? In regards to the term "mandatory optional" — if we do not answer, or do not have the space in the narrative section to provide a description for each derived product, will our bid be considered non-compliant? Please refer to RFP Part 1, Section 5.2.1.3. The Non-Methane products listed in Exhibit A are functional requirements. The result of responding "no" to a functional requirement is described in Exhibit A. Attachment 27 is "Mandatory Optional" and is not scored.
| 41 | Exhibit A | 259 | For non-methane product recs, #25 says "the proposed solution can provide" whereas #26-30 say "the proposed solution shall provide". Which is correct? | Please refer to Addendum 1, Exhibit A | |
| 42 | General | We were previously following the progression of this RFP on behalf of our stakeholders- but believed funding for the “Methane Monitoring Satellite Program” had been removed as part of retroactive cutting earlier this year as part of deficit reduction for the fiscal year 2023-24 state budget (per 23-34 LOA report). Our specific question is whether you could confirm that there is currently funding available for the successful RFP proposal? | Funding is currently available for the project. | ||
| 43 | General | May we get an extension for the first response from 10/2/2023 to 10/6/2023? | Bidders may ask questions beyond the due date, but the State will not be obligated to respond to the questions. | ||
| 44 | Part 1 | 1.1 | 11 | In section 1.1, the RFP states, "The selected Bidder will be solely responsible for the construction, launch, operation, and maintenance of any satellite(s), sensor(s), and any other hardware described in their submission." |
| Please confirm the State is only looking for a data feed to meet the requirements of the solicitation and not asking bidders to construct, launch, operate, and maintain satellite(s), sensor(s), and any other hardware. This will allow the Bidder to best architect a solution to provide the requested data feed, which may or may not include the tasks described in this statement in Section 1.1. | Confirmed. The State is asking for satellite data that meets the requirements of this RFP. The purpose of this sentence is to clarify that this RFP will not explicitly fund "construction, launch, operation, and maintenance of any satellite(s), sensor(s), and any other hardware described in their submission". | ||||
| 45 | Part 1 | 1.4.1 | 13-14 | In section 1.4.1, the RFP states, "The State has experience using plume mapping data from aircraft. Through these airborne research studies, the State has gained insights into handling such data, and therefore will not require the selected Bidder to set up data systems or generate advanced data analytics for the State. The selected Bidder will only provide the State with satellite methane and environmental indicator data that meet the technical requirements in this solicitation." |
| This section contradicts with section 23.5 (and others around it). 1.4.1 states that the State does not require the Bidder to set up data systems, however, section 23.5 has requirements and SLAs for a system included. | Please see Addendum 1. It is unspecified which statements in the RFP are considered contradictory. "System" in the SLA refers to the interface hosted by the Offerer providing access to CARB users for observational tasking and data status and download capabilities. | |||||
| 46 | Part 1 | 1.4.1 | 13-14 | Section 23.5 describes the operation and maintenance of a system, including SLAs, however, Exhibit D (Cost Worksheet, tab "Minimum Value of Contract") does not include an area to price these tasks. | Please see Addendum 1, Part 2 Section 23.5. The RFP states that interface components will be hosted and maintained exclusively by the Contractor at no additional cost to the State or use of State resources. Additionally the Cost Worksheet defines a payment structure of "No cost" for maintanence-related items | |
| 47 | Part 1 | 1.4.2 | 15 | Can CARB confirm that storing data sets in the cloud is a requirement? | The Bidder's infrastructure may be hosted in whatever manner preferred as long as the data availability and security requirements are met. However, the RFP requires both options available for CARB to either download files locally via web browser or transfer them directly into a CARB owned AWS S3 bucket (via API call or automaticaly as soon as avaiable). | |
| 48 | Part 1 | 4.2.1 | 42-27 | Has CARB considered a multi-satellite/multi-sensor approach with point source and area mapping in order to ensure the most comprehensive coverage? | CARB is open to any approach that can meet the requirements set forth in this RFP. | |
| 49 | Part 1 | 4.2.1 | 46 | How is CARB thinking about getting other data sets (i.e., forest vegetation by species and species age)? | Bidders may use Attachment 27 to describe other non-methane data sets that can be provided as part of their proposal. Attachment 27 is "Mandatory Optional" and not scored. | |
| 50 | Part 1 | 4.2.1 | 46 | Has CARB considered other existing data platforms (e.g., Google Earth Engine) for these data needs? | Not relevant for this RFP | |
| 51 | Part 1 | 1.4.1 | 14 | Can CARB provide details around the existing analytics platform being used in relation to methane tracking? Are there technical requirements around data delivery, integrations, or APIs to help better understand how data will be accessed and consumed? Understanding the back end specifications and data infrastructure ensures the proposed solution is able to properly integrate. | Technical requirements around data delivery, integrations, and APIs are provided in the RFP. Specifications about CARB's backend infrastructure and/or analytics platforms are outside of the scope of this RFP. | |
| 52 | General | When we send out the Bidder Reference Forms (Attachment 13), should we have the references fill out those pages and scan them back into a PDF? | Yes | |||
| 53 | General | How should one submit the attachments, such that they are in a "searchable ODF" format, but yet have them in the format as presented in the RFP. For example, it appears that for submission of Attachment 2 (INTENT TO BID) one should print out a hard copy of page 160 of the RFP, fill out the table and sign it, then scan it in as a PDF and submit it to the fileshare site. That seems a but awkward, especially if that's how we one is to submit the other Attachments in the rest of the RFP. Or is there another way to provide these submissions? | Please refer to RFP Part 1, Section 6, Proposal/Bid Format and Submission Requirements. Please refer to RFP Part 1 Section 2.2.3 for instructions on submitting the Intent to Bid. |
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/internet-explorer-downloads-d49e1f0d-571c-9a7b-d97e-be248806ca70https://caleprocure.ca.gov/pages/PublicSearch/supplier-search.aspx
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .