Will the model for this contract be Firm Fixed Price, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity, Time and Materials, Cost Reimbursable, or some other arrangement?
While we likely anticipate negotiating a Firm Fixed Price or Cost Reimbursable contract with the selected contractor, we will not limit our consideration of other models proposed by the RFP respondents. It is also important to note that we will initially rank the proposals based on technical merit and their responsiveness to the selection criteria without considering costs. After ranking all the proposals on merit, we will then examine the cost estimates, determine which proposal represents the best value and match for the project, and enter into contract negotiations with the preferred contractor.
What is the projected budget for the Online Interactive Map Viewer?
While we will not disclose our working estimate, we believe we have sufficient funding to complete the prototype with its map viewer. We are requesting cost proposals through the RFP not only to test the accuracy of that assessment but also to find the best value for the project. Proposals will not be judged based on cost alone.
The RFP notes a June 2010 launch date for the Rock Creek Park prototype. When do you anticipate making the contract award? What is the anticipated start date of the project?
We hope to select a candidate from the respondents and begin contract negotiations by mid-December 2009. We hope to conclude contract negotiations with the selected contractor in time to engage them in January 2010.
What is the period of performance of the contract?
We anticipate negotiating a contract that expires several months after the June 2010 deadline we aspire to meet. The deadline is driven not by funding or other considerations, but simply the partners’ desire to launch the initial prototype and share it with our potential user groups and constituencies. While we are committed to this goal, our preference would be for the contracts to allow for some flexibility in the launch date for the prototype.
Does the development have to be done on site at NatureServe?
Although we anticipate some key meetings will best be conducted face-to-face, the work does not need to be performed on site at NatureServe. It is likely, however, that we could accommodate on-site work should that aid the selected contractor in performance of the contract.
Section 3 — With regards to your desire to have an independent site rather than a .gov domain, will the application be hosted at NatureServe, National Park Service, or a commercial data center?
We anticipate that NatureServe will host and maintain the site.
It appears that Appendix A is the master requirements listing for the Map Viewer and the Online Web Guide, and that a majority of items in Appendix A would not apply to the Map Viewer.
Should our proposal’s scope of work, pricing, and schedule relate to the functionality described in Section 5 of Appendix A, or should it specifically address ALL items described in Appendix A?
Appendix A is indeed the complete and current set of user requirements for the Web Guide. We have provided it in the interest of giving respondents the full context of the project’s development, as currently envisioned. Because Section 5 focuses on the requirements of the map viewer, respondents should focus their proposals primarily on the scope of work inherent in them, bearing in mind the critical points of intersection that exist between the map viewer and the rest of the Web Guide.
Given the reference to “Phase II” in Item 5.7, can you please elaborate on the different phases being considered? Have phases of development already been defined? How the proposed work will need to interact with the NatureServe/NPS project phasing?
The current phase will lead to the launch of a prototype Web Guide focused on Rock Creek Park. The design of the prototype should accommodate its expansion in a subsequent phase to include geospatial and other content from 10 more National Capital Region park units, as well as potential future phases that extend the scope of the project to other parks in the U.S. Respondents should be focused on delivering the interactive map viewer for the prototype while allowing for this regional extension and potential national expansion.
Will the wireframes and UI specifications for the non-map viewer components of the web guide be available upon contract execution?
Such materials as are available will be provided. The team will shortly begin work on technical planning that includes the development of the site’s information architecture.
What is your current system architecture?
The system architecture for the Web Guide has yet to be finalized. The National Park Service is currently reviewing the user requirements outlined in Appendix A; we will begin work on the site’s information architecture upon receiving approval of the requirements by NPS.
Given that NatureServe will maintain the technology infrastructure for the Web Guide’s interactive map viewer component, what Internet mapping infrastructure does NatureServe already utilize?
NatureServe’s largest geospatial project to date, LandScope America, relies on ESRI ArcGIS Server 9.3.1.
Does the proposal have to include recommendations for the map server software and hardware?
The proposal does not need to include such recommendations. However, the proposal should outline the process by which you will help us review and weigh the available options leading to the selection of the most appropriate and cost-effective geospatial platform for the project.
Does NatureServe have an existing preference or standard for commercially available map server platforms like ESRI's ArcGIS Server, or will you consider other solutions like Google Maps or open-source MapServer, or MapGuide?
We have not selected a platform for the Web Guide’s geospatial architecture. We want to work with the selected contractor, guided by their experience and expertise along with the project requirements, to determine the most appropriate and cost-effective geospatial architecture for the Web Guide.
Does NatureServe have existing hardware standards (i.e. Dell/Microsoft or Sun/Java) that this project must adhere to?
No — though given the examples raised in the question, it is important to note that we do not support Sun hardware.
Does NatureServe have an ESRI Account Representative? If so, who?
Yes — Kurt Eckerstrom, who is based in the Vienna, VA office.
How will NatureServe evaluate the technical experience of the respondents if the technology has not been selected?
As an organization, we possess considerable experience with both GIS and web development. A team of 4 to 5 individuals representing the full spectrum of this experience — as well as both NatureServe and NPS — will score and rank proposals based on the selection criteria.
We have chosen to issue this solicitation prior to selecting the geospatial platform because we feel that the Web Guide’s initial scale and its relatively narrow thematic focus demands careful consideration of the full range of options available to the map viewer. We are confident that enlisting the expertise of the selected contractor sooner rather than later in the design process will be a net benefit to the project and eagerly look forward to their contributions and recommendations that their experience will bring.
How many total data layers are anticipated?
The final list will be determined after NPS approves the requirements. We anticipate the map viewer will need to accommodate 15-20 distinct data layers.
Are the natural communities, vegetation, and other data layers already available in GIS format?
Yes, they are available in draft form with a full set of attribute fields. Though we do expect spatial and attribute updates to some of these layers over the next 4-6 months, these updates will affect neither the spatial extent nor the overall structure of the attributes. We anticipate that the full range of descriptive and other attribute information will be accessed through an indentifier stored with the geospatial data.
Is all the spatial data to be consumed by the Web Guide held by NatureServe and/or NPS?
NatureServe and NPS possess all of the relevant park specific spatial data. However, to extend the spatial extent of the base layers (e.g., aerial imagery/street map), the map viewer should be able to accommodate serving imagery through a web service.
Section 5.11 states that a final list of data layers is “TBD Shortly” — Is any additional detail available on the data layers?
Not at this time. The team will finalize the list of required data layers during the upcoming technical planning stage.
Is it expected that the Web Guide will consume spatial data from other sources such as Google etc?
Yes, the map viewer should be able to accommodate serving imagery through a web service.
The RFP indicates that several potential base map layers are under consideration, including aerial/satellite and street map. Does NatureServe already have these base map layers available for inclusion in the site, or will the consultant need to provide them?
NatureServe and NPS possess all of the relevant park specific spatial data. However, to extend the spatial extent of the base layers (e.g., aerial imagery/street map), the map viewer should be able to accommodate serving imagery through a web service.
Is there a preference for basemap? Will commercially available basemaps like Bing Maps or ArcGIS Online be an option?
We have no current preferences. The viability of commercially available basemaps may in the end relate more to budget considerations.
In what format is the existing geospatial data — shapefiles? coverages? geodatabases?
Our geospatial data currently exists in ESRI compatible formats, such as shapefiles (10-15 layers), a personal geodatabase, and imagery. We expect the map viewer to be able to accommodate a variety of geospatial data formats.
The vegetation polygon layer exits both as a shapefile and a gdb (the gdb to take advantage of topology tools). The imagery is in tiff and sid format. Other data — soils, geology, trails, points of interest — are all shapefiles. The associated attributes are minimal: identifier codes (CEGL and CES), soil code (names are in an associated mdb), geology code and name, trail name, community name for high quality locations, etc., respectively for the different layers.
If geodatabase, what platform (Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle (and version), etc...)?
Our data can be formatted as a geodatabase if that is preferable or shapefiles if it is not. Should we determine that a geodatabase is the most efficient way to organize the data, we expect that the contractor will help us determine the preferred geodatabase platform.
Will the geodatabases be accessed live, or could these be ported to other open-source databases?
Depending on the design, either approach could be supported — although we are somewhat uncertain about the point the question is raising.
If it is arises from an expectation that the map viewer needs to connect live with a dynamic, transactional geodatabase in order to reflect real-time updates by multiple users — that is not our intention. We envision that the site’s geospatial data will be more stable and static and capable of being supported with scheduled refreshes.
Apart from the content mentioned in the details and notes, what additional spatial information will the application be required to calculate? (i.e. slope, watersheds, etc.)
In addition to area and length (distance), we expect basic queries involving selection processes such as intersect and buffer to return summary information. No additional calculations are anticipated at this time.
Who will be responsible for transforming the GIS data into MXD and/or map service documents (MSD)?
NatureServe and NPS. If circumstances require it, we would negotiate this as an additional service with a contractor or subcontractor.
Will all data be provided in a unified projection/coordinate system (i.e. Web Mercator)?
Yes — this would be a standard step in our data preparation. If circumstances require it, we would negotiate this as an additional service with a contractor or subcontractor.
Who will provide the cartography for the park maps?
NatureServe and NPS. If circumstances require it, we would negotiate this as an additional service with a contractor or subcontractor.
Item 5.7 on the technical requirements document references a Phase II for “identifying additional spatial features.” Please clarify whether this task is part of the current RFP or is something that will be developed only as more parks and data become available?
The reference to Phase II can and should be ignored here, as the thrust of the requirement refers the display of GIS data attributes. The bottom line is that the map viewer’s identify tool needs to function properly — thereby allowing users to identify multiple attributes, or “spatial features,” for multiple map layers — while supporting the subsequent addition of new layers.
Can you more fully describe the role of NatureServe staff developers in this project? How much of the non-spatial site content/development will they be providing?
NatureServe in-house staff have lead responsibility for all of the project’s major development tasks — naming and identity, information architecture and interface design, web programming, data and information management, template development. We will also have lead responsibility for producing the API documentation that describes functionality calls required by the map viewer to access those portions of the Web Guide developed in-house.
Does/should the proposal include a recommendation regarding a Content Management System (CMS), or is the CMS platform already selected?
No. NatureServe will select a CMS for the non-spatial portions of the Web Guide upon completion of the information architecture. Pending the outcome of that task and some preliminary technical explorations, however, we are provisionally preparing to use the open-source CMS Drupal.
Is Rock Creek Park the only of the 10 parks that has a completed field guide? Will it be the only park included in the prototype Web Guide?
We expect work on the NPS NCR Field Guide to Natural Communities for Rock Creek Park to occur concurrently with work on the Web Guide, and some content development will be shared between the two. For the Web Guide prototype, this in depth content will only be available for Rock Creek Park. However, we may also decide to include limited “placeholder” content for the other 10 parks to signal its intended expansion. Similarly, although the spatial data for the prototype will be densest and most relevant for Rock Creek Park, respondents should anticipate that the prototype map viewer’s will display park boundaries for the 10 parks. In addition, the map viewer would ideally accommodate long-term national expansion.
Items 5.18 and 7.3 note that certain non-spatial content elements need to be acquired. Can you be more specific about what these data are? Who will be responsible for acquiring these?
Item 5.18 relates to spatial data on threats, 7.3 to photographs. NatureServe and NPS will acquire these and any additional similar materials beyond what we already possess.
Will the Rock Creek Park prototype act as a template for presenting both geospatial and other content about the remaining parks?
Yes. Work on the site design and development will seek to fully anticipate its future expansion to include the other parks.
Should the map viewer integrate the written content, or do you want to maintain this as a separate web page without an interactive map?
As mentioned above, the Web Guide’s non-geospatial content will be maintained in a CMS. This material will be accessible to users through standard web navigation and CMS-driven web pages. The map viewer should also integrate and expose this content as is relevant based on location-specific context and map extent.
Could you provide a link to an example of a site similar to that envisaged by this project?
Although its scale and complexity are significantly greater, the most relevant example is probably LandScope America, a project co-developed by NatureServe and National Geographic. While the beta version still awaits additional improvements to its usability and to the look and feel of its tools, both the central role of the map viewer within the site and its seamless integration of geospatial and other content provide standards that the Web Guide should aspire to. Despite the prototype’s fine-scale focus on Rock Creek Park, the design of the Web Guide’s map viewer should also consider how to accommodate not only additional park units within the National Capital Region but also, ultimately, the entire national park system.
Where will the cross-platform testing be performed and how long is this anticipated to last?
We anticipate that cross-platform testing of the map viewer will occur iteratively during the development process to increase efficiency and reduce late-emerging surprises. The goal of this testing is to ensure that the Web Guide prototype performs consistently across major browsers and operating systems. Testing and verification can and should be performed from the contractor’s location, from NatureServe, and from NPS.
Have the target platforms been determined?
Not categorically, but we would expect to test the site’s performance on major operating systems and browsers.
In section 2.2 of the RFP, you outline materials to be provided to the selected contractor upon award. Is it possible to get a clearer idea of these materials in order to provide a more accurate work assessment and bid? This would include at least some general information about the website requirements, available GIS data and attributes, and specifications for the non-map viewer components.
The requirements provided as Appendix A of the RFP represent the current and complete set of user requirements for the Web Guide. We will begin finalizing the list of GIS data and working on the Web Guide’s information architecture and other specifications shortly after receiving final NPS approval of the requirements.
How many simultaneous site users are anticipated?
We expect modest use of the Rock Creek prototype, with the potential audience to increase to a few hundred simultaneous users upon expanding to include other parks.
What tools will be used for determining accessibility/508 compliance? Will NPS and NatureServe provide testing/tools or should this be budgeted for?
Item 8.1 is more a design recommendation than a strict requirement. NatureServe will provide the tools and lead any testing that is conducted during development.
Item 6.4 of the technical requirements document references information helpful for “mobile.” Is a mobile application envisioned as part of this RFP? If so, please clarify the desired mobile functionality and/or platforms.
Development of a mobile application or mobile-optimized version of the site is not part of the current scope of work on the map viewer. However, the team will consider extending into such areas during the project’s next phases and will seek to structure the non-spatial content in ways that can be readily adapted or repurposed to such uses. As of this writing, we do not consider a mobile extension of the map viewer to be technically or financially feasible.
Section 5.1 describes the map viewer as a tool for navigating the parks, and one that will support “virtual navigation.” Is this intended to be a point-by-point guide for users to take with them on their mobile device? Or by “virtual,” do you mean it to be a web application through which a remote user on a desktop or laptop computer can navigate and explore the trail and all its features?
At the present time, the primary meaning is the latter.
Will vendors located outside the Washington, DC, area be considered on an equal footing regardless of location?
Yes. NatureServe maintains four regional offices in addition to its home office in Arlington, VA, and our staff are both experienced and adept at maintaining highly effective and productive working relationships across distance.
