OGC Testbed 13 CFP Clarifications
|Link to CFP:||New to OGC?|
|20-Feb, 9:15AM||(U.S. Eastern)||http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/154|
Try scrolling down and starting with Q #1.
Please send any corrections or additional questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
|Latest CFP file refresh (U.S. Eastern Time):|
Also feel free to download a copy to perform your own local sorting & filtering.
|Questions Received 19-20 February|
|76||20-Feb||EOC||TEP||May bidders submit in-kind proposals for EOC Thread, TEP Work Package deliverables after the February 17 Part 2 ITT submission deadline?||Yes, but if a bidder is selected to make these deliverables, it would likely be assumed that they were being provided merely on a "best-effort" basis (i.e., they would not be included in the Statement of Work attached to the subsequent Participation Agreement between the Participant and OGC).|
|Questions Received 18 February|
|75||18-Feb||FO||Workflows||Section B.23 of the 31 January Version 1.2 revision of the CFP changed from the previous version, Before, the introduction described the ad-hoc workflow composition based on an OGC PubSub specification implementation. In Version 1.2, the paragraphs are missing and the illustration of the architecture (Figure 30) shows significant changes. Still, the deliverable NG131 describes a "Workflow PubSub Server". Should NG131 should be an implementation of OGC PubSub, and how does this relate to the concept of "planned" (static) Business Processes as described in B.23.1?||NG131 is the workflow control service. Bidders should propose the service type. NG132 is a data service used to store workflow intermediate results. Any transactional service type is acceptable.|
|Questions Received 17 February|
|74||17-Feb||n/a||n/a||Must a Bidder who intends to submit a purely in-kind contribution (i.e., not including any cost-share request) complete and submit the CFP Financial Template?||If the Bidder wishes to become the “officially” selected Participant to make a testbed deliverable, then it must sign a Participation Agreement so that all the other testbed stakeholders can later rely upon the committed delivery. OGC and Sponsors prefer to know how much in-kind contribution is being made by all Participants across the entire testbed. So all else being equal, OGC would likely select a Bidder for participation if that Bidder has included a completed Financial spreadsheet.|
On the other hand, if the interested party merely wishes to make an offer to optionally make some contribution, on a best-effort basis, then  such an offering may be made at any time,  OGC would not be obligated to accept this offer, and  the interested party would not be obligated to deliver it.
For example, an interested party might be considering contribution of a dataset (though in this case, the best option might be for the party to respond to the T13 RFI (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/156).
|73||17-Feb||n/a||n/a||What is the Part 1 CFP submission deadline?||For the Part 1 CFP only (NOT the Part 2 ITT), submissions should be made before 11:59pm U.S. Eastern Time on the due date. Organizations located in time zones west of the U.S. Eastern time zone may request an extension to 11:59pm local time.|
|Questions Received 16 February|
|72||16-Feb||S3D||NAS Profiling||Is NG113 Data Models a deliverable for the NAS profiling work pkg, the CDB work package, or both?||NG113 is a deliverable under NAS profiling, and will be used in CDB to develop data that complies with the model if time allows.|
|Questions Received 14-15 February|
|71||15-Feb||n/a||n/a||Does an organization have to be a legal entity in order to submit a bid for the Part 1 CFP (non-ESA)?||Yes. In order for a Bidder to become a fully privileged testbed Participant, it will be necessary for some legal entity to sign a Participation Agreement with OGC. This legal entity can hire other team members to help perform the work, but the signing organization is the one that would be legally bound to deliver. On the other hand, if an interested individual from an OGC member merely wishes to observe the testbed and perhaps offer something up on a best-effort basis, that individual would just have to sign a Testbed 13 Observer Agreement and then monitor testbed activity to determine the appropriate opportunity to make the offering. Under these circumstances, the Observer would be under no obligation to make the offer, and OGC would be under no obligation to accept it.|
|Questions Received 11-13 February|
|70||13-Feb||n/a||n/a||Should the labor rates used to build a bidder's cost-sharing estimates include profit and other overheads?||Yes, the "Hourly Rate" entries in both the cost-share and the in-kind financial response spreadsheets should be fully burdened. That way the product of the Hourly Rate and the Projected Labor Hours will always provide a full estimated cost for any given activity.|
|Questions Received 10 February|
|69||10-Feb||n/a||n/a||If a Bidder feels that the time constraints on a particular deliverable are too aggressive, may it propose delivering only a subset of that deliverable?||In general, all else being equal, a proposal addressing all a deliverable’s requirements will be favored over one addressing only a proper subset. However, each Bidder is at liberty to control its own proposal. So yes, a Bidder may propose delivering a proper subset for any particular deliverable. Also, a proposal that clearly states what is being proposed will generally be favored over one that is vague or imprecise. So any Bidder who chooses to propose a proper subset of a deliverable’s requirements should prominently, fully, and unambiguously describe this intention.|
|Questions Received 9 February|
|68||9-Feb||EOC||TEP||In the Part 2 ITT file “PDGS-EVOL-CGI-TN-16-1570-Testbed_13_Technical_Architecture.pdf”, section “B.1. Forestry TEP Scenario”, last row (“AWS”) of the table “B.1.1 Actors”, is the sentence “AWS provides an OpenSearch catalog interface to allow discovery of all products served” accurate?||No, this sentence was not entirely accurate. AWS does not have a catalog, but rather it updates lists and allows subscription to an SNS topic to build event-based systems. The language should be modified to read “A catalog instance supporting OpenSearch that allows discovery of all products served will be made available on AWS.”||Part 2 ITT only|
|Questions Received 8 February|
|67||8-Feb||n/a||n/a||Are the 4-6 April Kickoff dates fixed?||Yes.||duplicate item - strikethrough on Feb. 20|
|Questions Received 7 February|
|66||7-Feb||n/a||n/a||Are the 4-6 April Kickoff dates fixed?||Yes.|
|65||7-Feb||n/a||n/a||What is the closing date for Part 1 CFP proposal submissions?||The deadline has been modified to Monday, 20 February. The deadline for Part 2 ITT remains unchanged (see #45).|
|Questions Received 4-6 February|
|64||6-Feb||n/a||n/a||Is the Bidders Q&A Webinar open to the public or just to OGC members?||The webinar is open to the public. Everyone must pre-register, however, at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2467539768498077442.|
|63||6-Feb||DSI||Mass Migration||In the "Deliverables" in B.12.5 Standards, Models, and Frameworks, is some text missing from the end of the last sentence under AB002: Security ER?||Yes, this sentence should read "The ER shall document how security architecture of secured web service resource components, as well as the security-enabling components using SAML, OAuth and Open ID Connect, work together."|
|62||6-Feb||n/a||n/a||Can any developed source code be open- or closed-source? Who decides, Participants or Sponsors? Who owns the IP?||In general, Participation Agreements do not require Participants to deliver any component source code to OGC. What is delivered instead is the behavior of the component in a Technical Interoperability Experiment (TIE). In some instances, a Sponsor might require a component to be developed under open-source licensing, in which case the Participant must opt for open-source.|
|61||9-Feb||S3D||3DTiles and i3s||Regarding B17, is it ok for the participants to define some open data sets (such as http://www.coors-online.de/standards/3d-portrayal-service/3dps-test-data-sets/) to be used in the work package? Or will the sponsors provide data sets that have to be used?||It is appreciated if participants can provide data that can be used in the testbed.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|60||9-Feb||S3D||3DTiles and i3s||The work of B.17 is dependent upon the CDB and NAS Profiling work, but there appears to be an assumption regarding NAS profiling and CDB that may not be relevant to B.17. The core of the CDB standard is a conceptual model and file system instance of that conceptual model. The physical data store file path and file naming conventions are based in part on feature codes. A NAS profile might not alter the existing use of feature codes - although additional codes would be available for use in the NAS profile. As such, the current model and physical data store structure may be suitable for evaluating the use of I3S and 3D Tiles for streaming 3d content from a CDB data store. Would the approach of not having to use a to be defined NAS profile of CDB be acceptable? Removing the dependency could provide a much lower risk approach that could still provide the information required to generate the desired ER.||As described in paragraph 3, the use of i3s and 3D Tiles, i.e. the feasibility study, can be executed with suitbale data provided by the participants and does not need to take the NAS profile work into account. "The 3DTiles and i3s: Interoperability & Performance analysis in Testbed-13 shall provide a demonstration of all examined test scenarios. The demonstration shall include 3D data streaming capabilities supporting CDB and CityGML data streamed according to the 3D Tiles and i3s Community Standards. Ideally, this work takes the results from the CDB Feasibility Study as described in section CDB into consideration. As timing of this work is largely dependent upon the work of the CDB and NAS Profiling work described there, it is expected that preliminary work would utilize a non-specialized CDB/CityGML data set served through an i3s and a 3D Tiles server." Nevertheless, the study shall take NAS profile aspects into account once they become available.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|59||9-Feb||DSI||Modeling||Regarding NA104 WCS access to climate data, can this also be a WMS access?||No, because the climate data shall be used by other models or processes as input. It shall be a WCS.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|58||9-Feb||DSI||Modeling||Regarding NA103 Prediction WPS, can this also be focused on both floods and droughts or does this need to be droughts only? What is the level of complexity envisaged for end-user based parameterization? How simple can this be?||For sure it can both floods and droughts. The level of complexity is certainly scalable. It should include at least some parameters to be set by the client, ideally these parameters include links to data sets or parameters that allow what-if-scneario settings.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|57||9-Feb||DSI||Modeling||Regarding NA102 Non-Scientist or Analyst Client, can this be an already existing client e.g. GIS portal run on a WMS? What is meant by "on-demand" models? Are these supposed to be different on-demand model outputs in the client or actual different physically-based models?||NA102 shall support NA103, the prediction WPS, and NA104, the data WCS. Goal is that a client can start and parameterize a simulation model that runs on NA103 and retrieves data from NA104. The client shall support the necessary GUI elements to work with WPS and visualize results.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|56||6-Feb||several||several||What is meant by a military profile and a military scenario?||Some initial thoughts can be found in the scenario description at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=72522. The bottom line is that the Sponsor is looking at what would be needed if the military were acting in a support role to a humanitarian crisis not looking for what's needed if you are going in kicking doors. This pulls in CDB, Profiling, 3D portrayal.|
|55||6-Feb||S3D||CDB||The testbed CFP might consider aligning the testbed to the current work underway in the CDB SWG in the following manner. Modify requirements and deliverables to make clear that the first profile to be developed, currently called “CDB NAS-Profile", is in fact requested to be a CDB NAS-Feature-and-Attribute-encoding-profile (NASF&A?). Constraining the profile developed for the testbed to a profile using the NAS Feature Data Dictionary would also reduce the developmental risk of NG105: CDB Conversion Client within this testbed, and facilitate experimentation with CDB datasets using the as-is CDB feature codes alongside data tiles using the new profile; conceivably using the services and viewers otherwise described in the testbed and supporting performance and Urban Military use case evaluations with side-by-side comparisons.|
Also, there is some confusion in the current CFP between the text and figures on deliverable NG101. In the "Deliverables" section of B.16, NG101 is bulleted as "NG101: Feasibility Study." There is no listing of the CDB-NAS-Profile in the Deliverables section in B.16 of the CFP. In Figure 23, there is a box containing the label "NG101: CDB-NAS-Profile.“
|These concerns are understood, but testbed requirements are not necessarily designed to be 100% in line with the work a SWG was already considering or doing. Rather, they align with Sponsor requirements. Sponsors make every effort to consider a SWG's direction, but often it knows that testbed requirements could stretch the SWG in directions they had not previously considered. This particular work is being funded by Sponsor research and development funds, which means they consider it to be experimental, and they understand and accept the risks that go along with that. So the Sponsor has chosen to leave the requirements as stated.|
The place to start would be with the Features and Attributes, but this is not the place to stop. The way a Participant chooses to tackle the work (e.g., starting with the Features and Attributes) is up to them.
It is hoped that the selected Participants for CDB and ShapeChange will work hand-in-hand supporting this work so that the full burden doesn't fall on just one set of shoulders.
|54||6-Feb||S3D||CDB||Sequencing dependencies among the B.16-B.18 deliverables related to CDB could create schedule risks within the relatively short testbed duration. B.17 provides an example of how this risk could be mitigated by allowing preliminary work to “...utilize a non-specialized CDB/CityGML data set served through an i3s and a 3D Tiles server.” Could a similar allowance be made by offering the Participants assigned NG102, NG103, NG104, and NG113 the capability to begin preliminary work using OGC CDB 1.0 as-is, with its current OGC CDB 1.0 feature description coding, with a request for inclusion of modifications to support other not-yet-developed profiles that may result from NG101, should they be developed with a reasonable time remaining in the testbed for consideration?|
In B.18 the requirements seem to have a dependency on the B.16 Feasibility Study, but in turn the B.18 work description says "This profile shall define the vector contents requirements for the CDB and CityGML urban centric profiles from the NAS described in section CDB." Does this produce a circular dependency?
|It is understood that the sequencing of testbed work can sometimes present challenges. Feasibility Studies are included in the requirements to provide some timeline relief to assigned Participants. So while the CDB is analyzing the requirements for the models, the profiles and the methods of delivery, hopefully Participants working the modeling software tools (ShapeChange) will have enough information to get started, and will have at least a workable (if not final) CityGML and CDB profile to perform initial testing.|
It would make sense for the Participant to start with an existing dataset as part of their analysis but the Sponsor is not interested in a current CDB 1.0 solution (so avoid making that the focus of this effort).
Note the Urban Profile will have a limited set of features and attributes, not the full NAS or DGIWG models. The intent is that the content of the Urban Profile (NAS Profiling task) will be able to be output as both CityGML and CDB.
The mutual dependency should be interepreted such that the lastest available information from each source should be referenced by the other, and then each interpretation should be iterated as the information is updated on the other side. It's not ideal, but progress can still be made against intermediate versions.
|53||6-Feb||S3D||CDB||B.16 CDB Feasibility Study states that “. . . the study shall evaluate the current CDB data model as compared to the NSG and DGIWG data models and investigate interoperability between the current CDB data contents and a NAS based content. A CDB SWG sub-workgroup investigating Feature Data Dictionaries was recently informed that the DGIWG data model is in a final stage of preparation but not yet released. What recommendation(s) can be provided for respondents to evaluate the feasibility and risk of evaluating this unreleased data model?||Start by looking at the NAS: https://nsgreg.nga.mil/nas/. There are some definite differences in the content between the NAS and the DGIWG models, but generally the overall model structure will be very similar.|
|52||9-Feb||S3D||CDB||1. Will NG113 data usage be limited to testbed Participants for use only for testbed purposes?|
2. If a participant offers a suitable dataset for this deliverable but with specific distribution rights/license, how can we ensure that the data usage will conform to the associated data license? Any experience on this from previous test beds?
|The data models generated by Testbed-13 shall be available for other purposes as well, though details need to be agreed with the sponsor. If a participant provides data, all other users of this testbed are required to sign a non-distribution/use-only-for-testbed agreement if required by the data providing participant.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|51||9-Feb||S3D||CDB||Which deliverable will produce the CDB dataset implementing the NAS as recommended by the NG101 such that NG102 to NG105 can be tested? It seems that “NG113: Data Models” deliverable may be the dataset itself (and not a data model). Under this assumption, the sequence seems to be:|
1. Provision the Urban dataset (NG113).
2. If the dataset is not CDB, create a CDB out of it (NG??).
3. Apply the NAS change as proposed in the NG101 (NG??) to the CDB dataset to support NG102-105.
4. Execute NG102-105 using the CDB provided above (NG102-105).
5. Execute NG106-111 using the same dataset.
Please confirm/correct this understanding.
|The dataset needs for the CDB study needs to produced by NG101. NG113 produces data models, not actual data. In addition, NG113 will only be available towards the end of Testbed-13. The data produced by NG101 shall support the urban military scenario, and ideally takes early results from NG113 work into consideration. Thus, the sequence is: Provision of CDB dataset (NG101; this might require some transformation/adaptation from the data provided by sponsor or by participant), NG102-104: serving the data (there is a dependency to NG113. If NG113 data models are not available early enough, NG102-104 shall provide data according to NG101. Same is true for NG106-111. It is anticipated that these items need to use results from NG101. Only if NG113 is available early enough, NG113 results shall be used.||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|50||9-Feb||S3D||CDB||Regarding B.16 NG105: CDB Client, what does the model transformation mean? Is this the NSG and DGIWG data models? or it is a feature data dictionary transformation only. Regarding the statement “Data suitable to exercise the data model and schema shall be synthesized or will be provided,” wouldn’t we need to know whether the data is being provided or not?||It is currently not clear what data will be availble. OGC executes an RFI to investigate for that purpose. As the feedback to the RFI is still outstanding, it cannot be guaranteed that data is availble. In that case, data would need to be synthesized. The transformation is described in B.16: " The client shall support an existing CDB dataset that uses FACC encoding and supports the transformation to a different Feature Data Dictionary (NAS) according to the CDB-NAS Profile."||updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.|
|Questions Received 3 February|
|49||3-Feb||n/a||n/a||Should some of the references to "Testbed 12" have been to "Testbed 13" instead?||Yes in three bullets in Section 1.3 "CFP Documents" and in the first sentence of Section B.2.1 "Types of Deliverables".|
|48||3-Feb||EOC||TEP||[Part 2 ITT only, but very similar to Part 1 question #28] Must the prime contractor under the Part 2 ITT solicitation be an OGC member?||[Similar wording to #28] The minimum requirement is that the prime contractor be an OGC member. However it should be noted that subcontractor employees will generally not be permitted to access the Testbed 13 restricted area of the Portal nor attend any of the private Testbed 13 working meetings / telecons unless their organization becomes a member. They would be permitted to join a portion of a meeting as an invited guest, but this is a very limited and temporary privilege. The reason for this restriction is that all OGC members are bound by the OGC bylaws, which offer protections to other members.||Part 2 ITT only|
|47||3-Feb||EOC||TEP||[Part 2 ITT only] What currency should be used in proposals under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?||The SCOT mandates the use Excel spreadsheet templates which indicates US dollars as the currency. Please change this to EUROs for your proposal. Financial proposals must only be submitted in EUROs.||Part 2 ITT only|
|46||3-Feb||EOC||TEP||[Part 2 ITT only] Are multiple Admissibility Forms required under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?||Only one Admissibility form from the prime contractor is required. An admissibility form for each member of your consortium is not required||Part 2 ITT only|
|45||20-Feb||EOC||TEP||[Part 2 ITT only] Has the Part 2 ITT submission deadline also been modified to 20 February?||[replacing #29 and #34] No, the Closing Date for Part 2 ITT AO320105 had previously been extended to Friday 17th February 2017 at 13:00 hours CET, and this closing date for Part 2 ITT submissions remains unchanged.||Part 2 ITT only; repaired typo in the Question on Feb. 20|
|44||3-Feb||EOC||TEP||[Part 2 ITT only] What entities are eligible to bid for funding under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?||[replacing #31] All entities with economic operations in participating states of ESA’s EOEP-5 programme are eligible to bid for funding. Participating states are Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.||Part 2 ITT only|
|43||3-Feb||n/a||n/a||Is it permitted to propose activities on a single work package from a thread, or to combine in a proposal activities from WPs from multiple threads||Yes and yes.|
|42||3-Feb||n/a||n/a||Is the quality of a proposal also judged on the number of deliverables in a bidder's proposed work?||The total number of deliverables is not a proposal evaluation criterion. In Testbed 12, deliverable assignments (including both cost-share and in-kind) ranged from as few as one to over ten for selected Participants.|
|41||3-Feb||n/a||n/a||Can we apply only for a few deliverables for a work package?||Yes, a bidder may propose for any subset of a full work package, even a single deliverable.|
|40||3-Feb||n/a||n/a||We often apply different rates depending on the funding agency. What rates are expected? Can we expect applicable rates to be the same as if we were doing business directly with the Sponsor(s)?||Bidders are not required to disclose how they arrive at the rates shown in their proposals.|
|Questions Received 2 February|
|39||2-Feb||n/a||n/a||The two links to "Response Templates" in CFP Sections 1.3 and 2.1 (to the Portal directory containing the 2 response templates) won't work unless the reader is already logged in to the Portal.||Readers can access each template separately by following the independent links on the CFP request page (http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/154). These links are copied here for convenience:|
Narrative Template: https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=72301
Financial Template: https://portal.opengeospatial.org/files/?artifact_id=72302.
|Questions Received 1 February|
|38||1-Feb||EOC||TEP||Could some of what ESA is trying to achieve in Testbed 13 be shared? This would be the work solicited under the Part 2 Invitation to Tender (ITT).||The availability of the growing volume of environmental data from space represents a unique opportunity for science and applications, but it also poses a major challenge to achieve its full potential in terms of data exploitation. EO Exploitation Platforms (EPs) initiative, a set of R&D activities that in the first phase (up to 2017) aims to create an ecosystem of interconnected Thematic Exploitation Platforms (TEPs).|
ESA issued the Testbed 13 Part 2 ITT solicitation to invite support for the development of ESA’s Thematic Exploitation Platforms (TEP) by exercising envisioned workflows for data integration, processing, and analytics based on algorithms developed by users.
The goal is to put an already developed application into an Exploitation Platform (EP) Application Package, upload this package to the Thematic Exploitation Platform (TEP), and deploy it on infrastructure that is provided as a service (IaaS) for testing and execution. The entire workflow should support federated user management (Identity provider and security token service) and makes use of already available catalog services (Central Geospatial Resource Catalog) and catalog interfaces as part of the cloud platforms.
|Part 2 ITT only|
|37||1-Feb||n/a||n/a||What are some possible reasons that an organization might want to provide a purely in-kind proposal?||One of the primary benefits that can accrue to any Participant organization, whether purely in-kind or cost-sharing, is that valuable activities can take place earlier in the Participant's product life cycle. These include early insights and skill building, earlier visibility and market deployment, a potential broadening of market reach, and an opportunity for direct influence on the direction of future standards.|
|36||1-Feb||n/a||n/a||Are the Amazon Web Service cloud-credit grants that were supplied to qualifying Participants in Testbed 12 still available for Testbed 13?||Yes. Interested Participants must again qualify via a formal application process, which can be commenced at https://aws.amazon.com/earth/research-credits/. For additional assistance, please email an inquiry to email@example.com.|
|Questions Received 31 January|
|35||31-Jan||n/a||n/a||What is the latest version of the CFP?||31 January, 4:36pm U.S. Eastern Time. Changes to the CFP file are listed under "Corrigenda" at the top of this CFP file.|
|34||31-Jan||EOC||TEP||Has the deadline for proposals in response to the Part 2 ITT solicitation been modified?||Yes, as of the current date of this answer, the submission deadline is now 17 Feb, 1300 CET.||Part 2 ITT only|
|33||31-Jan||n/a||n/a||The introduction to Item B.17 states that the OGC has approved two independent Community Standards related to 3D capabilities with Streaming: 3D Tiles and Indexed 3d Scene Layer (I3S). Isn’t it more accurate to state that these two specifications have only BEGUN the process, and are not (yet) OGC approved Community Standards?||Correct - neither has been approved yet, only the Work Items to start the review and approval process.|
|32||31-Jan||n/a||n/a||OGC members can access Testbed 12 documents in the Portal Pending folder. How can organizations that are not yet members access them?||Any organization that is not yet an OGC member and wishes to view an unpublished Testbed 12 document should send an email inquiry to firstname.lastname@example.org.|
|Questions Received 30 January|
|31||30-Jan||EOC||TEP||Are there any restrictions on who may submit a bid under the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation?||Yes, only ESA-member-state organizations can register (Europe and Canada).||Part 2 ITT only|
|30||30-Jan||EOC||TEP||Is there any additional information regarding how to access the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation details?||To view the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation, an organization must first become a “Registered Entity” with ESA. As stated at the website http://www.esa.int/About_Us/Business_with_ESA/How_to_do/esa-star_Registration_Process:|
“Please note that esa-star allows two levels of entity registration: “Light” and “Full”. This allows new users wishing to do business with ESA to carry out their registration in two steps. A “Light” registration will grant access to all esa-star services up to and including proposal submission. The award of ESA contracts requires “Full” registration.”
So a “Light” registration is sufficient to support downloading the ITT and submitting a proposal. Then any Bidder selected under this Part 2 specialized solicitation would need to continue on with the full registration to become a Participant (for those particular testbed deliverables).
|Part 2 ITT only|
|29||30-Jan||EOC||TEP||What is the deadline for the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation?||The revised proposal submission deadline for Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation been postponed to February 17 to align with Part 1 CFP general solicitation due date.||Part 2 ITT only|
|28||30-Jan||n/a||n/a||It's understood that a bidding organization must be (or soon become) an OGC member. We intend to lead a consortium of several subcontractors, some of whom are not members. Must every company (including subs) become a member?||The direct answer is that only the bidding organization is required to be/become a member. However, employees of subcontractors who are not members will not be permitted to access the testbed-restricted area of the Portal nor attend any of the private testbed working meetings / telecons. They could be permitted to briefly join a portion of a meeting as an invited guest, but this is a limited and temporary privilege. The reason for this restriction is that members are bound by the OGC bylaws, which offer protections to other members. Affording the same privileges to non-members could have a chilling effect on what are intended to be free and innovative discussions.|
|Questions Received 29 January|
|27||29-Jan||n/a||n/a||Are the links to the Testbed 12 ERs broken?||Testbed 12 delivered 51 documents. Once one of them has been approved by TC vote to be made public, a link will be provided at http://docs.opengeospatial.org/per/. This voting is ongoing. In the meantime, OGC members can access the draft versions by searching for the document number (16-nnn) in the Portal Pending" folder at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=public&orderby=default&tab=1.|
|Questions Received 28 January|
|26||28-Jan||n/a||n/a||The language in the CFP body appears similar to Testbed 12 Main Body. Did anything change?||Some minor editing work was performed, and the following major items were added:|
Section 1. Introduction: description of the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation;
Section 2.5. Venture Capital Coordination Opportunity: entire section added;
Section 3. Proposal Evaluation Criteria were simplified and collapsed into 2 sets;
Section 5. Summary of Testbed Deliverables: 3 specilized requirements for NG services (Profile, compliance test, security);
Section 5: Indication of preference for NG services hosted in a cloud;
Section 5: Inclusion of Work Package IDs in deliverable tables.
|Changes from Testbed 12|
|25||28-Jan||n/a||n/a||The language in Appendix A appears similar to Testbed 12 Annex A. Did anything change?||Some minor editing work was performed, and the following major items were added:|
Section A.5.3 Monthly Progress Reporting: Participant Monthly Technical and Business Reports will now be due on the 3rd of each month (forecasting is permitted);
Section A.5.3: Monthly reporting data may be entered into the Portal (vs. Word doc);
Section A.7.3 Document Activity Types: the ER Development activity contains 3 added requirements (consult the WG, join the email list, describe alignment in initial ER).
|Changes from Testbed 12|
|Questions Received 27 January|
|24||27-Jan||n/a||n/a||What is the link to the latest Clarifications?||https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vLlrQnA-68RCTrM0yVV-kQe6t8ALWkx22z-aNpteI1k/edit?usp=sharing|
|23||27-Jan||n/a||n/a||How to register for the Bidders Q&A Webinar?||https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/2467539768498077442|
|22||27-Jan||n/a||n/a||Are the Amazon Web Service cloud-credit grants that were supplied to qualifying Participants in Testbed 12 still available for Testbed 13?||Yes. Interested Participants must again qualify via a formal application process that starts by submitting an expression of interest to email@example.com.|
|Questions Received 26 January|
|21||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Where can the Testbed 13 CFP be found?||http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/154|
|20||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||What files make up the CFP?||A PDF version of the CFP (body plus three appendices), a zip archive containing an HTML version (must be extracted first), and two response templates.|
|19||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Have any revisions been made as Corrigenda to the original CFP?||No, not as of the "last revised" date above. In particular, the original CFP “Master Schedule” is still in effect.|
|18||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||How late will questions be accepted for the Bidders Q&A Webinar?||To guarantee that a question will be considered for inclusion during the Webinar, it must be submitted by 3 Feb. Other questions will be addressed on a best-effort basis.|
|17||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Where can the slides from the Bidders Q&A Webinar be found?||Once they become available, these slides will be posted in the Portal at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/index.php?m=projects&a=view&project_id=503&tab=2&artifact_id=68029 .|
|16||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Can an organization that is not an OGC member submit a proposal?||CFP: "Selected Participants must be OGC members. Any Bidder who is not already a member of the OGC must submit an application for membership with its proposal."|
|15||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||What will the end date be for Participation Agreement periods of performance?||The PA PoP will extend through December to allow sufficient time for delivery inspection and rework.|
|14||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Have all Testbed 12 ERs been published?||Testbed 12 generated 51 document deliverables, some of which are still being prepared for publication. Draft versions can be found in the Portal "Pending" folder at https://portal.opengeospatial.org/?m=public&orderby=default&tab=1.|
|General Q&A from Prior Intiatives|
|13||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||My organization is unfamiliar with this process. What’s the best way to start?|| Scan the entire CFP and Clarifications carefully;|
 Identify areas of interest;
 Build the proposal using the two response templates;
 Submit any remaining questions to firstname.lastname@example.org.
|12||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||My organization has never participated in a testbed. Will this impact our likelihood of selection?.||As indicated in the CFP, prior participation is not a direct evaluation criterion. However, prior participation could accelerate the pace at which a potential Bidder absorbs the information presented in the CFP (including Clarifications) and the many documents referenced by the CFP.|
|11||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||How can the Financial Template best be used?||The Financial Template is intended to show representative examples. Bidders should replace the sample entries with specific entries for the proposed cost-share requests and in-kind contributions. Additional details can be found in the template.|
|10||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||What are the cost-share funding requests permitted to cover? Are Kickoff travel costs reimbursable?||Cost-sharing funds may only be used for the purpose of offsetting labor costs of development, engineering, and demonstration of testbed outcomes related to the Participant's assigned deliverables. They may not be used to reimburse any other costs such as preparing CFP response proposals, traveling, procuring hardware or software, etc. As indicated in the In-kind contribution tab in the Financial Template, in-kind contributions may cover a broader set of costs, including labor, travel, hardware, software, and data.|
|9||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Should we expect 100% cost recovery for our work? Are we expected to propose a specific proportion of in-kind vs. cost-share?||Quoting the CFP: "All Participants are required to provide at least some level of in-kind contribution (i.e., activities requesting no cost-share compensation). As a rough guideline, a proposal should include at least one dollar of in-kind contribution for every dollar of cost-sharing compensation requested. All else being equal, higher levels of in-kind contributions will be considered more favorably during evaluation."|
In prior testbeds, the overall leverage of total in-kind contributions to total cost-share funding has reached as high as 3.5.
|8||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||What does "Un-Neg" mean in the Funding Status column of the deliverable table?||The label "Un-Neg" (under negotiation) indicates that a potential Sponsor has indicated intent to provide cost-share funding, but the contract for final commitment is still pending. OGC will not enter into any downstream Participation Agreements for this Sponsor's deliverables until the funding has been secured through an executed Sponsor Agreement. Once this contract has been executed, the deliverables will convert to an “F” (funded) status. So, in general, interested Bidders are encouraged to propose against these deliverables as if the funding were already in place.|
|7||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||What does "U" mean in the Funding Status column of the deliverable table?||The label "U" (unfunded) indicates that a sponsor has identified a requirement for which delivery would make a testbed contribution, but its priority was not sufficiently high to merit funding. Interested Bidders are encouraged to propose in-kind contributions for delivery of unfunded deliverables.|
|6||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Will preference be given to proposed components that are certified OGC compliant?||Yes, one of the CFP Technical Evaluation Criteria is "Where applicable, proposed solutions are OGC-compliant."|
For deliverables having an "NG..." prefix, "All web service deliverables implementing either a DGIWG or NSG Profile must execute and pass any corresponding profile compliance test if one exists".
|5||26-Jan||n/a||n/a||Do Sponsors participate in selection?||The OGC Innovation Program (IP) Team conducts the evaluation and selection, and then presents results to Sponsors for review and recommendations. Negotiation of Participation Agreements is performed strictly between OGC and each selected Bidder.|