• Questions and answers 1-29 below relate to the MAF/TIGER Modernization, Draft Statement of Objectives (SOO).
• Questions and answers 30-37 below relate to the advance copies of Sections L and M of the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project, Request For Proposal (RFP).
• Questions and answers 38-96 below relate to the final draft of the MAF/TIGER Modernization RFP.

Q. Could you please clarify the scope of the intended solicitation.Paragraph 1 of the acquisition strategy states that contractors areexpected to provide services for Objective 1...and it states that thescope of the solicitation is addressed in the Statement of Objectives(SOO).The Statement of Objectives paragraph 1.1 contains five strategic goalswhich seem to correspond to the five modernization Objectives.

A. The five strategic goals are the five modernization objectives. The focus of this SOO is only on objective 1 - Improve Address/Street Location Accuracy; Implement Automated Change Detection. The paragraph directly below the 5 strategic objectives states - Strategic Program Objective 1 is the correction of all street/other map features/map spot locations and the addition of all existing, but currently missing, streets/other map features/map spots to TIGER and their association with MAF addresses, and is the subject of this SOO. The remaining strategic program objectives will be developed through separate programs.

Q. Will there be an additional draft RFP posted prior to the final RFP?

A. As we draft sections of the RFP (B through M), we will release them on the web site. The SOO, currently posted, will be refined for the final RFP and will be part of the RFP (in liue of Section C, a SOW or Performance Work Statement (PWS). Vendor proposals will contain a PWS in response to the SOO and other sections of the RFP.

Q. Is Booz, Allen, and Hamilton (BAH) involved with any of the objectives of MAF/TIGER Modernization?

A. Booz, Allen, and Hamilton are not involved with any of the five MAF/TIGER Modernization objectives. BAH is supporting the Geography Division in areas related to requirements, process modelling, performance matrix, and benchmarking.

Q. The draft Statement of Objectives (SOO) reads as if there will only be one award. Is that your intention?

A. The Census Bureau has a strong preference for a single award. This decision will be made definitively, prior to issuance of the final RFP. If potential offerors have cogent reasons that they believe would make a single award inadvisable, the Census Bureau would expect to here them during this question and answer session.

Q. Would you expect responses to the draft SOO from the teams prime contractor or individual companies?

A. We are soliciting comments from any organization that will assist in making the MAF/TIGER Modernization a reality. We are looking for thoughts and ideas that we can incorporate into the final SOO. Individual company and team comments are welcome.

Q. Would the winning MAF/TIGER Modernization team(s) be expected to locate personnel at Census Bureau facilities?

A. This project will be successful only with a strong partnership between the Census Bureau and selected industry team(s). In order to fully understand the approach of the Census Bureau it would be expected that team members would directly interface on a daily basis with Census Bureau staff.

Q. Has the Census developed a policy related to data licensing as it pertains to geographic and attribute information and other elements that might have a proprietary character, delivered under this contract, specifically for; Imagery, Value added data (transportation, address information, land-use/land-cover, etc.), System design (engineering, architecture, integration techniques)?

A. The Census Bureau is interested only in having the information in MAF/TIGER correct and current. In achieving this, the Census Bureau will not accept restrictions or requirements for licensing, royalties, etc., by commercial companies that prevent it from providing necessary data/data updates to its customers. We do not anticipate being a repository for commercially purchased imagery or geographic data. The TIGER data base is and will remain public information.

Q. What are the prospects of the award recipient(s) being able to buy data on the open market over the course of performing on the contract following the award vs. having to buy from companies on the winning team's proposal at the start? Will there be any restrictions/rules regarding adding other data suppliers to winning teams following the awards?

A. The government seeks the best value and will judge the performance of award recipient(s) accordingly. As far as restrictions on adding data suppliers, none are currently contemplated. It is anticipated that the company (ies) awarded this contract will find the best value once it fully understands the Census Bureau's requirements.

Q. What is the current budget status for the project? How much is appropriated, and specifically for what, in FY 2002, 03, etc. What "type" of money is this? (new money?)

A. No funds have yet to be appropriated for the MAF/TIGER Modernization project and are still awaiting the release of FY 2002 funds. The Census Bureau has prepared an independent government cost estimate for the activities planned for the MAG/TIGER Modernization, as required. If the commercial companies are using the word "new" as funding being requested for an initiative or program increase, then it can be considered "new" money.

Q. Are there any formal or informal perspectives, that this project must be used to support American industry, to the extent that foreign companies, services, sources, partners, company ownership, etc, will be reviewed against those perspectives? Where, if applicable, do those perspectives exist (specific people, Congressional language, etc)?

A. Since it is not yet clear that five contracts will be required we are unable to determine the need for an overall project manager.

Q. What is the procurement schedule (release of RFP and award) for MAF/TIGER Strategic Objective 3 and how will Strategic Objective 3 be coordinated with Strategic Objective 1?

A. All five of the objectives are independent. Expanding and encouraging Geographic Partnership options, which is objective 3, may or may not be released for commercial support. Strategies for implementing objectives 2 through 5 are still being discusses within the Census Bureau.

Q. If the five contracts for Strategic Objectives 1-5 are awarded to different contractors, will the Census manage/coordinate the overall project or will there be a contract for an overall project coordinator?

A. It is not yet clear that five contracts will be required. However, the Census Bureau will be the program manager for MAF/TIGER Modernization. The expected action is that the winning contractor will manage the work of all sub-contractors associated with each contract awarded to provide the product and/or service that is required. At this time the Census Bureau plans to manage the inter-relationships of the various contracts that may be required to support MAF/TIGER Modernization objectives.

Q. What is the anticipated duration and dollar value of Strategic Objective 1?

A. The anticipated start of objective 1 is third quarter, FY 2002. This will include correcting/adding and aligning TIGER data as well as updating and aligning addresses for the MAF. This must be completed by FY 2008. Beginning in FY 2004, updates will commence to previously corrected/added/realigned data to ensure that the data do not age more than 1 year. This updating through the use of detecting change will continue indefinitely.

Q. With the very strong Geographical Information Systems (GIS) capability in the world today, why is the Census Bureau still relying on TIGER files for their geographic encoding data? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to do it by street address?

A. Objective 1 of the MAF/TIGER Modernization project is to make the TIGER data base accurate to a level that will allow the Census Bureau to make validation visits, to deliver questionnaires, and return for any follow-up discussions to any residence in the United States, Puerto Rico, or the associated Island Areas. Since not all structures actually have a city-style address, it makes it difficult for TIGER to be developed using only street addresses. That is why the combination of xy coordinates and some form of address will make each structure unique. The addresses and exact locations would be paramount for delivery of questionnaires and return visits.

Q. Please elaborate on the Census's concept of "cost sharing where compensating benefits may accrue."

A. MAF/TIGER Modernization will benefit many commercial and government users during development and when completed. It is anticipated that participating companies will consider additional users when developing their implementation strategies and that they will spread the costs among all anticipated users as well as to the Census Bureau to provide the most competitive cost estimate to the Census Bureau.

Q. Section 4 "Post Award" of the draft Acquisition Strategy document states " Immediately after award the actual work listed in paragraph 2.1 will begin". Should the paragraph referenced in this sentence actually be 3.1? If not, please explain.

A. The paragraph 2.1 is from the Statement of Objectives (SOO), not the Acquisition Strategy.

Q. Census officials recently visited a significant number of geospatial technology firms throughout the country. Have you identified favored and/or promising technologies that you would consider as adding value to the MAF/TIGER modernization effort?

A. During the market research phase, Census Bureau staff and support contractors visited geospatial technology firms throughout the country. A great number of promising technologies were discovered, but no one individual company presented a complete package to deal with all potential requirements associated with objective 1. The Census Bureau does not believe it has seen or understands all possible technologies that might be used by vendors. We do not wish to prejudge any technology as being good or bad based on our limited experience. We remain open and encourage innovative solutions.

Q. During the past several months during the market research did Geography Division use cost in its research?

A. At no time during visits to geospatial technology firms did Census Bureau staff and support contractors ask for cost related figures. The purpose of the visits was to educate Census Bureau staff and support contractors as to the available technologies and approaches that might deal with MAF/TIGER problems. The Census Bureau did not try to identify companies that could work on MAF/TIGER Modernization. The procurement is open to all contractors without regard to any educational or other visits by Census Bureau staff and/or support contractors.

Q. In the draft SOO the Census Bureau states, "it is anticipated that the selected contractor will establish agreements with many entities during the course of the program, including other vendors, state, local, and tribal governments." We infer from this statement that the Census Bureau will expect that the selected contractor will assume responsibility for executing agreements with "vendors, state, local, and tribal governments. Correct?

A. The Census Bureau expects that the prime contractor will execute agreements with all vendors it requires to satisfy requirements. Relationships and agreements with state, local, and tribal governments will be coordinated by the Census Bureau, who has had strong and viable coordination efforts with many of these government agencies for years. The Census Bureau will execute these government-to-government agreements because the multiple geographic partnership programs available to each government. This strategy will promote a unified government contact that avoids duplication of efforts.

Q. After the Operational Capability Demonstration, does the U.S. Census Bureau have a plan for new geographic data collection (i.e., areas to cover first, rural vs. urban, region by region, etc.)?

A. Only the selected contractor for the project will spend their initial months in discussion with the Census Bureau determining data collection approaches for each county and the order for processing these areas.

Q. For our planning purposes, what exact type of remotely sensed or other data (panchromatic, multispectral, pan-sharpened, spatial resolutions, aircraft/satellite-based, etc.) will U.S. Census Bureau require specifically for this effort?

A. The Census Bureau does not require any specific type of remotely sensed or other data. Based upon the approaches proposed by the contractors when submitting responses to the final RFP, the Census Bureau will select the contractor that provides the best capability for the best value. The selected approach may or may not require remotely sensed data. In addition, the selected prime contractor will be the one to propose the type(s) of data to be used in satisfying the needs of the contract.

Q. What should the result of "maintaining MAF/TIGER by detecting change" be?

A. Once a selected area has an accurate and updated file of all features and structures it must be maintained. It is not prudent to complete such a task without a maintenance plan. Detecting changes that take place within selected areas, and then updating the files to include all changes, will maintain MAF/TIGER completeness and accuracy. The change detection information can come from many sources and use different approaches; remotely sensed data, state, local, and tribal government updates, commercial vendor updates, etc.

Q. Will the Census Bureau provide an example of compensating benefits and how they would be considered?

A. If a contractor updates a TIGER file for a specific county using selected resources and these same resources or the information gained from developing the updates also will provide additional income to the contractor, then the Census Bureau would expect to pay less than full cost of developing these resources. Within the cost proposals, cost savings from such an opportunity must be explained in detail.

Q. Will the Census Bureau specify a county for the OCD or may the contractor select a county that is representative of existing contractor source data? Will the Census Bureau provide OCD evaluation criteria in the RFP? What is the anticipated time schedule for the OCD?

A. The Census Bureau will specify the areas for the Operational Capability Demonstration (OCD). The OCD will not be released with the final RFP. Evaluation criteria will be provided with the release of the OCD. The OCD will be part of the evaluation process used to rank vendors that remain in competition after the initial evaluation of the RFP responses.

Q. Does the Census Bureau intend to manage the maintenance process or will that be the responsibility of the prime contractor?

A. While other arrangements may be proposed, this procurement anticipates that the prime contractor would manage the day-to-day activity of the change detection and MAF/TIGER update process for sources other than the U.S. Postal Service's Delivery Sequence File. The Census Bureau will continue the overall management of its files.

Q. How will the Census Bureau verify compliance with the one year of reality requirement? Is this a requirement or a guideline?

A. Verification of compliance for all deliverables and all quality assurance approaches will be agreed upon by the contractor and the Census Bureau during discussions following the selection of the winning team. It is expected that nearly all requirements of this type will be resolved through discussions between the selected contractor team and the Census Bureau. In general, compliance with all requirements will be verified by a statistically valid approach that is acceptable to the Census Bureau. Individual deviations from a requirement may be agreed upon if it is judged beneficial to the Government.

Q. Are the requirements listed in Appendix A of the Booz, Allen and Hamilton, June 7, 2000 report considered requirements to be satisfied by this procurement?

A. No, but many of the requirements listed in Appendix A of the Booz - Allen & Hamilton report will be satisfied as the MAF/TIGER Modernization objectives are met. The report formed the starting point for Census Bureau requirements development but the requirements listed in that report may or may not be final Census Bureau requirements.

Q. Is the objective of this effort to locate every structure or every living quarter? If the objective is to locate every structure, how many different type of structures will be required to be classified?

A. Given no cost constraints, the Census Bureau would like to have all structures represented by their footprint with the front door indicated. The Statement of Objectives in the final RFP will require that offerors propose methods and estimate the cost to establish the location of all structures that meet inclusion criteria in areas that meet various inclusion criteria that vary by areas. The final criteria will be defined as part of Phase 1 of the awarded contract based on the techniques proposed and the cost estimates provided. For the defined areas, any structure meeting the inclusion criteria must be identified and reflected in files returned by the contractor. The specific location of the precise point used to represent each structure also will be determined during Phase 1 of the awarded contract.

Q. Will the contractor or the Census Bureau process locally produced digital files?

A. The Census Bureau will obtain files produced by state, local and tribal governments that meet specific parameters. The contractor will process these files and incorporate all acceptable data into the files they enhance for the specified area. If local data is available and meets specified parameters it will be incorporated into the produced files.

Q. Advanced RFP Section L.16.1.1.1(b) -Production contracts usually use the IDIQ contract format. These contracts contain a minimum and maximum contract value. We suggest that IDIQ contracts with a maximum contract value that exceeds $25,000,000 be allowed to be used for past performance purposes.

A. The $25,000,000 minimum and maximum contract value pertaining to this question has been removed. Select past performance contracts best suitable to show capability as it pertains to the tasks of this contract.

Q. Advanced RFP Section L.16.1.1.1(b) -Geospatial alignment tasks are usually contracted individually on a relatively small basis. Consequently, can a number of these similar tasks for a common customer be aggregated for purposes of the Past Performance Matrix?

A. Yes similar tasks for a common customer may be aggregated for the purpose of the matrix.

Q. Advanced RFP Section L.16.1.3.2 (a-d)- Is a duplicate set of oral presentation charts to be included as a response to both the Project Charts required in Section L.16.1.2.2 (a) and the Technical Solution Charts required in Section L.16.1.3.2 (e)(1), or should the Phase 1 charts go in Volume 1 and the Phase 2 charts go in Volume 2?

A. Project charts go in Volume I supplement. Technical Solution Charts are an attachment to Volume II. These charts also may be included in Volume II, Sections 1 and 2 covering Phases 1 and 2 respectively, if the Offeror feels that this duplicative inclusion will enhance the continuity of the proposal.

Q. Advanced RFP Section L.16.1.3.2 (a-d)-Are the resumes included in the 50-page limit for Volume II Section 1 and the 30-page limit of Volume II Section 2?

A. No

Q. Advanced RFP Section L.16.1.3.2 (a-d)- Would charts that support the OCD session be included in the 50 charts?

A. No

Q. Advanced RFP Attachment L.3 Operational Capability Demonstration - Will the Census Bureau provide the format of the MAF information prior to its actual release?

A. The Census Bureay will not provide a "sanitized" (or any) MAF. The Census Bureau wants to see how offerors propose to meet the "Attach an address to the structure coordinates" task.

Q. Advanced RFP Attachment L.3 Operational Capability Demonstration -Are the four areas chosen by the contractor subject to Census Bureau concurrence?

A. The four areas chosen by the contractor to demonstrate their capabilities to handle the designated types of land areas do not require the concurrence of the Census Bureau.

Q. Advanced RFP Attachment L.3 Operational Capability Demonstration - Will the Census Bureau provide the schedule of events for the OCD?

A. No. Attachment L.3 is the only constraint. As long as Attachment L.3 is followed, Offerors are free to develop their own schedule of events.

Q. Section L.16.1.1.1(d) states: "Attachment 1 provides the matrix template. This template shall be used in its original state. No alterations shall be made to the template. Offerors shall use only the allotted space for each numbered item." The matrix exceeds the 6.5x9" image area. Are we to assume that the one-inch margin requirement will be waived for the matrix?

A. The Final Draft RFP wording has been changed to reflect intent.

Q. Section L.16.1.5 (c) states: "… Each page shall have a one-inch margin at the top, the bottom, and on each side." Could the Census Bureau provide a copy of Attachment 1 in Word format? Converting from Adobe to Word may not maintain the integrity of the allotted space.

A. The RFP will be in available in Word on a diskette if requested. The Final Draft RFP wording has been changed to allow more flexibility in dealing with this and other tables/formats.

Q. Section L.14 states that Volume I is due to the Census Bureau on 12/02/01. Since this is a Sunday, can we assume that Volume I is not due until Monday, 12/03/01?

A. Volume 1 is due 30 calendar days from proposal issue, or next working day thereafter. The Final Draft RFP has been changed to reflect this.

Q. L.16.1.3.2 (c) states: "This Section of the proposal shall be no more than 30 pages long." L.16.1.5.1 lists the maximum number of pages for this section as 25 pages. We assume that L.16.1.3.2 (2) is corrects and the maximum number of pages for Volume II, Section 2 is 30 pages.

A. Section L.16.1.5.1 of the Final Draft RFP has been changed to 30 pages.

Q. L.16.1.5.1 - Written Proposal Organization Table. Attachment 1 (Technical Solutions Charts) for Volume II is not listed in the table.

A. The Final Draft RFP has been changed to include Attachment 1 in the table.

Q. Attachment L.1, Past Performance & Experience Matrix. M.4.2.3 (d) states: "Offerors will be evaluated on past performance indicating the extent to which the Offeror attained applicable goals for small business participation under contracts that required subcontracting plans." Attachment L.1 does not provide an area for recording Small Business goals. How will this be evaluated?

A. A section in Attachment L.1 of the Final Draft RFP has been added to reflect small business participation.

Q. L.16 WRITTEN PROPOSAL AND ORAL PRESENTATION INSTRUCTIONSA three-volume written proposal shall be submitted by Offerors in accordance with Section L.16.1. Comment: There is no indication in the instructions for the submission of a model contract. How many copies of the model contract need to be submitted? What must be included in the model contract (e.g., additional attachments).

A. The Census Bureau will construct a contract from the RFP plus the winning Offeror's proposal. There is no requirement for Offerors to construct a model contract.

Q. L.16.1.3.2 Volume II - Technical Solution(a) Volume II - Section 1: Detailed Technical Solution/PWS for Phase 1 work (This section will be evaluated in accordance with paragraph M.4.2.1). Contract type shall be CPAF. This Section of the proposal shall be no more than 50 pages long and shall address work proposed as Phase 1 of the contract. Offerors shall submit:…Comment: Does the 50 page limit include the information in L.16.1.3.2 (b) Volume II - Section 1: Organizational Resources and Key Personnel for Phase 1 of the work? Suggestion: The PWS, CWBS, and List of Contract Deliverables should be a part of the model contract. We suggest that these be summarized and explained as part of the proposal, but should be made contractually binding as part of the model contract. The page limitation should remain at 50 pages.

A. Yes, the 50 page limit does include the information in L.16.1.3.2 (b) Volume II - Section 1; the Final Draft RFP has been changed to clarify this confusion. The PWS, CWBS, and Contract Deliverables will become a part of the contract. Offerors are expected to produce these documents and include them in their proposal. The Government does not expect these documents to be summaries, although, initially, they may not be as comprehensive as they eventually will become through the Phase 1 effort. The RFP does not use the term "model contract" and the Census Bureau is not sure of the meaning conveyed by the term.

Q. L.16.1.4.3 Section 3: Subcontracting Plan … Goals for use of small businesses expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars:Veteran-owned small business 2%HUBzone small business 2%Small disadvantaged business 5%Women-owned small business 2%Other small business 25%Total small business % 36%Comment: If a small company /entity intends to subcontract out a portion that is significantly larger than 10% minimum objective, then these goals would be high. For example, if 10% is subcontracted (as is stated is the minimum amount), then only .2% would be to a HUBzone small business. However, if a contractor was letting out 50%, then the HUBzone would be 1%. We suggest that these goals be applied up to 25% of the total contract value.

A. The Final Draft RFP has been changed increasing the goal from 10% to 15%. The goals also have been revised.

Q. L.16.2.1 Oral Presentation Content. The oral presentation shall consist of five sessions that are detailed in Section L.16.2.1.1 to L.16.2.1.5. Comment: Only four sessions are identified in the table and the cited sections. Other parts of the RFP refer to specific section numbers thus creating confusion as to which section is really meant.

A. This has been corrected in the Final Draft RFP.

Q. L.16.2.2.2 Authorized Presenters. The following Offeror personnel shall participate in the oral presentation. No additional or substitute personnel shall be permitted in the presentation facility. All Offeror attendees shall actively participate in the oral presentation (i.e., present a portion of the overall presentation) and shall be physically present in the oral presentation facility at all times.(1) The MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project Program Manager (2) A maximum of three (3) Technical Representatives (3) One (1) company official who is authorized to negotiate on behalf of the Offeror Question: Does the limitation of four persons during the orals include the technical staff that may be supporting the execution of the OCD? We suggest that the number of allowed personnel in attendance be expanded during the OCD to allow the presentation staff to respond to questions and describe the activities of the demonstration while the technical staff is demonstrating the approach.

A. The limitation is not meant to be four people. Also, the OCD does not have the same limitations as the oral presentation as it may be in a different room or facility. L.16.2.2.2 will be revised to clarify "Authorized Presenters."

Q. TABLE L.2-1 BASIS FOR ESTIMATE OF TIGER UPDATE. Comment: The total of the square kilometers (the third column) is greater that that cited in section L.16.1.3.2(c)(2). One or more of the numbers in the third column needs to be corrected to ensure consistency in the application of the cost model as it relates to data collection.

A. The figures have been corrected to reflect consistency throughout the Final Draft RFP.

Q. L.16.1.3.2 (d) … description of teaming partners … Comment: We understand that the government desires that the technical solution for phase 2 production be completed during phase 1 collaboration. Therefore, the request to detail teaming partners implies a broader commitment to production partners, etc. Would the government prefer actual "teaming" vice "potential teammates" for phase 2?

A. The Final Draft RFP has been revised to allow for potential teammates.

Q. L.16.1.4.2 (b) (2) Change Detection Process. Offerors shall include costs for a Change Detection Process that Offerors have described in paragraph L.16.1.3.2 (c) (2). Offerors shall propose estimated costs for the Change Detection Process by completing the cost table B.4 in Section B. There is more than one potential interpretation of this paragraph. In this cost element, is the BOC asking for the costs of:1. Defining the change detection process and how it will function2. Implementing the process to detect the changes (irrespective of the costs of implementing the changes that the change detection identified)3. Implementation of the changes that have been detected some combination of the above (e.g., the costs to include the [2] detection of changes [3] and the incorporation of the changes)

A. Each Offeror is requested to identify the most appropriate method of change detection for each of the steps in the process and the cost associated with each step. The Offeror may make any assumptions desired for this process as long as an explanation is provided. A total cost estimate to implement the process(es) proposed is required.

Q. In the 10/26/01 draft of Section L, Section L.16.1.3.2.(a), Volume II Section 1: Detailed Technical Solution/PWS for Phase 1 work, item (1) referenced a PWS for the Phase 1 work "as outlined in paragraph 3.1" of the 9-21-01 draft of the SOO. This work was described as a "fact-finding, planning and reporting effort". Section L of the Final Draft RFP is missing a similar reference and Section C of the RFP does not contain the "fact-finding, planning and reporting effort". However, the remaining parts of Section L appear to account for this earlier definition of Phase 1. For example, in SectionL.16.1.4.2 Volume III Section 2: Phases 1 and 2 Cost, Phase 2 includes the use of Attachment L.2 cost model to estimate cost of "improving the horizontal accuracy of the features in the TIGER database." and Phase 1 does not include the use of this cost model. This would imply that Phase 1 does not include the actual "improvement" process but only the costs for a "planning" effort. Will a Phase 1 description be added to Section C for the Final RFP?

A. This is an oversight and will be corrected in the following manner:The Census Bureau will not change Section C because that is a Statement of Objectives and Phase 1 work is not tied to an objective, but is more of a process. This oversight will be corrected by adding language in paragraph L.16.1.3 to describe the Phase 1 work (essentially the same language as was previously in the SOO).

Q. According to the RFP, page. L-19 (c) it is stated that the contractor shall subcontract a minimum of 15 percent of total contract price to small business concerns. In the next statement, there is a list of % by category. Is this what Census expects the contractor to subcontract and is this of the total dollars or the 15%? If it is of the 15% of total dollars, then there is still 57% not accounted for. Please clarify.

A. The 15% figure is 15% of the "TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE". This is a minimum and is a requirement. (i.e., 15% of total contract price shall be subcontracted to small businesses). The 43% and 44% is the percentage of "TOTAL PLANNED SUBCONTRACTING DOLLARS". This is a goal, not a minimum requirement. (i.e., Offerors shall strive to subcontract with small businesses, 43% of total planned subcontracting dollars). Offerors may subcontract with large businesses as well as small.In order to meet the 15% minimum requirement and the 43% goal, Offerors will need to subcontract (to large and small businesses) approximately 35% of the total contract price.

Q. NAICS Code Clarification.

A. Section L.15 NAICS Code for Subcontractors has been revised to 541519, "Other Computer Related Services" that has an associated size standard of $18,000,000 instead of 500 employees.

Q. We are unable to access the three IT security documents called out in Attachment J.1. We can't seem to get past firewalls to read any of the cited documents. Will the BOC please provide these documents on the MAF/TIGER web site?

A. Attachment J.1 has been revised. Instead of the websites (which are internal Census web sites) there is now an IT security requirements document "Security Requirements for Contractor Processing of Census Data" included in the RFP. This revision will be posted on Friday, November 9th.

Q. The Census Bureau has a number of contractors working on various aspects of TIGER Modernization. Will the work these contractors are doing reduce the level of work contemplated under this contract?

A. Only minimally, as described below.

The MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project is intended to provide accurately located TIGER data with associated accurately located MAF addresses for every county and statistically equivalent entity within the United States, Puerto Rico, and the associated Island Areas. The Census Bureau and/or current contractors have made, and will continue to make, limited improvements to some Census 2000 TIGER/Line files. These ongoing improvements are based on both imagery and state/local/tribal GIS files. The Census Bureau will continue to incorporate these improved data into the master TIGER database. As a consequence, the TIGER/Line files provided to the contractor under this project will require less coordinate enhancement. From these efforts only those TIGER/Line files enhanced using state/local/tribal GIS files have the possibility to fully meet the coordinate accuracy, feature attribute, boundary location/shape, and coverage standards that are expected to evolve during Phase 1 of the project.

As part of this contract, it is intended that the contractor will provide capacity to update the locations of all MAF/TIGER features and structures using the best data available, of which a significant portion will be GIS files supplied by state, local, and tribal governments. While it is possible that a few county-level entities in the TIGER database will be improved to the point they are judged fully acceptable and do not require further coordinate enhancement as part of the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project, this is considered unlikely beyond 300 files at the maximum. Any files that are judged "finished" before initial realignment work begins on the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project will move directly into the maintenance phase of this project. Regardless of the number of files that may be in this "finished" category, the level of work contemplated for this contract will not be substantially affected. For cost estimation purposes and for bases of comparison, Offerors are instructed to assume that this number will be zero.

Q. Attachment L.3, paragraph 5 describes the approach the Offerors will take with their demonstrations. It states that the Census Bureau will furnish the GIS file one week prior to the OCD. Then this sentence is followed by the following sentences; Note: The Census Bureau will not provide a sanitized (or any) MAF. The Census Bureau wants to see how Offerors propose to meet the "attach an address to the structure coordinate" task. Does the Census Bureau expect the Offeror to obtain address information in an area with only one week notification?

A. The four demonstration areas selected by the Offerors must include addresses attached to coordinates for each structure within the 30 square kilometer area. The OCD using the Census Bureau-supplied GIS file does not require the Offeror to assign an address to each structure during the OCD, but requires use of the file to correct TIGER feature locations. The Census Bureau believes that if the Offeror can correctly determine the coordinates and related addresses for the structures in their four demonstration areas it is reasonable to assume that they also can do so in GIS file areas once production work begins.

Q. The Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) is a national association of more than 150 private surveying and mapping firms. Our members are often contractors to Federal agencies to provide a variety of GIS and mapping-related professional services.

We have reviewed the MAF/TIGER Modernization Acquisition Strategy, dated August 16, 2001. Given the infrequency with which the Census Bureau contracts for these services, we are writing to assure that the agency is aware that the procurement process to be utilized for professional mapping services should be awarded to firms based on "demonstrated competence and qualifications" subject to negotiation of a fee that is "fair and reasonable to the government", pursuant to the Brooks Architect-Engineer Act (40 U.S.C. 541 et. seq. and Federal Acquisition Regulations, subpart 36.6), rather than price-based bids.

You may not be aware, but Congress amended the Brooks Act in 1988 (sec. 742 of PL 100-656 and sec. 8 of PL 100-679). That legislation specifically provides for application to surveying and mapping contracts and performance by surveying and mapping firms, and has been implemented in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, (SEE FAR 36.601-4(a)(4)), as follows:

Contracting officers should consider the following services to be "architect-engineer services" subject to the procedures of this subpart: Professional surveying and mapping services of an architectural or engineering nature. Surveying is considered to be an architectural and engineering service and shall be procured pursuant to 36.601 from registered surveyors or architects or engineers. Mapping associated with the research, planning, development, design, construction or alteration of real property is considered to be an architectural or engineering services and is to be procured pursuant to 36.601.

The services requested are clearly "research" of "real property", thus this provision of the FAR is applicable to this contract.

The matter of application of this provision of law and regulation to surveying and mapping services has also been consistently upheld by the Comptroller General (SEE Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Request for Advance Decision, B-233987, July 14, 1989; White Shield, Inc., B-235522, September 21, 1989; and White Shield, Inc., B-235967, October 30, 1989).

Moreover, the services you are requesting have traditionally been considered architect-engineer services in the Federal government, as evidenced by the fact that other agencies, such as U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Forest Service and the National Park Service all use the Part 36 process for awarding contracts for these services. We would also urge that Census provide for small business participation as prime contractors in this program, with a size standard of 500 employees.

A. All of this question except for the final paragraph was submitted to the tigermodernization e-mail site on September 24, 2001; the final paragraph was submitted on October 13, 2001. The Census Bureau is researching pertinent information to prepare a formal response to this question; the response should be on this Web site next week. If you have any questions contact the Census Bureau's Acquisition Chief, Mike Palensky; his telephone number is 301-457-1818.

Q. Clarification:

Section L.16.1.3.2(e) Volume II - Attachment 1 Paragraph (3) on page L-14 states "No chart text shall be smaller than 18 point." Text contained in figures and tables on presentation charts can be smaller than 18 point, as long as the text is readable both on hard copy and on a viewing screen.

Q. Section L.11 provides two different addresses in paragraph (a) and (b). Paragraph (a) does not include a street address. Please provide the address(es) is to be used for hand delivery, U.S. Postal Service Delivery, and Overnight Carrier Delivery (Airborne Express, Federal Express, etc.)

A. Section L.11 provides only one address. We think you mean L.8. The address in L.8(a) should be:

Michael L. Palensky
U.S. Census Bureau
Attn: Solicitation No. 52-SOBC-2-00005
4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 1700
Washington, DC 20233-1700


The address in L.8(b) should be:

Michael L. Palensky
U.S. Census Bureau
Attn: Solicitation No. 52-SOBC-2-00005
Room G 300
4700 Silver Hill Road
Suitland, MD 20746


The address for L.11 should be either 8(a) or 8(b). 8(a) for U.S. Postal Service mail. 8(b) for private carriers such as UPS and FedEx, or for courier delivery.

Q. Section L.16.1.5.1 states the number of copies required. Volume I – Past Performance and Experience is to contain sufficient room and tabs for the Volume I Supplement submitted with Volumes II and III. However, only an original and 5 copies of Volume I is required while an original and 10 copies of the Volume I Supplement is required. Should the quantity of Volume I be – Past Performance and Experience be original and 10 copies?

A. For Section L.15.1.5.1 five copies of Volume I is correct and 10 copies of Volume 1 supplement is correct. The supplement is for a different audience, thus the difference in number of copies required.

Q. L.14, page L-4 lists a delivery date of 12/11/01 for Volume I. L.16.1.5.1 page L-21 lists a delivery date of 12/04/01 for the same volume. Which takes precedence?

A. 12/11/01 was the correct date. However this date has recently been changed to 1/9/02.

Q. Section L.16.1.3.2 uses the generally accepted figure of 7,680,000 square kilometers for the conterminous United States and Hawaii. The numbers in pricing Table L.2-1 for that same area add up to 9,309,000 square kilometers, which would lead to inaccurate estimates. Please clarify the area under consideration.

A. The correct figure for conterminous United States and Hawaii is 9,309,000 square kilometers. Section L.16.1.3.2 will reflect this change.

Q. Attachment L.2 states, “Offerors shall submit the cost of providing the front door coordinate for structures and a separate cost for providing the outline of the structure.” Section B does not appear to provide a format for separating these costs.

A. The Census Bureau will require costing for both structure front door coordinates and structure outline coordinates when costing data is provided. A change will be made to incorporate both costs.

Q. Table L-2.1 states, “For purposes of the address cost option, Offerors shall assume that the Title 13 MAF data will not be made available.” Attachment J.1 specifically talks about the protection of Title 13 data. These two statements appear to be inconsistent. Should maintaining a Title 13 facility and providing appropriate safeguards appear in the technical and cost solution?

A. The contractor will not receive Title 13 MAF data. The technical and cost solution should not include maintaining a Title 13 Facility.

Q. In which volume does the BOC require that we submit the completed SF33 and the completed Reps & Certs (Sec. K)?

A. Volume II

Q. On page L-21 (L.16.1.5.1), instructions for Volume I Supplement, Section 1, say “Formatted per Attachment L.1, plus diskette.” However, L.16.1.2.1. calls for project descriptions covering specific topics that are limited to two pages. We understand that the Volume I Supplement 1, Project Descriptions are two page narratives, elaborating on the Attachment L.1 matrices submitted in Volume I, and not simply a resubmission of the matrices. Is that correct?

A. Yes, that is correct. L.16.1.5.1 is in error.

Q. Page B-3: Table B-2 - Phase 2 Cost Estimate. Do Tables B-3, B-4 and B-5 sum up to the total phase II sell price to be illustrated in Table B-2? For example, RFP section L.16.1.2.4(b)(3) requires inclusion of leased facilities cost. Should the Phase 2 costs for that leased facility be included solely in table B-2 or should there be an allocation of the costs to tables B-3 through B-5?

A. Costs from tables B-3, B-4, and B-5 should be included in Table B-2, plus any other proposed Phase 2 costs including the leased facilities cost. Paragraph B.3.1 explains this process. Offerors may add supporting cost tables but all Phase 2 costs should be included in Table B-2.

Q. Tables B-1, B-2, and B-6 break out cost from sell price. In Tables B-3, B-4, B-5 the column heading asks for cost by GFY. Are the figures contained in those columns of B-3, B4 and B-5 at total cost or at sell price?

A. Tables B-3, B-4, and B-5 should show total cost.

Q. Table B-5 asks for the costs for change detection methodologies. Is the expectation that the table would include the cost solely for change detection or should it include the costs for the incorporation of the detected changes? Or should the costs for maintaining the accuracy of the TIGER and MAF data be included in tables B-4 and B-5, respectively.

A. Table B-5 should show separately the cost for change detection and costs for incorporation of the detected changes into TIGER and MAF. Table B-5 should include costs to present detected changes in the same format and with the same content as is required for the initial update. Also, Table B-5 should be extended through GFY 2010. Table B-4 is for the initial MAF update only.

Q. Section L.16.1.2.1 (b) states “Project descriptions shall be limited to two (2) pages each….” In that table provided in L.16.1.5.1, in the column Maximum Pages and Special Instructions for Volume I Supplement, Section 1, it states “Formatted per Attachment L.1” Can we assume that the table is in error; that you do not want the Attachment L-1 matrix provided here, but in fact want a two-page project summary as described in L.16.1.2.1?

A. Yes, the Table at L.16.1.5.1 is in error. We do want a two-page project summary.

Q. Section L.16.1.3.2.(c).(9). Statement from an earlier RFP version concerning plan to communicate with Bureau of the Census is “missing”. Subparagraph numbering goes from (8) to (10). Should this be the offerors’ plan to communicate with the Bureau during Phase 2 of the MAF/TIGER Accuracy Improvement Project? Or should the subparagraphs be renumbered?

A. Subparagraph (10) should be renumbered to (9).

Q. L16.1.5.1 Written Proposal Organization chart shows that Volume I is due on 1/9/02. This date has been changed to 2/8/02 hasn’t it?

A. That is correct. Volume I is now due 2/8/02.

Q. L16.1.3.2(a)(6) states that the Offerors will submit a milestone schedule with a start date of June 1, 2002, for the tasks within the Phase 1 work. That date is no longer correct.

A. The start date has been changed to 7/8/02.

Return to the MAF/TIGER Modernization Web page.

The hyperlink below will access questions and answers related to the MAF/TIGER Modernization Request for Information (RFI), which was posted to this web site during February 2001.  Please note that some of the information contained in the RFI questions and answers has been superceded by subsequent events.

RFI Questions and Answers

Skip this navigation

Census Bureau Links:   Home · Search · Subjects A-Z · FAQs · Data Tools · Catalog · Census 2000 · Quality · Privacy Policy · Contact Us

Page Last Modified: February 05, 2002