Questions

Page 22: "Collect NTCIP Status Table message data and cellular data through existing City partnership and possibly additional data sources". Do you have example data files for each of these sources?

If the goal is to optimize the signals to reduce congestion and increase travel efficiency, can we propose additional data sources in our response? Can those include other city-owned data sets and third party data?

NTCIP Status Table messages are status updates provided by the controller and polled from the proposed system. It follows the standard NTCIP protocols found here, https://www.ntcip.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/NTCIP-1202v0328A.pdf. Exact schema information can also be found in the document. Additional data sources can be proposed but they should be comprehensive as to provide ubiquitous coverage for most areas of San Jose.

The RFP and related info on the City Innovate website implies using advanced technologies, specifically "Process Improvement, Data Analytics, Data Collection, Mobility, AI/ML, Public Safety". In the Challenge Statement (ATTACHMENT B) states the city is "seeking an automated, cloud-based, and artificially intelligent solution to optimize traffic signal performance" and "By integrating cellular data into traffic signal operation and performance, the Department of Transportation envisions an innovative, software-only solution to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of all modes". The Infrastructure General and Cybersecurity Requirements specify "Solution with hardware appliance shall be able to rack on a Standardized, 42U 19” server cabinet."

It seems the city has a specific direction in mind which is not fully articulated in the RFP. There are a myriad of innovative solutions that could be employed here, with a wide range of potential cost factors.

The intent of the RFP is to allow flexibility for proposals across each open contract on City Innovate, including software, hardware, and other technologies. As such, the standard City language of attachments, such as Attachment E Infrastructure General and Cybersecurity Requirements, is meant to guide responses should proposers include these solution components, though it may not explicitly be required as part of the proposed solution. It is not the intent of the City to procure an IoT device for this particular RFP, as the challenge statement describes a “software-only” solution.

Our understanding is that we will, if chosen, develop a minimally viable product for enhancement of the existing traffic control system. Given the geographical size of the city, and the number of traffic lights, it would not be feasible to deploy an MVP city wide for a variety of reasons. The RFP does not specify any scope for demonstrating the MVP, or running a limited scope pilot in a specific area of the city. An MVP by its very nature would not be deployed on a large scale, it would be tested in a limited environment, and improved incrementally over time. At some point during the product development, it would be deployed on a large scale, likely in phases. Because this is a significant unknown, it is unclear how the professional services budget aligns with the deployment and product development.

The outcome of this pilot will help to inform the future roadmap, scope, and scaling of the MVP, including the deployment and product development needs. The scope and scale of the MVP will be determined collaboratively between the City and selected partner.

What is the specific scope of the MVP during the year following the residency?

The scope and scale of the MVP will be determined collaboratively between the City and selected partner.

In section 10.5.5, a not-to-exceed budget of $100,000 is specified. Although the language specifies a "professional services contract". In form 7, there is a second line item for hardware costs. What is unclear to us is what if any hardware budget, or cloud services budget is available, or if this is supposed to be inclusive to the professional services contract.

The Form 7 table provides flexibility of line items depending on the proposer’s solution. It is not necessarily the case that each proposal should include hardware.

Is there a budget for any hardware or cloud services utilized in this project?

As this is a pilot, all proposed costs, including any hardware, cloud services, or cellular data acquisition, will fall within the overall budget established for the duration of the project.

Attachment C - Standard T&C

Section 20 – Confidentiality – This section states that every interaction between the City and Vendor is considered confidential. How come this doesn't pertain to only documents labeled confidential? How is the selected startup supported to grow its business if the right's too developed information is lost?


Section 8, Packaging and Shipping of Goods – title to any “goods” that are delivered transfers to San Jose. It’s unclear what San Jose means by “goods” here? It looks like this is referring to tangible property, but software is often considered “goods” under applicable law.

It is not necessarily true that every interaction is considered confidential between two parties. There are exemptions to the Public Records Act (PRA); proprietary information is usually exempt from PRA.

“Goods” here refers to hardware assets and not software; it is not the City of San José’s intent to own the software through this clause.

Section 14 Conflict of Interest, subsections 14.1.1 and 14.1.2. Is there a time period associated with these lock outs, or is Proposer prohibited "forever"?

Attachment C - Standard T&C - Section 21 Ownership of Materials. Does only apply to delivered documents, and not intellectual property?

Currently, the RFP seeks a solution to a narrowly-defined problem. If the City should decide to increase the scale of the resulting solution/software and issue a future RFP for it, the specifications for that would likely have to be different from any specifications developed under an agreement resulting from this RFP. In that case, there might not be a conflict of interest for the proposer. The Ownership of Materials applies only to documents delivered to the City.

1. In the RFP, page 22 it mentioned "Cellular Data". What type of "cellular data" is available? Is there any existing schema of the "cellular data"? What is the resolution, sample size, and data streaming volume of such data?
2. RFP Page 22, "Demonstrate controller optimization" - what does this mean?

City does not have any specific details on the schema or type of cellular data. City assumes the prospective vendor will engage with one or more of the major cellular providers and determine what cellular data or information is available and appropriate for this project. This part of the project is the responsibility of the vendor. Using the cellular data, vendor is expected to provide an adaptive traffic control system (ATCS) that aims to optimize vehicular traffic flow. Like other traditional ATCS, the proposed system will implement timing plans at the traffic signal controllers that are optimized for the prevailing traffic conditions. There are various ways to implement the timing plans so how the timing plans are implemented is the discretion of the vendor.

What is the definition of "start-ups"? Does the proposer have to be a "start-up"? Is an established firm qualified to propose solution?

The City of San José is open to all potential, qualified solution providers that can help us solve problems for our residents.