OGC Testbed 13 CFP Clarifications
OGC Testbed 13 CFP Clarifications
last revised: 20-Feb, 9:15AM
Link to CFP:
(U.S. Eastern)
New to OGC?
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/154
Please send any corrections or additional questions to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
Latest CFP file refresh (U.S. Eastern Time):
Also feel free to download a copy to perform your own local sorting & filtering.
31-Jan, 4:36PM
Q# Last update Thread
.
Work Pkg
.
Question
Try scrolling down and starting with Q #1.
Answer
.
Notes
.
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
NG131 is the workflow control service. Bidders should propose the service type.
paragraphs are missing and the illustration of the
NG132 is a data service used to store workflow intermediate results. Any transactional
architecture (Figure 30) shows significant changes.
service type is acceptable.
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?
Questions Received 17 February
74
17-Feb
n/a
n/a
Must a Bidder who intends to submit a purely inkind 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 [1] such an offering may be made
at any time, [2] OGC would not be obligated to accept this offer, and [3] 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.
72
16-Feb
S3D
NAS Profiling
Questions Received 16 February
Is NG113 Data Models a deliverable for the NAS
NG113 is a deliverable under NAS profiling, and will be used in CDB to develop data
profiling work pkg, the CDB work package, or both? that complies with the model if time allows.
Questions Received 14-15 February
71
15-Feb
n/a
n/a
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
Does an organization have to be a legal entity in
order to submit a bid for the Part 1 CFP (non-ESA)? 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.
70
13-Feb
n/a
n/a
Yes, the "Hourly Rate" entries in both the cost-share and the in-kind financial response
Should the labor rates used to build a bidder's costspreadsheets should be fully burdened. That way the product of the Hourly Rate and
sharing estimates include profit and other
the Projected Labor Hours will always provide a full estimated cost for any given
overheads?
activity.
Questions Received 11-13 February
Questions Received 10 February
69
10-Feb
n/a
n/a
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
If a Bidder feels that the time constraints on a
subset for any particular deliverable. Also, a proposal that clearly states what is being
particular deliverable are too aggressive, may it
propose delivering only a subset of that deliverable? 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-161570-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?
67
8-Feb
n/a
n/a
Are the 4-6 April Kickoff dates fixed?
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.
Part 2 ITT only
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.”
Questions Received 8 February
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
63
6-Feb
DSI
Mass Migration
62
6-Feb
n/a
n/a
61
60
9-Feb
9-Feb
S3D
S3D
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.
In the "Deliverables" in B.12.5 Standards, Models,
Yes, this sentence should read "The ER shall document how security architecture of
and Frameworks, is some text missing from the end secured web service resource components, as well as the security-enabling
of the last sentence under AB002: Security ER?
components using SAML, OAuth and Open ID Connect, work together."
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.
3DTiles and i3s
Regarding B17, is it ok for the participants to define
some open data sets (such as http://www.coorsonline.de/standards/3d-portrayal-service/3dps-testdata-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.
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
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
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 No, because the climate data shall be used by other models or processes as input. It
this also be a WMS access?
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
For sure it can both floods and droughts. The level of complexity is certainly scalable. It
need to be droughts only? What is the level of
should include at least some parameters to be set by the client, ideally these
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
complexity envisaged for end-user based
parameters include links to data sets or parameters that allow what-if-scneario settings.
parameterization? How simple can this be?
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 ondemand 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.
56
6-Feb 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
54
53
52
6-Feb
6-Feb
6-Feb
9-Feb
S3D
S3D
S3D
S3D
several
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.“
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
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-inhand supporting this work so that the full burden doesn't fall on just one set of
shoulders.
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?
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
Start by looking at the NAS: https://nsgreg.nga.mil/nas/. There are some definite
and a NAS based content. A CDB SWG sub-workgroup
differences in the content between the NAS and the DGIWG models, but generally the
investigating Feature Data Dictionaries was recently
informed that the DGIWG data model is in a final stage of overall model structure will be very similar.
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?
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-fortestbed agreement if required by the data providing participant.
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
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
transformation/adaptation from the data provided by sponsor or by participant), NG102104: 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.
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."
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.
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?
49
3-Feb
n/a
n/a
Should some of the references to "Testbed 12"
have been to "Testbed 13" instead?
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.
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
Questions Received 3 February
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
[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
[Part 2 ITT only, but very similar to Part 1 question
of the private Testbed 13 working meetings / telecons unless their organization
#28] Must the prime contractor under the Part 2 ITT
Part 2 ITT only
becomes a member. They would be permitted to join a portion of a meeting as an
solicitation be an OGC member?
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.
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.
Only one Admissibility form from the prime contractor is required. An admissibility form
Part 2 ITT only
for each member of your consortium is not required
[replacing #29 and #34] No, the Closing Date for Part 2 ITT AO320105 had previously
Part 2 ITT only; repaired typo in the
been extended to Friday 17th February 2017 at 13:00 hours CET, and this closing date
Question on Feb. 20
for Part 2 ITT submissions remains unchanged.
46
3-Feb
EOC
TEP
[Part 2 ITT only] Are multiple Admissibility Forms
required under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?
45
20-Feb
EOC
TEP
[Part 2 ITT only] Has the Part 2 ITT submission
deadline also been modified to 20 February?
44
3-Feb
EOC
TEP
[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,
[Part 2 ITT only] What entities are eligible to bid for
Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
funding under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
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.
Part 2 ITT only
Part 2 ITT only
The total number of deliverables is not a proposal evaluation criterion. In Testbed 12,
Is the quality of a proposal also judged on the
deliverable assignments (including both cost-share and in-kind) ranged from as few as
number of deliverables in a bidder's proposed work?
one to over ten for selected Participants.
42
3-Feb
n/a
n/a
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.
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.
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.
40
3-Feb
n/a
Questions Received 2 February
39
2-Feb
n/a
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.
Part 2 ITT only
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.
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 techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
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.
Questions Received 31 January
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:
Correct - neither has been approved yet, only the Work Items to start the review and
3D Tiles and Indexed 3d Scene Layer (I3S). Isn’t it
approval process.
more accurate to state that these two specifications
have only BEGUN the process, and are not (yet)
OGC approved Community Standards?
32
31-Jan
n/a
n/a
OGC members can access Testbed 12 documents
Any organization that is not yet an OGC member and wishes to view an unpublished
in the Portal Pending folder. How can organizations
Testbed 12 document should send an email inquiry to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
that are not yet members access them?
31
30-Jan
EOC
TEP
Are there any restrictions on who may submit a bid
under the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation?
Part 2 ITT only
Questions Received 30 January
Yes, only ESA-member-state organizations can register (Europe and Canada).
Part 2 ITT only
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:
30
30-Jan
EOC
TEP
“Please note that esa-star allows two levels of entity registration: “Light” and “Full”. This
Is there any additional information regarding how to 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 Part 2 ITT only
access the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation
proposal submission. The award of ESA contracts requires “Full” registration.”
details?
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).
29
28
30-Jan
30-Jan
EOC
n/a
TEP
n/a
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.
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.
Part 2 ITT only
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.
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);
Changes from Testbed 12
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).
24
27-Jan
n/a
n/a
What is the link to the latest Clarifications?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vLlrQnA-68RCTrM0yVV-kQe6t8ALWkx22zaNpteI1k/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 techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
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 No, not as of the "last revised" date above. In particular, the original CFP “Master
original CFP?
Schedule” is still in effect.
18
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
How late will questions be accepted for the Bidders
Q&A Webinar?
Questions Received 27 January
Questions Received 26 January
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.
Changes from Testbed 12
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
[1] Scan the entire CFP and Clarifications carefully;
[2] Identify areas of interest;
[3] Build the proposal using the two response templates;
[4] Submit any remaining questions to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
13
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
My organization is unfamiliar with this process.
What’s the best way to start?
12
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
As indicated in the CFP, prior participation is not a direct evaluation criterion. However,
My organization has never participated in a testbed. prior participation could accelerate the pace at which a potential Bidder absorbs the
information presented in the CFP (including Clarifications) and the many documents
Will this impact our likelihood of selection?.
referenced by the CFP.
11
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
How can the Financial Template best be used?
n/a
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
What are the cost-share funding requests permitted
costs such as preparing CFP response proposals, traveling, procuring hardware or
to cover? Are Kickoff travel costs reimbursable?
software, etc. As indicated in the In-kind contribution tab in the Financial Template, inkind contributions may cover a broader set of costs, including labor, travel, hardware,
software, and data.
n/a
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
Should we expect 100% cost recovery for our work? guideline, a proposal should include at least one dollar of in-kind contribution for every
Are we expected to propose a specific proportion of dollar of cost-sharing compensation requested. All else being equal, higher levels of inkind contributions will be considered more favorably during evaluation."
in-kind vs. cost-share?
In prior testbeds, the overall leverage of total in-kind contributions to total cost-share
funding has reached as high as 3.5.
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.
10
9
26-Jan
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
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.
8
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
What does "Un-Neg" mean in the Funding Status
column of the deliverable table?
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.
4
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
Will only one organization be selected for each
deliverable?
Not necessarily. Multiple Participants could be selected to deliver (and test
interoperability for) independent instances of the same deliverable.
3
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
May a bidder propose vs. multiple threads?
Yes. The response templates provide guidelines for arranging multi-thread proposals.
2
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
Are team bids acceptable?
Each Participation Agreement will be executed bilaterally between OGC and a single
organization; no multilateral contracts will be formed. Beyond this, however, there are
no restrictions regarding how a Participant chooses to accomplish its deliverable
obligations (e.g., with or without contributions from third-party "team members") so long
as the Participant's obligations are met.
1
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
Is Kickoff attendance required?
CFP: "All Selected Participants receiving cost-sharing funding must send at least one
technical representative to the Kickoff Workshop. Participants providing only in-kind
contributions may forego this requirement with prior permission."
In-person Kickoff attendance is considered the best opportunity to establish the
working relationships and coordination needed to achieve a successful initiative.
.
.
.
.
0
11/27/2017 4:34:49
last revised: 20-Feb, 9:15AM
Link to CFP:
(U.S. Eastern)
New to OGC?
http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/requests/154
Please send any corrections or additional questions to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
Latest CFP file refresh (U.S. Eastern Time):
Also feel free to download a copy to perform your own local sorting & filtering.
31-Jan, 4:36PM
Q# Last update Thread
.
Work Pkg
.
Question
Try scrolling down and starting with Q #1.
Answer
.
Notes
.
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
NG131 is the workflow control service. Bidders should propose the service type.
paragraphs are missing and the illustration of the
NG132 is a data service used to store workflow intermediate results. Any transactional
architecture (Figure 30) shows significant changes.
service type is acceptable.
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?
Questions Received 17 February
74
17-Feb
n/a
n/a
Must a Bidder who intends to submit a purely inkind 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 [1] such an offering may be made
at any time, [2] OGC would not be obligated to accept this offer, and [3] 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.
72
16-Feb
S3D
NAS Profiling
Questions Received 16 February
Is NG113 Data Models a deliverable for the NAS
NG113 is a deliverable under NAS profiling, and will be used in CDB to develop data
profiling work pkg, the CDB work package, or both? that complies with the model if time allows.
Questions Received 14-15 February
71
15-Feb
n/a
n/a
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
Does an organization have to be a legal entity in
order to submit a bid for the Part 1 CFP (non-ESA)? 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.
70
13-Feb
n/a
n/a
Yes, the "Hourly Rate" entries in both the cost-share and the in-kind financial response
Should the labor rates used to build a bidder's costspreadsheets should be fully burdened. That way the product of the Hourly Rate and
sharing estimates include profit and other
the Projected Labor Hours will always provide a full estimated cost for any given
overheads?
activity.
Questions Received 11-13 February
Questions Received 10 February
69
10-Feb
n/a
n/a
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
If a Bidder feels that the time constraints on a
subset for any particular deliverable. Also, a proposal that clearly states what is being
particular deliverable are too aggressive, may it
propose delivering only a subset of that deliverable? 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-161570-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?
67
8-Feb
n/a
n/a
Are the 4-6 April Kickoff dates fixed?
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.
Part 2 ITT only
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.”
Questions Received 8 February
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
63
6-Feb
DSI
Mass Migration
62
6-Feb
n/a
n/a
61
60
9-Feb
9-Feb
S3D
S3D
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.
In the "Deliverables" in B.12.5 Standards, Models,
Yes, this sentence should read "The ER shall document how security architecture of
and Frameworks, is some text missing from the end secured web service resource components, as well as the security-enabling
of the last sentence under AB002: Security ER?
components using SAML, OAuth and Open ID Connect, work together."
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.
3DTiles and i3s
Regarding B17, is it ok for the participants to define
some open data sets (such as http://www.coorsonline.de/standards/3d-portrayal-service/3dps-testdata-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.
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
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
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 No, because the climate data shall be used by other models or processes as input. It
this also be a WMS access?
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
For sure it can both floods and droughts. The level of complexity is certainly scalable. It
need to be droughts only? What is the level of
should include at least some parameters to be set by the client, ideally these
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
complexity envisaged for end-user based
parameters include links to data sets or parameters that allow what-if-scneario settings.
parameterization? How simple can this be?
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 ondemand 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.
56
6-Feb 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
54
53
52
6-Feb
6-Feb
6-Feb
9-Feb
S3D
S3D
S3D
S3D
several
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.“
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
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-inhand supporting this work so that the full burden doesn't fall on just one set of
shoulders.
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?
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
Start by looking at the NAS: https://nsgreg.nga.mil/nas/. There are some definite
and a NAS based content. A CDB SWG sub-workgroup
differences in the content between the NAS and the DGIWG models, but generally the
investigating Feature Data Dictionaries was recently
informed that the DGIWG data model is in a final stage of overall model structure will be very similar.
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?
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-fortestbed agreement if required by the data providing participant.
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
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
transformation/adaptation from the data provided by sponsor or by participant), NG102104: 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.
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."
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.
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?
49
3-Feb
n/a
n/a
Should some of the references to "Testbed 12"
have been to "Testbed 13" instead?
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.
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
updated from [pending] on 9 Feb.
Questions Received 3 February
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
[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
[Part 2 ITT only, but very similar to Part 1 question
of the private Testbed 13 working meetings / telecons unless their organization
#28] Must the prime contractor under the Part 2 ITT
Part 2 ITT only
becomes a member. They would be permitted to join a portion of a meeting as an
solicitation be an OGC member?
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.
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.
Only one Admissibility form from the prime contractor is required. An admissibility form
Part 2 ITT only
for each member of your consortium is not required
[replacing #29 and #34] No, the Closing Date for Part 2 ITT AO320105 had previously
Part 2 ITT only; repaired typo in the
been extended to Friday 17th February 2017 at 13:00 hours CET, and this closing date
Question on Feb. 20
for Part 2 ITT submissions remains unchanged.
46
3-Feb
EOC
TEP
[Part 2 ITT only] Are multiple Admissibility Forms
required under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?
45
20-Feb
EOC
TEP
[Part 2 ITT only] Has the Part 2 ITT submission
deadline also been modified to 20 February?
44
3-Feb
EOC
TEP
[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,
[Part 2 ITT only] What entities are eligible to bid for
Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
funding under the Part 2 ITT solicitation?
Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.
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.
Part 2 ITT only
Part 2 ITT only
The total number of deliverables is not a proposal evaluation criterion. In Testbed 12,
Is the quality of a proposal also judged on the
deliverable assignments (including both cost-share and in-kind) ranged from as few as
number of deliverables in a bidder's proposed work?
one to over ten for selected Participants.
42
3-Feb
n/a
n/a
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.
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.
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.
40
3-Feb
n/a
Questions Received 2 February
39
2-Feb
n/a
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.
Part 2 ITT only
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.
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 techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
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.
Questions Received 31 January
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:
Correct - neither has been approved yet, only the Work Items to start the review and
3D Tiles and Indexed 3d Scene Layer (I3S). Isn’t it
approval process.
more accurate to state that these two specifications
have only BEGUN the process, and are not (yet)
OGC approved Community Standards?
32
31-Jan
n/a
n/a
OGC members can access Testbed 12 documents
Any organization that is not yet an OGC member and wishes to view an unpublished
in the Portal Pending folder. How can organizations
Testbed 12 document should send an email inquiry to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
that are not yet members access them?
31
30-Jan
EOC
TEP
Are there any restrictions on who may submit a bid
under the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation?
Part 2 ITT only
Questions Received 30 January
Yes, only ESA-member-state organizations can register (Europe and Canada).
Part 2 ITT only
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:
30
30-Jan
EOC
TEP
“Please note that esa-star allows two levels of entity registration: “Light” and “Full”. This
Is there any additional information regarding how to 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 Part 2 ITT only
access the Part 2 ITT specialized solicitation
proposal submission. The award of ESA contracts requires “Full” registration.”
details?
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).
29
28
30-Jan
30-Jan
EOC
n/a
TEP
n/a
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.
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.
Part 2 ITT only
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.
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);
Changes from Testbed 12
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).
24
27-Jan
n/a
n/a
What is the link to the latest Clarifications?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vLlrQnA-68RCTrM0yVV-kQe6t8ALWkx22zaNpteI1k/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 techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
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 No, not as of the "last revised" date above. In particular, the original CFP “Master
original CFP?
Schedule” is still in effect.
18
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
How late will questions be accepted for the Bidders
Q&A Webinar?
Questions Received 27 January
Questions Received 26 January
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.
Changes from Testbed 12
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
[1] Scan the entire CFP and Clarifications carefully;
[2] Identify areas of interest;
[3] Build the proposal using the two response templates;
[4] Submit any remaining questions to techdesk@opengeospatial.org.
13
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
My organization is unfamiliar with this process.
What’s the best way to start?
12
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
As indicated in the CFP, prior participation is not a direct evaluation criterion. However,
My organization has never participated in a testbed. prior participation could accelerate the pace at which a potential Bidder absorbs the
information presented in the CFP (including Clarifications) and the many documents
Will this impact our likelihood of selection?.
referenced by the CFP.
11
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
How can the Financial Template best be used?
n/a
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
What are the cost-share funding requests permitted
costs such as preparing CFP response proposals, traveling, procuring hardware or
to cover? Are Kickoff travel costs reimbursable?
software, etc. As indicated in the In-kind contribution tab in the Financial Template, inkind contributions may cover a broader set of costs, including labor, travel, hardware,
software, and data.
n/a
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
Should we expect 100% cost recovery for our work? guideline, a proposal should include at least one dollar of in-kind contribution for every
Are we expected to propose a specific proportion of dollar of cost-sharing compensation requested. All else being equal, higher levels of inkind contributions will be considered more favorably during evaluation."
in-kind vs. cost-share?
In prior testbeds, the overall leverage of total in-kind contributions to total cost-share
funding has reached as high as 3.5.
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.
10
9
26-Jan
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
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.
8
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
What does "Un-Neg" mean in the Funding Status
column of the deliverable table?
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.
4
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
Will only one organization be selected for each
deliverable?
Not necessarily. Multiple Participants could be selected to deliver (and test
interoperability for) independent instances of the same deliverable.
3
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
May a bidder propose vs. multiple threads?
Yes. The response templates provide guidelines for arranging multi-thread proposals.
2
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
Are team bids acceptable?
Each Participation Agreement will be executed bilaterally between OGC and a single
organization; no multilateral contracts will be formed. Beyond this, however, there are
no restrictions regarding how a Participant chooses to accomplish its deliverable
obligations (e.g., with or without contributions from third-party "team members") so long
as the Participant's obligations are met.
1
26-Jan
n/a
n/a
Is Kickoff attendance required?
CFP: "All Selected Participants receiving cost-sharing funding must send at least one
technical representative to the Kickoff Workshop. Participants providing only in-kind
contributions may forego this requirement with prior permission."
In-person Kickoff attendance is considered the best opportunity to establish the
working relationships and coordination needed to achieve a successful initiative.
.
.
.
.
0
11/27/2017 4:34:49