SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Pilot Test the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Including a Self-Assessment Methodology
- Notice Date
- 3/9/2010
- Notice Type
- Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
- NAICS
- 541712
— Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
- Contracting Office
- The National Academies, Transportation Research Board, SHRP2, 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20001, United States
- ZIP Code
- 20001
- Solicitation Number
- SHRP2_C18
- Archive Date
- 5/5/2010
- Point of Contact
- Stephen Andrle, Phone: 202-334-2810, Linda Mason, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
sandrle@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
(sandrle@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Capacity Project Number: C18 Project Title: Pilot Test the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Including a Self-Assessment Methodology Date Posted: March 9, 2010 SHRP 2 Background To address the challenges of moving people and goods efficiently and safely on the nation's highways, Congress has created the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). SHRP 2 is a targeted, short-term research program carried out through competitively awarded contracts to qualified researchers in the academic, private, and public sectors. SHRP 2 addresses four strategic focus areas: the role of human behavior in highway safety (Safety); rapid highway renewal (Renewal); improved travel time reliability through congestion reduction (Reliability); and transportation planning that better integrates community, economic, and environmental considerations into new highway capacity (Capacity). Under current legislative provisions, SHRP 2 has received approximately $170 million with total program duration of 7 years, ending in 2013. Additional information about SHRP 2 can be found on the program's Web site at www.trb.org/shrp2. Capacity Focus Area The charge from Congress to SHRP 2 Capacity is to develop approaches for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity. The scope of the SHRP 2 Capacity program extends from the early stages of the transportation planning process, when many potential alternatives are being considered, through project development. When decisions include a major highway component, further development of the highway option is within the scope of the program. When decisions are made that lead to non-highway options, further development of the non-highway component is outside the scope. Project Background The fundamental product of the SHRP 2 Capacity research program is a Decision Guide consisting of 42 key decision points that occur during transportation project activities that are within the scope of this research. This was formerly called the Collaborative Decision Making Framework. A key decision point is one at which approvals and signoffs are required before the process can advance (See Special Note 1). These decision points are included within the following general transportation planning, programming, and project development activities: •Systems planning •Pre-program studies (e.g., corridor studies) •Programming •Environmental Review •Permitting The evidence from case studies conducted under project C01, from the broader literature, and from the personal experience of many professionals is that successful collaboration with resource agencies, elected officials, and the public is essential to timely completion of capacity-enhancing projects. Failure to collaborate early, successfully, and with commitment is often the root cause of delay, re-work, difficulty in environmental review or permitting, and even law suits. As the Capacity research program evolved, it became clear that the Decision Guide is a framework to which the results of other Capacity research should be linked. This allows information at the proper scale to be tied to decision points. By scale we mean that the approach to an issue such as greenhouse gas emissions, for instance, is different in long-range planning, in corridor planning, and in project planning. Practitioners want something different at each stage. The framework allows for this. In order to provide the multiple linkages required by this approach, a web-based resource was developed called Transportation for Communities-Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP). Passages from the case studies and other resources are linked to the applicable decision points in the Decision Guide so information can be found. A draft beta test version is located at transportationforcommunities.com. Several other research projects are incorporated into TCAPP, including results of Projects C01, C02, and C03, whose descriptions are provided in the following paragraphs. By September 2010 (the anticipated authorization-to-proceed date for the C18 pilot tests), the results of two more projects, C08 and C09, will be integrated. (Draft information on C08 and C09 will be provided to proposers to aid in writing proposals. See Special Note 1) SHRP 2 Project C01 conducted 23 case studies and hosted multiple workshops to develop the Decision Guide and provide content for each of the decision points. A collaboration assessment function was also developed to help identify the source of problems. Content will continue to be added as other projects are completed and as feedback is received from the pilot tests. Project C02 developed a performance measurement framework, emphasizing environmental and community measures that inform the collaborative decision-making process. Project C02 created a web-based library of performance measures that are linked to the key decision points and will aid practitioners in selecting measures. A final report is also available. (See Special Note 1) Project C03 developed a database of 60 before-and-after economic impact case studies that support Transportation Project Impact Case Studies (T-PICS). A rigorous protocol was followed to develop the case studies that controls for exogenous circumstances. The method and data are transparent so users can decide the value of the findings for themselves. This tool allows users to estimate the likely economic impact of a local project by comparing it to the cases in the database. Forty more cases are being added, emphasizing transit-oriented developments and roads serving intermodal facilities. Project C08 is developing a practitioner's guide to linking community visioning and the Decision Guide. Many communities and some states conduct visioning exercises, but how these visions become embodied in transportation projects is not clear or consistent. This project is not about how to conduct visioning exercises but how to use the results in transportation planning. When finished in the summer of 2010 the findings will be integrated into TCAPP. Project C09 addresses strategies for addressing the impacts of greenhouse gases. This project is intended to develop technical and institutional approaches to assessing the greenhouse gas impacts of transportation alternatives. This project will also be finished in the summer of 2010 and will be integrated into TCAPP prior to authorization to proceed with the C18 pilot tests. The intent of this project (C18) is to engage public agencies in pilot tests of the utility of TCAPP and the Decision Guide as enhancements to decision making in the planning of additions to highway capacity. Possible Test Approaches Agencies participating in the pilot tests described here will use the products of SHRP 2 Capacity research on a trial basis to address issues confronted in the planning of additions to highway capacity and will provide feedback to SHRP 2 on the usefulness and functionality of these products. Using this feedback, SHRP 2 will then revise the products as appropriate. The test could be applied retrospectively to a key decision point or an activity that has already been completed. Such an assessment would determine if the outcome was improved by the guidance provided by TCAPP and the Decision Guide. Conversely, the test might be applied prospectively to an upcoming decision point or activity and the value of the change in approach would be assessed. "Shadow" applications in which an agency would simultaneously use current practices and the SHRP 2 products "shadow" mode is another possible approach. Shown below are examples of potential pilot test subjects. The list is for illustration, and should not be considered exhaustive. •Apply TCAPP to one or more key decision points in a current project, such as a corridor study or planned enhancement to capacity. •Use the Decision Guide to aid in revising elements of a business process. •Apply visioning and collaboration to a "sustainable" long-range plan update that addresses wildlife, watershed, economic development, and transportation plans for a region. •Use the performance measures framework to develop measures for a project or group of projects. •Apply the collaboration assessment tools to interagency relationships involved in environmental review or permitting. •Apply T-PICS (Transportation Project Impact Case Studies) from Project C03 to assess the likely long-term economic impact of a transportation investment or to compare the results to studies already completed. To provide ample time for the findings and assessments to be used in revising the SHRP 2 Capacity products, the pilot tests must be limited to 16 months. This is clearly not long enough to track a process that might take several years. Therefore creativity will be required to apply these products to "slices" or pieces of something larger. The assessment method will have to be tailored to the scope of the test proposed. Note: Please note that in July 2010 SHRP 2 will issue a new RFP under Project C21 for pilot tests of the ecological approaches to mitigation that are being developed under Projects C06 A&B. $1,250,000 is also available for these pilots and multiple awards are anticipated. At that time we will be testing the application of ecological approaches to environmental review and permitting and the acceptability of results to state and local environmental regulatory agencies. It is anticipated that the guidance on collaboration provided in TCAPP will be applied to the proposed ecological approaches and interagency relationships. By the end of SHRP 2, the ecological approaches, hardened by the pilot test results, will be incorporated into TCAPP. Agencies primarily interested in ecological issues may prefer to participate in the Project C21 pilot tests. Objectives of Project C18 The objectives of this project are to (1) test the content and functionality of TCAPP; (2) apply the collaborative decision-making principles and practices and assess how well they work; and (3) test any of the attributes of projects C01, C02, C03, C08, and C09 alone or in combinations; (4) provide an independent evaluation. Selection Criteria Multiple awards (up to five) will be made for this project, but not necessarily for the same dollar amount. The nature and extent of the tests proposed and the proposed budget will be taken into consideration. $1,150,000 is allocated to pilot tests and $100,000 has been reserved by SHRP 2 to provide technical support to the selected sites. (See special Note 3) A state transportation agency or metropolitan planning organization may lead a proposal, but a state transportation agency must be involved in some way in every proposal. Consultants or universities may also be part of a proposal team and may submit the proposal on behalf of a public agency. However, consultants or universities that were involved in SHRP 2 projects C01, C02, C03, C08, or C09 may not participate in pilot tests that involve the results from the project in which they participated. The standard SHRP 2 selection criteria apply (see General Note 1). In summary, these are the understanding of the problem, quality of the proposal, experience and qualifications of the research team, a plan for participation by disadvantaged businesses, and adequacy of facilities (if special facilities are needed). In addition, the following criteria will also be applied: a.Level of collaboration: multiple stakeholders such as state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, city and county agencies, resource agencies, or Federal Highway Administration Division Offices are desired depending on the nature of collaboration proposed. b.Whether the problem, project, program of projects, or business process selected for the pilot test is a good test of the framework and is applicable to practice elsewhere. c.Quality of the independent assessment plan. In other words, how will the benefits of using a SHRP 2 product or group of products be determined? At least 10% of the effort work should be devoted to assessment. d.Commitment from management (25% of the work effort must be from the lead public agency). e.Budget f.The expert task group will also consider a balanced selection of pilot tests considering the elements of TCAPP tested, geographic diversity, breadth of scope, innovation, and ability to complete in16 months. Proposal Content Proposal preparation should be guided by A Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2, available on line at TRB.ORG/SHRP2 under Resources. As noted in Section IV of the Manual, item 5a, Research Plan Introduction, the proposal should explain WHAT is to be done and WHO is going to do it. It should also describe the nature of the issue(s) to be addressed using the tools provided in TCAPP (which will include community visioning (C08) and greenhouse gas emissions (C09) by the time the pilots starts). To aid in organization, please address these items: 1.Name the proposing state department of transportation and/or metropolitan planning organization. 2.Provide a letter of commitment signed by an executive-level officer of the lead agency. 3.Provide a statement that the lead public agency will contribute at least 25% of the level-of-effort. 4.Provide an FHWA Division Office contact. 5.Describe the partners, including consultants or universities, and the role each will play. Briefly describe the experience of the team in relation to the proposed pilot test(s). (Qualifications of team members can be described in more detail in Section 6 of the Proposal.) 6.Describe the planning, economic evaluation, or environmental problem or issue proposed to be addressed and why it is important. Identify which elements of TCAPP will be used and how they will be applied. For example: a.What challenges are being faced: stalled project/program, stakeholder support, unrealistic expectations (either high or low) of economic impact, competing priorities, unresolved environmental mitigation issues, disagreement over purpose and need, other. b.What key decision point(s) in the Decision Guide will be addressed? See decision point definitions and chart in TCAPP under "Decision Guide Basics." c.Describe the stakeholders' and partners' roles and how they will be involved in the decision-making process identified above. d.Tie the scope of the proposed research back to the project objectives. 7.State that the schedule can be met (16 months starting in September 2010). As noted in the Manual under item 5b, Research Approach, describe HOW pilot tests and the assessment will be conducted 8.Describe the plan and schedule. 9.Describe an assessment methodology for each of these elements: a. Functionality of the TCAPP components tested. Are they useable and understandable? b. The quality and usefulness of the content of the planned application. Did TCAPP help? c. Outcomes. Were any barriers overcome, relationships improved, attitudes changed, time or money saved, estimates improved, etc? d. Describe how the test will be independently monitored and how the benefits of using TCAPP will be measured qualitatively or quantitatively. Devote at least 10% of the effort to monitoring and evaluation. Tasks Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. SHRP 2 is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meet the research objective(s): The proposal must use a task structure to describe the approach and must provide an estimate for each task in the Budget section. (See Item 11 of Manual section IV) A task structure might look something like this. Proposers are free use a task structure suitable to the test plan, but the first task and the last three tasks listed here are required. Task (Required). Participate in a training session hosted by SHRP 2 at the start of the contract period. Sample Task. Prepare a detailed internal work plan with deliverables to ensure a successful pilot test. Convene a meeting of the partners to review roles, responsibilities, and schedule as described in this proposal. Establish an internal communication procedure among the partners and an external communication procedure with SHRP 2 staff and technical assistance consultants provided by SHRP 2. Agree on milestones. Sample Task. Establish the monitoring procedures as described in the work plan. Develop a working outline of the final report (looking ahead) and identify a technical memorandum structure organized around the outline. This provides a structure for documenting interim products and saves a lot of re-writing at final report time. Sample Task. Execute the elements of the pilot test as proposed. This may be shown as several tasks depending on how the work is organized. Sample Task. Prepare technical memoranda according to a schedule of milestones and submit to SHRP 2 for review. Task (Required). Prepare a Draft final report and submit to SHRP 2 for review (at the 13- month point). The report should include: a.A description of the pilot tests and self-assessment method b.Recommendations that the partners decided to implement as a result of participating in the pilot test c.Recommendations to SHRP 2 for modifying any of the functionality or content of TCAPP d.Results of the self-assessment e.An executive summary suitable for inclusion in a report (to be written by others) that synthesizes the results of all the pilot tests. Task (Required). Prepare a final report that responds to comments from SHRP 2. Task (Required). After the tests are completed, participate in a roundtable discussion with representatives from other pilot test sites to share findings, observations, and recommendations. Deliverables •Participation in training session •Draft Final Report (13 months), containing, oFeedback on the elements of TCAPP so that it can be revised as needed. oAssessment methodologies and assessment results oGuidance on the type and extent of technical assistance that will be needed for successful implementation oIdentification of potential champions for further implementation of the framework •Final Report (16 months) •Participation in a roundtable discussion with representatives from other test sites. Special Notes 1. Transportation for Communities-Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) is the product of Project C01. It contains the Decision Guide also developed under Project C01 and provides the Framework to which many SHRP 2 Capacity results will be attached. TCAPP is on the Internet at transportationforcommunities.com. More information on the contents of TCAPP may be found at www.TRB.Org/SHRP2/Capacity. The project C01 contractor maintains a website that provides background on how the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework was developed. http://sites.google.com/site/shrpc01/. 2. Starting in the spring of 2010, the Federal Highway Administration is planning to conduct demonstrations of "Every Day Counts" strategies to improve project delivery. FHWA is also continuing to sponsor efforts under the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP). If a proposer is also engaged in one or both of these activities, please explain how the proposes test of the collaborative decision-making framework can further leverage these opportunities or explain why they are different and need not be linked. 3. If needed, assistance will be available from SHRP 2 during the test period. This may include technical assistance with the products, assistance with the conduct of the pilot test, or help with other issues that may arise. Contact Stephen Andrle at SHRP 2 to request assistance. Funds Available: $1,250,000 ($1,150,000 available for pilot tests. $100,000 will be reserved for technical assistance.) Multiple awards are anticipated. Contract Period: 16 months for the entire project. SHRP 2 ends in March 2013. Our goal is to have all final deliverables in hand one year before this termination date to allow for editing and publication of products and incorporation of findings into TCAPP. This contract period allows 13 months for carrying out the pilot test and preparing the draft final report. Three months are allowed for review of the draft and delivery of the final report. Responsible Staff: Stephen Andrle, sandrle@nas.edu, 202-334-2810 Authorization to Begin Work: September 15, 2010, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on April 20, 2010 This is a firm deadline, and extensions simply are not granted. In order to be considered, all 20 copies of the agency's proposal, accompanied by the executed, unmodified Liability Statement must be in our offices not later than the deadline shown, or they will be rejected. Delivery Address PROPOSAL-SHRP 2 ATTN: Neil F. Hawks Director, Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-334-1430 Liability Statement The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered Liability Statement in order for SHRP 2 to accept the agency's proposal for consideration. Proposals submitted without this executed and unaltered statement by the proposal deadline will be rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement. The Liability Statement is Figure 1 in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf) (see General Note 4). Here is a printable version of the SHRP 2 Liability Statement (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/LiabilityStatement.pdf). A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader is available at http://www.adobe.com. General Notes 1. Proposals will be evaluated by SHRP 2 staff and Expert Task Groups (ETGs) consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, based on the recommendation from SHRP 2 staff and the ETG. The following factors are considered: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experimental design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the proposer's plan for participation by disadvantaged business enterprises-small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (5) the adequacy of facilities. TRB and the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee strongly encourage the significant participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in SHRP 2 research contracts. Although no quota is specified nor is DBE participation mandated, the proposer's plan for involvement of DBEs is a factor in selection of the research contractor, and the contractor's adherence to its DBE plan will be monitored during the contract period. Contractors are required to submit periodic reports comparing actual with proposed payments to DBEs. The "Research Team Builder" section of the SHRP 2 web site (http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Public/Pages/Research_Team_Builder_177.aspx) is a resource for proposers interested in participating on research teams. 2. Any clarifications regarding this RFP will be posted on the SHRP 2 Web site (www.TRB.org/SHRP2). Announcements of such clarifications will be posted on the front page and, when possible, will be noted in the TRB e-newsletter. Proposers are advised to check the Web site frequently until April 9, 2010, after which no further comments will be posted. 3. According to the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, which relates to nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs, all parties are hereby notified that the contract entered into pursuant to this announcement will be awarded without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. 4. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf). Proposals must be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section IV for mandatory requirements. Proposals that do not conform to these requirements will be rejected. 5. The total funds available are made known in the project statement and line items of the budget are examined to determine the reasonableness of the allocation of funds to the various tasks. If the proposed total cost exceeds the funds available, the proposal is rejected. 6. All proposals become the property of the Transportation Research Board. Final disposition will be made according to the policies thereof, including the right to reject all proposals. IMPORTANT NOTICE Potential proposers should understand that the research project described herein is tentative. The final content of the program depends on the level of funding made available. Nevertheless, to be prepared to execute research contracts as soon as possible after sponsors' approvals, the Strategic Highway Research Program is assuming that the tentative program will become official in its entirety and is proceeding with requests for proposals and selections of research agencies.
- Web Link
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NationalAcademies/NATRB/TRBSHRP2/SHRP2_C18/listing.html)
- Record
- SN02086930-W 20100311/100309234917-b042dc2c0b65fc177473d9e173828c3c (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |