SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Additional Pilot Tests to Improve TCAPP
- Notice Date
- 3/20/2012
- 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_C39
- Archive Date
- 5/16/2012
- Point of Contact
- David Plazak, Phone: 202-334-1834, Linda Mason, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
dplazak@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
(dplazak@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Capacity Project Number: C39 Project Title: Additional Pilot Tests to Improve TCAPP Date Posted: March 20, 2012 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 in funding with total program duration of 9 years, ending in 2015. Additional information about SHRP 2 can be found on the program's Web site at "http://www.trb.org/shrp" 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 more than 40 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 of planning, programming, and delivering new highway capacity can advance (See Special Note 1). These decision points are included within the following general transportation planning, programming, and project development activities: •Long-range transportation planning •Programming •Corridor planning •Environmental Review/NEPA merged with 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 among 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 lawsuits. 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 is different in long-range planning, in corridor planning, and in project planning and delivery. 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 beta test version of TCAPP is located at www.transportationforcommunities.com. TCAPP is being continually improved based upon the results of several formal pilot tests and feedback from other informal beta testers. A number of other completed SHRP 2 Capacity research projects have been incorporated into TCAPP, including results of Projects C01, C02, C03, C06A, C06B, C08, C09, and C19, whose descriptions are provided in the following paragraphs. •SHRP 2 Project C01 conducted 23 case studies around the development of significant capacity projects 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 agencies identify the source of problems. Content will continue to be added to TCAPP through this project as other projects are completed and as feedback is received from current and future pilot tests. The final research report is in publication. •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 in TCAPP and will aid practitioners in selecting appropriate measures. A final report is available. ( See Special Note 1 ) •Project C03 developed a database of 100 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 case study data are transparent so users can decide the value of the findings for themselves. This tool equips users to estimate the likely economic impact of a local project by comparing it to the cases in the database. A beta test web site is available from this project. The final report is in publication. •Project C06A developed guidelines and model agreements to support integrating conservation, transportation planning, and environmental permitting into an ecosystem approach. The final research report is in publication. •Project C06B developed web-based templates for conducting ecological assessments related to transportation improvements and systems for ecosystems services crediting. The final research report is in publication. •Project C08 developed 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. Publication of the final research report is expected in early 2012. •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. The final report is in publication. •Project C19 extended the work of project C01 by identifying and adding case studies and lessons learned from them about how capacity project delivery can be expedited. A toolkit of techniques and strategies to support expedited project delivery was developed for incorporation into TCAPP. The final report is in publication. Results of other research projects will be incorporated into TCAPP as they become available, including projects on economic development (C11), public-private partnerships (C12), freight (C15), and "smart growth" (C16). Content from these projects is not yet available for pilot testing purposes since the research is still under way. In September 2010, SHRP 2 approved four pilot projects under project C18 to test the utility of TCAPP, identify its strengths and weaknesses, and identify high-priority improvements to be made to the web-based system. The four pilot agencies (two state DOTs and two MPOs) were located in Colorado, Minnesota, and Washington State (two projects). These four pilot projects are nearing completion as this RFP is released. TCAPP has undergone a series of major improvements as a result of these four pilot tests. A summary of lessons learned (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/C18-C21SummaryofLessonsLearned.pdf) from these pilots and a map (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/C18andC21pilotmap.pdf) indicating their geographic locations are provided for reference. Objectives of Project C39 TCAPP is intended to help transportation agencies solve a variety of problems that can occur in the planning and project development processes, including: •Lack of definition of key issues that need to be addressed •Lack of communication among decision makers •Loss of trust by decision makers, stakeholders, and environmental resource agencies •Planning, programming, and developing projects that lack sufficient support to be fully implemented •Engaging a wide variety of stakeholders at the right time in the process •Lack of structure in the process and lack of understanding of decision-making authority •Helping to get delayed projects "un-stuck" and expediting project delivery •Lack of data, tools, and information needed to help make key decisions •Lack of integration of important social, economic, and environmental considerations •Project cost escalation caused by delays •Lack of transparency The broad intent of this project (C39) is to engage public agencies in additional pilot tests of the utility of TCAPP and the Decision Guide as enhancements to decision making in the planning of additions to highway capacity. The pilot tests should provide illustrations of how TCAPP can solve the sorts of problems identified above. 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 materials contributed to TCAPP by projects C01, C02, C03, C06A, C06B, C08, C09, and C19 alone or in combinations; (4) provide an independent evaluation of the benefits and value of using TCAPP. TRB will conduct a webinar on Tuesday, March 27, 2012, from 1-2:30 PM EDT to provide information to prospective bidders about the two pilot project RFPs (C33 and C39). Opportunities will be provided for questions and answers about both RFPs. This is a free webinar. No professional development hours will be provided. You can register for the webinar at: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/909937129. 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 to an activity ("back casting"). Such an assessment would determine if the outcome could have been improved by using 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" application in which an agency would simultaneously use its current practices and the SHRP 2 products in "shadow" mode is another possible approach. Shown below are examples of potential pilot test approaches. The list is for illustration and should not be considered exhaustive. •Apply TCAPP to one or more key decision points for developing a capacity project, such as in a corridor study for a planned enhancement to capacity. •Streamline a bottlenecked project and/or expedite the delivery of a highway capacity project using the features of TCAPP and the information from SHRP 2 project C19. •Use the Decision Guide to aid in revising elements of an agency or multi-agency business process that relates to the delivery of new highway capacity or to services and technologies (e.g. operations activities) that can substitute for new highway capacity. •Apply community visioning and collaboration to a "sustainable" transportation plan update that addresses issues such as wildlife, watersheds, economic development, community visions and goals for a region. •Use the performance measures framework (C02) to develop a set of measures for a project, a group of projects, or a plan update. •Apply the TCAPP collaboration assessment tools to improve interagency relationships involved in environmental review and/or permitting. •Utilize information from the SHRP 2 greenhouse gas (C09) and economic development (C03) projects along with the performance measures framework (C02) to specifically address those topics in long-range planning, programming, or corridor planning. 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. Selection Criteria Multiple awards (no less than three and up to seven) will be made for this project; awards will not necessarily be made for the same dollar amount. The nature and extent of the tests proposed and the proposed budget will be taken into consideration. $1,000,000 is available for all pilot tests combined. Funding has been reserved by SHRP 2 through a separate project to provide technical support to the selected pilot test sites. ( See Special Note 3 ) A state transportation agency, metropolitan planning organization, regional transportation planning organization, local government agency, or consortium of the above 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. Consultants or universities that were involved in SHRP 2 projects C01, C02, C03, C06A, C06B, C08, C09, and C19 may not participate in pilot tests that involve testing the materials or results from the project in which they participated. Agencies that were awarded pilot projects under SHRP 2 project C18 are not eligible for awards under project C39 since they have already provided extensive feedback and input regarding TCAPP. Such proposals will be rejected. Agencies that were awarded ecological framework pilot projects under project C21 remain eligible for pilots under project C39. 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.Geographic diversity. The locations of previously funded C18 pilot test locations will be considered in new pilot project selection. b.Diversity of transportation agency size and resource availability for planning and project development. c. 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. d.Whether the problem, project, program of projects, or business process selected for the pilot test is a good test of the TCAPP framework and is applicable to practice elsewhere. e.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 work effort should be devoted to assessment. f.Commitment from management (at least 25% of the work effort must be from the lead public agency). g.Budget and value to SHRP 2 in relation to the proposed budget The expert task group will also consider a balanced selection of pilot tests considering the elements of TCAPP tested, breadth of scope, innovation, and ability to complete in the available time. Proposal Content 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 by the time the pilots start--will include community visioning (C08) and greenhouse gas emissions (C09). To aid in organization, please address these items: 1. An abstract describing the proposed pilot test in brief. 2.Name the proposing state department of transportation and/or metropolitan/regional planning organization. 3.Provide a letter of commitment signed by an executive-level officer of the lead agency. 4.Provide a statement that the lead public agency will contribute at least 25% of the level-of-effort. 5.Provide an FHWA Division Office contact. 6.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.) 7.Describe the planning or project delivery 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. 8.State that the schedule can be met (16 months starting in October 2012). The proposal should also explain HOW the pilot test and the assessment will be conducted. 9.Describe the work plan and schedule in depth. 10.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 of TCAPP. Did TCAPP help? How did it 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. A thorough but succinct proposal will be appreciated by the reviewers. 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, section IV of the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 [http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf] for guidance) A task structure could 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 at the beginning of the project •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 pilot 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 TRB.Org/SHRP 2/Capacity. 2. If needed, assistance will be available from SHRP 2 during the test period. This may include technical assistance with TCAPP and other SHRP 2 Capacity products, assistance with the conduct of the pilot test, or help with other issues that may arise. Contact David Plazak at SHRP 2 to request assistance. Funds Available: $1,000,000 for all pilots combined. Multiple awards (between 3 and 7 total) are anticipated. Contract Period: 16 months for the entire project. SHRP 2 ends in March 2015. 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: David Plazak, dplazak@nas.edu, 202-334-1834 Authorization to Begin Work: October 1, 2012, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time on May 1, 2012 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: David Plazak 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. The "Research Team Builder" section of the SHRP 2 web site (http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/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 24, 2012, 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. Suggested features of 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). 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 will be 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_C39/listing.html)
- Record
- SN02701493-W 20120322/120321000404-7ca67dc318dab9e83b385cdd64d9277e (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 |