SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- A Community Visioning Approach to Support the SHRP 2 Collaborative Decision-Making Framework for Highway Investments
- Notice Date
- 7/29/2008
- 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, Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), 500 Fifth Street NW, Washington, District of Columbia, 20001
- ZIP Code
- 20001
- Solicitation Number
- SHRP2C08
- Archive Date
- 9/24/2008
- Point of Contact
- Stephen Andrle,, Phone: 202-334-2810, Linda Mason,, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
sandrle@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Capacity Project Number: C08 Project Title: A Community Visioning Approach to Support the SHRP 2 Collaborative Decision-Making Framework for Highway Investments Date Posted: July 29, 2008 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 will receive approximately $150 million with total program duration of 7 years. 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 objective of the Capacity focus area is to develop a consistent framework for reaching balanced, collaborative decisions on enhancing transportation capacity and to provide the tools for applying the framework. The research will develop a transportation project evaluation process to help stakeholders balance the need to reduce delays caused by conflicting demands with the need to produce transportation solutions that support community, economic, and environmental goals. The research will also develop a structure for a project's many contributors to share data and knowledge. This will require identifying critical points for decision making in various processes, the data and knowledge required for these decisions, and successful methods of sharing information. Linkage to Other SHRP 2 Projects One of the fundamental products of the SHRP 2 Capacity research program will be a Collaborative Decision Making Framework (CDMF). The objective of this framework is to develop a systems-based, transparent, well-defined framework for consistently reaching collaborative decisions on transportation capacity enhancements. The framework will address about 50 key decision points (KDP) in six core transportation decision processes: • Systems planning • Pre-program studies (e.g., corridor studies) • Programming • Environmental Review • Design • Permitting A key decision point is one at which approvals and signoffs are required before the process can advance. SHRP 2 Project C01 is developing the framework and the results of other SHRP 2 Capacity projects, including this one, will be integrated into the framework, creating a unified product for users. SHRP 2 Project C02 is developing a performance measurement framework, emphasizing environmental and community measures that inform the collaborative decision-making process. Project C02 will create a web-based library of performance measures that will be linked to the key decision points and will aid in selecting measures appropriate in each. (See Special Note 1) SHRP 2 is the Strategic Highway Research Program, but being strategic about highway capacity investments means full examination of highway design, transit, pedestrian, and non-motorized alternatives within the collaborative decision-making process. These are appropriate topics for consideration in C08. Project Background The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework being developed by SHRP 2 Project C01 needs a visioning "front end" that provides a forum in the decision-making framework for dealing with difficult trade-offs. The visioning approach should embody the findings of community impact analyses so that participants in the process can "see" the positives and negatives as they work through choices. The approach should embody new technologies as appropriate, but not forget the power of an interactive community session. Visioning may be carried out at the intersection level or at the state/ regional level. The appropriate approaches should be linked to Key Decision Points in the CDMF It is not expected that this project will build a visioning system from scratch, but it should identify systems in use or in development and show how an agency can use them or build their own system from the available "parts." Visioning is used here as a collective term for consensus-building regarding the larger context in which transportation projects, including additions to highway capacity, are meant to serve. It means more than traditional public information approaches such as media coverage, public meetings, or hearings. It is also more than "visualization," more than "scenario planning," and more than "context sensitive solutions." Visioning as used in this RFP is an interactive process, facilitated by a public agency that engages stakeholders to ensure that the transportation decision-making process includes the larger goals and visions of the community. Making transportation investments is a complex and often long process that affects many stakeholders and requires collaboration among many agencies. Highways and all transportation investments serve the economy of a region and provide mobility for all social purposes. As such, they are part of the fabric of a community. When population growth, changes to the economic baseline, or revitalization require new transportation investments, stakeholders speak out about what their community should become. However, they do not all speak with one voice. Transportation investments have positive and negative long-term effects and affect various elements of the community differently. Often a debate needs to occur about growth, how growth should happen, what modes of transportation should be built, where they should be built, protecting the environment, stimulating the economy, protecting historic and cultural resources, improving pedestrian safety, and preserving farmland. Without commonly held reference points, these discussions often founder because the benefits and dis-benefits to a community's future can not be satisfactorily estimated. A shared community vision can provide these reference points. Primary, secondary, and cumulative effects, both positive and negative, should be part of the debate. Hindsight tells us that secondary and cumulative impact can cause more damage to many communities than the primary impacts, a fact which many communities intuitively understand better than do transportation agencies. SHRP 2 Project C03 is investigating the primary, secondary, and cumulative economic effects of highway investment. Information from that project will be available to the C08 research agency, so it is not necessary to do research on economic benefits in this project. However, social and cultural issues should be documented in Project C08 so awareness can be embedded in the visioning process. Transportation investments are expensive and money is always in short supply. The stakes are high. Failure to act can destine a state or an urban area to slow economic decline. Taking an approach that does not have substantial community support can lead to opposition as can failure to properly address environmental and social questions. All such forms of opposition can cause delay and cost escalation. There is a strong feeling developing now in transportation agencies across the country that if something needs to be built, it should not be delayed. If it's the wrong project, change and move on. Twenty-year project delivery schedules are wearing thin. If transportation investments cannot be delivered in a reasonable time, community support, project continuity, and political continuity may be lost. The ability to finance may also slip away. For these reasons, it is important to make the right decisions as early as possible and to develop and maintain community support to deliver a successful project. Visioning is a tool that can help. Even the most successful visioning efforts have had trouble connecting long-term, broad visions to decision-making processes that support transportation planning and project development. This is understandable given the challenges inherent in visioning: • The long timeframes associated with visioning are difficult to reconcile with shorter-term priorities and requirements. • The tools, technologies, and analysis used in the visioning process can be difficult to link with the decision support tools used in traditional planning efforts. • Integrating land use, transportation, environmental, and other elements of a vision involves multiple jurisdictions (and agencies) each with their own planning process, objectives, and requirements. When a regional vision of the future is needed, boundaries must be overcome. Experience indicates that as a project moves through the processes of planning, design, and construction and becomes an operating facility the early commitment to a consensus vision can be eroded by subsequent decisions made without knowledge of the original consensus. Tasks of building internal partnerships and commitment tracking through project delivery and facility operation are seen as important adjuncts to the visioning process itself. Objectives The objective of this research is to develop an effective community visioning process for transportation investment that is integrated into the collaborative decision-making framework. The visioning process should be flexible, able to be applied at state and local levels, followed through project selection, design, and delivery, and should consider primary and secondary effects that the project will have on communities and neighborhoods. (See Special Note 1) 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): Task 1: Using appropriate information-gathering techniques, describe the lessons learned from application of visioning in various stages of highway planning and design in the post-1993 (ISTEA) time period. Why was visioning done? What agency sponsored the effort? How were disparate issues such as economic growth, the environment, health, housing, highway needs, and transit needs resolved? What did and did not work to engage the community? Compile lessons learned and success factors from prior community visioning efforts that will inform the visioning approach developed in the project. This task provides the material for analysis in the rest of the project. Review the case studies completed under SHRP 2 Project C01 for visioning material. (See Special Note 2) Task 2: Using appropriate information-gathering techniques, investigate and describe the primary, secondary, and cumulative effects of highways that may impact communities. For instance, a highway widening might clearly subtract 12 feet of frontage from properties on each side, however the longer term effects created by increased traffic volumes and speeds can ultimately be more damaging. When combined with impacts created by other projects, the cumulative effects on a community can be substantial and historically have not been addressed properly by the transportation agencies.. Prepare a working paper on Tasks 1 and 2. Task 3: Building on Tasks 1 and 2, identify tools and techniques to educate, engage, and energize the following in the visioning exercise: • Traditional Stakeholders-transportation agencies and those directly affected by a project or plan • Hard-to -reach stakeholders such as disadvantaged populations, real estate developers, industry, freight companies, commuters, and contractors • Resource agencies Describe how the tools and techniques can help stakeholders understand tradeoffs and make informed choices. For example, how can awareness of the primary effects of a highway be communicated? How can the more speculative and abstract secondary and cumulative effects be envisioned? How do you achieve informed consent? Possible tools include: one-on-one dialog; group activities; and technology-assisted visioning. Task Product: Prepare a draft guide to help practitioners select the appropriate tools for various visioning situations and audiences. (This will become a section the practitioner's guide to be developed in Task 7.) Submit the draft to SHRP 2 for review and approval. Task 4: Conducting a visioning process requires both external and internal partners. External partners are needed because a visioning exercise may be lead by any number of institutions; a state DOT, an MPO, a city, or a county. A strategy is needed to present one unified face to the public. Internal partnerships are needed because the highway capacity components of the vision will generally be carried out by the state DOT. (In some cases, it may be a municipality or special authority.) The agency responsible for designing and building the capacity expansion requires internal partnerships to maintain continuity and to implement the vision. Identify and describe methods to establish external partnerships to ensure that the results of the visioning exercise are linked to the collaborative decision-making framework. Identify and describe methods to establish internal partnerships to ensure that the results of the visioning exercise result in projects true to the vision. Task 5: Describe a commitment tracking process(s) supported by performance measurement to ensure that core principles from the vision are incorporated and embodied in project delivery. Describe and develop other strategies for implementing the outcomes of visioning. Consider: • Innovative practices that have been used or considered • Barriers to agency implementation • Methods to deliver accountability to the community, e.g., briefing new elected officials. Task 6: Prepare a business case for visioning. Estimate costs and direct and indirect benefits. This should include such items as: • Personnel and financial resources typically needed • Organizational structure needed to support successful visioning • Time and money saved in the project delivery process • Does visioning: o Increase community support? o Decrease the likelihood of lawsuits? o Lead to better transportation solutions? o Improve the perception of the transportation agency? o Improve trust? Task 7: Building on prior tasks, develop a model process (or several for various situations) for conducting community visioning related to transportation investments that can be applied or adapted to all phases of the CDMF. The process should describe how to apply approaches, tools, and techniques across the stages of the CDMF. Prepare a draft stand-alone Practitioner's Guide in appropriate media that incorporate the findings of the project. Also prepare the materials in an electronic format that can be directly integrated into a web-based CDMF that will incorporate the results of many SHRP 2 projects. Submit to SHRP 2 for review. Task 8: Following approval, vet the draft Practitioner's Guide through a process to be determined by the proposer to validate linkages to key decision points in the CDMF. Target state DOTs, MPOs, and other appropriate local governments. The Guide should include an executive summary that describes the outcomes, business case, and benefits of visioning and how it can be implemented through the CDMF. Note: in the proposal describe the approach you plan to use. Task 9: Incorporate revisions based on Task 8 and prepare a final Practitioner's Guide in the recommended media. Document study findings in a draft final report, and following review, a subsequent Final Report. The Final Report should describe the research process employed and substantiate the foundation of the Practitioner's Guide. It is not intended to be a summary fo the Practitioner's Guide. Task 10: Develop an electronic-based training product to assist in integrating the outcomes of visioning with the CDMF. Requirements of the Research Team 1. Experience and demonstrated success with community visioning in various stages of transportation planning and design 2. Experience in applying innovative technologies for achieving informed consent in transportation and other applications 3. Experience in community impact analysis Special Notes 1. The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework is the product of SHRP 2 Project C01 and also the framework to which many SHRP 2 Capacity results will be attached in a large, web-based product. This product is the result of 16 case studies and six focus groups. While it is not absolutely final yet, it is sufficiently mature to serve as the framework for Project C08. By the time C08 starts, the CDMF will have been vetted in each of the AASHTO regions and will be complete. More information on the CDMF and other SHRP 2 projects is available in the Projects database online at http://trb.org/shrp2/ProjectDescriptions.asp. 2. Sixteen case studies from Project C01 will be available to the selected research agency for this project. The study sites include: Woodrow Wilson Bridge Re-Design - Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Washington State I-405 Corridor Program, Reinventing NEPA New Jersey Route 31 Land Use and Transportation Plan: New Approaches to Highway Expansion Consistent with Smart Growth and New Jersey Future in Transportation. Colorado 285 - Foxton to Bailey: Using Context Sensitive Approaches to Highway Capacity US 24 New Haven, Indiana to Defiance, Ohio: Nine-Step Transportation Development Process Binghamton, New York, Metropolitan Transportation Study: Scenario Planning Yields Community Vision of Revitalized Urban Centers. Grand Rapids, Michigan, US 131 S-Curve Replacement: Collaborative Design and Construction Closure of Central Urban Access California I-710: Nationally Important, Community Initiated and Redirected US-64 Asheboro, NC Bypass: Ecosystem Enhancement Program Maricopa RTP (large fast-growing area) San Antonio, Texas Kelly Parkway: Ensuring community Involvement and Environmental Justice in a Highway Capacity Project for Urban Socioeconomic Development. Colorado STEP-UP: Environmental collaboration Supported by Web-Based Technology Utah I-15: Calculated Engineering and Design-Build for Rapid Delivery of Improvements Idaho Transportation Vision 2033: An Inclusive Process Brings Together Stakeholders to Create a Shared Vision. I-69 Trans-Texas Corridor Study - Quantum Corridor Optimization Regional TIP Policy Framework and VISION 2040, Puget Sound Regional Council Deliverables 1. Tasks 1&2 working paper 2. Task 3 draft Guide to Visioning Tools 3. Draft Practitioner's Guide and electronic form of materials (Task 7) 4. Final Practitioner's Guide 5. Draft and Final Reports 6. Electronic training product (Task 10) Funds Available: $800,000 Contract Period: 1.5 years for the entire project Responsible Staff: Stephen Andrle, sandrle@nas.edu, 202-334-2810 Authorization to Begin Work: January 2009, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 9, 2008 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 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 summarily 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://trb.org/shrp2/SHRPII_Instructions.asp ) (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. 2. Any clarifications regarding this RFP will be posted on the SHRP 2 Web site ( www.TBR.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 August 26, 2008, when 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
-
FedBizOpps Complete View
(https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=0368bf6efe982b79eb34aecd207d2613&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01626236-W 20080731/080729230425-0368bf6efe982b79eb34aecd207d2613 (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 |