SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions
- 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
- SHRP2R15B
- Archive Date
- 9/24/2008
- Point of Contact
- James Bryant,, Phone: 202-334-2087, Linda Mason,, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
jbryant@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Renewal Project Number: R15 B Project Title: Identification of Utility Conflicts and Solutions 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); congestion reduction through improved travel time reliability (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. Renewal Focus Area The U.S. highway system is aging and must be rebuilt while we are driving on it and living next to it. Research in the SHRP 2 Renewal focus area therefore addresses the need to develop a consistent, systematic approach to completing highway projects quickly, with minimal disruption to the community, and producing facilities that are long-lasting. Identifying new technologies for locating underground utilities; developing procedures to speed the evaluation of designs and the inspection of construction; and applying new methods and materials for preserving, rehabilitating, and reconstructing roadways and bridges are among the goals for this focus area. Alternative strategies for contracting, financing and managing projects, and mitigating institutional barriers also are part of the emphasis on rapid renewal. The renewal scope applies to all classes of roads. Project Background Potential for conflict with utilities exists in the design of most transportation projects. It is well-recognized that when utility relocation is involved, construction generally takes longer and costs more. Locating and protecting or relocating underground utilities are major causes of delay on highway renewal projects. The state department of transportation (DOT) design development process is focused on solving a transportation need. In most cases, the transportation design proceeds with limited input from the utilities until the design development process is at the 25 to 30 percent stage. DOTs and utilities report the lack of sufficient communication, scheduling, and coordination in the planning, ROW acquisition, design, and construction phases of road construction projects, which in turn inhibit the timely relocation of utilities. Designing to limit the impact of utility relocations is the exception rather than the rule. Identifying and resolving potential utility conflicts early in the design process can minimize the total cost and decrease the time to completion of transportation projects. Some state DOTs have developed forms and tables that identify potential conflicts. For example, the Georgia DOT applies a Utility Impact Matrix to every project involving utilities. Every utility conflict is listed along with a recommendation for resolution, which may include relocating the utility or adjusting the highway design. This matrix is a management tool for identifying potential conflicts and analyzing the best solution for each problem. Utility relocation costs may be reduced by allowing the designer and the utilities to make informed decisions around potential conflicts. Project Objectives The objective of this project is to provide a tool and methodology for identifying and resolving utility conflicts that public agency and utility professionals can use to improve the project development process. 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): Phase I Task 1: Review and analyze the Utility Conflict Matrices (UCMs) and processes used by state DOTs. At a minimum the review shall include California, Florida, and Georgia. Task 2: Work with the public agencies identified in Task 1 and identify the following information to help determine best practices and recommendations for developing a UCM for broader use: a. What information is included in each state's UCM? b. What are the required components of the UCM? c. When is the UCM initiated in each state? d. Who initiates the UCM? (e.g. project engineer, utility coordinator, designer, project manager, etc) e. How often and at what stages is the UCM updated (e.g. new information added and decisions made) and by whom? f. Who is involved in the decision-making process? g. How does the UCM process help the DOT avoid utility relocations? h. Under what specific conditions are the UCM components expanded to address project-specific utility complexity? Task 3: Develop a draft UCM and recommended process for its use. The draft UCM shall include the identification of the required and expanded components and specify conditions when each expanded component is to be used. Task 4: Develop and submit a Phase I Interim report detailing all of the work conducted in the preceding tasks, including the draft UCM, and provide a work plan for Phase II. The Phase II work plan should identify all elements needed to achieve the project objectives and describe how all of the tasks in Phase II will be accomplished. The plan shall include a draft of workshop materials (agenda, handouts, group exercises, etc.) and the recommended public agencies that will participate in Phase II. (See Note1) The Phase I report for this project will be reviewed by the SHRP 2 Technical Coordinating Committee for Highway Renewal to consider the proposed work plan for Phase II, and to determine whether this contract should continue into Phase II. Phase II After approval of the work plan developed in Phase I and on receipt of notice to proceed to Phase II, conduct the following tasks: Task 5: Work with a minimum of two state DOTs that already have UCM processes in place and conduct work sessions to verify usability of the draft UCM and the process for its use. The work sessions should determine gaps and opportunities for improvement of the draft UCM. Attendees of these work sessions shall include a cross section of DOT functional staff having varying levels of project development and utility coordination experience. Attendees at these work sessions should also include utility representatives, design consultants, and FHWA. Additionally, staff from other DOTs and transportation agencies should be notified of the work sessions and encouraged to attend where practicable. Task 6: Revise the UCM and the recommended process for its use based on the outcome of the previous task. Task 7: Develop training materials including a procedural manual and other training aids for use in a pilot training program intended for least one state DOT that does not currently have a UCM process in place. Task 8: Develop and submit a Phase II Interim report detailing all of the work conducted in Phase II and provide a work plan for Phase III. The Phase III work plan should identify all elements needed to achieve the project objectives and describe how all of the tasks in Phase III will be accomplished and include the proposed public agency or agencies that will participate in Phase III. The Phase II report for this project will be reviewed by the SHRP 2 Technical Coordinating Committee for Highway Renewal to consider the proposed work plan for Phase III, and to determine whether this contract should continue into Phase III. Phase III After approval of the work plan developed in Phase II and on receipt of notice to proceed to Phase III, conduct the following tasks: Task 9: Conduct training with a minimum of 1 state DOT that does not currently have a UCM process to verify the usability of the UCM process and training materials. Task 10: Revise the UCM training materials and procedural manuals based on the outcome of Task 9. Develop guidelines for implementing the UCM training. Task 11: Prepare and submit for SHRP 2 approval a draft final report documenting the work conducted in the previous tasks. The draft final report shall include UCM, training materials, and the procedural manual as separate, stand-alone documents. Task 12: Prepare and submit a final report that responds to SHRP 2 comments on the draft final report. The final report shall include UCM, training materials, and the procedural manual as separate, stand-alone documents. Deliverables 1. Phase I Report and Phase II Work Plan 2. Phase II Report and Phase III Work Plan 3. Utility Conflict Matrix 4. Training Materials 5. Procedural Manual 6. Guidelines for Implementation 7. Draft Final Report 8. Final Report 9. Monthly and Quarterly Progress Reports 10. Two (2) interim meetings with SHRP 2 staff, one (1) in Washington, DC, and one (1) at the contractor's facility 11. One (1) interim meeting with the TCC in Washington, DC; Irvine, CA; or Woods Hole, MA 12. Telephone conference calls and web meetings as needed. Special Notes Note 1: Caltrans has expressed interest in hosting one of the proposed work sessions in Phase II. Note 2: The technical portion of the proposal is limited to a maximum of 20 pages. Note 3: The resumes included in the proposal shall be summary resumes in narrative form limited to 3 pages per team member. Note 4: The 28-month time period allotted for this project includes the following times needed for SHRP 2 review and approval, and contractor revision of deliverables: (a) 2 months for review, revision and approval of Phase I report and Phase II work plan; (b) 2 months for review, revision and approval of Phase II report and Phase III work plan; (c) 3 months for review and revisions of the final report. Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) 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. Funds Available: $300,000 Contract Period: 28 Months Responsible Staff: James Bryant, jbryant@nas.edu, 202-334-2087 Authorization to Begin Work: February 2009, estimated 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. 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 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=76e89991ca549ff67bd64f5d3bc7059f&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01626251-W 20080731/080729230509-76e89991ca549ff67bd64f5d3bc7059f (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 |