SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Add Expedited-Schedule Case Studies to the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Data Base
- Notice Date
- 3/10/2009
- 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
- SHRP2_C19
- Archive Date
- 5/6/2009
- 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: C19 Project Title: Add Expedited-Schedule Case Studies to the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Data Base Date Posted: March 10, 2009 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 www.trb.org/shrp2. Capacity Focus Area The objective of the Capacity focus area is to produce approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity. That is being accomplished by developing a Collaborative Decision-Making Framework, organized around Key Decision Points, for reaching decisions on enhancing highway capacity and providing the tools for applying the framework. The framework is being implemented through a web-based portal that will provide structured access to the results of individual research projects. The scope of the Capacity Focus Area, as defined by the SHRP 2 Oversight Committee, extends from the early stages of the transportation planning process when many potential solutions are being considered through project development. 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. While not a hard and fast rule, the scope of the Capacity Focus Area ends roughly with a Record of Decision in the NEPA process. There is not necessarily a "standard" end to the planning, programming, and environmental review process but the scope of the Capacity Focus Area does not extend into design and construction. The expedited-schedule cases examined in C19 should not include accelerated design and construction techniques unless such activity is advanced in time and runs in parallel with planning, programming, or environmental review. The Renewal Focus Area of SHRP 2 is concerned with expediting design and construction, so it should not be included here. Project Background Linkage to Other SHRP 2 Projects One of the fundamental products of the SHRP 2 Capacity research program will be the 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 (KDPs) 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 C19, will be integrated into the framework, creating a unified product for users. Under project C01 case studies were conducted in which collaboration aided project decision making and helped overcome difficulties. Additional case studies featured innovative solution screening strategies, the application of which also involved collaboration. Project C19 will add to this case study data base. Under project C07, a web-based "portal" is being developed to organize access to the information collected under C01, C19, and selected other SHRP 2 Capacity projects. The project C19 research agency will work closely with the web-developer conducting C07 so that a seamless interface results. (See http://trb.org/shrp2/SHRPII_Capacity.asp for background on work to date on the Collaborative Decision Making Framework.) C19 Problem Statement The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework (CDMF) is the cornerstone product of the SHRP 2 Capacity program area. One of the more compelling reasons that DOTs and other transportation agencies may be interested in adopting the CDMF is that it could lead to expediting schedules for major capacity projects. The case studies already assembled under project C01 focus on the benefits of collaboration to correctly identify the nature of a transportation problem (which is often not what it seems) and find the best transportation, environmental, and community solutions. Successful collaboration can also support faster completion because there may be less opposition to the project if the collaboration process resolves many community and environmental issues early. The cases sought under this project should be consistent with the principles of collaborative decision making but also identify streamlining steps that can be taken within this context. This project will specifically address expediting the completion of the planning, programming, environmental review, and permitting steps for major capacity projects and may pave the way for expedited design and construction. Case studies will be used to understand how major projects have been delivered in a much shorter time frame than would have been possible without taking steps to expedite. The lessons from expedited-schedule case studies will be compiled in a report and an electronic version of the cases will fit into the web-based tools being developed under project C07. The C07 Integration contractor will provide guidance on formats Project Objective Describe tools, techniques, and strategies to expedite delivery of highway capacity projects and programs of projects based on review of selected case studies. The results of this project will enhance the Collaborative Decision Making Framework. 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. In all tasks pursue innovations and best practices in collaborative decision making, process management, and resource management. Task 1: Review and screen the relevant literature, awards, or recognition for rapid delivery of highway projects (FHWA, ASCE, AASHTO, and others), and other published case studies that address the project objective. Also, scan nonhighway cases for lessons learned on expedited schedule projects, e.g., railroads, stadiums, power plants, pipelines, and electric utilities. Include international examples as appropriate. Distill what is already known about the tools, techniques, and strategies used in the cases cited in the literature. As needed make follow-up contacts such as phone interviews to get additional details. Pursue new leads that may arise as you conduct the follow-ups. Assemble the information for analysis in Task 2. Note: Cases should include but not be limited to projects funded only with state (or state plus private) funds, federal-aid projects, and fast-track projects in response to a disaster. Extract principles that can be applied systematically in business-as-usual situations, not techniques unique to disaster situations. Task 2: Based on Task 1, evaluate the effectiveness of tools, techniques, and strategies. Include impacts, short-term cost-effectiveness, long-term cost-effectiveness, and risks (including community opposition, law suit, or selection of suboptimal alternatives.) Identify the top 10-20 most effective tools and techniques for expediting project delivery and the circumstances in which they were or could be applied. Submit a Task 1 and 2 report to SHRP 2 for review. Note: In your proposal, clearly describe the evaluation method you plan to use. Consider that in expediting project delivery there is tension between budget and schedule. Frame such tradeoffs not only in absolute project cost and schedule (e.g., extra meetings, overtime, and incentive pay) but also how increased budget and schedule in early phases of project planning did (or might) might yield savings in later phases. Task 3: Identify locations that have employed the top 10-20 tools, techniques, and strategies for expediting project delivery and prepare a site follow-up plan to fully develop case studies about the tools, techniques, and strategies. Prepare a Task 3 report for review by SHRP 2 that identifies the locations and tools, techniques, and strategies you plan to follow up in greater depth. Task 4: Following approval of the Task 3 Report, explore the tools, techniques, and strategies in each location in greater depth by interviewing a range of stakeholders (transportation agency staff, the public, resource agencies, elected officials) in locations where they have been applied. Expand the benefits and disadvantages, how to know when to use tools, how to apply combinations, and explore the business case. Where possible, link the tools, techniques, and strategies to Key Decision Points in the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework. Task 5: Prepare a draft final report that includes a detailed write-up on each tool and technique including an evaluation and variations in application. It should address the business case for applying these tools and techniques and provide guidance for implementation. Task 6: Consult with the contractor for SHRP 2 project C07 regarding electronic preparation of C19 material for inclusion in the Collaborative Decision Making Framework web portal. Task 7: Following review of the Draft Final Report, prepare a final report and amend electronic material as necessary. Deliverables 1. Task 1&2 Report 2. Task 3 Report 3. Project Draft Final Report 4. Project Final Report 5. Electronic material 6. Two (2) interim meetings with SHRP 2 staff, one (1) in Washington, DC, and one (1) at the contractor's facility. 7. Two (2) interim meetings with the Capacity Technical Coordinating Committee in Washington, DC; Irvine, CA; or Woods Hole, MA 8. Telephone conference calls, as needed Special Notes Note 1: For the purposes of this RFP "expedited schedule" means completion of the planning, programming, environmental review, and permitting stages much faster than the agency norm. In cases using design build, operating in a special environment like an authority, or operating only with state and private funding the steps may be different. SHRP 2 is still interested in how it was done. Note 2: Research teams should include experience in the following areas: • Planning, programming, environmental review, and permitting of highway projects or programs of projects • Accelerated public- and private-sector decision making on infrastructure projects • Change management and organizational process management • Resource management and scheduling (avoid bottlenecks) Funds Available: $300,000 Contract Period: 12 months Responsible Staff: Stephen Andrle, sandrle@nas.edu, 202-334-2810 Authorization to Begin Work: September 2009, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. on April 21, 2009 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. Here is a printable version of the 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. The Liability Statement is included as Figure 1 in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 referred to in General Note 4. 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 (DBEs)-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 DBEs 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 contractor selection, 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 website 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 March 26, 2009, 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=7702d04972595bed197e32a25d5f07fe&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01766348-W 20090312/090310220851-7702d04972595bed197e32a25d5f07fe (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 |