SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Model Curricula and Training Programs for Utility Relocation
- 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
- SHRP2R15A
- 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 A Project Title: Model Curricula and Training Programs for Utility Relocation 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 State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) construct, maintain, and operate highways for the benefit of the public and that has been their traditional charge and focus. Since the advent of the Interstate highway system, states have extended the use of highway right of way (ROW) or expanded existing ROW incorporating the ROW of utilities. The challenges encountered in coordinating DOT and utility activities are significant for both parties. 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 technical complexity of utility systems has increased over time. DOT design engineers and DOT construction contractors have little or no formal training in the technical aspect of utility systems. Utility professionals responsible for coordinating utility relocation work on transportation projects have little or no formal training on the DOT design process. The absence of technical knowledge is an obstacle to coordination. The responsibility for coordinating technical and management aspects of utility relocations is generally assigned to a "Utility Relocation Coordinator." In current practice DOTs, contractors, and utilities all may employ a utility relocation coordinator. However, there is no current standard for the training and experience that qualify this key person. To improve the efficiency of highway renewal efforts, model curricula and certification programs are needed to establish such standards for personnel responsible for utility relocation. Project Objectives The objectives of this project are to develop a training program and model curricula to equip agency, consultant, and utility professionals responsible for coordinating and/or designing utility relocation work on transportation projects with a better understanding of the technical challenges faced by all involved parties. It is expected that the model training curricula and training materials would, at a minimum include the following modules: • Legal - familiarity with federal and state laws and regulations, permitting and occupancy rights, etc. • Coordination - understanding the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved in utility relocation work on transportation projects. • Planning - emphasizing the importance of early identification of utility impacts and development of mutual resolution strategies. • Design - understanding the basic principles of highway and utility design work, including how to interpret highway and utility plans, identify utility impacts, and develop mutual resolution strategies. • Construction - understanding how project sequencing and construction methods affect contractor and utilities activities. • Utility cost estimating and invoicing - understanding the necessity for and methods of developing accurate cost estimates for utility relocation work on transportation projects; and understanding the eligibility and invoicing requirements for reimbursement. 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 proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meet the research objectives: Phase I Task 1: Identify and document core competencies, knowledge, skills, and abilities needed by transportation agency, consultant, and utility professionals responsible for coordinating and/or designing utility relocation work on transportation projects. Task 2: Considering the core competencies indentified in Task 1, develop model training curricula for agency, consultant, and utility professionals responsible for coordinating and/or designing utility relocation work on transportation projects. The curricula will include a clear designation of learning objectives for each instructional module. As a minimum, the instructional materials will include individual modules for: Legal, Coordination, Planning, Design, Construction, and Utility Cost Estimating and Invoicing. Task 3: Submit the model training curricula for review and approval by SHRP 2. Task 4: On approval of the model training curricula, develop for each instructional module training materials that support the curricula developed in Task 2. Multiple teaching methods should be used for each module (e.g. lecture, hands-on exercises, case studies, group activities, etc.). The training materials for each module shall include pre- and post tests to evaluate the knowledge transfer. Task 5: Develop a methodology for evaluating the curricula and training materials developed in the previous tasks and a plan for conducting a pilot training program that includes all training modules in the curricula. Task 6: Develop and submit a Phase I interim report detailing all of the work conducted in the preceding tasks and provide a work plan for Phase II. Include in the work plan the identification of all elements needed to achieve the project objectives, a description how all of the tasks in Phase II will be accomplished, and the recommended public agencies that will participate in Phase II. 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 upon receipt of notice to proceed to Phase II, conduct the following tasks: Task 7: Conduct an individual training session for each module of the pilot training program, including the evaluation of the curricula and training materials, and the presentation of the module. The participants shall include a cross section of DOT staff who have varying levels of project development and utility coordination experience. Participants in these training sessions should also include representatives from utilities, design consultants, public agencies, and FHWA. Task 8: Refine the model curricula and training materials based on the outcome of Task 7 and develop a detailed strategy for conducting a complete training program that presents all modules to a single audience. Task 9: Using the strategy developed in Task 8 conduct the complete training program that presents all modules. Refine the model curricula and training materials based on the outcome of this task. Task 10: Develop minimum qualifications for professionals identified by their organization as Utility Coordinators based on the information obtained from all previous tasks. Task 11: Develop guidelines for implementing the curricula and training materials that describe how to use the curriculum for a variety of learning settings. These settings may include, but are not limited to, distance learning, workshops, short courses, and university courses. Also, describe how the curricula can be deployed for educational purposes (e.g., federal, state, and local governments and the private sector). Task 12: Prepare and submit a draft final report documenting the work conducted in the previous tasks. Task 13: Prepare and submit a final report that responds to SHRP 2 comments. Deliverables 1. Draft Model Curricula 2. Phase I Report 3. Phase II Work Plan 4. Training Materials 5. Guidelines for Implementation 6. Model Curricula 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: The technical portion of the proposal is limited to a maximum of 20 pages. Note 2: The resumes included in the proposal shall be summary resumes in narrative form limited to 3 pages per team member. Note 3: The 30-month time period allotted for this project includes the following times needed for SHRP 2 review and approval, and contractor revision of deliverables: (a) 1 month for model curricula; (b) 2 months for review, revision and approval of Phase I report and Phase II work plan; (c) 3 months for review, 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: $400,000 Contract Period: 30 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=62491e3dcd30fa0221ab6bac8c79aebb&tab=core&_cview=1)
- Record
- SN01626249-W 20080731/080729230503-62491e3dcd30fa0221ab6bac8c79aebb (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 |