SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Pilot Test the Ecological Approaches to Environmental Protection Developed in Capacity Research Projects C06A and C06B
- Notice Date
- 7/27/2010
- 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_C21
- Archive Date
- 10/12/2010
- Point of Contact
- Stephen Andrle, Phone: 202-334-2810, Linda Mason, Phone: 202-334-3241
- E-Mail Address
-
sandrle@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu
(sandrle@nas.edu, lmason@nas.edu)
- Small Business Set-Aside
- N/A
- Description
- SHRP 2 Request for Proposals Focus Area: Capacity Project Number: C21 Project Title: Pilot Test the Ecological Approaches to Environmental Protection Developed in Capacity Research Projects C06A and C06B Date Posted: July 27, 2010 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 with total program duration of 7 years, ending in 2013. Additional information about SHRP 2 can be found on the program's Web site at 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 nonhighway options, further development of the nonhighway component is outside the scope. Project Background The purpose of this project is to test the products of SHRP 2 Projects C01, C06A, and C06B singly or in combination. C01: Under this project 23 case studies were conducted of collaborative practice and a decision guide was developed that represents the key transportation planning decision points from long-range planning through corridor planning, environmental review and permitting. A web-based delivery mechanism was created called Transportation for Communities-Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP), found on the web in beta test form at www.transportationforcommunities.com. Proposers are encouraged to use the case study guidance and collaboration assistance in the Project C21 pilot tests. See the Decision Guide navigation tab in TCAPP for a description of the decision points in the decision guide. C06A: Produced a Framework for Integrating Conservation and Transportation Planning (the Integration Framework), the business cases for using it from the perspectives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation (DOTs), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The focus is on Clean Water Act Section 404 Permitting and Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation processes. The framework lays out a process for applying tools developed in C06B. The business cases are being developed in conjunction with each agency with their individual missions in mind. The purpose of the business cases is to demonstrate that ecological approaches to mitigation can result in faster project delivery and can conserve and restore resources through improved avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts. C06B: Areas of focus for tools developed by C06B, in the context of the step-wise Integration Framework include: 1)cumulative effects and alternatives analysis 2)strategies for regulatory assurances 3)predictive modeling of at-risk species habitat and integrated mapping of wetlands 4)ecosystem services crediting 5)interactive database of methods, tools, systems, and case studies that support the ecological assessment methods The final combined product that proposers are asked to test will link tools and methods developed in this project or available elsewhere to the nine steps in the Integration Framework, which are: •Step 1: Build & Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships and Vision •Step 2: Integrate Ecosystem Plans •Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework •Step 4: Assess Transportation Effects •Step 5: Establish & Prioritize Ecological Actions •Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy •Step 7: Develop Agreements •Step 8: Implement Agreements •Step 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management The top three recommendations of the C06 projects for implementing an ecological approach to avoiding, minimizing and mitigating impacts and improving conservation and restoration of natural resources are: •Integrate transportation and land use planning. This has long been the Holy Grail, but there are clear, feasible steps that can be taken using the Integration Framework •Identify priority conservation areas. Reaching multi-agency agreement on priorities at the state or regional level will be a big step toward better avoidance of impacts on resources that should be conserved or that are candidates for restoration. An ecological approach constitutes a nexus of watershed and species preservation. •Make data available to all decision makers early in the process (for earlier decision making). More information about the C06 projects and the products they are producing can be found at www.trb.org/shrp2/capacity Multiple awards (up to five) will be made for this project, but not necessarily for the same dollar amount. The nature and extent of the proposed tests and budget will be taken into consideration. $1,150,000 is allocated to pilot tests and an additional $100,000 has been reserved by SHRP 2 to provide technical support to the selected sites. Projects C06A and C06B will not end until the spring of 2011 and SHRP 2 research must be completed by 2012. Therefore, this project will overlap with the completion of C06A and B to meet the deadline. Proposers will have to write proposals based on work in progress and descriptions of products that will be available by the time the pilot tests start in January 2011. Expected Products of C21 The products of this effort will be: •Feedback on the ecological approach tools so that they can be revised as needed •Assessment of the ability of federal, state, and local regulatory agencies to accept work conducted using these methods •Creation of champions for further implementation of the Integration Framework •Guidance on the degree of technical assistance that will be needed for successful implementation of the Integration Framework. •Reports on the pilot tests The intent of the research is to develop products that all federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies can accept. SHRP 2 therefore intends to test the products of C06A and C06B in practice. It is anticipated that the guidance on collaboration provided in TCAPP will be applied to the proposed ecological approaches and interagency relationships. By the end of SHRP 2, the ecological approaches, hardened by the pilot test results, will be incorporated into TCAPP. Special Note 3 provides illustrative examples of possible pilot tests Objectives of Project C21 The objectives of this project are to: (1) apply some or all of the steps and tools within the Integration Framework to improve integration of conservation and transportation planning approaches to a project, set of projects, or to a plan; (2) apply the collaboration guidance elements of TCAPP that would be useful to the proposed tests under item 1; (3) submit the results of analyses to regulatory review by the appropriate agencies to test the acceptability of results to federal, state, and local environmental regulatory agencies; (4) submit an evaluation of the effectiveness of C06 products and the collaboration tools in TCAPP. Selection Criteria 1. How effectively your approach addresses the triple bottom line: Environment, economic, and social aspects 2. Which decision point(s) in the decision guide your project will address 3. Ability to complete the pilot test within the allotted time 4. Letters of support: If a proposal is submitted by a transportation agency it must include letters of support from resource agency partners stating how they will actively participate in the pilot process and provide feedback. If a proposal is submitted by a resource agency it must include letters of support from a state DOT stating how they will actively participate in the pilot process and provide feedback A state transportation agency, metropolitan planning organization, or resource agency 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. However, consultants or universities that were involved in SHRP 2 projects C01, C06A, or C06B may not participate in pilot tests that involve the results from the project in which they participated. 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.Level of collaboration: multiple stakeholders such as state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, city and county agencies, federal and state resource agencies, or Federal Highway Administration Division Offices are desired depending on the nature of the test proposed. b.Whether the problem, project, program of projects, or business process selected for the pilot test is a good test of the Integration Framework and is applicable to practice elsewhere. c.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. d.Commitment from management (25% of the work effort must be from the lead public agency). e.Budget f.The expert task group will also consider a balanced selection of pilot tests considering geographic diversity, breadth of scope, innovation, and ability to complete in 14 months. Proposal Content Proposal preparation should be guided by A Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2, available on line at www.TRB.org/SHRP2 under Resources. As noted in Section IV of the Manual, item 5a, Research Plan Introduction, 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 and by projects C06A and C06B. To aid in organization, please address these items: 1.Name the lead proposing organization. 2.Provide a letter of commitment to participate in the pilot test from each participating agency. The letter should be signed by an executive-level officer and describe how the agency plans to participate. 3.Provide a statement that the lead public agency will contribute at least 25% of the level-of-effort. 4.Provide an FHWA Division Office contact. 5.Describe the partners, including consultants, universities, or NGOs 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.) 6.Describe the project to which the products of C06A and C06B and TCAPP collaboration assessment will be applied. For example: a.What are the challenges and opportunities: improved project delivery and environmental stewardship, defensible and more transparent decisions, stakeholder input and support, better resource protection and strategic conservation planning, achieving social, economic, and environmental objectives, other. b.Which steps in the Framework for Integrating Conservation and Transportation Planning are addressed? Provide the rationale for selecting these steps. Have you already accomplished the earlier steps or equivalent? Explain. c.What key decision point(s) in the Decision Guide will be addressed? See decision point definitions and chart in TCAPP under "Decision Guide Basics." d.Describe the stakeholders' and partners' roles and how they will be involved in the decision-making process identified above. e.Tie the scope of the proposed research back to the project objectives. 7.State that the schedule can be met (14 months starting in January 2011). 8. As noted in the Manual under item 5b, Research Approach, describe HOW pilot tests and the assessment will be conducted 9. Describe the plan and schedule. 10. Describe how the effort will be assessed and how the benefits will be measured qualitatively or quantitatively. 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 of Manual section IV) A task structure might look something like those listed below. Proposers are free to 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 an orientation and peer exchange 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 11- month point). The report should include these sections: 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 elements of C06A and C06B products or TCAPP d.Results of the self-assessment. Identify what worked and what didn't. Identify qualitative and quantitative benefits. e.Detailed description of the level of acceptance by environmental regulatory agencies and the revisions required or recommended. f.An executive summary suitable for inclusion in a report (to be written by others) that synthesizes the results of all the pilot tests. Use maps and graphics as appropriate. Task (Required). Prepare a final report suitable for publication 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 orientation and peer exchange •Draft Final Report (at 11 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 (at 14 months) •Participation in a roundtable discussion with representatives from other test sites Special Notes 1. Two Webinars to be held on July 29 and 30, 2010 will be helpful in understanding C06A and C06 B work in progress and similar work being carried out by resource agencies. Potential proposers are encouraged to register for these two sessions; there is no fee. More information about Part 1: Watershed Approaches (July 29, 2010 from 1:00 to 3:00 EST) is available at http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Public/Pages/Toward_a_Common_Ecological_Framework--Part%201_459.aspx. More information about Part 2: Habitat, Species and Connectivity (July 30, 2010 from1:00 to 3:00 EST) at http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Public/Pages/Toward_a_Common_Ecological_Framework--Part%202_458.aspx. 2. Transportation for Communities-Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) is the product of SHRP 2 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 www.transportationforcommunities.com. More information on the contents of TCAPP and the C06 projects may be found at www.trb.org/shrp2/capacity 3. Illustrative Pilot Tests The C06 projects will produce a guidebook that includes the 9-Step Integration Framework, incorporating templates for ecological assessment, regulatory assurances, and crediting. The project is also developing business cases for agencies to undertake ecosystem-based approaches such as Eco-Logical (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp, watershed-based permitting and mitigation siting, and a recovery planning or strategic habitat conservation approach to Section 7 consultation. Tools are being inventoried and offered in an on-line resource. Some generic ideas for pilot tests are offered below to stimulate new ideas. •Build a vision for what the partners can accomplish ecologically in Step 1 of the Integrated Framework, in the context of a better and more predictable process. TCAPP could be used to support development of a collaborative partnership, potentially involving a state DOT, a metropolitan planning organization (MPO), a state department of natural resources, parks or fish and game agency, and federal agencies as appropriate. Describe the vision/idea for how this would affect future approvals and permits and what decisions could be made on a plan level, with the methods suggested by the project. •Use a modeling technique for species or watersheds (Step 2) to move beyond observation of species incidence and occurrence. Demonstrate how modeling approaches support use of the Integration Framework. •Exercise Steps 3, 4, and 5 of the Integration Framework on a "live" project or as a "backcasting" exercise: oCreate a Regional Ecosystems Framework oAssess Transportation Effects oEstablish and Prioritize Ecological Actions •Customize a crediting strategy for your area and use it on a transportation project. Make the landscape to site connection (Step 6). •Review the business case for your agency type. Describe and estimate the potential benefits of applying the Integration Framework in your area. •Select a tool from the Ecosystem Based Management Tools network, apply the appropriate steps in the framework, and submit the analysis to regulatory agencies for review. 4. Starting in 2010, the Federal Highway Administration is planning to conduct demonstrations of "Every Day Counts" strategies to improve project delivery. FHWA is also continuing to sponsor efforts under the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP). If a proposer is also engaged in one or both of these activities, please explain how the proposed test of the C06 products and TCAPP can further leverage these opportunities or explain why they are different and need not be linked. 5. If needed, assistance will be available from SHRP 2 during the test period. This may include technical assistance with the products, assistance with the conduct of the pilot test, or help with other issues that may arise. Contact Stephen Andrle at SHRP 2 to request assistance. Funds Available: $1,250,000 ($1,150,000 available for pilot tests. $100,000 will be reserved for technical assistance.) Multiple awards are anticipated. Contract Period: 14 months for the entire project. SHRP 2 ends in March 2013. 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 11 months for carrying out the pilot test and preparing the draft final report. Three additional months are allowed for review of the draft and delivery of the final report. Responsible Staff: Stephen Andrle, sandrle@nas.edu, 202-334-2810 Authorization to Begin Work: January 2011, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 27, 2010 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 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/Public/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 August 27, 2010, 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. 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
-
FBO.gov Permalink
(https://www.fbo.gov/spg/NationalAcademies/NATRB/TRBSHRP2/SHRP2_C21/listing.html)
- Record
- SN02219869-W 20100729/100728000233-c917e915673845626189753698d02bf4 (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 |