SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Proof-of-Concept: Application of Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data in the Planning and Programming (pre-NEPA) Phases of Delivering New Highway Capacity
- Notice Date
- 3/20/2012
- 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_C40-B
- Archive Date
- 5/16/2012
- 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: C40-B Project Title: Proof-of-Concept: Application of Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data in the Planning and Programming (pre-NEPA) Phases of Delivering New Highway Capacity Date Posted: March 20, 2012 Proposals due: May 1, 2012 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 Note: This is the same background as SHRP 2 Project C40A. Both projects are addressing the same problem: the need to apply geospatial ecological screening tools and data at the transportation planning and programming phase of new highway capacity delivery in order to agree on priority areas for preservation or conservation. The C40B request for proposals is seeking proofs of concept from agencies that are using geospatial tools now to address the problem as well as from agencies that do not have such tools or are just beginning to develop them. SHRP 2 is interested in providing resources for such agencies to integrate their tools with tools developed by others, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or others. By contrast, the C40-A RFP seeks proposals to develop an integrated, geospatial ecological screening tool for early transportation planning that leverages the investments by others, is interoperable to the extent possible, and operates in a web service environment. The researchers for both projects (C40-A and -B) will be expected to collaborate during the research.The working name for the C40-A tool is Geospatial Resource for Ecology and Transportation (GREAT). The genesis of this project dates to 2006 with the publication of Eco-Logical. This document, signed by the Federal Highway Administration and eight other federal agencies, proposes an ecological approach to environmental protection, which means considering entire watersheds and habitats when mitigating the effects of development. Eco-Logical established the theoretical framework for the new approach, but more work was needed to make it ready for systematic application across the country. Starting in 2008 SHRP 2 conducted two research projects to advance the Eco-logical approach in the long-range planning, corridor planning, and programming phases of transportation delivery: C06-A. Integration of Conservation, Highway Planning, and Environmental Permitting Using an Outcome-Based Ecosystem Approach, and C06-B. Development of an Ecological Assessment Process for Enhancements to Highway Capacity The C06 projects recommended a nine-step integrated ecological framework (IEF) to guide the conduct of an ecological approach. These projects are now complete and in the publication process. The SHRP 2 program also conducted four pilot projects to test the nine-step IEF. These pilots started in 2011 and will be completed in May of 2012. The pilots ran concurrently with the completion of the C06 projects. In the same 2008-2012 time period, the Federal Highway Administration awarded 15 Eco-logical grants to state and local governments under the Strategic Transportation and Environment Program (STEP). The STEP grantees applied ecological principles to various aspects of transportation project delivery. Finally, in November 2011 SHRP 2 conducted a workshop of more than 50 participants drawn from the SHRP 2 pilots, STEP grantees, federal resource agencies, state departments of transportation, and metropolitan planning organizations. The question posed to the workshop participants was: What should SHRP 2 do next to advance the ecological approach in the planning and programming phases of transportation project delivery? The overwhelming response was to integrate the many new and evolving tools and data sets that are emerging but are not well known or not yet available to transportation planners and engineers in all states. The clear message was that for an ecological approach to work the tools and data have to be provided or it is too time consuming. An ecological approach must be conducted for a region in which one or more projects are planned, not just a project area itself. The data, analytical methods, staff, and institutional structure are not necessarily in place to accomplish this, even if it is desirable. The workshop concluded that a tool is needed that accesses data from various systems to allow planners and engineers to better avoid critical resources in the early planning stages or to minimize the impacts of adding highway capacity and to support regional conservation activities with strategic mitigation investments. The term "ecological screening too" is used here. Proposers should also be aware of Transportation for Communities-Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) www.transportationforcommunities.com TCAPP links the nine-step IEF to the decision points in transportation planning. TCAPP is the delivery vehicle for many SHRP 2 Capacity products, including C06-A and C06-B and the Eco-logical pilots. It also provides guidance in conducting business in a collaborative fashion, which is particularly important in the environmental arena because so many agencies have jurisdiction. It is anticipated that future users will be able to link to the products of this research through TCAPP. (See Special Notes 1 and 2 for links to background information. Refer to TCAPP for information on SHRP 2 projects C06-A and C06-B.) Statement of the Problem The Eco-logical signatory agencies are making progress in implementing ecological principals and are at various stages of developing and releasing national-level tools to assist in transportation planning. However, such evolving tools and data sets are works in progress. When trying to apply ecological principals in the planning and programming phases of transportation project or program delivery, transportation agencies face the following problems: 1. Lack of geospatial screening tools and readily available natural resource data (i.e., threatened and endangered species, sensitive species, habitats, wetlands, and aquatic resources) needed to incorporate natural resource conservation into the planning phases of highway projects or programs. 2. Reaching agreement on conservation priorities in advance of challenges from transportation or other development projects. The federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction need to develop a regional information and a collaboration structure, similar to steps 2 and 3 of the Integrated Ecological Framework, that can support regional cumulative effects assessment and effective, pro-active mitigation planning. Agreement on priorities is Step 5 of the IEF. Geospatial screening tools alone cannot achieve agreement, but they are an essential element. 3. Many geospatial tools are becoming available from public and private agencies - EPA, USFWS, FHWA, USGS, the USACE, state Natural Heritage Programs, and local agencies are developing their own geospatial capabilities. Most of the national-level tools are new, not populated with data in all states, or not yet widely available. The timing is ripe to develop a tool that leverages these products and targets them for transportation planning. There is a clear demand for something as close as possible to a one-stop-shopping solution that supports transportation planning and decision making. Objectives of Project C40-B It is recognized that some jurisdictions are already using geospatial tools for ecological analysis in transportation planning and programming. They have a lot to offer to a developer of a national one-stop-shopping tool and may have already developed approaches that are transferable to others. The objectives of C40-B are to: 1.Provide proof-of-concept that application of geospatial tools and data in the transportation planning and programming (pre-NEPA) phases of delivering new highway capacity is workable and can be of sufficient quality to be used in subsequent project-level environmental review. 2.Demonstrate this capability in the partnership context of the Integrated Ecological Framework described above. (From SHRP 2 C06 projects) 3.Show how methods developed in your area could be transferred to other geographical areas and identify what other jurisdictions would have to do to follow this approach. 4.Work with the C40A contractor to collaborate on the design of an integrated geospatial ecological screening tool and test the tool on a real project. 5.Evaluate the integrated geospatial tool developed by the C40-A researchers. SHRP 2 is seeking proposals from agencies with some form of an ecological screening tool or process used in early transportation planning and from transportation agencies that are interested in exploring this capability. Multiple awards will be made, probably 2-3, depending on the budgets proposed. SHRP 2 would like proposers to apply their existing or evolving geospatial tools to early transportation planning, corridor planning, or programming. The purpose is to use the tool to reach multi-agency agreement on ecological priorities in advance of project development. This will lead to an ecological strategy for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts. SHRP 2 would like to know: •What works? •What are the gaps? •What are the benefits and outcomes? Tasks Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. Proposals should describe what you are going to do in each task and how you are going to do it. 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. Describe your existing procedure for assessing environmental issues early in the transportation planning process. Relate this to the nine-step Integrated Ecological Framework as reported in TCAPP. www.transportationforcommunities.com Prepare a short Task 1 Report. Task 2. Establish coordination and collaboration relationships with environmental resource agencies for the purpose of this project. This is Step 1 of the IEF. Note: in your proposal include letters of support from resource agencies in your area, the state department of transportation, and the FHWA district office indicating a willingness to be involved in this proof-of-concept effort. Task 3. Establish a collaborative relationship with the C40-A research team. Provide focus group input to design. Advise the C40-A team on the functionality that is needed in a national-level geospatial, ecological, screening tool that leverages resource agencies' existing geospatial tools. During the development of the tool, review and comment along with the SHRP 2 Expert Task Group on C40-A interim work products. Task 4. Conduct or report on an internal data and methods assessment of your current procedures that includes a discussion of opportunities and bottlenecks. Describe what information is lacking in your existing procedures and what you would like to be able to do better to incorporate environmental issues in pre-NEPA analysis that will be relevant to the development of project-level environmental review. Based on the assessment, describe your next steps in ecological, geospatial tool development and what supplemental data and decision support tools are needed for your next steps. Include a discussion of transferability to other geographical areas or to the national level. Prepare a Task 4 report for review by the SHRP 2 Expert Task Group. Task 5. Develop or make enhancements to your geospatial tools and data based on the Task 4 assessment. This may include use of national-level tools that are operational in your area or enhancements to locally-developed tools. Apply the enhanced tools to a highway-related planning or programming environmental issue in your area. Record successes and difficulties and communicate with the C40-A design team. Prepare a Task 5 report that documents the changes or enhancements to your geospatial tools and/or ecological data bases. Task 6. Beta test the tool developed by C40-A researchers. Provide feedback to the C40-A developers on usability and value using a template provided by the C40-A team. Task 7. Assess the transferability of your tools and methods to other areas and how well the tool developed by the C40-A researchers meets your needs. Task 8. Prepare a Draft Final Report that covers all tasks and submit to SHRP 2 for review. The draft materials should be submitted three months before the end of the contract to allow time for SHRP 2 review. Task 9. Incorporate comments and submit a revised Final Report. Deliverables 1.Task 1 Report 2.Task 4 Report 3.Task 5 Report 4.Task 7 feedback to C40-A researchers 5.Draft Final Report 6.Revised Final Report Selection Criteria: 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: 1.Readiness to apply geospatial ecological tools and data to early transportation planning. 2.Technology readiness - Do you have the infrastructure, expertise, and data to begin using or expand your use of geospatial tools? 3.Willingness and ability to cooperate with the C40-A research team, participate in design of a national-level tool, and conduct beta testing of the C40-A tool. 4.Ability to complete the pilot test within the allotted time 5.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 proof-of-concept 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 process and provide feedback 6.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. 7.Commitment from management (25% of the work effort must be from the lead public agency). 8.Budget 9.The expert task group will also consider a balanced selection of proof-of-concept sites considering geographic diversity and innovation. Special Notes Special Note 1: Related SHRP 2 research • 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. This product also delivers the core findings of SHRP 2 C06 Research and contains an environmental tools inventory for reference. • C06-A: Produced a Framework for Integrating Conservation and Transportation Planning (the Integrated Ecological Framework). The focus is on water resources and endangered and threatened species. The intent is to demonstrate that applying ecological principles systematically during transportation planning and programming can result in faster project delivery and can better conserve the environment through improved avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of impacts. The nine steps in the Integrated Ecological Framework are: •Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships and Vision •Step 2: Integrate Ecosystem Plans •Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework •Step 4: Assess Transportation Effects •Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions •Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy •Step 7: Develop Agreements •Step 8: Implement Agreements •Step 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management • C06-B: Areas of focus for tools developed by C06-B, in the context of the step-wise IEF 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 More information about the C06 projects and the products they are producing can be found at www.trb.org/shrp2/capacity. The reports are in the publication process. Special Note 2. The FHWA Eco-Logical work can be found at these web locations: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_entry.asp. On this site you can find a wealth of information on Eco-Logical including descriptions of and links to each of the ecological grant projects (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_gps.asp), as well as the latest edition of "Eco-Logical Successes" (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/successes/second_edition.asp FHWA also conducted a number of STARS workshops as part of the Planning Environment Linkages program. STARS stands for Structured, Transparent, Accountable, Reproducible, and Sustainable. The results of those workshops may be found at this site: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/resources_training.asp). Special Note 3. Proposers should be familiar with the following resources: ESA WebTool The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Webtool is an online tool that practitioners can use to streamline preparation of biological assessments (BAs) as part of the consultation process under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Primary users of the ESA Webtool include state departments of transportation, FHWA Division Offices, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service. FHWA developed the ESA Webtool to address some of the challenges posed by the paper-based process associated with Section 7 consultation. The ESA Webtool puts forth a standardized approach to developing, reviewing, and responding to BAs. This approach includes using a "National BA Template," and documenting the steps of the Section 7 consultation process in an online project file cabinet. In addition, the ESA Webtool allows users to archive BA(s), Biological Opinions, and Letters of Concurrence so that these documents may be viewed by other users. One important function of the ESA Webtool is the ability to record the location of a project using geospatial tools. Recently, FHWA and USFWS entered into a partnership to link the ESA Webtool and the USFWS Information Planning and Conservation System (IPaC). Through this linkage, project managers are able to enter the geo-spatial information for a project into the ESA Webtool and PDFs of the species list and conservation measures generated in IPaC will be ported to the ESA Webtool project file cabinet. This connectivity will provide new function to the ESA Webtool, and allow users to access USFWS information without traveling to an additional website. FHWA launched the ESA Webtool in July of 2009. In 2011 FHWA migrated the ESA Webtool to be part of the FHWA Environmental Review Toolkit (http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/esawebtool). Through this transition, FHWA streamlined the site and made improvements such as establishing connectivity between the ESA Webtool and the USFWS Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC). By using the ESA Webtool, individuals preparing and reviewing BAs can streamline environmental decision making, reduce project delays, increase the quality of documentation and promote accountability through tracking and reporting. NEPAssist The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) geospatial application NEPAssist is an innovative tool that facilitates the environmental review process and project planning in relation to environmental considerations. The web-based application draws environmental data dynamically from EPA regions' Geographic Information System databases and provides immediate screening of environmental assessment indicators for a user-defined area of interest. These features contribute to a streamlined review process that potentially raises important environmental issues at the earliest stages of project development. NEPAssist is a distributed application that draws data from EPA databases as well as other sources through web services and allows a real-time geospatial analysis of data using regional web services "on the fly." NEPAssist has also integrated components (such as data and reports) of other geospatial tools developed at EPA which greatly enhance the information provided by the tool. NEPAssist was deployed nationally in 2008 with the goal to develop a user-friendly tool that could pull together relevant location information and related environmental data for proposed projects. NEPAssist has also been used in partnerships with other federal, state and local agencies to incorporate additional data and improve the tool. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) ECOS is a gateway website that provides access to information from numerous USFWS databases. ECOS allows users to view and search data related to environmental conservation, such as threatened and endangered species; critical habitat for threatened and endangered species; fisheries and fish passages; and conservation plans and agreements. ECOS also has a mapping tool, the ECOS Mapper, which provides a way to visualize the information provided by ECOS. ECOS is home to IPaC. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecos/about.do Information Planning and Conservation System (IPAC) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) IPAC provides information about sensitive resources (species, habitat) within the vicinity of a project. USFWS recommended conservation measures for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to resources are also provided. IPaC is meant to be used during initial project scoping, for designing projects, for developing environmental analysis documents, and for identifying conservation measures. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ Atlas for Sustainability EPA, USGS, USDA NRCS & Forest Service, National Geographic, NatureServe, and university researchers are creating a nationwide, publicly available, National Atlas for Sustainability, which will allow the user to interact with a web-based, easy-to-use, mapping application to view and analyze multiple ecosystem attributes services for the contiguous U.S. and provide users the ability to assess choices and tradeoffs in a spatially explicit context. The portal and the tools therein are designed to enable decisions about one ecosystem service to be made in light of others. The Atlas also presents information about drivers of change (population, land use change, multiple stressors, climate changes, etc.) to assess such scenarios. The Atlas includes a number of metrics related to habitat including ecosystem rarity, ecosystem connectivity, numbers of critically imperiled and imperiled species and habitat suitability for a number of suites of species relevant to ecosystem services provision (e.g., habitat for waterfowl, upland game species, big game species, habitat for species of greatest conservation need, etc.). The Atlas team recognized early on that there was no consistent and complete wetland data layer for the nation and they realized that this would be necessary to adequately represent ecosystem services provided by wetlands. The Atlas team is contributing to efforts to develop a new National Wetlands data layer that will be included in the Atlas when available. The Atlas website is scheduled for an initial release in the fall of 2012. www.epa.gov/ecology/pdfs/esrp-factsheet-atlas.pdf ScienceBase The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is committed to enhancing and expanding information sharing and sound data management practices by developing ScienceBase, a collaborative scientific data and information management platform used directly by science teams. ScienceBase allows partner agencies and projects to develop, review, control access to, and distribute scientific data, as well as provides access to aggregated information derived from multiple data and information domains. These aggregated data include feeds from existing data systems, metadata catalogs, and scientists contributing new and original content. ScienceBase architecture is designed to help science teams and data practitioners create a foundation of all the information needed for their work. ScienceBase provides: •Data uploading, documentation (employing metadata standards), and sharing (selectively or publicly, as appropriate to the content) •Serving data and metadata through standards-compliant Web services to enable other applications and Web sites to use information resources cataloged in ScienceBase •Harvesting of small and large data sources through Web catalog services to increase and diversify resources available to communities •Tools for science and management teams to find and organize information resources important to their work and to provide value-added attributes (keywords, spatial references, item relations) •Support from the Core ScienceBase data management team, acting to improve information discovery by making connections across sources using key elements such as contacts and projects and serve as consultants for new communities using ScienceBase Projects using tools provided by ScienceBase have built local, regional, and national datasets, designed and implemented landscape models, and develop climatological summaries. All these products are available both as downloads and as web services. ScienceBase has been released as an open source project to promote involvement from the larger scientific programming community both inside and outside the USGS. RIBITS RIBITS (Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System) was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with support from the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide better information on mitigation and conservation banking and in-lieu fee programs across the country. RIBITS allows users to access information on the types and numbers of mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program sites, associated documents, mitigation credit availability, service areas, as well information on national and local policies and procedures that affect mitigation and conservation bank and in-lieu fee program development and operation. A DOD security certificate is required to access RIBITS. Special Note 4. In preparing this proposal, you may contact appropriate state offices or district or regional offices of federal agencies as appropriate to obtain letters of support for your proposal. Special Note 5. Direct questions to the SHRP 2 Program Officer, Stephen Andrle. If necessary, answers to questions will be posted on the SHRP 2 website at www.TRB.org/SHRP2/Capacity Special Note 6. Please note that the National Academy of Sciences will own intellectual property developed as part of this project and researchers may not charge fees or royalties on new intellectual property. Researchers will receive a nonexclusive license to use the results of this research in their own products. (See the discussion of Intellectual Property in the Manual for Conducting Research and Preparing Proposals for SHRP 2 as referenced in General Note 4). Funds Available: $500,000. Multiple awards are anticipated, up to three. Ideally SHRP 2 would like to work with agencies that demonstrate a spectrum of readiness from advanced geospatial users to those just beginning to use such tools. Contract Period: 18 months for the entire project. SHRP 2 ends in March 2015. Our goal is to have all final deliverables in hand one year before this termination date to allow for editing and publication. This contract period allows 15 months for carrying out the project 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: September 2012, estimated Proposals (20 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on May 1, 2012 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: Stephen J. Andrle 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 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 (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/PreparingSHRP2Reports.pdf) 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-the approach to validating the handbook is a key consideration; (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 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/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 April 25, 2012, 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 second 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_C40-B/listing.html)
- Record
- SN02701494-W 20120322/120321000405-a645ec35aec8ac88eabc421372166f3d (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 |