SOLICITATION NOTICE
A -- Integration of National-Level Geospatial, Ecological Tools and Data
- 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-A
- 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-A Project Title: Integration of National-Level Geospatial, Ecological Tools and Data Date Posted: March 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 non-highway options, further development of the non-highway component is outside the scope. Project Background Note: This is the same background as SHRP 2 Project C40-B. 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 C40-B 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. That 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 the final reports are 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 C06A and 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 C40-A 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 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 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. 4. Scale of available data - Many geospatial data sets that are currently available nationally are sometimes perceived to lack the level of resolution considered adequate for transportation planning. Conversely, data of a fine resolution do not generally exist for large geographic areas and their development would be cost-prohibitive. Objectives The primary objective of this project is to develop an integrated, geospatial ecological screening tool for early transportation planning that produces results of a quality that can carry through and inform the environmental review process. This should be accomplished through development of a geospatial tool accessed on the Web that draws much of its data and perhaps analytical capabilities from existing tools largely through Web services. This will leverage, possibly through portals established by others, existing and emerging tools and data sets for efficient and effective environmental analysis in transportation planning, corridor planning, and programming. There are many emerging tools, but none appear to meet this objective. The tool will, at a minimum, help users investigate, identify, and obtain data and other information useful for environmental screening in transportation planning. A secondary objective is to support collaborative decision making as embodied in the Integrated Ecological 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(s): Task 1. The problem to be addressed is described above. To identify user needs more specifically for an integrated, geospatial ecological screening tool, conduct a user needs assessment, including tools and data, with practitioners from 3-5 state transportation agencies and 3-5 MPOs/ local governments of varying levels of technical capacity and environmental planning sophistication. In your proposal describe how you would approach this task. Available resources include the Expert Task Group for this project, the C21 pilots, FHWA Eco-logical grantees and SHRP 2 proof-of-concept sites (C40-B). Task 2. Using the results of the user needs assessment, create a vision statement for an integrated, geospatial ecological screening tool. The vision statement should describe the inputs and outputs of existing tools, data sources to be leveraged, the nature of the tool, how users would access and use it, and the functions it would provide. To do this, investigate existing tools to understand their ability to provide needed functions, gaps in functionality or data, and issues of accessibility and integration. Examples include EPA's NEPAssist and The National Atlas for Sustainability, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's ECOS-IPaC, The Federal Highway Administration's ESAWebtool, and the U.S. Geological Survey's ScienceBase, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RIBIT. Prepare a task report for Tasks 1 and 2 and submit to SHRP 2 for review. See Note 3 for background on the tools mentioned. Task 3. Develop an architecture and design plan with a schedule for product delivery. The architecture should specify a nonproprietary platform and be released in an open-source environment. The architecture should provide for acquiring, through Web services or other means, geospatial data developed locally and data provided by others. Generate wireframes (navigational flow), user interface design, screen mockups, representative reports and visualizations, final list of data content, sources, delivery mechanisms, description of technologies used, and development plan. Geospatial data will follow appropriate Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards along with applicable international standards, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards will be followed for the creation of web services, which include Web Map Services (WMS) and Web Feature Services (WFS). Prepare a task report for Task 3 and submit for approval by SHRP 2. Task 4. Following approval of the Task 3 report, build the first version of the system as designed, prepare draft documentation, and prepare a draft user's guide. During this task, report to SHRP 2 any deviations from the initial plan. In addition to monthly and quarterly reports, plan for two in-person presentations to the Expert Task Group in Washington D.C. during this task. Task 5. Under Project C40-B, one or more proof-of-concept projects will be funded by SHRP 2 at transportation agencies that will run concurrently with this project. At this time it is not known who they will be or what tools and data sources they will use. The research team for C40-A will be expected to establish a relationship with these proof-of-concept sites and be a resource to them and accept feedback from them on the development of an integrated, geospatial ecological screening tool. These sites must be included in the user needs assessment and they will be required to work with the C40-A research team. Provide a comment template to the pilot sites. (Note: proposers on this project should be sure to read the RFP for C40-B.) Task 6. Test the tool and data acquisition. It should be tested in a both a state department of transportation environment and a metropolitan planning organization or similar regional environment. It is also desired that the tool be tested in a location that already does some form of geospatial ecological screening at the planning level and at one that does not or is just starting to do so. In the proposal suggest your approach to finding partners for testing and draft criteria for the tests. Prepare a Task 6 test report and submit to SHRP 2 for review. Task 7. Present the results of the project to practitioners at a workshop, possibly in conjunction with a planned conference. Task 8. Modify the tool as appropriate based on feedback from the proof-of-concept sites (Task 5) and the Task 6 tests. Deliver the commented source code and documentation. Prepare a draft final report and user's guide. 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. Following review, submit to SHRP 2 the tool, the source code, final documentation, the report, and the user's guide. Deliverables 1.An integrated, geospatial, ecological screening tool that works with Web-based data providers and can be used without purchasing software or paying licensing fees. All code necessary for the software is part of the deliverable. 2.Task 1 and 2 Report 3.Task 3 Architecture Report 4.Task 6 Test Report 5.Users Guide 6.Documentation of the code 7.Presentation materials for the Task 7 workshop 8.Final Report 9.Monthly and quarterly progress reports 10.At least two meetings in Washington, DC Selection Criteria In addition to the criteria stated in General Note 1 below, these specific criteria will be applied to project C40-A. 1.Proven track record in building effective, geospatial tools that work with Web services (both providing and consuming) and user-friendly interfaces. Describe users and document their level of satisfaction. 2.Experience with analytical tools and data regarding threatened and endangered species and their habitats, wetlands, and aquatic resources. 3.Familiarity with emerging tools such as NEPAssist, ECOS- IPaC, ESA Webtool, The National Atlas for Sustainability, ScienceBase, RIBITS, and others. 4.Ability to marshal the resources to complete this project in the time frame available. 5.Ability to work with public agencies to test the ecological screening tool. 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 Integrated Ecological 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 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 our 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 to the Planning Environment Linkages program. STARS stands for Structured, Transparent, Accountable, Reproducible, and Sustainable. The results of those workshops maybe 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 geo-spatial 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 FWS 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 both 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 provides ways to visualize most information geospatially, through both on-line mappers and a suite of Web services. 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/ National Atlas for Sustainability EPA's Office of Research and Development and its partners including USGS, NRCS, USFS, National Geographic, NatureServe, and others are developing a National Atlas for Sustainability. The Atlas capitalizes on the latest in Web based and geospatial technologies giving users the ability to view and analyze the geographical distribution of ecosystem services production, demand, and drivers of change. The Atlas will provide wall-to-wall, geographically explicit data characterizing ecosystem services and summarizing by 12-digit sub-watersheds across the contiguous U.S., and will include a high-resolution analysis for selected communities summarizing by U.S. Census block group. The national effort will include measures of ecosystem services such as clean air and water; water supply and timing; flood protection; climate stabilization; food, fiber, and fuels; cultural, recreation, and aesthetic amenities; and habitat to support wildlife of concern. Assessment at community scale finer resolution data will examine human health and well-being in relation to environmental conditions such as urban heat islands, near-road pollution and mitigation, access to green space and recreation, drinking water quality and other quality-of-life variables. The Atlas includes a number of metrics related to habitat including ecosystem rarity and connectivity and predicted habitat for multiple suites of species (e.g., Species of Greatest Conservation Need and habitat for waterfowl, upland game, big game, Threatened and Endangered, critically imperiled and imperiled, riparian obligate, recreationally and economically important, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act species, etc). The Atlas links to the USGS GAP web site for individual species predicted habitat. The Atlas also includes a number of metrics related to wetlands and potentially restorable wetlands including percent of area that is emergent or woody wetland and indicators of wetland restoration potential. Other metrics contained within the Atlas relate to each sub-watershed in general and its importance in producing many ecosystem services including drinking water. Tools allowing integration of multiple measures into a single index value will be incorporated into the Atlas. The Atlas is scheduled for an initial limited public release in the fall of 2012 and a full public release of the first prototype in 2013. The Atlas will continue to evolve and will be adding data and functionality beyond the 2013 release. http://www.epa.gov/ecology/quick-finder/national-atlas.htm 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, do not contact federal or state agencies directly for information about their tools or data. Direct questions to the SHRP 2 Program Officer, Stephen Andrle. If necessary, answers to questions will be posted on the SHRP 2 website. www.TRB.org/SHRP2/Capacity Special Note 5. Proposers should plan on licensing tools developed for this project under an open source license or similar nonproprietary means. Special Note 6: Intellectual Property. Meeting the goals of this project requires that the products be delivered in a form that allows users and other researchers to expand on the initial work through a) developing new methods and capabilities, b) making modifications to address specific needs, and c) applying the tools developed to individual projects and areas. All elements needed to run and further develop the integrated demand models must be available to users. 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 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 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-A/listing.html)
- Record
- SN02701512-W 20120322/120321000418-4d499446b8ded8a34eb2004558d66b23 (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 |