State aviation agencies frequently must demonstrate the value that they bring to their state, such as when there are reviews of budgets; to justify funding and staffing; when there is consideration to consolidate departments; or when there are requests from regulators, legislators, or other stakeholders. State aviation agencies may also compete for resources with the other modes of transportation within their state.
Performance metrics and key performance indicators (KPI) are used in all industries to show how well an organization or entity is operating, or put another way, to show their value or return on investment (ROI). State aviation agencies are somewhat different in terms of their operations or administration of grants and may use a variety of performance metrics. However, since some agencies don’t have control over all aspects of airport grants, grant administration metrics may not be valuable.
No two state aviation agencies operate the same, but there are many common activities with common performance metrics and indicators, though there may be unique applications. There also may be unique metrics, indicators, and methods of implementation that are being utilized at one or a few state aviation agencies that some others may find useful.
The objective of this research is to identify performance metrics and KPIs that state aviation agencies utilize to demonstrate their value to elected officials, regulators, and stakeholders. Value should be defined as being effective, efficient, and a good steward of resources. The report should include real world examples of how state aviation agencies (or other transportation modes, as appropriate) have utilized specific performance metrics and/or key performance indicators successfully.
The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are asked to develop and include a detailed research plan for accomplishing the project 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 meeting the research objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks and proposers must describe the work proposed in each task in detail.
The research plan should include appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval that include at a minimum:
- A data collection plan that includes outreach to all 50 state aviation agencies.
- A case study plan after the initial data collection has been completed.
- An interim report that discusses and analyzes the work done to date, and provides an annotated outline of the final report.
The research plan should build in appropriate checkpoints with the ACRP panel, including at a minimum:
- A kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed.
- One face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting.
- Web-enabled teleconferences tied to the panel review and ACRP approval of other interim deliverables deemed appropriate.
The final deliverables will include: (1) a final report that meets the objective and provides examples from the case studies; (2) the research team’s recommendation of research needs and priorities for additional related research; and (3) a stand-alone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products.” See Special Note H for additional information.
Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for contractor preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services. ACRP will pay panel members’ travel costs for the one face-to-face meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.
A. Proposers should identify the number of case studies, and the criteria that will be used to categorize the types of state aviation agencies.
B. The data collection plan and/or the case studies should include other modes of transportation in which the state aviation agencies may be in competition for resources.
C. The selected Principal Investigator is strongly encouraged to attend an ACRP Symposium on Conducting ACRP Research during the TRB’s Annual Meeting, January 2019.
D. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency is made by the project panel considering the following factors: (1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience, qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) the proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises--small firms owned and controlled by minorities or women; and (6) the adequacy of the facilities.
Note: The proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 12 of the proposal.
E. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions for use of copyrighted material in TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs publications. For guidance on TRB’s policies on using copyrighted material please consult Section 5.4, “Use of Copyrighted Material,” in the Procedural Manual for Contractors.
F. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the brochure, "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/ProposalPrep.pdf). Proposals also should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials, and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB) must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include a provision that proposers without a “federally” Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each lower-tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each lower-tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.
G. Item 4(c), "Anticipated Research Results," in each proposal must include an Implementation Plan that describes activities to promote application of the product of this research. It is expected that the implementation plan will evolve during the project; however, proposals must describe, as a minimum, the following: (a) the "product" expected from the research, (b) the audience or "market" for this product, (c) a realistic assessment of impediments to successful implementation, (d) the institutions and individuals who might take leadership in applying the research product, (e) the activities necessary for successful implementation, and (f) the criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation.
H. The required technical memorandum titled, “The Implementation of Research Findings and Products” as a final deliverable, should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.
I. Item 5 in the proposal, "Qualifications of the Research Team," must include a section labeled "Disclosure." Information relevant to the ACRP's need to ensure objectivity and to be aware of possible sources of significant financial or organizational conflict of interest in conducting the research must be presented in this section of the proposal. For example, under certain conditions, ownership of the proposing agency, other organizational relationships, or proprietary rights and interests could be perceived as jeopardizing an objective approach to the research effort, and proposers are asked to disclose any such circumstances and to explain how they will be accounted for in this study. If there are no issues related to objectivity, this should be stated.