ACRP 02-83 [RFP]
Measuring Quality of Life in Communities Surrounding Airports
Posted Date: 11/17/2017
| Project Data
|(includes 2 months for ACRP review and approval of the interim report and 3 months for ACRP review and for contractor revision of the final deliverables)
|Authorization to Begin Work:
||5/15/2018 -- estimated |
||Joseph D. Navarrete
|RFP Close Date:
Airports make investments that influence quality of life for their communities (e.g., creating jobs, attracting and supporting businesses, serving as hubs for transportation networks, generating noise, and affecting air quality). Quality of life can be defined as a broad and multidimensional concept that usually includes an individual’s perception of his or her position in life, and encompasses both positive and negative aspects. It includes objective factors (e.g., health, work status, command of material resources, living conditions) and the subjective perception one has of those factors within the context of aspects like culture, values, and spirituality. These factors make measuring the quality of life for different populations in a comparable manner a complex task. While airports undertake economic and environmental impact studies, to date, there is no guidance that airports, communities, and other stakeholders can use to comprehensively measure the impact of airport-related activity on quality of life.
The objective of this research is to develop methods and guidance to measure the effect of an airport on the quality of life on its surrounding communities.
The methods should, at a minimum:
Be built, to the greatest extent practical, on existing, industry-accepted, standardized tools and practices;
Be adaptable to various sizes and types of airports, and communities;
Be scalable to levels of resource availability (e.g., data, time, money, personnel, expertise);
Be capable of evaluating the effect of proposed projects, policies, and activities;
Consider multiple indicators of quality of life;
Incorporate both quantitative and qualitative metrics;
Allow indicators to be normalized, weighted, and prioritized; and
Produce results in various formats for multiple audiences (e.g., summaries, scorecards, charts, spreadsheets, matrices).
The guidance should, at a minimum:
Include a primer on quality of life issues for communities around airports that provides:
A description of quality of life indicators,
A discussion of how airports and stakeholders (e.g., governing entities, airlines, tenants, regional planning organizations, community groups) influence quality of life indicators, and
An overview of current quality of life measurement practices;
Provide a process (e.g., matrix, decision tree, flow chart) to help practitioners select the most appropriate methods for their situation;
Help practitioners define study limits (e.g., subject airport(s); projects, policies, and activities; geography; populations of interest);
Demonstrate approaches to meet the needs and priorities of various stakeholders;
Help practitioners determine appropriate weights and prioritize criteria for their unique situation;
List resources for more information and guidance on (at a minimum):
Addressing identified opportunities for improvement based on findings, and
Stakeholder engagement; and
The ACRP 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 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, at a minimum: (1) literature review including a list of current methods and indicators and (2) an interim report that describes work done in early tasks, including initial recommendations for preferred methods and indicators to measure quality of life and a rationale, and a plan to “road test” the methods and guidance by partnering with a representative sample of airports and communities.
The research plan should also include, at a minimum, the following checkpoints with the ACRP project panel: (1) kick-off conference call to be held within 1 month of contract execution and (2) interim meeting to review the results of the interim report.
Note: Following receipt of the interim report, there should be 2 months for ACRP review and comments and for the interim meeting.
The final deliverables will include: (1) the methods and guidance to measure the effect of an airport on the quality of life on its surrounding communities; (2) guidebook; (3) technical report documenting all aspects of the research, including a dissemination plan and future research needs; and (4) a stand-alone technical memorandum titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products,” as noted in Special Note D.
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 face-to-face meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.
A. 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.
B. If a proposer elects to include an electronic tool as a deliverable, it must be based on readily available commercial off-the-shelf software. A description of the tool’s development plan will need to be included in the interim report, and the “road test” must include a beta test of the electronic tool.
C. 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.
D. 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.
E. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. If the research approach includes human subjects testing, proposers should be aware that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has its own Institutional Review Board (IRB) that must review and approve the results of the proposing agency’s IRB process. It should be assumed that this step will require several weeks.
Proposals (15 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. on 1/5/2018.
This is a firm deadline, and extensions are not granted. In order to be considered for award, all 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 the proposal will be rejected. Proposers may choose any carrier or delivery service for their proposals. However, proposers assume the risk of proposal rejection if the carrier or delivery service does not deliver all the required documents by the deadline.
ATTN: Christopher J. Hedges
Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered statement in order for the ACRP to accept the agency's proposal for consideration. Proposals submitted without this executed and unaltered statement by the proposal deadline will be summarily rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract that includes the provisions in the statement.
Here is a printable version of the Liability Statement (pdf). A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF reader is available at http://www.adobe.com.
1. 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.
2. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the current brochure entitled "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (updated August 2016). Proposals must be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section V for mandatory requirements. Proposals that do not conform with these requirements will be rejected. This brochure is available here.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Potential proposers should understand that follow-on activities for this project may be carried out through either a contract amendment modifying the scope of work with additional time and funds, or through a new contract (via sole source, full, or restrictive competition).