HOME MyTRB CONTACT US DIRECTORY E-NEWSLETTER FOLLOW US RSS


The National Academies

ACRP 03-47 [RFP]

Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue

Posted Date: 11/28/2017

  Project Data
Funds: $450,000
Contract Time: 18 months
(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 report)
Authorization to Begin Work: 5/15/2018 -- estimated
Staff Responsibility: Theresia H. Schatz
   Phone: (202) 334-2981
   Email: tschatz@nas.edu
RFP Close Date: 1/12/2018
Fiscal Year: 2018

BACKGROUND
 
Non-aeronautical revenue is a critical source of income for airports, and parking is one of the largest of these sources.  Yet ongoing and emerging shifts in customer ground access behavior, resulting from the growing use of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) and eventual adoption of emerging technologies, are posing a significant challenge to airports’ reliance on parking revenue.  Some airports are already seeing reductions in parking revenue, and many are imposing or modifying access fees to recover a portion of the lost revenue. While ACRP is undertaking research on the impacts on airport revenues and operations due to TNCs (ACRP 01-35), research is needed to explore in more detail how airports may need to repurpose, renovate, or redevelop airport parking facilities to generate additional non-aeronautical revenue to compensate for the decrease.   
 
 
OBJECTIVE
 
The objective of this research is to prepare a guidance document that will identify near-term and long-term solutions to help airports of all types and sizes repurpose, renovate, or redevelop their parking facilities to address the loss of airport parking and other ground transportation revenue. The guidance document should describe how airports might adapt existing parking and ground transportation facilities to make them suitable for alternative, revenue-generating purposes and identify new potential sources of non-aeronautical revenue to compensate for shifting modal preferences, namely TNCs, autonomous vehicles, and other emerging/future technologies.  
 
The guidance document should address operational, facility, and financial impacts related to the shifting consumer preferences and potential solutions.
 
Strategies to address impacts could include, but are not limited to: 
  • Innovative parking operation models;
  • Innovative rate setting for parking and ground transportation;
  •  Changes in use of parking and ground transportation facilities to alternative revenue generating uses;
  •  New considerations and assumptions for long-range financial and capital planning for parking facilities due to modal shifts on ground access (e.g., rail extensions);
  •  Cooperative land use zoning efforts with communities surrounding airports;  and
  •  Evaluation of potential new and emerging technologies that may contribute or mitigate revenue loss.
 
 RESEARCH PLAN
 
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 objectives. 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 objectives. The work proposed must be divided into tasks and proposers must describe the work proposed in each task in detail.
 
It is anticipated that the research approach will be built upon and coordinated with the data collection efforts to be conducted under ACRP Project 01-35. The research plan should include appropriate interim deliverables, for ACRP approval, that include at minimum:
 
1. A literature review on: (a) airport parking facilities to identify the key factors that have contributed to recent changes in parking volume/revenue, and the financial and operational impact that airports can expect from a decline in parking fees; and (b) potential non-aeronautical revenue development strategies for airports to replace the income derived from parking through other sources of non-aeronautical revenue.
 
2. A range of domestic and international case studies to evaluate the feasibility of repurposing, renovating, or redeveloping parking facilities to generate revenues.
 
3. A framework for potential solutions pertaining to: (a) innovative operational models and marketing strategies for existing parking infrastructure; (b) repurposing existing facilities with minimal physical modification; (c) renovating or adapting facilities to an alternative use; (d) replacing or redeveloping facilities for a higher and better use; and (e) emerging future transportation technologies. 
 
A preliminary framework will be submitted within 6 to 8 months of Notice to Proceed and will be made publically available on the TRB website to be revised with the draft final deliverables.   
 
Note: Proposers should provide their methodology for accomplishing the framework which could include expert interviews, site visits, stakeholder engagement, etc. 
 
4. An assessment of the extent to which the examples of non-aeronautical revenue generation are transferable and/or scalable to airports of different contexts. 
 
5. An interim report that describes work done in early tasks with an updated work plan for remaining tasks; and a detailed outline of the final guidance document that will require ACRP approval.  
 
The research plan should include other appropriate checkpoints with the ACRP panel, including at a minimum (1) a kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed and (2) one face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting, as well as web-enabled teleconferences tied to the panel review and ACRP approval of other interim deliverables deemed appropriate. 
 
The final deliverables will include: (1) a guidance document that provides key findings and strategies that meets the research objective;  (2) a contractor’s final report that documents the methodology of their entire research effort, including any background information and 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.)
 
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.
 
SPECIAL NOTES
 
A. ACRP publications and other relevant resources should be consulted when conducting this research. It is expected that portions of these publications and or resources will be discussed or linked into the final publication as appropriate, including existing ongoing research, but not limited to, ACRP Project 01-35: "Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations," ACRP Report 121: Innovative Revenue Strategies: An Airport Guide, and so on
 
B. Proposers are encouraged to include on their team expertise in real estate and capital planning in an airport environment.
 
C. A strategic priority for ACRP is to assure quality in its research projects. ACRP therefore encourages the principal investigator of the successful proposer to participate in a 1-day Symposium on ACRP Research in Progress that will be held during the Transportation Research Board’s 2019 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Proposers may include this cost in their proposed project budget.
 
D. Airports have received many surveys in response to ACRP projects. In an effort to ensure an adequate response rate and collection of information, proposers may consider the use of focus groups, Internet/web-based technologies, social networking sites, and industry conferences or other techniques that may be appropriate.
 
E. 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.
 
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 “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.
 
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.
 
J. 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.
 
K. 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 1/12/2018.

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.

Delivery Address:

PROPOSAL-ACRP
ATTN: Christopher J. Hedges
Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001


Liability Statement

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.


General Notes

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).


To create a link to this page, use this URL: http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4426