HOME MyTRB CONTACT US DIRECTORY E-NEWSLETTER FOLLOW US RSS


The National Academies

ACRP 07-17 [RFP]

Update to ACRP Report 40: Airport Roadway Analysis and Curbside Congestion Management Strategies

Posted Date: 3/5/2020

  Project Data
Funds: $500,000
Contract Time: 18 months
(includes 1 month 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: 8/10/2020 -- estimated
Staff Responsibility: Matt J. Griffin
   Phone: 202/334-2366
   Email: mjgriffin@nas.edu
RFP Close Date: 5/21/2020
Fiscal Year: 2020

BACKGROUND

ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations was published in 2010.  In the 10 years since it was published, the inception of ride sharing services has brought a paradigm shift, not only to the airport curb but to society in general.  Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) demonstrated the effectiveness of peer-to-peer mobile services so much so that new services are embracing this same model.  There are both opportunities and challenges in managing the different types of traditional and disruptive ground transportation service providers.  Uncertainty about the nature and timing of future disruptive ground transportation services will likely complicate airport planning activities.

The focus of ACRP Report 40 was on data gathering and analysis, but did not explicitly address planning, modifying, and operating roadways and curbsides to achieve maximum efficiency, safety, security, and customer service.  Curbs must accommodate various modes of access/egress, ranging from single occupant vehicles to large buses while accommodating important security issues at terminal curbsides.  Since the cost of adding curb can be significant (e.g., adding a second level), airports would benefit from identifying best practices for curb management (e.g., access prioritization, tolling, etc.) to increase existing capacity.  

Finally, airports are placing more of a focus on the customer experience.  At the same time, passenger traffic continues to grow.  Many airports are already experiencing significant congestion on their roadways and at the curb, often because of geographic location or land use constraints.  These two realities can be in conflict with each other and it has become challenging to expand the capacity of landside facilities to meet current and future demand while maintaining an acceptable level of customer service.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research are to produce a guidebook that is a thorough, user-friendly update of ACRP Report 40: Airport Curbside and Terminal Area Roadway Operations by (a) publishing an updated text based on the original guidebook; (b) reviewing and updating the associated analysis tools, including the Quick Analysis Tool for Airport Roadways (QATAR), for currency, relevance, and usability; (c) incorporating new information on recently implemented ground transportation services (e.g., TNCs, peer-to-peer services, etc.); (d) discussing how airports can anticipate future services (e.g., autonomous vehicles and other disruptive technologies) and design flexible landside spaces to accommodate those services; and (e) identifying scalable strategies for traffic demand and congestion management.

Scalable strategies for traffic demand and congestion management, must, at a minimum address: policy and regulatory issues, typical peak vs. irregular operations traffic demand, stakeholder engagement and possible political issues, and operational techniques and new technology being used by airports and ground transportation service providers.    

RESEARCH PLAN

The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objectives. 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. 

The research plan should build in 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 to review the amplified work plan, (2) a web-conference to review the draft data collection plan and draft case-study plan, (3) one in-person meeting that will occur midway in the project schedule, the date of which will be determined in the amplified work plan, and (4) web-enabled teleconferences tied to the panel review and ACRP approval of interim deliverables deemed appropriate. 

The research plan should include, at a minimum, appropriate interim deliverables that will require ACRP approval as follows: (1) a review and validation of the existing QATAR tool and existing default values within the guidebook as well as the development of default values for new services (e.g., TNCs, etc.); (2) a data-collection plan for making necessary updates that considers newly available datasets; (3) a research plan for identifying and evaluating demand and traffic-congestion management strategies taking into consideration, at a minimum, diversity in airport size, ground transportation service providers, operational configurations, etc.; (4) case studies that illustrate selected demand and traffic-congestion management strategies; and (5) a validation plan for the update to QATAR, and an expanded draft Table of Contents discussing how the new guidebook will build-on and refer to ACRP Report 40.

The final deliverables will include: (a) the updated guidebook with updated QATAR and other tools; (b) a summary of key findings (see Special Note D); (c) Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note E); and (5) a technical memo titled: “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note F).

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 in-person meeting.  Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. Proposals should present recent airport terminal roadway and curbside experience of their specific team members. 

B. Proposals should include a sample of sources that could be included in the literature review. This research should build on existing ACRP research, including but not limited to ACRP Report 146: Commercial Ground Transportation at Airports: Best Practices and ACRP Research Report 215 Pre-Publication: Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations. Additionally, the selected research team should plan to coordinate with the research team from ACRP Project 03-47, "Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue".

C. 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.

D. The Summary of Key Findings will be a stand-alone document. It should (a) convey the most pertinent and applicable results of the project’s research, (b) be geared toward the airport industry practitioner while minimizing technical language, (c) present results using text and graphics as appropriate, and (d) encourage readers to explore the primary project deliverables. The Summary of Key Findings should be limited to no more than 4 pages.

E. The Further Recommended Research Memo will be a stand-alone document. It should (a) identify logical follow-on research that would benefit the industry yet was beyond the original scope and budget of the project; (b) describe how the proposed follow-on research relates to ACRP’s research roadmaps, if applicable; and (c) for the highest priority research needs, include research ideas and/or problem statements to be added to ACRP’s IdeaHub, the program’s online repository of research needs.

F. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should provide: (a) recommended tactics to facilitate implementation; (b) possible institutions/partners and their potential implementation role; (c) potential impediments to successful implementation; (d) metrics to measure extent of product use and its benefit; (e) Related FAA guidance; and (f) appendices as needed. An annotated template for the memorandum is found here:
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/ACRP_Implementation_TechMemo_Template_2019.docx

G. 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) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities.

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 12 of the proposal.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. 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.

K. 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.

Proposals should be uploaded via this link: https://www.dropbox.com/request/yumEP883oVdSk3gLyq2n
Proposals are due not later than 5:00 p.m. EDT on 5/21/2020.

This is a firm deadline, and extensions are not granted. In order to be considered for award, 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.

Liability Statement

The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered statement in order for TRB 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 July 2019). 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=4848