BACKGROUND

Drug-impaired driving is a significant and growing traffic safety concern. Policies to deter driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) require sound scientific evidence. Deterring DUID requires accurate roadside screening and detection for drugs.

· Drug screening and detection methods based on oral fluid samples are increasing. However, this approach is limited by the accuracy of screening technologies to identify the recency of drug use and to assess whether the amount of drug detected may be impairing.

· The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) program trains officers to serve as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs), who assist patrol officers in determining drug impairment. The use of DREs is limited by substantial training time and costs, as well as a progressive reduction in the DRE force in recent years. A shortage of DREs has been identified in several states as the main limitation of the program.

· Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training provides officers with skills to identify and detect drug-impaired drivers and has the potential to bridge the gap between Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and DRE training. Providing ARIDE training to as many patrol officers as possible is a way to address the DRE shortage.

Because every resource has a cost, the optimal design, implementation, and use of policies should be guided by what is scientifically and economically sound. Economic evaluations of policy alternatives should help decide which strategies can reasonably be implemented.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project is to perform a comparative cost-benefit analysis of three DUID detection methods: oral fluids, DRE, and ARIDE. 

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks.

TASKS

Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. The BTSCRP 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.

PHASE I

Task 1. Assess current literature regarding scientific and feasibility issues associated with each method of DUID detection (oral fluids, DRE, and ARIDE).

Task 2. Identify appropriate cost-benefit data that can be used to meet the research objective, an analysis framework, and any limitations associated with obtaining or interpreting the data.

Task 3. Obtain sample data and conduct a preliminary analysis to validate the data sources, variables, and analysis approach. Prepare a technical memo that summarizes findings.

Task 4. If needed, modify data sources and/or analysis approach based on results of the preliminary analysis and provide detailed description of revised approach.

Task 5. Prepare an interim report that summarizes results from Tasks 1 through 4.

Note: Following a 1-month review of the interim report by the BTSCRP, the research team will be required to meet with the BTSCRP project panel to discuss the interim report, if necessary. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the BTSCRP.

PHASE II

Task 6. Obtain cost-benefit data and conduct comparative analysis as approved by the panel.

Task 7. Combine results of Task 6 cost-benefit analysis with available information from Task 1 regarding scientific validity and feasibility. Identify suggested settings where each method of DUID detection may be best suited.

Task 8. Prepare outreach materials to inform traffic safety professionals about the costs, benefits, and feasibility associated with alternative methods of DUID detection.

Task 9. Develop and deliver implementation activities to promote practitioner awareness of the research results (e.g., workshop, workshop materials, webinar, web video).

Task 10. Prepare final deliverables including (1) a final research report documenting the entire research effort and findings; (2) a stand-alone summary of the research results for practitioners; (3) outreach and presentation materials; (4) prioritized recommendations for future research; and (5) a technical memorandum on implementation (see Special Note I).

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for BTSCRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables. 

SPECIAL NOTES 

A. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May 2022. Please take note of the new and revised text which is highlighted in yellow. 

B. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8 ½” X 11” paper, and the entire proposal must not exceed 60 pages (according to the page count displayed in the PDF). Proposals that do not meet these requirements will be rejected. For other requirements, refer to chapter V of the instructions. 

C. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs have been modified to include a revised policy and instructions for disclosing Investigator Conflict of Interest. For more information, refer to chapter IV of the instructions. A detailed definition and examples can be found in the CRP Conflict of Interest Policy for Contractors. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for contract negotiations. 

D. Proposals will be rejected if any of the proposed research team members work for organizations represented on the project panel. The panel roster for this project can be found at https://www.mytrb.org/OnlineDirectory/Committee/Details/6801. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest. 

E. Proprietary Products - If any proprietary products are to be used or tested in the project, please refer to Item 6 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals.

F. Proposals are evaluated by the BTSCRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively knowledgeable in the problem area. The project panel will recommend their first choice proposal 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. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a contract. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS - the contracting authority for the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine) will conduct an internal due diligence review and risk assessment of the panel’s recommended proposal before contract negotiations continue. 

Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises should be incorporated in Item 11 of the proposal.

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 Academy of Sciences. 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 Academy of Sciences. 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. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in Figure 4 in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals. 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. 

I. 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. 

J. If the team proposes a Principal Investigator who is not an employee of the Prime Contractor, or if the Prime Contractor is proposed to conduct less than 50% of the total effort (by time or budget), then section five of the proposal should include: (1) a justification of why this approach is appropriate, and (2) a description of how the Prime Contractor will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their Subcontractors throughout the project. 

K. All budget information should be suitable for printing on 8½″ x 11″ paper. If a budget page cannot fit on a single 8½″ x 11″ page, it should be split over multiple pages. Proposers must use the Excel templates provided in the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs.