U.S. Department of State statistics show that every year, out of more than 700,000 people who become subjects of human trafficking and cross international borders, 50,000 will enter the United States. ACRP Research Report 249: Developing an Airport Program to Address Human Trafficking: A Guide (to be published in spring 2023) will provide a guide and resources to help airports create and implement a comprehensive approach to address trafficking. One particular topic not covered in detail in that report is the use of existing and emerging technologies to aid in the timely detection and reporting of potential human trafficking activity. Airports would benefit from research on this subject to help them understand technologies that could aid in addressing trafficking activity, including their capabilities and limitations, and how they may be implemented.
The objective of this research is to develop a primer and guide to help airport operators leverage existing and emerging technologies to aid in the timely detection and reporting of potential human trafficking activity on an airport campus (see Special Note A).
The primer should provide a high-level overview of the following (at a minimum):
- All forms of human trafficking activity that may occur on an airport campus (see Special Note B);
- Current, emerging, and future technologies that could aid staff, passengers, and victims in detecting and reporting potential human trafficking activity (see Special Note C); and
- How technologies are being (or could be) integrated into an airport’s overall plan for addressing human trafficking activity.
The guide should include (at a minimum):
- Technology data sheets providing detailed descriptions of current, emerging, and future technologies that could aid staff, passengers, and victims in detecting and reporting potential human trafficking activity (see Special Note D);
- Guidelines and tools (e.g., decision trees, flow charts) to help airports evaluate, select, implement, maintain, and upgrade technologies that consider:
- Airport characteristics (e.g., activity type and classification, staffing and financial resource availability, governance);
- An airport’s existing technology infrastructure, systems, and applications;
- Data sharing requirements and privacy concerns;
- End users of the technology (e.g., victims, passengers, employees);
- Staffing impacts (e.g., commissioning, training, operating);
- Potential funding sources and eligibility; and
- Implications for stakeholder coordination;
- Suggestions for identifying and collaborating with stakeholders and developing agreements;
- Methods for tracking and assessing the effectiveness of implemented technologies;
- Representative case study examples (both airport and non-airport) of using technology to reduce human trafficking; and
- An executive summary that can also be available as a stand-alone document.
The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are asked to provide 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, at a minimum, the following interim deliverables, for ACRP and panel review and approval:
- Literature review;
- Draft technology data sheet template showing format and information to be included;
- Stakeholder outreach plan that identifies relevant stakeholders (including those with lived experiences and advocacy groups serving diverse social backgrounds), questions, and methods (see Special Note E);
- Preliminary draft primer;
- An interim report documenting the research effort and results of the project to date, including an outline of the guide, candidate case studies and rationale, and recommended next steps to complete the research.
The research plan should include, at a minimum, the following checkpoints with the ACRP project panel:
- Kickoff web meeting to be held within 1 month of notice to proceed;
- Web meeting to discuss the results of the literature review and approve the stakeholder outreach plan;
- Web meeting to review the preliminary draft primer;
- In-person interim report review meeting; and
- Additional web meeting to be scheduled at the project panel’s discretion.
The final deliverables will include:
- A technical report documenting the entire research process and findings;
- A technical memo titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note N);
- Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note O); and
- Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note P).
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 interim meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.
A. For the purposes of this study, human trafficking is defined as the recruiting, harboring, transporting, provisioning, or obtaining of a person for labor or services through force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.
B. Proposers should assume that the primer’s high-level overview of all forms of human trafficking activity at airports will be limited to 2 to 3 pages and will complement and reference the primer provided in ACRP Research Report 249: Developing an Airport Program to Address Human Trafficking: A Guide (available in the spring of 2023).
C. For the purpose of this research, current technology is defined as that which is commercially available and deployed; emerging technology is defined as that which is in pilot testing or early adoption stage, or current technology being adapted for new applications; future technology is defined as that which is in the theoretical or preliminary testing stages.
D. Proposers should include in their proposal their initial thinking on the format and information to be provided in the technology data sheets.
E. Proposers should include in their proposal their initial thinking on a stakeholder outreach plan that identifies relevant stakeholders, questions, and methods.
F. 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.
G. Proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with a maximum file size of 10 MB. The PDF must be formatted for standard 8½” 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.
H. 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.
I. 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/6816. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.
J. 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.
K. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP 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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
N. The 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 benefit; (e) related FAA guidance; and (f) appendices as needed. An annotated template for the memorandum is found here: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/ACRP_Implementation_TechMemo_Template_2019.pdf.
O. 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.
P. 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 that could be submitted as ACRP problem statements.
Q. 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.
R. 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.
S. If the research approach includes human subjects testing, proposers should be aware that contracts will be subject to approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This review may be conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s IRB, but NASEM will delegate the review to the contracting agency’s IRB if that agency’s process meets all federal requirements for the protection of human subjects. If an organization cannot use or partner with an external IRB, or if TRB staff believe the project merits extra attention, then TRB staff may ask NASEM IRB to conduct a review following its normal procedures. The NASEM IRB can be contacted by email at firstname.lastname@example.org.