BACKGROUND

Since the 2011 publication of ACRP Report 49: Collaborative Airport Capital Planning Handbook, the airport industry experienced numerous changes. Airport capital planning, programs, and projects are dynamic and involve many elements, including phasing, financing, planning, design, and construction.  Since the 2011 publication of ACRP Report 49, capital planning modernizations have addressed the unpredictability of inflation; supply chain linkages; diversified financing challenges; appropriate delivery methods; new regulatory requirements; advanced technology changes; growing capital demands; and the evolving environmental, social, and governance (ESG) implications. 

Additional challenges to airport capital planning include varying perspectives and competing agendas across internal airport departments involved in the airport planning process (e.g., planning, engineering, and finance) and managing competing agendas of other stakeholders (e.g., consultants, airlines, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)). 

The continual changes to technology since 2011 have inundated the industry with software solutions to enhance airport capital planning management whereby information can be tracked more efficiently. Potential implications of artificial intelligence (AI) may improve the capital planning processes. These technological advancements may have a defined process to best capture and communicate information used to administer the capital planning programs at airports, an important aspect of successfully maintaining the capital plan. 

Additional research is needed within airport capital planning.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to update ACRP Report 49, outlining and describing a modernized collaborative capital improvement planning (CIP) process and implementation, and includes practices for the industry (e.g., tools and methodologies). 

This updated handbook will be developed for individuals at an airport who have a responsibility in the development, financing, management, or oversight of the airport CIP, or who have information required to maintain and ensure the CIP is current and up to date.

RESEARCH PLAN

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 detail.

The research plan shall include these appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval at a minimum:

• Gap analysis that identifies the proposer’s approach to enhance ACRP Report 49 and the areas to address the new industry growth and changes. Include a list of published ACRP-related reports.
• Literature review of recent literature containing practical (rather than theoretical) methods of developing and executing a collaborative airport capital plan.
• Data collection plan, which includes:
  • Research methodology,
  • Input from various sized airports representing a cross-section of the industry and various sponsor airports (e.g., municipal, state, county), airlines, FAA, state agencies, and other external stakeholders, 
  • Performance metrics available and how success is being measured, and
  • Management practices addressing collaboration and considerations of the CIP process approach (e.g., alternative delivery methods, ESG, cost escalations, supply chain challenges, new financing options, and governmental influences).
• Interim report to include research results to date, analysis of results, next steps, and identification of follow-on research ideas to be developed into problem statements.

Note: For each research idea approved by the project panel, the research team will use ACRP’s problem statement process (https://trb.org/ACRP/problemstatements.aspx) to develop and submit a problem statement on behalf of the project panel.  The development and submission of problem statements should occur as soon as practical, taking into account ACRP’s problem statement annual submission deadline of early April.

• Case studies from various sizes of U.S. and international airports. Provide examples of airport CIP tools being utilized in the industry derived from case studies and data collection. 

The research plan should include checkpoints with the ACRP panel, including at a minimum:

• A kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed, and 
• 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 as deemed appropriate.

The final deliverables will include: 

• An update to ACRP Report 49 outlining and describing a modernized collaborative CIP process and implementation, which includes practices for the industry (e.g., tools and methodologies); 
• Contractor’s Final Report documenting all research steps, results, and analysis;
• A Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note K); (b) a Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note L); and (c) a technical memo titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J); and
• An Executive Summary.

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.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. The Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs were revised in May, 2023. 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/6978. 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 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.

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. The text of the final deliverable is expected to be publication ready when it is submitted. It is strongly recommended that the research team include the expertise of a technical editor as early in the project timeline as possible.  See Appendix F of the Procedural Manual for Contractors Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board's Cooperative Research Programs for the technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

I. 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.

J. 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 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.

K. 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.

L. The Further Recommended Research Memo will be a stand-alone document.  It will include the prioritized list of and discussion of the follow-on research ideas from the interim report and meeting and the resulting problem statements.

M. 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.

N. 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.