U.S. airports generate significant economic benefits for their surrounding communities that often do not result in revenues to the airports. Medium and small airports in the United States typically rely on federal funding and conventional revenue models that may no longer be sufficient to support necessary maintenance and expansion, and they need to supplement their incomes. At the same time, the industry is evolving rapidly, creating new opportunities and challenges. The identification and generation of airport revenue streams and financing are essential to maintain fiscal responsibility and realize future growth of the airports and the communities they serve.
The objectives of this research are (1) create a guide and database for U.S.-based medium, small, and non-hub commercial service airports (see Special Note A) to increase and diversify revenue streams from existing and new sources; and (2) provide models for leveraging revenue sources to increase capital financing opportunities. The final deliverables should include case studies about relevant revenue opportunities, successful and unsuccessful, as well as best practices from domestic and international airport industries and from outside the aviation industry.
Additional revenue streams could include but are not limited to:
- Benefits and/or losses of choosing to insource vs. outsource;
- Leveraging new technologies;
- Additional local, municipal, state, and federal funding;
- Alternative concessions models;
- Ancillary amenities;
- Realizing fair-market value and/or additional development of real estate; and
- Realizing value of existing contracts.
The guide should include at a minimum:
- A summary of current practices that defines the scale of the national issue and discusses traditional revenue streams;
- A synopsis of traditional and novel capital financing options;
- A discussion on airport management best practices for revenue loss prevention;
- A minimum of five case studies that successfully leverage enhanced revenue to finance capital improvement; and
- Tools for validating revenue from existing contracts (third party verification, utilizing available data sources, etc.)
The database of revenue enhancement initiatives should include at a minimum:
- Key characteristics and profile of the airport and partners involved in the initiative;
- The potential financial benefit including costs incurred;
- Key considerations and necessary criteria for implementing each initiative; and
- Examples of how the revenue enhancements led to financing capital improvements.
The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objectives. Proposers are asked to provide 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 detail.
The research plan shall include the appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval that include at a minimum:
- A white paper that defines the scale of the national issue and discusses traditional revenue streams within 45 days from Notice to Proceed;
- A data collection plan for accomplishing the research objective that includes the proposed case studies and their selection criteria;
- The format and proposed elements of the database; and
- An interim report to include research results to date, analysis of results, next steps, an annotated outline of the guide, 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.
The research plan should include checkpoints with the ACRP panel that include at a minimum:
- A kick-off web meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed;
- One face-to-face interim deliverable review meeting;
- One-hour web meeting to be held in the week following the delivery of each Quarterly Progress Report; and
- Web meetings tied to the panel review and ACRP approval of other interim deliverables deemed appropriate.
The final deliverables will include:
- The guide and database;
- A Contractor’s Final Report documenting all research steps, results, and analysis;
- A Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note O);
- The Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note P); and
- A technical memo titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note N).
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. Current airport hub size can be found at https://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger/cy22_commercial_service_enplanements.
B. Proposers should include proposer's initial thinking on potential case studies and rationale.
C. Proposers should provide a list and short discussion of possible revenue enhancement initiatives.
D. Proposers should discuss how they will build on existing ACRP research.
E. The research team should have experience in financial auditing and/or forensic accounting.
F. 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.
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 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.
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/6980. 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 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.
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 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.
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.