BACKGROUND 

Transportation agencies and third-party data users and mapping organizations exchange information that can enhance the agencies' management of transportation networks and the travel experience for the traveling public. The information is made available by use of “data specifications” that exist for several use cases. Examples include the General Transit Feed Specification for transit, Mobility Data Specification for micromobility, Curb Data Specification for municipalities and private companies, or the Work Zone Data Exchange for connected work zones. However, these relationships may be uneven and partial use of the public data is problematic. For example, detour information is available from transportation agencies, but many mapping applications choose not to share this with the traveling public or freight carriers.  

Transportation agencies are forced to manage multiple specifications to enable data-sharing opportunities. This siloed approach means data specifications may use different inputs and schema (e.g., the use of state department of transportation (DOT) road inventory files versus OpenStreetMap), and therefore do not allow for comprehensive and uniform approaches. This can burden agency resources and limit the utility of the data across jurisdictions, at different levels of government, or among public sector agencies. For example, the non-routable state DOT road inventory cannot be used by public safety agencies in the development of Next Generation 911 because the new system requires routable road inventories. Research is needed to expand the relationships between transportation agencies and their public and private sector partners.   

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a framework for a comprehensive data specification that allows for a two-way exchange of information between transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations so each can ingest data with uniform attributes and metadata. 

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 NCHRP 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. 

The sequencing of tasks to achieve the research objective and associated deliverables such as technical memoranda or summary reports shall be structured in the same cadence as quarterly progress report (QPR) submissions so that technical content can be reviewed at the same time as a QPR. The overall research plan must be organized into three phases. The research team shall deliver an interim report and updated research plan at the end of Phases I and II. One month shall be reserved for review and NCHRP approval for each interim report. NCHRP approval is required to advance to the next phase. An in-person interim meeting shall follow Phase I, and a virtual interim meeting shall follow Phase II. 

For proposal consideration, a clear and concise engagement strategy to achieve the research objective shall be developed and presented in the proposal under the header “Engagement Strategy.” The proposer should identify engagement methods and stakeholders, both public and private, to (1) gain further insights for Phase I and II activities, and (2) facilitate conversations between transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations to discuss strategies and build support for the implementation of the framework. 

Note: NCHRP discourages survey questionnaires for this project. 

PHASE I 

The research team should begin with a scan of practice and a literature review of existing data specifications, attributes, and metadata currently used by transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations. This could include non-transportation public agencies with experience in standardization of information that could provide examples for the framework (e.g., the U.S. Postal Service or Federal Geographic Data Committee). Additionally, the research team should demonstrate how some data specifications have been widely adopted and what lessons can be applied to the framework developed for this project. Further, examples of when data is or is not utilized and how that has led to bad outcomes should be identified to understand how the framework could address these problems. Finally, the research team is encouraged to identify international data specification examples that may be transferable to U.S. transportation agencies.  

Before Phase I concludes, the research team should conduct a domestic and international policy review to identify existing policies, regulations, or laws that enforce data sharing or formalize partnerships between third-party mapping companies and transportation agencies. Of interest are roles, responsibilities, and ways to address data sharing issues or incompatible standards. 

PHASE II 

The research team shall utilize Phase I findings to identify the critical linkages and gaps among the existing data specifications that need to be addressed to develop the framework. The research team is expected to conduct an investigation into those linkages and gaps to further identify the (1) standardization requirements for inputs and outputs of a potential data specification, and (2) coordination requirements among private stakeholders, transportation modes, transportation agencies and other partner public agencies, jurisdictions, and different levels of government. Further, the research team will recommend strategies for addressing significant issues identified with mapping applications by transportation agencies, such as mapping applications not using official detour routes or including new alignments as documented by transportation agencies. Finally, the strategies should set the stage for transportation agencies and third-party mapping organizations to adopt uniform attributes to exchange data.  

PHASE III 

Phase III shall be reserved for the preparation of the final deliverables. For the proposal, the research team should consider at least the following as final deliverables: 

• A final report that includes (1) the framework for a potential comprehensive data specification, including a listing of potential standards, data attributes, etc., and (2) realistic scenarios that illustrate the uses and benefits of framework implementation;
  
  
• An executive brief of no more than 10 pages to enable a high-level communication piece that generates interest and knowledge about the framework;
  
  
• A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes that summarizes the project and distinctly illustrates (for a broader audience) how the research can be applied; and
  
  
• An Implementation Plan (see Special Note K).
  

The final deliverables shall be reconsidered in the updated Phase III Research Plan. 

Note: The preparation of spreadsheet-based tools, software, a toolkit, or a playbook is discouraged. 

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for NCHRP 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 2024. 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/7029. 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 NCHRP 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 Program for 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. NCHRP wishes to award this contract for a fixed price of $500,000; this amount will not be subject to any adjustment by reason of the contractor's cost experience in the performance of the contract. 

K. 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. 

The research team will be expected to provide input to an implementation team consisting of panel members, AASHTO committee members, the NCHRP Implementation Coordinator, and others in order to meet the goals of NCHRP Active Implementation: Moving Research into Practice, available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP_ActiveImplementation.pdf 

L. 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. 

M. 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.  

N. The National Academies have an ethical and legal obligation to provide proper attribution whenever material from other sources is included in its reports, online postings, and other publications and products. TRB will review all Cooperative Research Programs draft final deliverables using the software iThenticate for potential plagiarism. If plagiarized text appears in the draft final deliverable, the research team will be required to make revisions and the opportunity to submit future proposals may be affected.