BACKGROUND

Airports want to create a travel environment that is efficient and responsive to passengers' needs without compromising security. Airport operators share responsibility for the ever-evolving security requirements with federal and local agencies. Security practices should be designed with individuals’ rights in mind, but finding a balance between safety and security and individuals’ rights can be a challenge. These challenges encompass all passengers, visitors, and airport workers subject to security protocols.

Airports are confronted with a multifaceted framework of requirements related to security, such as constitutional and civil rights and privacy, and new requirements and technology add complexity. Research is needed to support airports to understand their legal responsibilities, the potential risks, and the implications for airport operations, passengers, and stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the research is to examine public facing airport security measures and help airports understand the legal requirements and liabilities arising from airport security. The final report should: (1) provide stakeholders with the current legal and regulatory airport security requirements; (2) identify the parties responsible (e.g., airport operator, federal agency, etc.); and (3) identify additional practices undertaken by airports that are not required by current legal and regulatory airport security requirements. The report should identify and analyze the risks or exposures that may arise in the context of these requirements and practices. The report should identify and analyze novel legal issues involved with anticipated or proposed airport security measures.

The research should supplement ACRP Legal Research Digest 27: The Fourth Amendment and Airports to include relevant cases decided after that publication.

RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION

This research will be conducted in two phases and five tasks in a firm fixed-price agreement. At the conclusion of Phase I, ACRP will make a determination whether to proceed with Phase II. The tasks will be as follows.

Phase I

Task 1a. Kickoff call. Participate in a call with the panel to discuss the scope of work.

Task 1b. Conduct background research and collect relevant material. Based on the initial complete review of the source materials, submit a detailed report outline. The outline should contain sufficient detail to describe what a report of appropriate length will contain. This outline should also contain the estimated pagination for each proposed section and/or subsection. This material will be submitted for ACRP consideration and approval. Participate in a conference call with the ACRP panel 3 weeks after submitting the outline.

Phase II

Task 2. After ACRP approval of the detailed outline, conduct additional research and case and statutory/regulatory analysis. Collect additional primary data to the extent necessary.

Task 3. Submit an initial draft report in accordance with the approved outline (including any modifications required by ACRP). Participate in a conference call with the ACRP panel 3 weeks after submitting the initial draft report.

Task 4. Revise the initial draft report as necessary and provide a marked-up and clean version of the draft final report. 

Task 5. ACRP will provide the written comments, each of which will need a point-by-point response. The report will be revised as appropriate and submitted as a final report.

FUNDING: $75,000

25% paid upon submission and approval of the Task 1 outline 
50% paid upon submission and approval of the Task 3 report 
25% paid upon submission and approval of the Task 4 final report

SPECIAL NOTES

A. To be selected, proposers must include a multidisciplinary team of attorneys and other airport professionals (active or retired), including airport staff and/or consultants with relevant experience.

B. Proposers will be evaluated by individuals collectively knowledgeable in this problem area. Evaluations are based upon the proposers’: (1) knowledge, experience, and accomplishments in the subject area (demonstrated by the project team’s qualifications, resumes, and the diversity of perspectives); (2) understanding the concept of the problem (demonstrated by the research plan and statement of resources); (3) understanding of the work (demonstrated by the team’s proposed approach to conducting the research and preparing the report); (4) schedule for completing the work; and (5) if applicable, prior relevant publications.

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 Subawardees. The proposer recommended by the project panel will be required to submit an Investigator Conflict of Interest and Disclosure Form as a prerequisite for subaward negotiations. 

D. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff member as shown in the Legal Budget Template. Please note that selected proposers are considered subawardees to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB. TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards 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) or audited indirect rates shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs (de minimis rate). Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each lower-tier subaward. 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 in excess of $50,000.

E. 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/3227. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

F. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and photographic images, and other information prepared under the subaward and the copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academy of Sciences. The subawardee and lower-tier subawardees 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 subawardee and lower-tier subawardees will not be allowed to sell the project material without prior approval by the National Academy of Sciences. By signing a subaward with the National Academy of Sciences, subawardees accept legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for TRB. Subawardees 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 Subawardees.

G. 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 Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program for technical editing standards expected in final deliverables.

H. 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.

HOW TO PROPOSE:

Proposals should be submitted as a single PDF, not to exceed 50 pages, with the following information and in the following order:

• A summary sheet;
• A research plan that describes each task in sufficient detail to allow the review panel to make an informed assessment of the likelihood of the proposer’s success. The plan must include:
  • An introduction that provides a concise overview of the proposer’s understanding of the topic and the issues presented, the proposed team’s experience and qualifications relevant to the topic, and the team’s proposed approach to conducting the research and preparing the report;
  • A brief outline of the proposed contents of the report;
  • Detailed information on the proposed research methodology for each task in sufficient detail to permit evaluation of achieving the objective(s);
• Resumes of key team members along with a description of responsibilities;
• A summary table of hours by task as shown in the Legal Budget Template shall be included listing each key member of the research team, including subawardees and lower-tier subawardees, their role in the study, level of effort (expressed as the percentage of their time on the project over the proposed project period), and their number of hours by tasks. The example provided should be followed as closely as possible. Actual hours should be shown rather than months or dollars. In addition, it is preferred that only one table be submitted rather than separate tables by tasks. Proposals will not be accepted where budgets are in excess of the amount shown in the RFP, and budgets that provide for cost sharing at a total cost over and above the total funds available are not encouraged;
• Any additions, deletions, or changes you may wish to suggest to the scope of work for undertaking the work; and
• If applicable, a list of relevant prior publications.

Proposers should read Guidance for Working on ACRP Legal Studies Projects for more information.