BACKGROUND
As vehicle sensing technology advances, application of existingsensing capabilities in vehicles presents a promising opportunity for enhanced pavement condition monitoring. Data from original equipment manufacturer (OEM) vehicle sensors have the potential to supplement conventional pavement condition surveys conducted with specialized equipment.
However, challenges remain in extracting consistent and reliable pavement condition data collected from different sensors, multiple data sources, and over time as vehicles travels. Research is needed to help state departments of transportation (DOTs) gain deeper insights into vehicle sensing technology and its potential to supplement their pavement management efforts, including maintenance and condition evaluation.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research is to assess the potential of OEM-integrated vehicle sensing technologies and data to complement pavement management efforts. At the minimum, the research shall include the identification of potential applications and associated strategies to assist stakeholders (e.g., state DOTs, local governments) to integrate this data into pavement management, including condition evaluation and maintenance planning.
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.
PHASE I – Planning
Task 1. Conduct a detailed literature review of existing OEM-integrated vehicle sensing technologies and potential crowd-sourced solutions for pavement management, including condition evaluation and maintenance planning. Information may be obtained from published and unpublished sources, and through contacts with public and private organizations, vehicle OEMs, and OEM data providers.
Task 2. Based on the review conducted in Task 1, identify and evaluate the critical issues associated with the use of data from crowd-sourced, OEM-integrated vehicle sensing technologies in relation to pavement management. These issues should be addressed in the final product or the recommended future research, as budget permits.
Task 3. Propose the research plan to be executed in Phases II and III to achieve the research objective. At a minimum, the research plan shall include:
- An engagement plan with three to four vehicle OEMs and/or OEM data providers to gather relevant information such as:
- existing sensor hardware and software,
- on-board processing systems,
- data processing and analysis techniques for extracting pavement condition data from OEM-integrated vehicle sensors,
- methods for collating crowd-sourced data across vehicles and fleets,
- communication technologies for accessing processed data for pavement condition evaluation,
- data privacy and security issues, and
- data quality assurance plans.
- A proof-of-concept investigation comparing pavement condition data from conventional dedicated pavement condition data collection equipment with crowd-sourced OEM-integrated vehicle sensing technologies across a range of pavement types.
- A framework to (1) assess the repeatability and reproducibility of crowd-sourced measurements from OEM-integrated vehicle sensing technologies with respect to reference measurements, (2) establish protocols and transformations needed to augment current pavement evaluation methods, and (3) address other critical issues.
- Development of a document to support adoption and implementation. It shall include discussion of the feasibility of using OEM-integrated vehicle sensor data and its minimum requirements for pavement applications, associated strategies, estimated costs, use cases, and potential benefits to stakeholders.
Note: The plan shall avoid comparing specific manufacturers or products.
Task 4. Prepare Interim Report No. 1 that documents Tasks 1 through 3 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phases II and III.
Note: Following a 1-month review of the interim report by the NCHRP, the research team will meet in person with the project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.
PHASE II – Execution
Task 5. Execute the research plan according to the approved Interim Report No. 1.
Task 6. Prepare Interim Report No. 2 that documents Task 5 and provides an updated work plan for the remainder of the research. The updated work plan must describe the process and rationale for the work proposed for Phase III.
Note: Following a 1-month review of Interim Report No. 2 by the NCHRP, the research team will meet in person with the project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase III of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP.
PHASE III – Final Deliverables
Task 7. Prepare a stand-alone document titled “Research Outcomes Brief” to summarize the objectives, tasks, and the outcomes and/or findings of the project.
Task 8. Prepare a stand-alone technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J).
Task 9. Prepare presentation materials, in PowerPoint or other formats, for webinars to facilitate the use and adoption of the research findings.
Task 10. Submit the draft final deliverables, including (1) a final report that documents the entire research effort, (2) the Research Outcomes Brief, (3) the Implementation of Research Findings and Products technical memorandum, and (4) the presentation materials.
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/7091. 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. 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
K. 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.
L. 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.
M. 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.
