BACKGROUND 

Transportation professionals have numerous analytical tools to assess aspects of system performance. However, those tools do not bridge the critical linkages among agency values or illustrate relationships among multiple variables to adequately represent the state of transportation system health. The tools also do not reflect the evolution of what communities expect of transportation agencies. Agencies are now expected not only to deliver infrastructure assets for mobility but also to develop access-oriented approaches to enable community success. This is shown by the societal goals and foundational factors identified in Critical Issues in Transportation for 2024 and Beyond and by the vision and goals identified in NCHRP Research Results Digest 404: Collective and Individual Actions to Envision and Realize the Next Era of America’s Transportation Infrastructure: Phase 1. 

Additionally, the tools available to transportation agencies today are often limited by scalability and resource constraints, and their outputs are typically oriented toward technical users, such as asset managers. As a result, the insights provided by these tools are not easily communicated to agency leadership, elected officials, partner agencies, or the public—key stakeholders in decision-making processes. Research is needed to help agencies (1) create a process for defining transportation system health that reflects their values, needs, contexts, and characteristics, and (2) communicate with the public and elected officials about the state of their systems and needs. 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a guide for defining, assessing, and monitoring multimodal transportation system health through a decision matrix. This matrix will allow transportation agencies to select opt in/opt out measures and components and apply variable weights to reflect their unique values, strategic priorities, and contextual factors. 

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. 

PHASE I 

The research team will conduct a review of the existing body of literature, practices, and tools related to transportation system health. This phase will be foundational in guiding the development of a robust assessment matrix in later phases. Key activities will include:

• Assessing existing decision-making tools
  
  • Identify and analyze current decision-making tools used by transportation agencies. The review should cover what these tools accomplish, how they are applied, and their potential for use in assessing and monitoring transportation system health. The research team will determine the strengths and limitations of these tools in the context of the evolving expectations for system performance.
    
• Identifying components for a transportation system health index
  
  • Explore the key components that could form the basis of a transportation system health index. This analysis will include components aligned with agency visions and broader societal goals, including safety, accessibility, resilience, sustainability, economic vitality, innovation, and system reliability. The research should also address (1) how these components reflect the dynamic relationship between transportation infrastructure and community well-being, and (2) the potential to integrate traditional and emerging measures and tools.
• Investigating methods for assessing and quantifying risks
  
  • Investigate approaches to assess, qualify, and quantify risks at both the enterprise and asset levels that could impact an agency's ability to achieve or maintain transportation system health. This will include exploring risk assessment tools, metrics, processes to identify vulnerabilities, and strategies for mitigating risks that threaten long-term system performance.

PHASE II

In the second phase, the research team will use the Phase I findings to identify a system-level matrix of performance-driven and evidence-based methods for defining, assessing, and monitoring the components of transportation system health. It is envisioned that the matrix will allow transportation agencies to opt in to or out of components, measures, and variable weights to reflect their situation and needs. This includes the ability to integrate asset performance and risk management. The research team shall identify communication tools and techniques for agency practitioners to discuss system health. An annotated outline for the draft guide shall be included in the updated Phase III research plan.

PHASE III

In the third phase, pilots shall be conducted with transportation agencies of different sizes representing different levels of government to build case examples on how to execute the recommendations of the research and be sure local governments and metropolitan planning organizations can work with their state departments of transportation through the matrix to improve transportation system health. The research team will reflect on the case examples to refine recommendations and prepare a guide and the supplemental deliverables. The guide will provide the steps for transportation agencies to create the matrix with specific steps and instructions to self-build and customize.  

Note: The NCHRP discourages using survey questionnaires for this project and suggests virtual focus groups or a similar method.

For the proposal, the final deliverables will be at least:

• The guide with the decision matrix (due no later than four months prior to the contract expiration)
  
• A conduct of research report
  
• A PowerPoint presentation with speaker notes that summarizes the project and distinctly illustrates for a broader audience how the research can be applied
  
• An implementation plan (see Special Note K)
  

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/7093. 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 $350,000; 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

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.

O. 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.