BACKGROUND 

In-service performance evaluations (ISPEs) of roadside safety features have been recommended for over 40 years. Michie recommended ISPEs for crash-test and evaluation procedures in NCHRP Report 230: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Appurtenances, published in 1981. The importance of and need for ISPEs was reiterated by Ross et al. in NCHRP Report 350: Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features and by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in the Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH). The ISPE criteria were finalized in NCHRP Research Report 1010: In-Service Performance Evaluation: Guidelines for the Assembly and Analysis of Data. These reports outline the potential use of ISPEs into establish crashworthiness without crash tests.

Although it has been established that ISPE studies could help state departments of transportation (DOTs) to establish crashworthiness without having to conduct many crash tests, additional investigation on how ISPE data can be used to determine roadside safety hardware crashworthiness in lieu of crash tests would be helpful. Research is needed to incorporate ISPE data into crash-testing and evaluation protocols for roadside safety hardware to support state DOTs in delivering a safer highway network for all users. 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research project is to investigate how state DOTs can incorporate collected ISPE data and results in commonly used crash-testing protocols for roadside safety hardware.

Accomplishment of the project objective will require at least the following tasks. 

RESEARCH PLAN

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 work proposed must be divided into tasks and/or phases. Proposers must describe the work proposed in each phase and task in detail. 

At a minimum, the proposed tasks shall include: 

Phase I 

Task 1. Assemble existing routine and investigative ISPEs conducted using the NCHRP Research Report 1010 criteria. 

Task 2. Identifying, at a minimum: 

• A method for using ISPEs with relevant contributing factors to accomplish the project objective 
• Other contributions of ISPEs to advancing the state of the practice beyond crash-testing protocol development 

The contractor is expected to include these findings and how they may benefit state DOTS, manufacturers, maintenance, and others in the final report. In addition, the contractor is expected to use liability neutral language in the development of any project-related materials. Refer to NCHRP Legal Research Digest 83: Guidelines for Drafting Liability Neutral Transportation Engineering Documents and Communication Strategies for details.

Task 3. Prepare an interim report documenting the results of Tasks 1 and 2 and provide an updated work plan for the remainder of the research no later than 10 months after contract award. The updated plan must describe the method and rationale for the work proposed for Phase II. 

Note: Following a 1-month review of the interim report by the NCHRP, the research team will be required to meet with the NCHRP project panel to discuss the interim report. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until authorized by the NCHRP. The Phase I budget shall not exceed $100,000. 

Phase II 

Task 4. Execute the work plan as approved in the interim report. Assess and revise the method developed in Phase I and summarize the findings in a technical memo for the NCHRP’s review and approval. 

Task 5. Based on the research results, prepare draft language for consideration by AASHTO to incorporate the research results in the next edition of MASH (hereafter called AASHTO Deliverable), supported with design examples.

Task 6. Present the AASHTO Deliverable virtually to the AASHTO Technical Committee on Roadside Safety for review and comment and propose revisions to the NCHRP. Revise the AASHTO Deliverable considering the NCHRP approved comments.

Task 7. Prepare final deliverables, including:

• The final report.  A final report that documents the entire research effort.
• The AASHTO Deliverable.  Draft language suitable for consideration by AASHTO to incorporate the research results in the next edition of MASH.
• A technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J).
• A slide deck for use in webinars that presents the research findings and conclusions.

Note: The research plan may include additional deliverables and additional panel meetings via teleconference. 

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/7094 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.