ATTENTION PROPOSERS: A request for proposals for TFPE Project 08 was originally released on March 11, 2025; no award was made. The purpose of this Research Project Statement is to initiate a new competition for this project. The Special Notes section of this Research Project Statement has been slightly modified from the original statement to add background information about the HSIS. 

BACKGROUND

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Safety Information System (HSIS) is a roadway-based data system that provides quality data on several crash, roadway, and traffic variables. It is composed of data already being collected by states and one urban center (California, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Washington, and Charlotte, North Carolina) for managing the highway system and studying highway safety.  HSIS can be used to analyze many safety problems, including basic "problem identification" issues, identifying the size and extent of a safety problem, modeling efforts that attempt to predict future crashes from roadway characteristics and traffic factors, and evaluating the safety effectiveness of interventions. HSIS is used in support of the FHWA safety research program and provides input to program policy decisions. HSIS is available to professionals conducting research under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, universities, and others studying highway safety.

The FHWA Research & Technology (R&T) evaluation program was initiated in 2013 to assess and communicate the value and effectiveness of FHWA R&T investment. The objective of the R&T evaluation program is to document the impact of the projects, demonstrate accountability to funders and policymakers, and identify lessons learned and best practices that can be applied to future projects/programs, thus completing the innovation lifecycle.  The Transportation Research Board (TRB), in collaboration with the FHWA, is overseeing the TRB/FHWA Program Evaluation (TFPE) to evaluate such programs.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop and execute an evaluation plan for the FHWA HSIS to answer these fundamental questions:

• Efficiency: Are the HSIS activities conducted with an appropriate use of resources, such as budget and staff time (e.g., research and implementation approach, funding level)?
• Implementation: Is the HSIS being applied and/or adopted by the users? If yes, how is it being applied or adopted? How is HSIS different from other safety databases, such as Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), General Estimates System (GES), and National Park Service Service-wide Traffic Accident Reporting System (STARS)?  
• Effectiveness: Is HSIS achieving the intended goals and objectives (e.g., impact)? What datasets will be used to measure effectiveness?
• Cost-effectiveness: Does the value or benefit of achieving the HSIS goals and objectives exceed the cost of producing them (e.g., return on investment and cost-benefit ratio)?
• Attribution: Is the HSIS addressing the following FHWA Strategic Goals?
  • Safety: Make the transportation system safer for all people. Advance a future without transportation-related serious injuries and fatalities.
  • Economic strength and global competitiveness: Grow a sustainable economy. Invest in the transportation system to provide reliable and efficient access to resources, markets, and good-paying jobs to American workers and businesses.
  • Transformation: Design for the future. Invest in purpose-driven research and innovation to meet the challenges of the present and modernize a transportation system of the future that serves everyone today and in the future.
  • Organizational excellence: Strengthen this world-class organization. Advance FHWA's mission by establishing policies, processes, and an innovative culture to serve communities effectively and steward the public’s resources responsibly.

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. TRB 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 subaward 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.

Task 1. Prepare an Evaluation Scoping Report, presenting the HSIS evaluation team’s understanding of the objective, likely measures of effectiveness, analysis activities, variety of products produced with HSIS data and intended audience for those products, and budget for evaluation. 

Note: The research team shall plan to submit the draft Evaluation Scoping Report for TRB and FHWA review and approval. After virtually meeting with the TRB panel, the research team shall address review comments and submit the final Evaluation Scoping Report that will become the basis for the Evaluation Plan.

Task 2. Prepare an Evaluation Plan, describing the evaluation strategy and specific tasks to be performed, planned calendar schedule, intermediate evaluation products, and the role and activities that each member of the evaluation team will have in the evaluation plan. Include a logic model of the HSIS. Discuss the sample size of HSIS projects and case studies to be included. Discuss the variety of HSIS end users to be included in the evaluation.

Note: The research team shall plan to submit the draft Evaluation Plan for TRB and FHWA review and approval. After virtually meeting with the TRB panel, the research team shall document key points of the discussion, address review comments, and submit the final Evaluation Plan. Work on Task 3 of the project will not begin until the final Evaluation Plan has been approved and authorized by TRB.

Task 3. Execute the Evaluation Plan and prepare an Interim Report on the HSIS evaluation. Prepared approximately midway through the Evaluation Plan, the Interim Report should document the evaluation team’s progress on the Evaluation Plan, the difficulties encountered in conducting the work, and any preliminary assessment supported by work accomplished so far. 

Note: Following a 1-month review of the Interim Report by TRB and FHWA, the research team will be required to meet virtually with the project panel to discuss the Interim Report and document in a memorandum the key points of the discussion and other comments received and modifications to the Evaluation Plan as may be appropriate. 

Task 4. Prepare a HSIS Evaluation Report documenting the evaluation and presenting the results. Solicit comments from TRB and FHWA on the draft, prepare a memorandum responding to comments, and revise the draft as appropriate to prepare the final Project Evaluation Report. Recommendations shall be prepared and compiled separately for presentation to the Research and Technology Coordinating Committee (RTCC) and shall not be part of the final Project Evaluation Report. 

Note: Following receipt of the draft final HSIS Evaluation Report, 3 months shall be for TRB review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final Project Evaluation Report. Work on Task 5 of the project will not begin until the final Project Evaluation Report has been approved and authorized by TRB.  

Task 5. Prepare briefing materials as appropriate and participate in an in-person meeting of the RTCC to present the final HSIS Evaluation Report and recommendations. Discuss the evaluation and its findings. Prior to the RTCC meeting, present the materials to and participate in a virtual meeting with FHWA. The RTCC will review the final report and issue any recommendations to FHWA that RTCC deems appropriate in the form of a letter report.

SPECIAL NOTES

A. FHWA has provided documents and files that proposers will find useful in preparing proposals. Proposers are encouraged to review these documents and files that were developed as part of the FHWA HSIS Program. These files and their content are copyrighted material. These files are for the sole use of proposers to respond to this RFP and submit a proposal. Any unauthorized use including, but not limited to disclosure, copying, alteration, and dissemination or distribution is strictly prohibited. By accessing the link below, you accept these terms of use. The documents are available at: https://www.nationalacademies.org/osdocs/HSISBackgroundFiles.zip.

B. Travel, accommodations, and meals and incidentals for travel to the RTCC meeting for the contractor will be a responsibility of the selected contractor and must be budgeted within the project’s total budget of $300,000. For budgeting purposes, the meeting venues and travel for the RTCC members to attend meetings will be paid separately by the TRB.

C. The RTCC meets twice per year, in May and December. The December meeting is usually in Washington, DC, but the May meeting can be in Washington, DC, or at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. Additional information about the RTCC is available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/research-and-technology-coordinating-committee-federal-highway-administration.

D. TRB recognizes the value of a multidisciplinary approach to research and encourages participation in the team by experts in traffic safety, transportation engineering, data science, behavioral science, and performance-based data driven analysis.

E. The Evaluation Scoping Report will replace the Amplified Research Plan described in the Procedural Manual for Subawardees Conducting Research in the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Program.

F. Revisions to the Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals for the Transportation Research Board’s Cooperative Research Programs are highlighted in yellow within that document.

G. 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 IV of the instructions.

H. 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.

I. 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/7144. Proposers may not contact panel members directly; this roster is provided solely for the purpose of avoiding potential conflicts of interest.

J. 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.

K. Proposals are evaluated by the TRB 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; and, if relevant, (5) the adequacy of the facilities. A recommendation by the project panel is not a guarantee of a subaward. 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 subaward negotiations continue.

L. 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.

M. 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.

N. 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) 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.

O. If the subawardee 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 subawardee will ensure adequate communication and coordination with their lower-tier subawardees throughout the project.

P. 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.

Q. 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.