BACKGROUND

Airport managers are constantly looking for more efficient and effective ways to manage infrastructure. Asset management is a recognized discipline used by airports around the world to oversee the safe, secure, and environmentally sound operation and maintenance of assets in a cost-effective manner.

A key component of asset management is the establishment and use of an asset registry, a detailed list of an organization’s infrastructure and equipment. The asset registry is foundational to strategic planning and data driven with decision-making across multiple systems (e.g., operations, financial, security, maintenance, lease management, building information systems). 

Since there are limited guidelines on how to establish an airport asset registry, airport operators would benefit from resources to help them develop an asset registry. 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to develop a primer, guide, spreadsheet template, and a list of resources to help airports develop an asset registry.

The primer will cover the following, at a minimum:

• Purpose and benefits of asset registry for new and existing assets;
• Summary of asset management and common definitions;
• Criteria for defining airport assets;
• Role of asset hierarchy when developing an asset registry;
• Common asset information and attributes for various asset classes (e.g., fleet, vertical, and horizontal airport infrastructure assets); and
• Overview of applicable standards (e.g., ISO 14224, ISO 55000, International Infrastructure Management Manual, Institute of Asset Management).

 The guide should address the following topics as they relate to the development of an airport asset registry, at a minimum:  

• Methods for identifying and engaging potential internal and external stakeholders;
• Methods for data collection for new and existing assets;
• Recommended practices for maintaining an asset registry;
• Identifying and defining asset management related systems (e.g., Enterprise Asset Management, Geographic Information System, Building Information Modeling, Computerized Maintenance Management System, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) including technical touch points;
• Developing a project plan for phased asset registry implementation, including demonstrated business value at defined data collection milestones and deliverables;
• Recommendations for scaling the asset registry based on airport size, asset management program maturity, available data, and resources;
• Incorporating data governance considerations (e.g., naming conventions, asset location, approval authority, management of change); and
• Other considerations (e.g., stakeholder communications, training, organizational change management, Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI) matrix).

The spreadsheet template should include the following features, at a minimum:

• Editable spreadsheet with recommended common and specific asset attributes for vertical, horizontal, and fleet assets;
• Examples for each asset category and asset hierarchy; and
• User guide with instructions for creating an asset registry using the spreadsheet template.

The list of resources should list existing standards, handbooks, and ACRP and non-ACRP products to facilitate development and implementation of an airport asset registry.

RESEARCH PLAN

The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are asked to provide a detailed research plan for accomplishing the project 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 proposers must describe the work proposed in detail.

The research plan shall include, at a minimum, the appropriate interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval, that include:

• A data collection and analysis plan that describes data collection methods and recommended airports to be studied and rationale;
• A draft of the primer; and
• Interim report to include research results and analysis to date, annotated outline of the guide, draft spreadsheet template, next steps, and potential follow-on research ideas to be developed into problem statements.

Note: For each research idea approved by the project panel, the research team will use ACRP’s problem statement process (https://trb.org/ACRP/problemstatements.aspx) to develop and submit a problem statement on behalf of the project panel. The development and submission of problem statements should occur as soon as practical, taking into account ACRP’s problem statement annual submission deadline of early April.

The research plan should also include, at a minimum, checkpoints with the ACRP panel including:

• Kick-off web meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed;
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the data collection and analysis plan; 
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the draft primer;
• In-person meeting to discuss and approve the interim report; and
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the draft final deliverables.

 The final deliverables will include: 

• Primer;
• Guide including list of resources;
• Asset Registry Spreadsheet Template;
• Contractor’s Final Report  documenting all research steps, results, and analysis; and
• The Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note K); (b) the Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note L); and (c) a technical memo titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note J).

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for contractor preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services. ACRP will pay panel members’ travel costs for the face-to-face interim meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC.

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/7174>. 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 ACRP 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 provide: (a) recommended tactics to facilitate implementation; (b) possible institutions/partners and their potential implementation role; (c) potential impediments to successful implementation; (d) metrics to measure extent of product use and benefit; (e) related FAA guidance; and (f) appendices as needed. An annotated template for the memorandum is found here: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/ACRP_Implementation_TechMemo_Template_2019.pdf.

K. The Summary of Key Findings will be a stand-alone document. It should: (a) convey the most pertinent and applicable results of the project’s research; (b) be geared toward the airport industry practitioner while minimizing technical language; (c) present results using text and graphics as appropriate; and (d) encourage readers to explore the primary project deliverables. The Summary of Key Findings should be limited to no more than 4 pages.

L. The Further Recommended Research Memo will be a stand-alone document.  It will include the prioritized list of and discussion of the follow-on research ideas from the interim report and meeting and the resulting problem statements.

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.