BACKGROUND

Baggage handling systems (BHS) at airports are experiencing a significant transformation in their development and operations. It is imperative that airports and stakeholders gain a comprehensive and unbiased understanding of how emerging technologies and software can be used to enhance the operations of BHS, with a particular focus on planning, facility design, infrastructure, and cyber security. Research is needed to help airport practitioners gain technical knowledge on emerging BHS technologies and software and deploy them effectively in BHS. 

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research is to provide airport practitioners with a primer, guide, case studies, and video to help evaluate and incorporate BHS technologies to meet their unique needs.

The primer should, at a minimum, cover the following: 

• Description of airport BHS operations, including but not limited to induction (i.e., inbound and outbound), transport, screening, sortation, makeup, storage, airside delivery, and baggage claim (the description should include equipment, staffing, asset management, typical cost drivers, redundancy and resiliency, maintenance strategies, and risk and incident management); 
• Trends and the latest development in BHS solutions (e.g., mechanical, controls, tracking, electrical, IT, security screening) at airports;
• Emerging BHS technologies (e.g., individual carrier systems, self-service, full service);
• Overview of BHS safety and ergonomics;
• Common internal and external stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities in the BHS environment;
• Common BHS project delivery methods and service provider types;
• Typical funding sources and mechanisms;
• Summary of existing industry resources [e.g., planning guidelines and design standards (PGDS), ACRP reports]; and
• Common industry terms and acronyms.

The guide should, at a minimum, help airport practitioners: 

• Develop investment criteria for improvement in BHS (e.g., passenger volume, system performance, regulatory compliance, cyber security, passenger experience, technological obsolescence);
• Develop an engagement strategy for internal and external stakeholders that addresses each phase of the life cycle;
• Prepare a list of questions that airport practitioners should ask BHS providers for information to evaluate and monitor BHS projects across their life cycle;  
• Develop evaluation criteria and methods (e.g., decision tree, flowchart) for comparing potential BHS solutions;
• Develop strategies for future proofing BHS systems;
• Develop strategies for operational readiness through the implementation phase; and
• Measure and monitor BHS performance.

The case studies should include representative examples across various airport sizes, geographies, and scopes and provide a project overview, stakeholders, decision factors, challenges, references, and lessons learned. The case studies should, at a minimum, include: 

• Three examples of system-wide integration across different technologies (e.g., full system replacement, new terminal built out) and
• One example of the following: point solutions, components, and sub-systems technologies (see Special Note D).

The introductory video should be 4 to 5 minutes in length, focus on the content of the primer, and provide a high-level overview of a typical airport BHS for a broad audience (see Special Note C).

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 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. 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 following interim deliverables for ACRP review and approval:

• A literature review and a review of current and future BHS practices;
• A draft of the primer;
• An annotated outline of the guide;
• A case study plan and rationale; 
• An interim report, including research results to date, analysis of results, next steps, and identification of follow-on research ideas to be developed into problem statements;
• An outline and storyboard of the video;
• A script of the video; and
• A preliminary cut of the video.

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 possible, taking into account ACRP’s problem statement annual submission deadline of early April.

The research plan shall also include, at a minimum, the following checkpoints with the ACRP panel:

• Kick-off teleconference meeting to be held within 1 month of the Notice to Proceed,
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the draft primer,
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the case study plan,
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the outline of the guide,
• In-person meeting to discuss and approve the interim report,
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the video’s outline and storyboard, and
• Web meeting to discuss and approve the video’s script.

The final deliverables will include the following: 

• Primer;
• Guide;
• 4-to-5-minute video;
• Final Report documenting all research steps, results, and analysis (see Special Notes O and P);
• Technical memo titled “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” (see Special Note Q); and
• Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note R). 

Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for contractor's 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. Proposer should provide their initial thinking on possible BHS case studies.

B. Proposer should provide their initial thinking on emerging technologies to be considered within and outside the airport industry.

C. Proposers are encouraged to provide their initial thinking of concepts for the explainer video in their proposal.

D. For the purposes of this research, definitions and examples of BHS technologies are listed below:

• Point solutions are specific technologies or methods implemented to address challenges or perform a distinct function within the BHS. These solutions often serve isolated but crucial roles in the system (e.g., Self Bag drop, Barcode Bag Tag Readers);
• Components are the individual physical or software elements that constitute the larger system. They operate individually but are essential building blocks of the BHS (e.g., Programmable Logic Controllers, Photoelectric Sensors); and
• Sub-systems technologies refer to integrated groups of components that fulfill a specific role or function within the BHS (e.g., Ticketing Counter, Sortation System).

E. 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. 

F. 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.

G. 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

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/7165>. 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 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 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. 

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.

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 subawardees 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 15% 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. 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 $25,000.

O. The Research Team’s Final Report should outline the work that was completed, the analysis that was conducted, its impact on how the project moved forward, the suggested research ideas brought forth to the panel and the disposition of each.

P. The Research Team’s Final Report must also list and describe the research ideas originally identified in the Interim Report and document their disposition. 

Q. 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.

R. 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.

S. 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.