BACKGROUND
With the understanding of the advancements in the use of pozzolanic concrete to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has requested reports on the use of low-carbon materials, including pozzolanic concrete, in federally funded projects. The request noted that the report should include steps taken to assess the durability, strength, cost, and environmental impacts of pozzolanic concrete compared with existing concrete products. The U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (US DOT OST-R), in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), will submit to the Committee a report on the use of pozzolanic concrete in federally funded infrastructure projects. The US DOT OST-R requested the TRB Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) to facilitate the conduct of this work and the preparation of the requested report. Research is needed to document the use of pozzolanic materials in concrete used in infrastructure projects and prepare the requested report.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to document the use of pozzolanic materials in concrete used in infrastructure projects and prepare reports on the state of practice of pozzolanic concrete in infrastructure projects and in federally funded infrastructure projects. The latter report shall be prepared in a format appropriate for submission to the U.S. Congress. The research shall consider the use of fly ash, silica fume, and other pozzolans, both singularly and in combination. The documentation shall include the criteria and methods used to assess suitability of these materials for use in concrete structures, e.g., concrete properties such as durability and strength, estimated service life, economic considerations, and environmental impacts. For this project, pozzolanic concrete is defined as concrete containing pozzolanic materials. The research shall consider FHWA funded projects, projects located on federal lands, and projects using the formula and discretionary grants funds.
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 CRP 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.
PHASE I
Task 1. Review literature, ongoing research findings, and current practices relevant to the use of pozzolanic concrete in infrastructure projects, specifically, federally funded infrastructure projects. This information may be assembled from published and unpublished reports, coordination with FHWA and other agencies on databases available, contacts with and surveys of federal and state agencies and industry organizations, and other sources.
Task 2. Prepare and submit within 5 months from subaward, (a) a pre-draft Report 1 on the state of practice of pozzolanic concrete in infrastructure projects and (b) an outline of Report 2 on the state of practice of pozzolanic concrete in federally funded infrastructure projects (to be prepared in Task 4.) At a minimum, each report must address the following:
1. Extent of use of the different types of pozzolanic concrete for construction and rehabilitation of infrastructure projects,
2. Properties of conventional and pozzolanic concretes used in infrastructure projects that influence performance and service life,
3. The factors (e.g., mechanical properties, other nonmaterial factors including cost, environmental impacts) and approaches (e.g., service life, life-cycle analysis) used for comparing pozzolanic concrete to conventional concrete and selecting concrete type, and
4. The actual comparison of pozzolanic concrete to conventional concrete.
Note: Following review of pre-draft Report I and the outline of Report 2 by the CRP, the research team will be required to meet with CRP and make a presentation to the CRP project panel within 1 month of report submission. Work on Phase II of the project will not begin until the interim report is reviewed and the Phase II work is authorized by the CRP.
PHASE II
Task 3. Review and consider the comments on the pre-draft Report 1 and prepare a draft version of the report, to be included as part of the draft final deliverable.
Task 4. Review and consider the comments on the outline for Report 2 and prepare and submit within 8 months of subaward a pre-draft Report 2 on the comparison results and state of practice of pozzolanic concrete in federally funded infrastructure projects. Report 2 shall discuss the rationale for using pozzolanic concrete for these projects and delineate the steps taken to assess its suitability of use in these projects and be prepared in a format appropriate for submission to the US DOT OST-R.
Note: Following review of draft Report 1 and pre-draft Report 2 by the CRP, the research team will be required to meet with CRP and make a presentation to the CRP project panel within 1 month of submission. Work on Phase III of the project will not begin until the pre-draft report is reviewed and Phase III work is authorized by the CRP.
PHASE III
Task 5. Review and consider the comments and revise pre-draft Report 2.
Task 6. Prepare and submit for CRP review, within 10 months of subaward, a 2-part draft final deliverable that includes (a) draft Report 1 on the state of practice of pozzolanic concrete in infrastructure projects, and (b) draft Report 2 on the state of practice of pozzolanic concrete in federally funded infrastructure projects.
Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 2 months shall be for CRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables.
SPECIAL NOTES
A. 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.
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 IV 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 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.
D. 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.
E. Proposals are evaluated by the CRP 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.
F. 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.
G. 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.
H. 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 selected proposers are considered subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB. TRB Cooperative Research Program subawards 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.
I. 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.
J. 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.
K. 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.
