CMF_Transferability Longevity_Revised PWS.pdf

V.6 April 2016

Performance Work Statement

Instructions to Offerors and Evaluation Criteria

The Offeror shall describe and provide the following:

• Detailed technical approach and understanding to performing the work;

• The offeror shall provide the title and a description of the duties the personnel will perform.

• The Technical Proposal shall set forth any information that the Offeror wishes to bring to the attention of the Government.

• Level of Effort table (table displaying labor categories and labor hours per task.(Names and cost information shall not be provided in the Technical Proposal.).

• Please add anything else that you would like to see in the proposal to help you evaluate.

Technical Evaluation Criteria:

(1) Technical

The Offeror’s approach to performing the requirements and its capability to successfully perform the contract will be evaluated. Proposals will be evaluated based on the following:

• The proposal includes a satisfactory technical approach for performing the requirements listed below:

o Define longevity and transferability of crash modification factors (CMFs).

o Propose how to assess CMF longevity and transferability and what data to be collected.

o Explore various data sources such as publicly accessible online portals, open-source GIS files, pre-existing public and federal databases.

o Collect data from a minimum of 25 states.

o Conduct quality controls and assurance on collected data.

o Develop a database that merges datasets from various sources in a self-explanatory structure for CMF longevity and transferability assessment.

o Document project efforts and products in a user-friendly format such as data dictionary, library, and database manual.

• The proposal includes adequate and appropriate staff with the qualifications for and experience to perform the requirement, as listed below at a minimum:

o Extensive knowledge and experience about how to develop CMFs.

o Data/information extracts from reports, video footages, texts, and images.

o Data management/engineering.

o Experience and knowledge with data mapping (e.g., geographic information system).

o Advanced big data analysis (e.g., machine learning, artificial intelligence model) o Database development.

Office of Safety and Operations Research & Development

Performance Work Statement

For

Multi-Phase Study to Examine Long-Term Applicability and

Transferability of Crash Modification Factors

- Phase I: Feasibility Study and Groundwork -

1.0 Overview

This is a non-personal services contract to provide technical services for Multi-Phase Study to Examine Long-Term Applicability and Transferability of Crash Modification Factors ― Phase I: Feasibility Study and Groundwork. The Government will not exercise any supervision or control over the contract or task order service providers performing the services herein. Such service providers shall be accountable solely to the Contractor who, in turn is responsible to the Government as defined in this Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Contractor must perform to the standards herein.

1.1 Background

Under 23 U.S. Code §503(b), Highway Research and Development Program, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation is directed to carry out highway research and development that addresses current and emerging highway transportation needs. The objectives of the Highway Research and Development (HRD) Program are: (A) identify research topics; (B) coordinate research and development activities; (C) carry out research, testing, and evaluation activities; (D) provide technology transfer and technical assistance; (E) engage with public and private entities to spur advancement of emerging transformative innovations through accelerated market readiness; and (F) consult frequently with public and private entities on new transportation technologies.

The mission of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is to improve safety and mobility on our nation’s highways through national leadership, innovation, and program delivery. As part of that mission, FHWA is the Operating Administration (OA) responsible to the Secretary to conduct research and provide technical assistance to state and local agencies to improve safety and mobility, and to encourage innovation, in accordance with the requirements of the HRD Program.

The Office of Safety and Operations Research and Development (HRSO) performs transportation safety and operations research and development (R&D) for the FHWA. HRSO conducts safety and operations R&D based upon a national perspective of the transportation needs of the United States (US).

Since the establishment in 2012, the FHWA Development of Crash Modification Factors Program (DCMF) has addressed highway safety research needs for evaluating new and innovative safety strategies (improvements) by developing quantitative estimates of their effectiveness in reducing crashes and mitigating injury severities (also known as crash modification factors (CMFs)). This program successfully developed nearly 900 CMFs to date.

However, the majority of the efforts to develop these CMFs encountered data challenges such as unavailability, poor quality, misalignments between datasets, varying definitions among states, etc. These challenges hinder development of reliable CMFs based on a large sample collected from numerous states and various road types and conditions, which would increase transferability of developed CMFs across the states. Additionally, some CMFs were developed nearly 20 years ago. For some safety countermeasures (such as curve delineators, speed humps, signal backplates with retroreflective borders), the older CMFs are the only available ones for state and local practitioners to use. These practitioners often inquiry if these CMFs are dated and still applicable to current driving conditions and road environments.

This effort is a feasibility study that seeks to investigate CMF applicability over time and CMF transferability between states and to better understand the abovementioned gaps and challenges pertaining to crash data, infrastructure countermeasures installation inventory, and other necessary data (e.g., traffic/pedestrian volume data, weather data) in safety evaluations.

Based upon findings from this assessment, this feasibility study should also determine the type of information needed to assess CMF longevity and transferability and include data collection. It is expected that information will be data that can be used for multi-purpose safety analyses and be collected from a large number of states and sources. The resulting data will support a variety of future research including, but not limited to, the current study investigating the transferability and longevity of CMFs derived from a small sample and examining nationwide impact of infrastructure countermeasures on traffic safety.

1.2 Objective

To support FHWA mission to improve safety on our nation’s roadways. Within this broader goal are two objectives in accordance with 23 U.S.C. §503(b)(1)(A, B, C & D); 23 U.S.C.

§503(b)(2)(B)(iii, v & vi); 23 U.S.C. §503(b)(2)(C)(i, ii, iii); and 23 U.S.C. §503(b)(3)(B)(i & ii):

i. Determine how to assess longevity and transferability of CMFs and identify information needed to conduct assessment.

ii. Examine gaps and challenges related to the data needed to examine CMF longevity and transferability and other future safety study (e.g., estimating nationwide impact of installed safety infrastructure in terms of number of reduced crashes and saved casualties).

1.3 Detailed Requirement

The Contractor shall provide all personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, tools, materials, supervision, and other items and non-personal services necessary to perform this task order.

TASK 1: Project Management The Contractor shall coordinate and facilitate a virtual kickoff meeting with the FHWA Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and other FHWA stakeholders within three weeks of award of the task order. The purpose of the kickoff meeting is to discuss the overall project to ensure desired outcomes are achieved. The Contractor shall prepare a draft work plan that is consistent with the proposal and includes, at a minimum, the proposed schedule and deliverables. The Contractor shall prepare an agenda and presentation to guide the meeting.

The Contractor shall send the draft agenda, presentation, and work plan to the COR one week in advance of the kickoff meeting, at the latest, for review. After the kickoff meeting, the Contractor shall incorporate all feedback received into the work plan to be submitted to the COR for review and feedback.

NOTE: The Work Plan shall be consistent with the performance work statement and all exhibits, which address how CMF longevity and transferability will be defined and assessed and what data will be needed for the assessment. The Work Plan shall not be construed to override or change the requirement or exhibits of this performance work statement. The controlling document for the requirement shall be the performance work statement, its exhibits, and any modifications issued. The Contractor shall participate in regular check-in meetings (frequencies to be determined after the kickoff meeting) with the COR and FHWA Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) to discuss the progress, possible risks, and opportunities under this study. The Contractor shall prepare quarterly progress reports (QPRs) with risk assessment for this task.

TASK 1 Deliverables:

Contractor shall submit the following to the COR for review and approval:

• Kickoff meeting agenda, draft work plan, and draft presentation.

• Meeting notes and presentations.

• Revised work plan.

• Regular check-in meetings.

• Quarterly progress reports.

TASK 2: Conduct Literature Review, Gap Analysis and Feasibility Study The Contractor shall conduct literature review regarding CMF longevity and transferability to see if any studies have looked into these topics and what research gaps and challenges exist.

Additionally, the Contractor shall explore existing databases that store traffic and infrastructure project related data collected from a large number of states, such as, but not limited to, Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), All Road Network of Linear Reference Data (ARNOLD), and Highway Safety Improvement Program database. The Contractor shall examine gaps and challenges related to that those databases are combined with crash data and used for nation-level safety evaluations (e.g., conducting before-and-after studies). The Contractor shall also investigate in what format (e.g., paper, spreadsheet, or Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map) each state currently develops and maintains safety infrastructure databases (e.g., median barrier, roundabout, rumble strips) and whether they can be integrated with data from different sources (e.g., crash data, traffic data) for more comprehensive information. The existing data gaps and challenges examined in this study may include but not limit to availability, quality, alignments between datasets within a state, data fusion with multiple sources, varying definitions/categorizations of same types of variables among states, etc.

Based upon findings from the literature review and gap analysis, the Contractor shall also conduct a risk assessment of project completion and identify opportunities to narrow the gaps and to proceed with data collection for augmenting the existing databases for future studies.

This task seeks to better understand what challenges and gaps hinder conducting large scale (ideally national level) safety evaluations.

TASK 2 Deliverables:

Contractor shall submit the following to the COR for review and approval:

• Technical memo for literature review, gap analysis, and research needs.

• Technical memo for feasibility study.

• Revised work plan based on findings from the literature review, gap analysis, feasibility study that includes a data collection plan with collection period.

TASK 3: Data Collection Upon approval from the COR, the Contractor shall compile existing, publicly available State crash data, open-source GIS safety infrastructure files, and secondary data for use in future traffic safety studies, including, but not limited to assessments of CMF longevity, transferability, and countermeasure impacts at the national level. The Contractor shall also utilize pre-existing public and federal databases (e.g., Fatal Analysis Reporting System, Highway Safety Information System, HPMS, ARNOLD, and other agency repositories). Leveraging publicly accessible online portals, existing resources, and assistance from the COR and FHWA TAP, the Contractor shall download and collect available population-level files for a minimum of 25 States. For States where data cannot be downloaded directly from open-source portals, the Contractor shall not conduct primary data collection, surveys, or standard information requests to 10 or more State agencies, limiting any direct outreach to no more than nine State entities.

The Contractor shall produce summary information to display what is available in each State in terms of data type (e.g., crash data, infrastructure data, etc.) and information type for each data type (e.g., crash severity, infrastructure installation date). The Contractor shall also include States, which are determined to have no applicable GIS infrastructure mapping information available. Based upon the results of this effort, the Contractor shall discuss with the COR and FHWA TAP and determine which infrastructures (a minimum of two) and States would be selected for the TASK 4 – developing databases for future traffic safety studies. If necessary, the Contractor may perform repeatable and scalable image-based feature extraction to supplement collected State data. This extraction may target geometric design elements, selected infrastructure features, and their installation dates to improve overall data quality.

TASK 3 Deliverables:

The Contractor shall submit the following to the COR for review and approval:

• Data available for at least past 7 to 8 years from 2024 or 2025 obtained from contacted States, which include the following at a minimum:

o Crash data. The Contractor shall check each State’s compliance status of MMUCC and provide the summary.

o Infrastructure map files (or State data with beginning and end point location information used to determine infrastructure locations, if GIS asset map layers or similar files are not available), to determine which safety infrastructure types exist at the crash location. The Contractor shall include map files focusing on the following categories at a minimum: longitudinal barriers, shoulder width, rumble strips, curve delineations, high friction surface treatment, and roundabouts.

o Other data related to above-listed safety infrastructure, such as, but not limited to, installation date and specifications of infrastructure – for example, for rumble strips, the information about types (standard or sinusoidal), widths, installation methods (milled, rolled, raised, etc.), etc.

o Presence of those infrastructure types in crash sites, based on the police crash report, crash type, crash location, infrastructure location, and other applicable data. For example, the Contractor may use a distance between front the crash and the safety infrastructure to determine the presence of the infrastructure in the crash site.

o Roadway characteristics and traffic inventory data. The Contractor shall check each State’s compliance status of MIRE and provide the summary.

o Other data needed for safety evaluations, if available, such as pedestrian volumes and turning movement counts.

• Inventory of infrastructure information for each infrastructure category where mapping data do or do not exist, by State, with State names, contact information for State GIS leader, GIS file information, infrastructure variable and category names, and overall data quality categories for each State (e.g., poor, acceptable, good, exceptional).

o Include year which State produced the maps and additional relevant data details.

• Inventory of State crash data information, including contact information for crash data, crash data file names, information on availability of State crash data files, overall crash data quality categories (e.g., poor, acceptable, good, exceptional), existence (yes/no) of latitude/longitude of crash data to allow for locating crashes and merging with mapped infrastructure information, infrastructure data from police crash report to augment mapping information.

• Inventory of roadway characteristics and traffic inventory where mapping data do or do not exist, by State, with information on overall data quality categories for each State (e.g., poor, acceptable, good, exceptional), and contact information for the data acquisition.

• Inventory of other data information for each data category (e.g., pedestrian volumes, weather data, etc.) where mapping data do or do not exist, by State, with information on overall data quality categories for each State (e.g., poor, acceptable, good, exceptional) and contact information for the data acquisition.

• If performed, data obtained from image-based feature extraction process and validated by rigorous quality assurance/check approach and source code.

• Technical memo summarizing data collection efforts, gaps and challenges encountered while performing this task, and broad data quality assessment results. One of sections in this memo shall discuss recommendations of the best infrastructure types (a minimum of two) and States for TASK 4 based on data availability and data quality.

TASK 4: Development of Databases for Assessment of CMF Longevity and Transferability For selected infrastructure types from TASK 3, the Contractor shall merge crash data, infrastructure mapping data, roadway characteristics, traffic inventory data, and other collected data of selected States (from TASK 3) using primary keys and develop databases for future traffic safety studies. These databases shall be used to produce layers of maps for collected data and determine the presence (yes/no) of safety infrastructure of interest in the crash sites.

HPMS has annual collected state roadway network in GIS format. The Contractor may use this as a basemap (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm).

TASK 4 Deliverables:

The Contractor shall submit the following to the COR for review and approval:

• Database(s) that produce layers of crash data map, infrastructure data maps, roadway characteristics map, traffic inventory map, and maps of other collected data for future traffic safety studies. The data in different domains should be linked to each other using primary keys.

• Technical memo summarizing database development efforts, gaps and challenges encountered while performing this task, and broad quality assessment results about data included in the final product (database(s)).

TASK 5: Documentation of Database Manual, Data Library, Dictionary, and Source Code for Future Usage At the completion of this project, a data library, which is a tabular version of the summary information regarding the developed database and collected data, shall be produced for each State. This information shall include all new findings, for each infrastructure type, including but not limited to:

• Data quality (e.g., rumble strips are well mapped for all State-owned roads in State X, or poor roundabouts mapping quality prevented use of State Y’s roundabouts data due to [Fill in blank]).

• Variable information for infrastructure types analyzed (including related files names, variable names, utilized category names and numbers).

• Data sources which can be used to locate this variable information, such as Open Data links for States with publicly available GIS maps, Excel Spreadsheets for States with mapping information in spreadsheets, and points-of-contact for GIS leaders in States.

• Percent of crashes can be mapped by year (e.g., 27 percent of crashes occurred on State roads where safety infrastructure is mapped).

• Percent of roadway for which infrastructure GIS maps exist (e.g., 100 percent of State-owned roads have existing concrete barriers mapped, and this represents an estimated 22 percent of this State’s total roads, and over 95 percent of existing concrete barriers).

• Percent of other collected data can be mapped by year (e.g., 56 percent of Annual Average Daily Traffic are mapped on State roads).

“Notes” which shall be included in mapping information results can include statements like “State X was determined to not only have data Y but also have data Z, which will be used for this report.” The summary information for each State, such as the date that the infrastructure map file was last updated, infrastructure types mapped, and additional helpful information, shall be included for each State. If States are determined to not have any mapping information for infrastructure, and/or no beginning and end point data recorded in any format, then that information shall also be included, along with contact information of the mapping supervisor in each State and/or State employee mapping expert most familiar with GIS mapping, or website https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms.cfm which provided that information. This information is intended to be used to efficiently update this project in later years with future years of crash data and mapping data, or to expand this project to include additional infrastructure types and States beyond the types and States used in this project.

The Contractor shall store these data files in a location (to be determined by COR) for future updates and future usage, organize the data and databases, and produce a User Manual and Data Dictionary for others at FHWA to use in later years. This is intended to prepare for and improve efficiency of updates for future traffic safety analyses, or other to-be-determined use of these mappings of infrastructure and crashes. This will allow future projects to efficiently use this existing data, and efficiently collect similar data in future years.

TASK 5 Deliverables:

The Contractor shall submit the following to the COR for review and approval:

• Organized data:

o State mapping files (including beginning and endpoint data used to produce maps) utilized in this project.

o State police crash report manuals and data files utilized in this project.

o Other data files collected for and utilized in this project.

o Established State crash data and GIS infrastructure map storage patterns, such that GIS files and State crash data can be efficiently used and updated for use in future research projects on CMF longevity and transferability, impact of safety countermeasures, or other topics.

• Documentation including data library, dictionary, and user manual for others to use in future years.

• A 30 to 40-minute technical presentation summarizing the efforts (for internal briefing).

• If used, all source code, object code, and executable code for the Deliverables submitted for this study. Source code includes all human-readable programming code, build scripts, configuration files, database schemas, and documentation necessary for a reasonably skilled programmer to compile, maintain, and modify the software without assistance from the Developer for future usage.

TASK 6: Development of Outreach Materials The Contractor shall develop marketing and outreach materials—such as a peer-reviewed journal/conference paper or a webinar—to disseminate the findings and lessons learned from this project. To initiate this process, the Contractor shall submit a draft journal or conference paper to the COR for review. Following initial and subsequent review cycles, the Contractor shall submit a final draft that incorporates the COR’s comments and edits. This final version will then be routed to the Office of Chief Counsel (HCC) and the Office of Public Affairs (HPA) for review and publication approval.

TASK 6 Deliverables:

The Contractor shall submit the following to the COR for review and approval:

• Draft Journal/Conference Paper or Webinar Presentation PPT

• Final Journal/Conference Paper or Webinar Presentation PPT

2.0 Period of Performance

The period of performance shall be for a period of 24 months from date of award.

3.0 General

N/A

3.1 Hours of Operation

N/A

3.2 Place of Performance

The work to be performed under this task order shall be performed at the Contractor’s facility.

3.3 Physical Security

N/A

3.4 Special Qualifications

The following skill types are anticipated for this effort.

• Technical Specialists and/or Experts in o GIS, spatial data, GIS-related standards and applications o Data extraction from police crash reports and infrastructure maps o Data/information extraction from video footage and images o Data storage for future use o Database development o Advanced big data analysis (e.g., machine learning, artificial intelligence model) o Abundant knowledge and experience related to CMFs development

3.5 Periodic Progress Meetings

The contractor agrees to attend progress meetings. The Contracting Officer or Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and other Government personnel, as appropriate, may meet periodically with the Contractor to review the Contractor's performance. At these meetings, the CO will apprise the Contractor of how the government views the Contractor's performance and the Contractor will apprise the Government of problems, if any, being experienced. Appropriate action shall be taken to resolve outstanding issues. These meetings shall be at no additional cost to the government.

3.6 Identification of Contractor Employees

All contractor personnel attending meetings, answering Government telephones, and working in other situations where their Contractor status is not obvious to third parties are required to identify themselves as such to avoid creating an impression in the minds of members of the public that they are Government officials. They must also ensure that all documents or reports produced by Contractors are suitably marked as Contractor products or that Contractor participation is appropriately disclosed.

3.7 Contractor Travel

N/A

3.8 Contractor-Provided Materials

This project may need the use of the Google Map Platform. If the Contractor does not currently have access, they must purchase a monthly subscription from Google. All subscription costs for Google Map Platform must be included in the Contractor’s price quote. As this is a firm-fixed-price purchase order, the Government will not reimburse the Contractor for Google Map Platform costs.

3.9 Organizational Conflict of Interest

Contractor and subcontract personnel performing work under this award may receive, have access to, or participate in the development of proprietary or source selection information (e.g., cost or pricing information, budget information or analyses, specifications or work statements, etc.), or perform evaluation services which may create a current or subsequent Organizational Conflict of Interests (OCI) as defined in FAR Subpart 9.5. The Contractor shall notify the CO immediately whenever he/she becomes aware that such access or participation may result in any actual or potential OCI, and may merit the submittal of a plan to the CO to avoid or mitigate any such OCI. This mitigation plan would be determined to be acceptable solely at the discretion of the CO, and in the event the CO unilaterally determines that any such OCI cannot be satisfactorily avoided or mitigated, the Contracting Officer may effect other remedies as he or she deems necessary, including prohibiting the Contractor from participation in subsequent contracted requirements which may be affected by the OCI.

3.10 Phase In /Phase out Period

N/A

3.11 Data Rights

Data Rights shall be executed in accordance with the relevant clauses and provisions in the purchase order.

4.0 Government Furnished Equipment and Services (Note: enter “N/A” for the elements that are not applicable to your project) N/A

4.1 Services

N/A.

4.2 Facilities

4.3 Materials

5.0 Applicable Publications (Current Editions)

The Contractor must abide by the following regulations, publications, manuals, and local policies and procedures. TFHRC Communication Reference Guide (CRG)-https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/general/15058/15058.pdf

5.1 Applicable Clauses

6.0 Attachment/Exhibit List

6.1 Exhibit 1

Performance Requirements Summary [This document is required for every PWS; it is not applicable if using a SOW. See attached example for format.]

6.2 Exhibit 2

Deliverables Schedule [This document is required for every PWS and may be used for a SOW also. See attached example for format.]

6.3 Exhibit 3

Schedule of Services (To be included at award)

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 1

PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY

The Contractor service requirements are summarized into performance objectives that relate directly to mission essential items. The performance threshold briefly describes the minimum acceptable levels of service required for each requirement. These thresholds are critical to mission success.

Note: Only the performance objectives that relate directly to mission essential items should be included below. For example, this may be limited to a ConOps and the final report or deliverable.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/general/15058/15058.pdf

Performance Objective (The Service required— usually a shall statement) Performance Standard

Performance Threshold (This is the maximum error rate.)

Method of Surveillance

PRS # 1.

TASK 1 – Project management

The Contractor shall provide:

• Kickoff meeting agenda and draft work plan.

• Meeting notes and presentations.

• Revised work plan.

• Regular check-in meetings.

• Quarterly progress reports.

No technical and grammatical errors.

100% review by the COR

PRS # 2

TASK 2 – Literature review, gap analysis, and feasibility study

The Contractor shall provide:

• Technical memo for literature review, gap analysis, and research needs.

• Technical memo for feasibility study

• Revised study plan, which includes data collection plan with collection period.

No technical and grammatical errors.

100% review by the COR usually a shall statement) Performance Standard

Performance Threshold (This is the maximum error rate.)

Method of Surveillance

PRS # 3

TASK 3 – Data collection

The Contractor shall provide:

• Data obtained from

States that meet minimum requirements determined by COR.

• If performed, data obtained from image-based feature extraction process that were validated by rigorous quality assurance/check approach.

• Documents of information about collected data, where to download, and States’ contact information.

• Technical memo summarizing data collection efforts, gaps and challenges encountered while performing this task, broad data quality assessment results, and recommendation of the best infrastructure types and States for TASK 4 based on data availability and quality.

• Minium quality assessment and control for collected data.

• No technical and grammatical errors in documents.

• Consensus among COR, FHWA stakeholders, and contractor.

usually a shall statement) Performance Standard

Performance Threshold (This is the maximum error rate.)

Method of Surveillance

PRS # 4

TASK 4 – Development of databases for assessment of CMF longevity and transferability

The Contractor shall provide:

• Database(s) that produce layers of maps of collected data.

• Technical memo summarizing database development efforts, gaps and challenges encountered while performing this task, and broad assessment results about data quality included in the final product (database(s)).

• Thorough quality assessment and control for collected data.

• Self-explanatory design of database structure.

PRS # 5

TASK 5 – Documentation of database manual, data library, data dictionary, and source code for future usage; 30 to 40 minutes technical presentation

The Contractor shall provide:

• Organized collected data files.

• Developed data library, dictionary, and user manual.

• All source code, object code, and executable code.

• Developed 30 to 40 minutes technical presentation summarizing the efforts.

• Thorough quality assessment and control for collected data.

• No technical and grammatical errors in documents.

usually a shall statement) Performance Standard

Performance Threshold (This is the maximum error rate.)

Method of Surveillance

PRS # 6

TASK 6 – Development of outreach materials

The Contractor shall provide:

• Draft journal/conference paper or webinar presentation.

• Final journal/conference paper or webinar presentation.

• No technical and grammatical errors in documents.

TECHNICAL EXHIBIT 2

DELIVERABLES SCHEDULE

This technical exhibit lists any reports or documentation that is required as a deliverable to include the frequency, # of copies, medium/format and who/where it is to be submitted. A deliverable is anything that can be physically delivered but may include non-physical things such as meeting minutes.

Deliverables for TASK 1

Deliverable Print Ready

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Kickoff meeting agenda, draft work plan, and draft presentatio n

Yes One week before the kickoff meeting

1 To be determined

COR

Kickoff

No Within three weeks of award

N/A Conference call COR and

FHWA

stakehold ers

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Meeting notes, final presentatio ns, and final work plan

Yes Three weeks after the kickoff

Regular check-in meetings

No On a regular basis (frequency will be determined after the kickoff meeting)

N/A Conference call COR

Quarterly progress reports

Yes Quarterly 1 To be

Deliverables for TASK 2

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Technical memo for literature review, gap analysis, and research needs

Yes Two months after the award

Technical memo for feasibility study

Yes Three months after the award

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Revised study plan that includes data collection plan with collection period

Yes Three months after the award

Deliverables for TASK 3

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Data obtained from States including police crash report data, infrastructur e map files, and other data

Yes 10 months

1 Excel, GIS data, Comma-separated values files, etc.

If performed, data obtained from image-based feature extraction process

Yes 12 months

1 Excel, GIS data, Comma-separated values files, etc.

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Documents of information about collected data, where to download, and States’ contact information

1 10 months memo summarizin g data collection efforts, gaps and challenges, data quality assessment results, and recommend ation of the most feasible infrastructur e types and States for

TASK 4

1 10 months

Deliverables for TASK 4

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Database(s ) that produce layers of maps of collected data

No 16 months

1 Database platform (to be determined) memo summarizin g database developme nt efforts, gaps and challenges, and assessment results about data included in the final database

Yes 16 months

Deliverables for TASK 5

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Organized collected data files

No 18 months

Documentat ion including

Yes 18 months after the award

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To data library, dictionary, and user manual

All source code, object code, and executable code

No 18 months award

1 To be determined

COR

30 to 40-minute technical presentatio n

Yes 18 months

Deliverables for TASK 6

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To

Draft journal article and/or webinar presentatio n

No 19 months

Final journal article and/or webinar presentatio n with HPA

Yes 24 months

Frequency # of Copies

Medium/Format Submit To review completion