BAA 693JK420R600002 - Roadway Safety Insights.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary of Transportation

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

No. 693JK420R600002

“CONDUCTING INNOVATIVE, APPLIED RESEARCH TO

GAIN NEW ROADWAY SAFETY INSIGHTS AND TOOLS,

PHASE I”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 – BAA PROCESS OVERVIEW

1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DATES

1.3 BACKGROUND

1.4 OBJECTIVE AND DESCRIPTION

1.5 ANALYTIC AGENDA AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.6 PROGRAM SCOPE

SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK

2.1 GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK INfORMATION

2.2 DELINEATION OF WORK

SECTION 3 – GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

3.2 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

3.3 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

3.4 DELIVERABLES

3.5 DEGREE OF FEDRAL INVOLVEMENT

3.6 PROPOSAL INFORMATION

3.7 SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

3.8 DATA REQUIREMENTS

SECTION 4 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

SECTION 5 –PROPOSAL FORMAT

SECTION 6 – EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS

SECTION 7 – TECHNICAL DISCUSSIONS AND COST/PRICE NEGOTIATIONS

SECTION 1 – BAA PROCESS OVERVIEW

1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

Contracting Officers: Tremayne Terry Tremayne.Terry@dot.gov

Robin D. Gates robin.gates@dot.gov

Contract Specialist: Steven Budd steven.budd@dot.gov

This requirement is comprised of two phases.

Phase 1, concept development, may be conducted under firm fixed price (FFP) contracts not to exceed $50,000 or a cooperative or assistance agreement not to exceed $50,000. For the cooperative or assistance agreement, a cost sharing model may be considered.

Phase 2, project execution, will be conducted under a follow-on contract or assistance agreement. Issuance of a follow-on contract or assistance agreement is at the discretion of the Government. Only entities that conducted work during Phase 1 will be eligible for a contract or assistance agreement under Phase 2.

This solicitation is for Phase 1 only. The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) anticipates making up to six awards as a result of this solicitation.

1.2 SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DATES

OST anticipates that the proposal, evaluation, and award process for this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA or Announcement) will proceed generally in accordance with the following schedule:

Presolicitation Draft BAA Issued BAA Issued

October 31, 2019 December 11, 2019

Questions Due 11:59PM ET December 18, 2019 First Phase Proposals Due 11:59PM ET January 22, 2020 First Phase Anticipated Award Date Range TBD

All correspondence shall be sent by electronic transmission to steven.budd@dot.gov. No telephone requests will be taken. Please use “693JK420R60002” in the subject line to avoid any information being missed.

Please submit questions by the date specified above using the template provided. Responses to questions received will be posted in a formal amendment to the BAA, on the Government-wide Point of Entry (GPE), Contract Opportunities on beta.sam.gov.

mailto:Tremayne.Terry@dot.gov mailto:robin.gates@dot.gov mailto:steven.budd@dot.gov mailto:steven.budd@dot.gov

1.3 BACKGROUND

At the 2018 Transportation Research Board Conference, The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) announced the creation of the Safety Data Initiative (SDI)1. The SDI is led by offices within OST in close collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the other surface transportation subcomponents or Operating Administrations (OAs) within DOT. The initiative was created to build upon and enhance current surface transportation safety efforts by strategically prioritizing and addressing transportation safety risks through data-informed decision making. Efforts center on data, analysis, and policy making, with three focus areas:

1) Data visualization: Make data analysis and insights accessible to policy-makers through clear, compelling data visualizations.

2) Data integration: Integrate existing DOT databases and new private sector data sources to answer safety questions.

3) Predictive insights: Use advanced analytic techniques to identify risk patterns and develop insights that anticipate and mitigate safety risk to reduce injuries and fatalities.

Since the initiative’s launch, DOT conducted a number of pilot projects to identify safety challenges and experiment with solutions that improve the way information is conveyed to and used by safety practitioners. Through these pilot projects, the Department worked with state and local governments, the private sector, academic institutions, and other transportation stakeholders to apply new data integration and analytic techniques, test new DOT-developed tools, and share lessons learned and best practices to advance the transportation safety practice.

The Department also organized two Safety Data Forums (stakeholder engagement events) and an expert panel to discuss and validate the work performed to date2.

For the next steps of the SDI, OST is interested in using the latest data and analytic methods to better understand recurring safety problems. From the pilot projects and stakeholder events, OST learned valuable lessons and opportunities for optimizing collaboration with partners in transportation safety, which included:

• Focusing on exploring new datasets and old datasets in new ways; a diversity of approaches is necessary to further the use of safety data for policy and decision making;

• Ensuring the limitations of the new data—especially private sector data—are well understood and documented so they are fit for a specific purpose;

• Leveraging proprietary data for safety purposes from both data users and owners while navigating the barriers that impede data sharing, including: ownership; legal liability;

impinging upon private vendor’s competitive edge; use by regulators; and lack of sufficient systems to share sensitive data.

These lessons and opportunities informed the objectives and goals of this Announcement.

1 https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot0318 2Visit https://www.transportation.gov/safetydatainitiative for the latest on the Safety Data Initiative https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/dot0318 https://www.transportation.gov/safetydatainitiative

1.4 OBJECTIVE AND DESCRIPTION

With this Announcement, OST seeks to understand how new data sources or data sources that the Department currently does not have access to can be used to answer the most pressing and persistent surface transportation safety problems. OST is interested in approaches that use new data sources and/or data unavailable to the DOT to gain novel, useable, and actionable insights to improve safety outcomes. OST also views the BAA as a way to explore replicating and scaling the application of new data sources or methodologies across the country; and assess the capability of new data sources by using them to answer specific research questions.

BAA awards will be conducted in two phases. The first phase will consist of developing concept designs that address at least one of the research problem statements described in Section 1.5 of this Announcement. The second phase will focus on developing and executing the proposed projects and is limited to the first phase awardees only (more information is available in Section 2 of this Announcement).

As used throughout this Announcement, OST defines “data” as recorded information, regardless of form or the media on which it may be recorded. The term includes both technical data (recorded information regardless of form or media of a scientific or technical nature, including computer databases, their contents, and computer software documentation) and computer software. The term does not include information incidental to contract administration, such as financial, administrative, cost or pricing, or management information. As used throughout this Announcement, “new data” refers to new data or data sources; or existing data and data sources that the DOT currently does not have access to.

1.5 ANALYTIC AGENDA AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To determine the SDI analytic agenda, safety experts across the Department and its OAs deliberated over surface transportation safety topic areas that presented the greatest opportunities to enhance understanding of ongoing safety issues with data. The four topics selected were precursor to crashes; pedestrian and bicyclist safety; intersections; and non-fatal injury crashes.

At the Safety Data Forum 2.0 in April 2019, the Department convened safety practitioners, researchers, private sector (original equipment manufacturers, insurance representatives, analytic and data companies), and other safety stakeholders to identify the most pressing and persistent research questions across the four identified topic areas. The questions below represent the SDI analytic agenda, and offerors should address at least one of the questions presented in their proposal.

For all questions, OST is interested in approaches that incorporate and use new data sources, which, again, this BAA defines as new or existing data sources that the DOT does not currently have access to. Offerors may attempt to address multiple questions in one proposal. Alternately, an offeror may submit more than one proposal that address different questions.

Summary of research questions

Topic ID Question

Precursor to Crashes A1

To what extent can additional crash precursor data inform risk patterns for the most likely crash scenarios? What are the characteristics of the most-likely crash scenarios? Can we identify patterns by examining crash precursors from these data?

Precursor to Crashes A2

In order to understand precursor to crashes, there needs to be a better understanding of the baseline (i.e., normal-state of driving)—what is this baseline? To what extent can additional data sources inform the baseline normal state of driving?

Ped-Bike Safety B1

Where are pedestrian/bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries happening and what are the behavioral factors, surrounding features, and characteristics of where these fatalities and serious injuries occur?

Ped-Bike Safety B2

What combination of existing or emerging data sources can be used to create scalable, corridor-level models for pedestrian and bicyclist exposure?

What can be done to better determine pedestrian/bicyclist safety risk rate?

Intersections C1 To what extent can additional intersection data elements inform safety risk and improve infrastructure design?

Intersections C2 What additional data sources can be linked with intersection data to inform safety counter measures and what safety insights can be gathered?

Intersections C3 What methodologies and sources can be used to estimate and identify existing intersection locations at a large scale (i.e., state, regional, local, or national-level)?

Non-fatal injuries D1 What additional insights and risk factors can be gathered from linked data sources in non-fatal injury crashes?

Non-fatal injuries D2 To what extent can non-fatal injury crashes inform the likelihood of fatal injury crashes in the same location?

Topic A. Precursor to Crashes

Question A1: To what extent can additional crash precursor data inform risk patterns for the most likely crash scenarios? What are the characteristics of the most-likely crash scenarios? Can we identify patterns by examining crash precursors from these data?

Question A2: In order to understand precursor to crashes, there needs to be a better understanding of the baseline (i.e., normal-state of driving)—what is this baseline? To what extent can additional data sources inform the baseline normal state of driving?

Background: A wide variety of precursor factors have the potential to be related to the occurrence of motor vehicle crashes. The Department calculates some pre-event factors such as alcohol-impaired driving, which accounted for 29 percent of fatalities in 2017, and speeding, which accounted for 26 percent of fatalities in 20173. However, for several other precursors, such as distraction and drug-impaired driving (among others), DOT does not have a clear understanding about their contributions to motor vehicle crashes. A variety of untapped data sources could help answer questions about precursors to crashes to target interventions. Near misses, close calls, the physical environment, the socio-economic environment, and other contextual data might be correlated with crashes and can serve as safety risk signals.

Examples of potential data sources (non-exhaustive):

• Telematics

• Video and Probe

• Data from motor vehicle technologies, monitoring systems, and electronic systems

• Insurance industry (e.g., distraction, hard braking)

• Radar info

• Infrastructure and built environment

• Telecommunications (e.g., distraction on cell phone, etc.)

• Social media (e.g., web crawling and scrapping data, etc.)

• Speeding and operational speed

• Internet of Things

3 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812603 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812603

Topic B. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

Question B1: Where are pedestrian/bicyclist fatalities and serious injuries happening and what are the behavioral factors, surrounding features, and characteristics of where these fatalities and serious injuries occur?

Question B2: What combination of existing or emerging data sources can be used to create scalable, corridor-level models for pedestrian and bicyclist exposure? What can be done to better determine pedestrian/bicyclist safety risk rate?

Background: In 2017, 5,977 pedestrians4 died in motor vehicle traffic crashes, representing about 16 percent of motor-vehicle crash fatalities, even though pedestrians accounted for only about 11 percent of all trips in 2017. Pedalcyclists represented about 2 percent (783 fatalities) of all motor-vehicle crash fatalities, even though cycling comprised about 1 percent of trips in 2017.

Over the last decade (from 2008 to 2017), the percentage of pedestrian fatalities has increased from 12 to 16 percent, and the percentage of pedalcyclist fatalities has increased from 1.9 to 2.1 percent. The Department does not have a complete understanding of why the shares of pedestrian and pedalcyclist fatalities have been increasing and are disproportionate with the percentage of trips. Further, DOT lacks robust data about pedestrian and pedalcyclist volumes and exposure to risk, so new data sources present an opportunity to gain new insights.

• Roadway information, features, and infrastructure design (e.g., bike lanes and recreational paths)

• Bicycle/pedestrian fatality and injury

• Crowd-sourced

• Location

• Reason for walking/biking (e.g., exercise, commute, etc.)

• Bike-share, bike-movement, commuting

• Sensor

• Volume/exposure

• Hospital, EMS, and 911

4 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812507

Topic C. Intersections

Question C1: To what extent can additional intersection data elements inform safety risk and improve infrastructure design?

Question C2: What additional data sources can be linked with intersection data to inform safety counter measures and what safety insights can be gathered?

Question C3: What methodologies and sources can be used to estimate and identify existing intersection locations at a large scale (i.e., state, regional, local, or national-level)?

Background: An estimated 40 percent of motor vehicle crashes occur at intersections, and 26 percent of traffic fatalities were intersection-related in 20175. Several factors have the potential to contribute to crashes at intersections, including: infrastructure design; driver characteristics and behaviors; pre-crash events; and weather6. Types of intersection crashes include running red lights, failing to stop/yield, driving the wrong way, and congestion-related crashes. A variety of disparate data sources, including new data sources such as video, could be integrated to gain insights into intersection crashes at a network level. Some countermeasures currently employed include leading pedestrian intervals, roundabouts, and the Restricted Crossing U-Turn (i.e., J- Turn)7. Understanding the factors contributing to intersections crashes could confirm which of the existing countermeasures are most effective in different situations, or potentially produce new countermeasures that could be used to improve safety at intersections.

• Video and traffic cameras

• Insurance industry (e.g. driver characteristics, behavior)

• Intersection infrastructure (e.g. roadway attributes)

• Telecommunications (distraction on cell phone)

• Traffic monitoring stations, sensors

• (High-resolution) Satellite imagery

• Radar

• Motor vehicle operations

5 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811366; FARS 2017 ARF.

6 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811366 7 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811366 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/811366 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/

Topic D. Non-fatal Injury Crashes

Question D1: What additional insights and risk factors can be gathered from linked data sources in non-fatal injury crashes?

Question D2: To what extent can non-fatal injury crashes inform the likelihood of fatal injury crashes in the same location?

Background: In 2017, there were an estimated 6.45 million police-reported motor vehicle crashes, resulting in 37,133 fatalities and 2.75 million injuries8. Of the crash total, less than 1 percent were fatal crashes, while close to 30 percent (1.89 million) were non-fatal injury crashes9. While NHTSA has detailed information about fatalities resulting from motor vehicle crashes, NHTSA estimates non-fatal injuries based on a sampling of police-reported crashes at 60 sites across the U.S. There are opportunities to develop a better understanding of non-fatal injuries at the Federal level, including how the circumstances and contributing factors of these crashes differ from fatal crashes, and what insights we can gain from advanced analytics and large injury data sets.

• Human behavior sources

• Near miss and close-calls

• Crashes

• Motor vehicle information from electronic systems, and build sheets

• Roadway infrastructure

• Hospital, EMS, and 911 (e.g., source or cause of injury)

• Insurance industry

• Criminal justice or law enforcement information on prosecuted or charged offenses in non-fatal crashes

1.6 PROGRAM SCOPE

The program scope is limited to Phase 1 of the “Conducting Innovative, Applied Research to Gain New Roadway Safety Insights and Tools” Announcement. Phase 1 is focused on the development of plans and a proposal to conduct Phase 2 activities.

The overall program is intended to bridge knowledge and data gaps that will help the DOT and the transportation safety industry to address the research questions stated in Section 1.5 of this BAA. Solicitations are required to use and apply new data sources or existing data sources that are not currently available to the DOT in an innovative and meaningful way to answer the selected question(s).

8 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812696 9 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812696

SECTION 2 – SCOPE OF WORK

2.1 GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK INFORMATION

Safety is the DOT’s top priority, and the Department initiated the SDI with the aim of improving transporting safety outcomes using data. This BAA seeks technical and analytical assistance on projects that support the work of the SDI through the discovery and application of new data sets to better understand pressing safety questions.

2.2 DELINEATION OF WORK

Awards will be made in two phases. In the first phase, Awardees shall develop a project proposal, in conjunction with OST. In the second phase, which will be separately awarded, up to three awardees will be selected to carry out the plans they proposed in Phase 1.

Phase 1: Project Plan and Concept Development The proposed idea will be developed into a structured project plan and the concept’s feasibility will be rigorously assessed. These two deliverables will be the basis for consideration for Phase 2 award. Deliverables expected for Phase 1 are detailed in Section 3.4.

Phase 2: Project Execution If selected, Phase 2 will consist of executing the project plan developed from Phase 1. OST anticipates awarding follow-on contracts or cooperative agreements to up to three (3) of the most promising, most developed projects and concepts from Phase 1.

SECTION 3 – GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION

3.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

All business and administrative correspondence or questions on this BAA should be directed to the Contract Specialist identified in Section 1.1.

OST may elect to award all, none, or a subset of the acceptable proposals meeting its needs, and anticipates making up to six (6) awards valued up to $50,000 each with a period of performance of up to three (3) months. The number of awards and their dollar value will vary depending on the merit of proposals received as well as their potential to achieve the research objectives of the BAA. For Phase 2, OST anticipates awarding up to three (3) follow-on firm fixed-price contracts or cooperative agreements, as appropriate, valued up to $400,000 with a period of performance of up to 12 months. An internal peer review team at OST will select the most promising and feasible projects based on Phase 1 deliverables. OST reserves the right to award more or less than the stated limits.

Price reasonableness and realism will be considered in the selection process. Individual proposal evaluations will generally be based on the acceptability or non-acceptability of the proposal without regard to other proposals submitted under the announcement, with the exception that the BAA intends to provide awards to address a diversity of the research questions posed. Selection will be based on scientific or technical merit, partnership, potential to inform safety practitioners, awardee diversity, and the availability of funds.

NOTE: For Phase 2, OST may award cost-sharing contracts or assistance agreements as a result of this BAA. In consultation with the technical evaluators, the Contracting Officer will make the determination whether a contract or assistance agreement will be awarded. Three factors affect the decision to award a procurement contract or assistance award, and if an assistance award, a grant or cooperative agreement. The three factors are legislative authority, principal purpose, and degree of federal involvement.

The authority to enter into assistance agreements for this effort is found under 49 U.S.C. § 330(e). Assistance agreements differ from contracts in several key ways:

• The primary goal of a procurement contract is to procure goods or services for the use of or to directly benefit the federal awarding agency; the primary goal of an assistance agreement is to further a public purpose.

• Procurement contracts allow for the vendor/supplier to make a profit, while assistance agreements are cost-reimbursable agreements in that the only permissible charges are actual costs that are directly related to the project and an amount of indirect costs based on an agreed-upon rate.

• Procurement contracts require “deliverables” that the Contracting Officer’s Representative must test and accept; assistance agreements do not require deliverables, but may require deliverables and/or other submissions described in the award document.

Although the Government encourages cost sharing as part of cooperative agreements, cost sharing is not a requirement for this BAA. In-kind contributions from partner entities that support the proposal are encouraged.

3.2 OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION

It is the policy of OST to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. Only Government evaluators will make selections under this BAA, and access to BAA application materials will be strictly limited to Government evaluators. Those submitting proposals are still strongly encouraged to mark all materials that contain such information as Confidential Business Information or Personal Identification Information.

This BAA constitutes the public announcement as contemplated by FAR 5.203(e) and is in accordance with the competitive procedures outlined in FAR 6.102(d)(2)(i); no formal Request for Proposals or other solicitation regarding this announcement will be issued. Requests for the same will be disregarded.

3.3 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for Phase 1 is expected to be up to three (3) months. The period of performance for Phase 2 is expected to be nine (9) to twelve (12) months.

3.4 DELIVERABLES

There are three (3) major deliverables: A. Project Management; B. Analytic Design Plan; and C.

Feasibility Assessment.

A. Project Management OST expects a three (3) month period of performance for Phase 1. In addition to a kick-off meeting, OST expects a project management plan for the three (3) month period and weekly progress reports.

Deliverable(s) Timeframe Kick-off meeting – After contract award, the Contractor and its key personnel shall participate in a teleconference to kick-off Phase 1 efforts with the OST representatives, including the Independent Evaluator, to ensure that all parties have a common understanding of Phase 1 requirements and expectations.

Within 5 business days after execution of contract or cooperative agreement

Project Management Plan – The Contractor shall submit to OST, at a minimum, a Project Management Plan with the following elements:

a) Description of Tasks and Sub-Tasks by which the Phase 1 project work activities will be organized, executed, and monitored;

b) A Project Schedule (Gantt Chart or equivalent) displaying begin and end times for each Task and Sub-Task, plus achievement of Project Milestones; and

c) A Staffing Table, which identifies a single Project Manager, plus project staff and/or consultants that will lead and support each Task (or Sub-Task if appropriate).

The Project Management Plan must be approved by OST.

Within 15 business days after execution of contract or cooperative agreement

Weekly Progress Reports – Verbal progress reports and/or one-page written reports to document activities performed, anticipated activities, and any changes to schedule or anticipated issues.

Weekly ongoing

B. Analytic Design Plan The Analytic Design Plan is a final Phase 1 deliverable. This plan will be evaluated for a potential Phase 2 award and will be developed in consultation with OST. The plan should provide a structured, logical path and approach to a final Phase 2 deliverable. A Data Management Plan should also be included as a part of the Analytic Design Plan to describe what and how data will be shared after Phase 2 is complete (if selected for Phase 2 award).

OST is flexible as to what constitutes a final Phase 2 deliverable, whether it’s a methodological approach or framework, web-based tool, research paper, code, or a technical guide. However, the final deliverable must be approved by OST, address the selected research question(s), be consistent with the goals of the BAA and tangible (i.e., OST must receive something).

Deliverable(s) Timeframe Analytic Design Plan – The Contractor shall consult with and submit to OST for approval (and consideration for Phase 2 award) an Analytic Design Plan, which shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:

a) Research question selected and other accompanying research questions;

b) Description of the final deliverable and how it is intended to address the research question;

c) Identification of all tasks and subtasks necessary to reach final Phase 2 deliverable and a detailed timeline for tasks and subtasks;

d) Description of the current level of information used by practitioners to make decisions, and the knowledge gaps that exist;

e) Identification of data source(s) to be used and an outline of steps required to prepare the data for analysis, including collection, cleaning, processing, management, and integration;

f) Analytic approach (including the methods to be employed), the unit of analysis, and verification and validation steps required to affirm and/or replicate the results;

g) Potential insights that will gathered from analysis;

h) Identification of partners and skillsets that need to be involved during the analytic process;

i) Transfer of analytic results to a final Phase 2 deliverable and description of how and why the deliverable advances transportation safety decision making for OST and state and local governments;

j) Activities to support testing, refinement, and implementation of data;

k) A Data Management Plan that describes how the documentation and final report end-products will be recorded and transferred to OST;

and

l) An executive summary.

The Analytic Design Plan and the Data Management Plan must be approved by OST.

Due at end of

POP

(approximately 3 months from award date)

C. Feasibility Assessment

The feasibility assessment is a final Phase 1 deliverable. The purpose of this deliverable is to understand the proposed data source’s potential and limitations in answering the research question. Based on the feasibility assessment, OST should be confident in the data’s ability to perform the analysis expected in Phase 2 and understand the data structure. Contractors are expected to be transparent with the limitations and methodology of the data. OST will favorably view applications that permit high levels of data access unless there is a compelling reason to not do so (e.g., protected health information). The Contractor shall clearly define what can be shared with the public, OST, and/or cannot be shared as part of the feasibility assessment.

Deliverable(s) Timeframe Feasibility Assessment – The Contractor shall consult with and submit to OST for approval (and consideration for Phase 2 award) a feasibility assessment, which shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:

a) Description of the data source(s) including (but not limited to) aggregated descriptive statistics, data fields, limitations, and methodology of modeling and collection involved);

b) Strengths and weaknesses of data;

c) Challenges to scaling or replicating data sets in other localities and areas and how they may be addressed;

d) Privacy concerns or concerns for public use or data sharing, including what can be shared with the public, and what can be shared with

OST;

e) Applicability and limitations of the data to answer selected research question(s);

f) Data operation and maintenance costs (for scaling and replication purposes);

g) Access limitations, if any, including licensing requirements.

The feasibility assessment must be approved by OST.

Due at end of

POP

(approximately 3 months from award date)

3.5 DEGREE OF FEDRAL INVOLVEMENT

OST anticipates Federal involvement with contractors during both project phases. Anticipated Federal involvement for Phase 1 will include technical assistance and guidance to the awardee(s). Based on the award type, the level of Federal technical assistance will vary.

3.6 PROPOSAL INFORMATION

This BAA is an expression of interest only and the Government will not pay any direct proposal preparation costs. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs and meet the eligibility requirements may submit proposals, which will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria outlined in Section 6 below.

The number of awards, and their dollar value, will vary depending on the technical merit of proposals received and their potential to resolve the stated goal. OST anticipates making up to six (6) awards valued up to $50,000 under this solicitation, and up to three (3) follow-on awards for Phase 2, valued up to $400,000.

Phase 1 contract awards and Phase 2 contracts or cooperative agreements will both contain appropriate Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Agency clauses for the type of vehicle awarded. Any resulting Phase 2 cooperative agreements will contain appropriate 2 CFR 200 and agency clauses.

3.7 SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

Awards under this program may be subject to the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, depending on the type of final products or reports to be delivered under each award. The Act requires that all electronic products prepared for the Federal Government be accessible to persons with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing, cognitive, and mobility impairments. Offerors can view Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act10 and the Federal IT Accessibility Initiative home page11 for detailed information.

3.8 DATA REQUIREMENTS

Data and products that are created as part of the award shall be organized and provided to OST in accordance with the award contract. Data and analysis retention by OST shall be in accordance with the award contract. Data sharing and technology transfer plans will be considered during evaluation of proposals. OST plans to use the data for research purposes only and expects proposals to share data with OST for quality assurance purposes.

3.9 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

As noted in Section 1.4 of this Announcement, OST seeks to understand how new and existing data sources can be used to answer the most pressing and persistent transportation safety problems. OST is interested in research and approaches that use existing or new data sources, and/or data sources presently unavailable to DOT, to gain novel, usable, and actionable insights into potential solutions for select transportation safety topics.

10 https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-thesection-508-standards 11 https://section508.gov/ https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/communications-and-it/about-thesection-508-standards https://section508.gov/

In order to accomplish the above goal, OST requires all offerors to agree to provide OST full and complete access to all data sources necessary for the review, evaluation, modification, if necessary, and distribution of tools or products proposed or developed under either a Phase 1 or a Phase 2 contract. To be clear, this includes the requirement for a contract awardee to provide to OST access to any privately-held or commercially available data sources necessary for the full and complete operation of any tools or products proposed or developed under a Phase 1 or Phase 2 contract. For data which is not controlled by a contract awardee, the access requirement can be accomplished by obtaining a license or subscription to such data source(s) for OST.

While OST does not seek ownership of any intellectual property discovered or developed under any contract awarded as a part of this effort, OST will require all contract awardees to provide OST a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, fully paid-up, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable license granting OST the right to use, reproduce, distribute, modify, create derivative works, publicly (and digitally) perform and/or display, make or have made, and import any such discovered or developed intellectual property for Government purposes, including the right to provide such intellectual property with State DOTs for their use in evaluating and potentially resolving transportation safety issues.

All of the requirements of this section must pass through from awardee to all sub-contractors or sub-recipients.

SECTION 4 – INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

4.1 PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Offerors shall submit technical proposals, which shall provide a project narrative, technical approach, a management plan, staffing qualifications, and information regarding other ongoing research and work. In addition, offerors shall submit a cost/price proposal that provides detailed budget information for Phase 1 and other general business information. If necessary, OST may request additional cost back-up information, resumes or supplemental information as appropriate.

Any failure to conform to the instructions and rules in this section or in the instructions accompanying the invitation to submit a proposal may result in the proposal being deemed unresponsive and eliminated from further consideration. If an Offeror does not understand the instructions as described herein, then they must submit their questions(s) to the Contract Specialist listed in Section 1 for clarification; the deadline for all questions will be specified in the invitations to submit proposals, and is December 18, 2019 at 11:59pm ET.

All proposals should be submitted in Microsoft® Word (compatible) or text searchable Adobe® Acrobat Format (PDF). Pricing data shall be submitted in Microsoft® Excel or Microsoft Word (compatible). Internet links to tool examples are encouraged, if applicable. Proposals shall have Times New Roman or Arial 12-point font; footnotes, visuals, legends, or labels can be smaller in font size.

SECTION 5 –PROPOSAL FORMAT

5.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT

Phase 1 proposals shall have the following structure:

X. Cover Page and Table of Contents (two [2] pages)

A. Technical Proposal (up to twelve [12] pages):

a. Part I – Project Narrative

b. Part II – Technical Approach

B. Management Plan and Expertise:

a. Part III – Management Plan and Key Personnel

b. Part IV – Resumes and Letters of Support

C. Cost Proposal

a. Part V – Cost Proposal

D. Other Financial/Organizational Information

a. Part VI – Other Financial/Organizational Information

5.2 PHASE 1 PROPOSAL FORMAT DETAILS

NOTE: the twelve (12) page limit only applies to “A. Technical Proposal” section. Other pages do not have a page limit

X. Cover Page and Table of Contents The cover page shall include the following table:

Proposal title (Offeror’s proposal title) Solicitation number (BAA No. XXXX) Analytic agenda question(s) selected (from Section 1.5)

(e.g., A1, C3, etc.) – more than one can be selected

Primary Offeror and Applying to Receive Federal Funding

Primary Offeror Headquarters Address, City, State, Zip

Primary Offeror Description (Brief description of the offeror organization and eligible entity—no more than a paragraph)

Principal Contact Name - Principal Contact E-mail - Principal Contact Phone number - Additional Partner Organizations - Geographic Scope of Data (state, local, regional, national, other-specify) Geographic Location of the Data (e.g., “Washington, D.C.”, “State of

Maryland”, “Continental US”, etc.)

# of Proposals Submitted by Offeror (if more than 1)

(e.g., 1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc.)

The table of contents shall include page numbers for the proposal requirements:

A. Technical Proposal (up to twelve [12] pages):

a. Part I – Project Narrative

b. Part II – Technical Approach

B. Management Plan and Expertise:

a. Part III – Management Plan and Key Personnel

b. Part IV – Resumes and Letters of Support

a. Part V – Cost Proposal

D. Other Financial/Organizational Information

a. Part VI – Other Financial/Organizational Information

A. Technical Proposal Part I – Project Narrative The Project Narrative is an opportunity to show how and why the proposed effort will answer the selected research question and meet the objectives of the BAA. The narrative should describe the offeror’s proposed approach to answer the research question. Offerors should incorporate the value-add of the data, and should discuss its intended Phase 2 end-product or deliverable.

Guiding considerations for the project narrative are provided below:

a) Introduction that provides a clear, concise description of the project; also includes the geographic scope of the data and location; and the research question selected.

b) Description of the current state of practice.

c) Capacity and ability of the Primary Offeror to perform analysis and bridge knowledge gap(s).

d) Vision of how the data will address the knowledge gap(s) and other data sources that will be integrated (if any).

e) Description of and current access rights to the data that the offeror intends to use to help answer the safety problem.

f) Description of the potential insights that could be derived from the data, and the broader applicability for policy and decision making in other locations.

g) Any partners that will be participating in the proposed activity and how the partnership enhances the proposal.

Part II – Technical Approach The Technical Approach should provide more details on the data source and the technical aspects of the proposal. Guiding considerations are provided below:

a) General outline of the approach to preparing the data for analysis, including collection, cleaning, processing, management, and integration, if applicable.

b) General outline of the methodological approach to be employed, and the type(s) of analysis to be performed.

c) Summary or description of the data that will used:

i. Description and overview of the data and why it is new data (as defined by BAA)

ii. How the data will be used to answer the research question, provide new insights, and be a value-add

iii. Possible insights gathered

iv. Geographic scope of applicability (e.g., national, state, local-level, etc.) – if non-national level, include the name of the state, city(s), or metropolitan region(s)

v. Data sources that can be integrated with the new data

vi. Limitations of the data

vii. What data will be shared with the Federal government

d) Summary or description about opportunities to scale or replicate data:

i. Benefits and challenges to scaling

ii. Mechanics and overview of how the data would be scaled, replicated, and/or shared (e.g., licensing, start-up investments, etc.) along with operating and maintenance cost estimates

e) General outline of how data and/or technology would be accessed, transitioned, and/or transferred.

f) Any other pertinent information to enhance the Department’s understanding of the data set and proposal.

B. Management Plan, Experience, Letters of Support Part III – Management Plan Plan describing the overall approach to the management of the effort including:

a) Discussion of the offeror organization and the use of personnel and other resources.

b) Partnership structure between the offeror entity proposing work and other public and/or private sector entities funding or otherwise substantially participating in the work (if applicable)

Part IV – Resumes and Support Letters (no page limit)

a) Relevant experiences(s) including any similar projects and a description of outcomes and deliverables produced.

b) Resumes that highlight staff expertise and experience.

c) If the offeror has state or local government partners they wish to submit as part of their proposal, they may add letters of support in an appendix. These letters will not count toward the page limit.

Part V – Cost Proposal The Phase 1 budget shall include costs by each major cost category such as direct labor, fringe benefits, subcontracts, travel, and other direct costs. Direct labor information shall provide detail regarding each proposed individual and/or labor category, the number of hours or percent of time proposed, and the hourly rate or salary for each person or category. For other direct costs (travel, materials and supplies, etc.), provide detail and explanation for how each element of cost was derived and estimated. For any subcontracts, provide a separate detailed budget for the subcontract work, and provide a price analysis of the work.

A separate detailed cost/price breakdown shall also be provided by task, using the same task as described in the scope of work in the technical proposal. If necessary, the Government may request additional cost back-up information, resumes or supplemental information as appropriate.

The cost/price proposal shall also include the following mandatory business information regarding your firm: Business Size; Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN); DUNS & Bradstreet Number; Name and contact information (mail address, telephone, and email address) of your authorized business representative/point of contact.

The cost detail shall include:

a) Direct Labor—

i. Personnel by name or labor category;

ii. Number of hours proposed (commercial organizations) or percent of effort (organizations subject to OMB Circulars)

iii. Hourly unburdened labor rate (commercial organizations) or salary rate and basis (9- or 12-month basis) (organizations subject to OMB Circulars)

iv. Fringe Benefits Rates applied;

v. Profit/Fee percentage and amount.

b) Other Direct Costs. Other direct costs shall be supported by explanation of estimating factors and other relevant supporting details. For example, travel costs shall be supported by detail on the estimated trips, number of travelers, and associated costs for airfare, per diem, other transportation, etc. A similar level of detail shall be provided for any meeting costs, equipment, duplication/printing charges, and other direct costs.

c) Indirect Costs. Discuss your proposed rates. Identify the various specific indirect rates and what they are based on (e.g., labor overhead based on direct labor dollars) and how they are applied/calculated. State any differing rate applications (for example if there is a different proposed rate when applied to travel or material purchases than when applied to subcontractor costs). Offerors must provide dollar values as well as percentages.

d) Subcontractor costs should be fully detailed, and the information used by the proposer to analyze the price of the subcontract shall be provided. An SF1411 is not required for this submission of your proposal.

e) The cost proposal must also include a separate breakdown of costs by major task area.

Use the same tasks as described in your Technical proposal.

D. Other Financial / Organizational Information:

Part VI – Other Financial/Organizational Information Provide the following information:

(1) Standard Form LLL - Submit a completed Standard Form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, included as Attachment No. 1.

(2) A copy of a completed representations and certifications in the System for Award Management.

(3) Conflicts of Interest - The Offerors shall provide a brief statement in its proposal that describes in a concise manner all past, present or planned organizational, contractual or other interest(s), which may affect the Offerors' ability to perform the proposed contract in an impartial and objective manner. The Contracting Officer will review the statement and may require additional relevant information from the Offerors. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.5, all such information, and any other relevant information known to DOT, will be used to determine whether an award to the Offerors may create an actual or potential conflict of interest. If any such conflict of interest is found to exist, the Contracting Officer may (a) disqualify the Offerors, or (b) determine that it is otherwise in the best interest of the United States to contract with the Offerors and include appropriate provisions to mitigate or avoid such conflict in the contract awarded.

Subcontractors All subcontracted work must be properly identified as such. The offeror must ensure that the subcontractor adheres to the guidance set forth herein. FAR 15.404-3 requires that the offeror provide an analysis of subcontractors’ cost/price proposals. To that end, each offeror’s proposal must:

(1) Identify principal items/services to be subcontracted;

(2) Identify prospective subcontractors and the basis on which they were selected. If noncompetitive, provide the sole source justification;

(3) Identify the type of contractual arrangement contemplated for the subcontract and provide a rationale for selecting the contractual arrangement;

(4) Identify the basis for the subcontract costs

(5) Provide an analysis of the proposed subcontract cost/price in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b). Provide an analysis concerning the reasonableness, realism and completeness of each subcontractor’s proposal. If the analysis is based on comparison with prior prices, identify the basis on which the prior prices were determined to be reasonable. The analysis should include, but not be limited to, an analysis of: materials, labor, travel, other direct costs and proposed profit or fee rates.

SECTION 6 – EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PROPOSALS

6.1 PHASE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Below are the criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals. The primary basis for selecting proposals for Phase 1 award will be technical merit, with the potential for use and replication an important criterion in the evaluation of the technical merit. Other considerations include coverage of research questions (i.e., if multiple awards are selected, OST anticipates covering more than one of the topic areas), partnerships, and cost.

Technical Proposal Evaluation Criteria I. Project Narrative - Extent to which narrative clearly describes the proposed project and required elements of the project narrative from Section 5.2.A.

- Extent to which potential insights are obtainable, novel, and actionable.

- Extent to which narrative is aligned with the goals of the BAA

II. Technical Approach - Extent to which the described technical approach is logical and sensible.

- Extent to which the proposed approach answers the selected research questions(s).

- Extent to which proposed approach is methodologically sound and feasible technically and within the allotted timeframe.

- Extent to which the data or project could be scaled or replicated.

- Extent to which the limitations and challenges of the data are described.

- Extent to which the required elements of the Technical Approach are stated and described from Section 5.2.A.

Management Plan III. Management Plan - Extent to which personnel and resources are used effectively.

- Extent to which partnerships enhance the proposal.

IV. Resumes and support - Extent to which resumes illustrate experience and skill to carry out proposal.

Cost Proposal V. Cost Proposal - Extent to which the proposal is cost effective.

- Extent to which the required elements of Cost Proposal are stated and described.

Other Financial/Org VI. Other Financial/ Organizational Information

- Extent to which the required elements of Other Financial and Organizational Information are stated and described.

As noted above, proposed pricing will be considered in the overall evaluation. OST will evaluate prices for reasonableness and realism.