CISS QC RFP 693JJ919RQ000098.pdf

693JJ920R000032

SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD

4. TYPE OF SOLICITATION2. CONTRACT NUMBER 3. SOLICITATION NUMBER

7. ISSUED BY CODE 8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If other than Item 7)

ORDER UNDER DPAS (15 CFR 700)

6. REQUISITION/PURCHASE NUMBER

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

NEGOTIATED (RFP)

SEALED BID (IFB)

5. DATE ISSUED

1. THIS CONTRACT IS A RATED RATING PAGE OF PAGES

1 86

C. E-MAIL ADDRESS

EXT.NUMBERAREA CODE

B. TELEPHONE (NO COLLECT CALLS)A. NAME

10. FOR

INFORMATION

CALL:

CAUTION: LATE Submissions, Modifications, and Withdrawals: See Section L, Provision No. 52.214-7 or 52.215-1. All offers are subject to all terms and conditions contained in this solicitation.

(Date)(Hour) local timeuntildepository located in copies for furnishing the supplies or services in the Schedule will be received at the place specified in Item 8, or if hand carried, in the

SOLICITATION

9. Sealed offers in original and

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

OTHER STATEMENTS OF OFFERORS

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

INSTRS., CONDS., AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS

REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

CONTRACT CLAUSES

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACH.

I

J

K

L

M SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

PACKAGING AND MARKING

DESCRIPTION/SPECS./WORK STATEMENT

SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSESPART I - THE SCHEDULE

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

SEC. DESCRIPTION PAGE(S) (X) DESCRIPTION SEC. (X)

11. TABLE OF CONTENTS

18. OFFER DATE17. SIGNATURE

SUCH ADDRESS IN SCHEDULE.

IS DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE - ENTER

15C. CHECK IF REMITTANCE ADDRESS

EXT.NUMBERAREA CODE

15B. TELEPHONE NUMBER

(Type or print)AND

ADDRESS

OF

OFFEROR

CODE FACILITY

16. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN OFFER15A. NAME

DATEAMENDMENT NO.DATEAMENDMENT NO.

and related documents numbered and dated):

amendments to the SOLICITATION for offerors

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of

14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF AMENDMENTS

CALENDAR DAYS (%)30 CALENDAR DAYS (%)20 CALENDAR DAYS (%)10 CALENDAR DAYS (%)

(See Section I, Clause No. 52.232.8)

13. DISCOUNT FOR PROMPT PAYMENT

designated point(s), within the time specified in the schedule.

by the offeror) from the date for receipt of offers specified above, to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item, delivered at the

NOTE: Item 12 does not apply if the solicitation includes the provisions at 52.214-16, Minimum Bid Acceptance Period.

OFFER (Must be fully completed by offeror)

IMPORTANT - Award will be made on this Form, or on Standard Form 26, or by other authorized official written notice.

28. AWARD DATE

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

27. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

25. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY

26. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

CODE 24. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 7)

ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

23. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN

41 U.S.C. 253 (c) ( 10 U.S.C. 2304 (c) (

22. AUTHORITY FOR USING OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:

21. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION20. AMOUNT19. ACCEPTED AS TO ITEMS NUMBERED

AWARD (To be completed by government)

CODE

03/11/2021693JJ919RQ000098

X

693JJ9

National Highway Traffic Safety Adm Office of Acquisition Management 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington DC 20590

1300 ES 04/13/2021

TAYE TEBO 202

taye.tebo.ctr@dot.gov

366-0498

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PAGE(S)

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

Previous edition is unusable

STANDARD FORM 33 (Rev. 9-97)

Prescribed by GSA - FAR (48 CFR) 53.214(c)

1-2 3-4

5-22 23-24 26-29 30-34 35-46

47-51

53-66

67-76

77-86

12. In compliance with the above, the undersigned agrees, if this offer is accepted within _____0_________ calendar days (60 calendar days unless a different period is inserted

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 86

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

693JJ920R000032

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

00001

00002

00003

00004

00005

TITLE: Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS)

Quality Control Center Operations

This Request for Proposal (RFP) is issued to acquire services to enhance and execute a cohesive program of quality control and evaluation, training resource development and maintenance and quality control support at thirty-two (32) CISS sites for the United States

Department of Transportation (U.S.DOT), National

Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)

The government invites Offerors to submit a proposal for the Crash Investigation Sampling

System (CISS) Quality Control Center Operations requirement.

SOLICITATION #693JJ920R000032

CISS QC Center Operation (Base Year)

CISS QC Center Operation (Option Year 1)

(Option Line Item)

FOB: Destination

CISS QC Center Operation (Option Year 2)

(Option Line Item)

FOB: Destination

CISS QC Center Operation (Option Year 3)

(Option Line Item)

FOB: Destination

CISS QC Center Operation (Option Year 4)

(Option Line Item)

FOB: Destination

OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

NSN 7540-01-152-8067

Request for Proposal: 693JJ920R000032 Title: CISS Quality Control Center

PART I – THE SCHEDULE

SECTION B – SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 SUPPLIES/SERVICES

The Contractor shall furnish the necessary qualified personnel, facilities, materials, supplies, equipment, and services to execute a Cost Plus Fixed-Fee or Cost (No-Fee) Contract in accordance with the Statement of Work, Section C, and other terms and conditions of this contract.

B.1.1 CONTRACT TYPE

The Government anticipates award of one severable Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) or Cost (no fee) contract as a result of this solicitation.

B.1.2 TERM

The term will be a base period of twelve (12) months from the effective date of award including four (4) twelve (12) month option periods and a 6-month option of the Government’s right to extend services for a total performance period of sixty-six (66) months, if exercised.

B.2 Estimated Total Cost

The Estimated Total Cost Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceiling amount for this Contract is as follows:

Estimated Cost: $________________________ Fixed Fee: $________________________

Total Cost Plus Fixed Fee: $________________________

Of this amount, $TBD at award is currently available and is estimated to defray the costs of performance from the effective date of award through TBD or the end of performance of the Contract.

The Contracting Officer may increase the current amount of Federal funds at any time, subject to available appropriations, without concurrence from the Contractor. The Contractor shall not incur costs to be charged to NHTSA, nor shall NHTSA be obligated to reimburse the Contractor more than the Federal funds available under this Contract.

B.3 PRICE SCHEDULE

B.3.1 PRICE/COST SCHEDULE

Period of Performance Direct Costs

Indirect Rate X%

Fixed Fee X%

Total Costs

Base Period Contract Year 1

TBD

Period of Performance Direct Costs

Indirect Rate X%

Fixed Fee X%

Total Costs

Option Period 1 Contract Year 2

TBD

Option Period 2 Contract Year 3

TBD

Option Period 3 Contract Year 4

TBD

Option Period 4 Contract Year 5

TBD

Option Period 5 Contract Year 6 (6-months)

TBD

Total Estimated Costs $ $ $ $

Note: The Contracting Officer (CO) is the only individual who can legally commit or obligate the Government to the expenditure of public funds. No cost chargeable to the proposed Contract can be incurred before receipt of a fully-executed Contract or specific written authorization from the Contracting Officer.

(End of Section B)

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 BACKGROUND

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for reducing the personal injury and property losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA relies on data to measure the characteristics and needs of the highway safety environment. Data is essential to reducing the human and economic cost of motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA has several different information collections that collect real-world crash data that support research, problem identification, developing effective countermeasures, identifying NHTSA program and rulemaking needs, developing and evaluating traffic safety programs, evaluating new technologies, and supporting NHTSA highway safety grants.

In the late 1970s, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) devised a multidisciplinary approach to meet NHTSA’s data needs that used a combination of census, sample-based and State reported data to provide nationally representative traffic crash data on a timely basis. NHTSA created two types of data collection efforts: records-based systems and crash investigation-based systems. The records-based systems involved coding crash data from crash records and included the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES). The Crash investigation-based systems involved on-site crash investigation combined with coding crash data and analysis of additional information, such as medical or vehicle crashworthiness.

Over time, NHTSA’s data collection has evolved. In 2015, NHTSA created two new data systems to replace the NASS-GES. These are the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS) and Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS), respectively. Under these data systems, NHTSA uses primary samples units (PSU) to collect certain information from police crash reports (PCRs) and other motor vehicle crash information. The CISS operates two main programs: CISS PSU Operations and CISS Quality Control Center (QCC). PSU Operations manages the everyday operations of the PSU’s while the QCC manages the technical aspects of the work produced by those PSUs.

This solicitation applies only to the CISS-based Quality Control Center (QCC).1 This procurement will provide for the quality control of CISS cases and the training development and technical guidance of personnel at the thirty-two (32) CISS PSUs listed in Table 1. Cases are the work product from PSU Crash Technicians that contain the data elements, images and records collected during investigations. It is not the role of the QCC to code the cases, but QCC personnel will have the ability during review to override the coded data and provide feedback to the PSUs. This contract does not include the day-to-day administration or management of the PSU’s

The contract consists of nine (9) primary tasks which are outlined in Section C.4 – Requirements of the solicitation. Tasks one-to-six (1 – 6) are the foundation of contract and will be exercised throughout the contract. Tasks seven-to-eight (7 – 8) may or may not be exercised depending upon the needs of the Agency. Task nine (9) relates to transition requirements after the contract is completed. Proposals should reflect these tasks overall and by individual task with the understanding that Tasks seven-to-eight (7 – 8) may or may not be exercised.

1 NHTSA has a separate procurement to establish the PSUs for CISS.

Note: the same Contractor (or subcontractor) cannot be awarded both the PSU Operations Center and Quality Control Center contracts.

Table 1 outlines the location and staffing levels of the PSUs for informational purposes. The QCC contractor will not have to staff these locations.

Table 1 CISS Locations

(Locations and Staff Requirements)

PSU

Site

Number PSU Location

*Engineering Technician IV

(Team Leader/Crash Technician)

*Engineering Technician III

(Crash Technician)

*Engineering Technician I

(Research Assistant)

1 Comal County, Texas 1 -- .5

2 Henry and Rock Island Counties, Illinois

1 1 1

3 Carter County, Oklahoma 1 -- .5

4 Monterey County, California 1 1 1

5 Berkshire County, Massachusetts 1 -- .5

6 Atlantic County, New Jersey 1 1 1

7 Gallatin, Hardin, and White Counties, Illinois 1 -- .5

Latah and Nez Perce Counties, Idaho & Asotin and Whitman Counties, Washington

1 1 1

9 Butte County, California 1 1 1

10 Etowah County, Alabama 1 1 1

11 Chippewa and Eau Claire Counties, Wisconsin 1 -- .5

12 Hamilton County, Ohio 1 1 1

PSU

Site

Number PSU Location

*Engineering Technician IV

(Team Leader/Crash Technician)

*Engineering Technician III

(Crash Technician)

*Engineering Technician I

(Research Assistant)

Cameron, Potter, and Tioga Counties, Pennsylvania 1 -- .5

14 Maricopa County, Arizona 1 1 1

15 Dallas County, Texas 1 1 1

16 Cumberland County, Maine 1 1 1

17 San Bernardino County, California 1 1 1

18 Bristol County, Massachusetts Newport County, Rhode Island 1 1 1

19 Delaware and Morrow Counties, Ohio 1 1 1

20 Nassau County, New York 1 1 1

21 Montgomery and Preble Counties, Ohio 1 1 1

22 Tarrant County, Texas 1 1 1

23 Sacramento County, California 1 1 1

24 Chesterfield County, Virginia Hopewell City, Virginia 1 1 1

25 Carbon and Yellowstone Counties, Montana 1 1 1

26 Delaware and Greene Counties, New York 1 -- .5

27 Dade and Lawrence Counties, Missouri 1 -- .5

28 Vermillion and Vigo Counties, Indiana 1 1 1

29 Box Elder County, Utah 1 -- .5

30 Franklin County, Alabama 1 -- .5

31 Piscataquis and Somerset Counties, Maine 1 1 1

Albemarle and Greene Counties, Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 1 1 1

Total Staff 32 22 27

All CISS Staff is full-time unless otherwise noted.

*Labor categories are wage determinations under the Service Contract Act by direction of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale AU Analytical User CAP Contractor Acquired Property CDAN Crash Data Acquisition Network CDR Crash Data Retrieval CID Crash Investigation Division CISS Crash Investigation Sampling System CISSWeb Crash Investigation Sampling System Web Case Listing CO Contracting Officer COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CRSS Crash Report Sampling System DMV Department of Motor Vehicles DOT Department of Transportation EDR Event Data Recorder EMS Emergency Medical Service FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System GCS Glascow Coma Scale GES General Estimates System GFE Government Furnished Equipment IDIQ Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity LSV Low Speed Vehicle MY Model Year NASS National Automotive Sampling System NASS-GES National Automotive Sampling System - General Estimates System NASS-CDS National Automotive Sampling System - Crashworthiness Data System NCSA National Center for Statistics and Analysis NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTS Not-in-Traffic-Surveillance PAR Police Accident Report PARSE Police Accident Report Sampling Engine PSU Primary Sampling Unit SCI Special Crash Investigations SMEs Subject Matter Experts SS Special Studies

C.2 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this Contract is to provide timely, efficient and effective support for the Quality Control Center (QCC) for NHTSA’s Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS).

The activities include the establishment and operation of the QCC, the training development and technical guidance of personnel at the thirty-two (32) CISS PSUs - which includes timely and thorough reporting using CISS Data Systems - and the participation in and oversight of special studies and training programs (if exercised).

C.3 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Contract is to acquire services to enhance and execute a cohesive program of on-going quality control and evaluation, training resource development and maintenance and quality control support:

1. To ensure timeliness, accuracy, consistency, and completeness in coding and data entry among all coding staff;

2. To ensure proficiency in the use of information crash data retrieval tools; and

3. To maintain and continue the standardization across all data collection PSUs.

C.4 REQUIREMENTS

This section describes the performance that is required under this contract. There are nine (9) performance areas that are discussed in further detail:

1. Quality Control Center;

2. Case Review and Quality Control;

3. Site Visits;

4. Reporting;

5. Workshops and Meetings;

6. PSU Guidance, Forms, Manuals and System Improvements;

7. Special Studies;

8. Training; and

9. Transition

C.4.1 Quality Control Center

C.4.1.1 Establish Quality Control Center Facilities Within four (4) weeks of Contract award, the Contractor shall establish a CISS Quality Control Center (QCC) facility.

The CISS QCC office space shall be sufficient to accommodate all staff members as well as provide space for processing and storing of associated documentation. The office space shall include a climate-controlled area for computers and other environmentally sensitive hardware, which may be used in the future. A dedicated computer line shall be established for computer communications, if not already present. The Contractor is responsible for installation or maintenance of existing communication lines to connect to the wide area network used for the Crash Data Acquisition Network (CDAN). The Contractor is responsible for the supply of high-speed internet and (backup) mobile connectivity.

The Contractor shall acquire (purchase, rent, lease, or receive as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) and maintain the facilities, equipment, and supplies needed to accomplish this work. Within six (6) months of Contract award, the Contractor shall prepare a Form HS 324 and HS 145 listing all property valued over $500 acquired for use under this contract and submit that form to NHTSA. The Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) shall be consulted before major equipment is acquired to ensure its suitability and best source for supplies. Prior to making any major equipment acquisitions (over $500), the Contractor shall request and receive approval from the Contracting Officer (CO) and the COR.

C.4.1.2 Establish Quality Control Center Staff Within four (4) weeks of Contract award, the Contractor shall have staff in place for the CISS QCC Facility.

The Contractor shall appoint a CISS QCC Manager. The QCC Manager, who is key personnel (see Section G.5), shall have experience in the management of in-depth crash studies or something equivalent and/or have an educational background in the fields of engineering, behavioral or physical science or business (systems) management.

The Contractor shall also obtain technical personnel to serve as team coordinators. These individuals should have experience in crash reconstruction or technically equivalent experience. The team coordinators should have experience in analyzing aspects of both crash avoidance and crashworthiness elements of in-depth crash investigation, clinical evaluation and crash reconstruction or something equivalent. They collectively should demonstrate a cross section of expertise or aptitude in mechanics, damage analysis, Event Data Recorder (EDR) retrieval and interpretation, mechanisms of injury, injury coding, vehicle dynamics and occupant kinematics. Additionally, they should collectively demonstrate comprehensive experience or aptitude in vehicle structures, human anatomy, the mechanics of physics as applied to determining delta V results, the application of the latest computer algorithms for delta V determination as well as the theory behind calculations. Experience or aptitude will be measured by past work in similar projects and educational backgrounds of proposed contracting staff.

All managers and coordinators should have the ability to conduct case reviews and be thoroughly familiar with coding conventions, case review processes, field procedures, PSU operations, technician performance measures, computer applications and the case management and communications processes used within CISS. The manager and technical staff shall have demonstrated the capability to technically manage geographically dispersed operations and to effectively administer complex crash data collection systems.

All Contractor personnel shall be subject to a Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Government Public Trust background investigation consistent with DOT Order 1630.2C, Personnel Security Management, and obtain and maintain a government Personal Identity Verification (PIV) card. Any individual who fails to pass the DOT background checks will be unable to perform under this Contract. These will be performed at no cost to the

Contractor. All contractor personnel shall also receive a local Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) driver record check since local transportation is an essential function of this contract.

All Contractor staff shall comply with Federal and DOT cybersecurity policy and training requirements. This includes completing Annual Security Awareness Training, completing the Rules of Behavior (ROB), adhering to the rules for use of government furnished equipment to enter data, and the proper securing of all personal identifiable information

(PII).2

C.4.1.3 Cooperate with Local Officials The Contractor shall assist the PSU Operations contractor in maintaining cooperation with the communities where the PSUs are based. The Contractor, on an on-going basis, shall assist the PSU Operations Center with the determination of which area police agencies report traffic crashes; the tow yards, police impounds or private towing services and garages that are authorized to receive vehicles; the hospitals and clinics that treat emergency cases;

and any boards or associations that may be helpful in fostering community support. The information shall be maintained in cooperation with PSU Operations with copies available to NHTSA on the CDAN Shared Space. The Contractor shall consider, document, and report State and local requirements pertaining to highway safety or privacy issues when applicable. The Contractor should recognize when periodic modifications to sampling protocol might impact the program and require substitutions in the specific agencies that are included in data collection activities.

C.4.1.4 Team Coordinators For each CISS PSU, the Contractor shall assign a staff member as a "team coordinator."

The total number of coordinators shall not exceed six (6) unless the COR approves.

Coordinators are key personnel (see Section G.5). The team coordinators shall work collaboratively with the CISS PSU and serve as the point of contact for CISS PSU interaction, and shall hold primary responsibility for reviewing cases, monitoring current activity and trends in performance. The CISS team coordinator shall conduct most routine site visits to the CISS PSU as outlined in Section C.4.3.1 – Site Visits and shall review a portion of submitted electronic cases.

C.4.2 Case Review and Quality Control

C.4.2.1 Overview of CISS Case Review and Data Coding Activities The success of quality data coding, case review and team performance are strongly dependent upon the proper interpretation of data and establishing a formal case review and performance analysis process. The Contractor’s staff shall be thoroughly familiar with CISS sampling protocols, case data review processes and coding conventions, levels of case review, reinvestigation procedures, submission schedules and familiarity with data quality

2 PII is information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as their name, Social Security number, biometric records, etc., alone, or when combined with other personal or identifying information which is linked or linkable to a specific individual, such as date and place of birth, mother’s maiden name, etc.

edit check systems. Case review activities and responsibilities include but are not limited to the following nine (9) concentrations:

C.4.2.2 Sampling Review PSU Crash Technicians are assigned one-to-two (1 - 2) cases per week to investigate that become part of the overall CISS case file. These cases are randomly selected from a sample of police crash reports that are listed weekly at each PSU from area police jurisdictions.

These reports are categorized per several factors ranging from the model year of the vehicle to the severity of injuries to occupants. The categorization schema and an explanation of CISS sampling are outlined in Attachments J.10 and J.11. The Contractor shall review the cases selected each week at the PSUs and begin tracking the structuring of cases within CDAN – that is ensuring the cases have been structured in CDAN and the that the reports were categorized correctly. This categorization review is completed within the electronic Police Accident Report Sampling Engine (PARSE) program that is part of the CDAN. The standard for sampling accuracy is 95% or greater. The Contractor shall retain all sampling-related materials – including non-sample counts for each calendar year –for one year after publication or until authorized for destruction by the COR.

C.4.2.3 Data Review The Contractor shall perform data review of each case selected by the CISS PSUs. Cases are the work product from PSU Crash Technicians that contain the data elements, images and records collected during investigations. As case data is acquired by the PSU Operations contractor, the data coded into CDAN shall be monitored for completeness.

The QCC will begin the formal case review process within four weeks of PSU completion.

Cases receive three different types of quality reviews (all-variable, targeted and cursory) and further information on the difference is covered in section C.4.2.5.

Prior to the data review, the Contractor shall review each case to ensure they are structured correctly, to determine if the appropriate forms and tabs within CDAN have been completed, and to verify that the correct documentation and electronic files are present.

The documentation and electronic files include scaled scene diagrams; completed vehicle inspections, interviews, and secondary coding; crash reconstruction(s); scanned and categorized images; and coded medical records. Medical records are obtained by the PSU and coded by the Injury Coding Center (ICC) and can sometimes lag and arrive after cases have been submitted to the QCC. In these instances, the QCC will receive case updates from the PSU and shall coordinate with the Injury Coding Center to ensure the medical records areas of the cases are completed before they are approved for submission to the data file.

C.4.2.4 Data Coding Review The Contractor shall ensure that the technical aspects of each case are accurate. The contractor shall work with the PSU’s by providing notices of shortcomings in each case and by either making the corrections while providing feedback to the PSU’s or returning the cases to the PSU’s for correction and resubmission. The approach will vary by Coordinator (C.4.1.4 Team Coordinators) and PSU with the Contractor to determining the best approach. The Contractor may consider approaches that achieve greater efficiencies and improvement of case quality.

The Contractor shall complete the review and coded data variable editing process within four (4) weeks from the date the case was released by the PSU to the QCC. Upon completion of the review, the Contractor shall provide feedback to the CISS PSU of any case review notes or coded data variable changes within the case in CDAN, recorded in the CDAN system, and where appropriate, prepare the cases for approval to submit to the data file. The Contractor may be required to reexamine a case following a NHTSA review.

C.4.2.5 Quality Control Case Review The Contractor shall perform quality control of cases through an all-variable, targeted, or cursory review. An all-variable review is a comprehensive review of all data variables and supporting documentation (images, field sketches, crash reconstruction, event data recorders). The Contractor should provide detailed feedback of each all-variable review to the PSU that documents the data coding and all other aspects of the case - should also be comprehensive. The Contractor shall perform all-variable reviews in three instances. First, the Contractor shall perform an all-variable review on the first twenty (20) cases for each novice crash technician after they have completed Basic Training. Second, all-variable reviews are to be conducted on cases submitted by each crash technician placed on probation by the PSU Operations contractor. The Contractor will be advised of what cases need all-variable reviews in this instance. Last, the Contractor shall perform an all-variable review for all other crash technicians of a random sample [equivalent to twenty-five (25) percent] of their cases. The Contractor shall receive this random sample of cases each week through CDAN. The Contractor shall provide feedback for each all-variable review to the PSU crash technician responsible for the case. This feedback can be prepared directly within the cases on CDAN.

Note that it is the responsibility of the Contractor to assess and monitor the quality ratings of the PSU crash technicians and communicate any quality shortcomings derived through case reviews with the PSU Operations contractor. It is not the Contractor’s responsibility to put crash technicians on probation or impose any disciplinary measures. The Contractor will be advised of those on probation, so the initiation of all-variable reviews can commence.

For the remaining seventy-five (75) percent of cases, the Contractor shall perform a combination of targeted and cursory reviews. This seventy-five (75) percent block of cases begin as cursory reviews but a percentage of these may be elevated to targeted reviews if there are notable shortcomings realized during the cursory review process. A cursory review consists of a brief examination of the required components of the case such as scene measurements and diagrams, vehicle measurement files, event data recorder files, and required documents and images are present. If shortcomings are noticed, the cursory review should be expanded to include a brief examination of the vehicle Collision Deformation Classification (CDC), crash reconstruction, data from event data recorders, vehicle crush profiles and scene diagram quality in comparison with photographic images, interior contact points, required file inclusion, completeness check, level one (1) edit review and a determination of the quality and sanitization of all images. If it is then determined that the quality of the case is substandard, the case would be elevated to a targeted review which is on the level of an all-variable review.

The Contractor shall have staff that are assigned to complete the quality control case review and shall meet NHTSA’s training requirements. This consists of a mixture of five

(5) non-consecutive weeks of training both virtual and at the NHTSA Crash Investigation Training Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. These training weeks are intermixed with module learning and assignments prescribed by NHTSA.

A case reviewer shall not review more than fifty (50) percent of the cases from the same

CISS PSU.

The Contractor shall also assist NHTSA in the automated quality assurance process by recommending any additional edit checks and reviewing proposed edit checks present already. NHTSA’s automated quality assurance process consists of data coding, validation, range, consistency, and presence edit checks that are run on each case to root out discrepancies and conform to data constraints.

C.4.2.6 PSU Quality Control Performance Assessment The Contractor shall perform quality control performance assessments of each PSU by reviewing their cases in CDAN. The application used to list cases within CDAN is CISSWeb. All case-related electronic files are stored within the cases on CISSWeb. These include all coded data fields used by Crash Technicians to code the exterior, interior, safety systems and occupant data during their investigations. They also include images, EDR reports, scene diagrams, police crash reports, sketches, and scanned documents. CISSWeb has internal quality control rating logs for all coded variables within cases for the QCC to assign performance ratings (standard / substandard / substandard beyond researcher control / not applicable). The Quality Control Performance Assessment is this activity of reviewing all these contents within CISSWeb, applying performance ratings (information of which is contained in NHTSA’s data quality log manual), ensuring all data is present and accurate, and providing feedback to the PSUs on any shortcomings.

To adequately evaluate PSU performance, it is vital that key Contractor staff working on case reviews be kept informed of the general trends seen during these activities on an individual PSU and system-wide basis. When consistent errors in PSU performance are noted, the team coordinators shall be notified so that errors in those specific data items can be monitored. Likewise, when error trends become apparent during case reviews, the team coordinators shall be informed so that they can concentrate on enhancing specific PSU skills during future interaction.

The QCC Manager shall develop a quality control integration plan (QCIP) twelve (12) weeks after contract award and submit it to the COR. The QCIP will consist of the plan the Contractor intends to use to meet the quality requirements of the case review process and ensure that cases will be reviewed in a timely and accurate manner. The QCIP will also address how the Contractor plans to track the cases throughout their lifecycle from the day the case was sampled through its completion at the QCC, and how crash technician and PSU deficiencies will be addressed. Any substantive changes to this plan by the Contractor throughout the contract shall be submitted in writing and approved by the COR before implementation.

C.4.2.7 Monitor Trainee Performance Each Crash Technician receives training that consists of a mixture five (5) non-consecutive weeks both virtual and at the NHTSA Crash Investigation Academy described in C.4.8.1

– Basic Training. The Contractor shall be responsible for reviewing the competency and performance of the novice crash technicians during the six-month training probationary period that follows Basic Training. The Contractor will conduct a site visit within one (1) month after their final week of basic training. It will sometimes be necessary to conduct multiple site visits to mentor crash technicians during their training. These will be assigned by the COR on an as-needed basis. The Contractor shall monitor the performance of trainees and shall observe and evaluate their basic competencies. These competencies consist of the ability to conduct vehicle inspections and associated skills that should be imbued in crash technicians who have received this training in the past. They are also based on conducting a post-training evaluation using the CISS PSU Post-Training Evaluation tool (Attachment J.9).

The Contractor shall assess the trainee’s performance, report these observations in a format that will be provided by NHTSA, and recommend retraining strategies based on their observations, if necessary.

The Contractor shall provide the COR, NHTSA Training Coordinator (C.4.8.1 – Basic Training) and CISS PSU Operations contractor with its recommendations for improvement, if necessary, and the basis for it.

C.4.2.8 Quality Control of Field Data The Contractor shall make an unannounced visit to each CISS PSU once per year, as approved by the COR. During each visit, the Contractor shall independently locate and verify that the reported scene inspections were completed, and that vehicle inspections and interviews of crash victims from cases generated by the PSU for the past four-to-eight (4-

8) weeks are accurate and consistent with the recorded data in cases. A site visit report shall be submitted in conformance with C.4.4.4. This sub-task is not required if the COR directs the Contractor to suspend site visits for a period of time.

C.4.2.9 Personally Identifiable Information Requirements The Contractor shall redact personally identifiable information (PII) from all cases that were not removed at the PSU. This activity includes, but is not limited to, the review of photographic and scanned digital images for personal identifiers and assure documents with personally identifiable information is filed in appropriate folders within the case to avoid accidental release. Contractor shall also assure any graphic images are marked as such so as not to be released to the public.

C.4.2.10 Special Crash Investigations NHTSA Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program is responsible for conducting detailed investigations on specific types of crashes to support agency missions. The Contractor shall conduct or assist in four (4) to six (6) on-site special crash investigations per year, as directed by the COR. The Contractor shall collaborate with the SCI contractor that is responsible for the crash investigation. The Contractor shall collect data on the scene, vehicle and occupants adhering to CISS and SCI data collection protocols. The COR will facilitate between SCI and the Contractor when these investigations are assigned.

C.4.3 Site Visits

C.4.3.1 Site Visits

In addition to the site visit required under C.4.2.7, the Contractor shall conduct a site visit to each PSU to assess the overall operation of the PSU and diagnose and correct any problems in CISS PSU performance and to improve data gathering, interpretation, and reconstruction skills.

Except for certain circumstances described below, the Contractor shall conduct a site visit to each PSU on a quarterly basis. The Contractor shall coordinate with the COR to schedule site visits.

Prior to the site visit, for each site, the Contractor shall review past site visit reports, quality control reviews and, with input from the target PSU the site visit, prepare an agenda outlining the objectives of the site visit. During a site visit, the Contractor shall conduct quality control activities, specific special study review or cover directives issued by the COR.

The Contractor shall accompany crash technicians in all phases of their work to offer guidance, answer questions and to evaluate the technical performance capabilities of the PSU, data collection procedures and train the PSU staff to interpret different crash scenarios.

For a newly established CISS PSU, or when all the crash technicians at a PSU are novices, the Contractor shall conduct two (2) visits during the first six (6) months of PSU operations.

For this contract, a novice crash technician is defined as having less than one (1) year experience at a CISS PSU.

If the Contractor discovers performance issues, the Contractor, with the approval of the COR, shall plan an additional visit(s) to provide specialized training to the PSU to address the issue(s). If the performance issues appear to be common among several sites, the Contractor shall recommend specific topics for refresher training or changes in operating protocol to the

COR.

The COR reserves the right to alter site visit schedules in consultation with the Contractor or waive this requirement outright. The Contractor shall prepare and submit a site visit report (consistent with C.4.4.4 – Site Visit Reports) to the COR, PSU Operations Manager and the PSU no later than one (1) week after the completed site visit. Site visit protocol may be modified at the direction of NHTSA.

C.4.4 Reporting Procedures

C.4.4.1 Monthly Progress Reports The Contractor shall submit a monthly progress report to the COR that describes performance, timeliness and data quality for each PSU and each of its crash technicians. Data quality and completion rates for vehicle inspections, occupant interviews, medical records, timeliness of submitted cases and data quality constitute the components for performance standards. Minimum performance standards for crash technicians and performance goals for each CISS PSU shall be established annually in consultation with the PSU Operations Manager and COR based on unique characteristics and, if available, historical data collection experience at the CISS PSU site. This report should consist of metrics related to the completion status of cases by each PSU, acquisition rates of vehicles and interviews in comparison of goals, sampling accuracy, and timeliness of submitted cases. The Contractor only needs to compile and report this information and does not need to institute a corrective, disciplinary or action plan to address any shortcomings. The Contractor shall use the reports already automatically generated within CDAN as a starting point to avoid replication.

The Contractor shall report the number of hours worked along with the associated cost of staff members to meet the goals of the contract. The hours worked shall be itemized in the report for each month with a cumulative total for each staff member.

This report can be combined with the Monthly Business Progress Report outlined in F.5.1.

C.4.4.2 Mid-Year Performance Reports The Contractor shall submit a mid-year statistical report to the COR that summarizes the performance of the QCC. The report shall cover key QCC successes and shortcomings, the status of submissions, modifications, procedures, personnel status and any other items requested by the COR. The Contractor shall support case statistics with enough narrative and graphics that allow the reader to assess the QCC performance. The Contractor shall use the reports already automatically generated within CDAN as a starting point to avoid replication.

The Contractor shall also include the status of case reviews completed at the QCC and any problems noted during case reviews that has an impact on QCC operations.

C.4.4.3 Annual Performance Reports The Contractor shall submit a report that summarizes the performance of the QCC for the year.

The report shall provide detailed evaluations of QCC operations overall. This includes a discussion of any positive and negative actions, improved performance metrics as well as an overall synopsis of QCC activities for the year.

The Contractor shall submit the annual report to the COR per the schedules established each year by NHTSA. These reports may be based on a calendar year or data collection year determined by the COR.

C.4.4.4 Site Vis it Reports The Contractor shall prepare and submit a site visit report to the COR, PSU Operations and the CISS PSU no later than one (1) week after each site visit as required under C.4.3.1 – Site Visits and C.4.2.8 – Quality Control of Field Performance. This requirement applies to routine site visits and audits conducted under the reinvestigation program. The report shall contain the agenda followed during the visit, problems noted, instructions provided to the PSU and the Contractor’s assessments and recommendations. The report shall be thorough and objective providing commentary on both strengths and weaknesses with specific recommendations. The Contractor shall include detailed plans to resolve any quality issues with special attention to milestones and schedules in the report. The

Contractor shall recommend corrective actions where appropriate and implement these actions in consultation with the COR. If serious performance problems – defined as issues with potential falsification or gross shortcomings in quality of work – are identified at a PSU, the Contractor shall document these problems in a separate letter to the COR.

C.4.5 Workshops and Meetings

C.4.5.1 Project “Kick-Off” Meeting Within four (4) weeks after award, the Contractor shall meet with the COR, Contracting Officer, and other interested NHTSA personnel in person or virtually through a web-based video conferencing platform. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the:

• administration of the contract;

• project’s objectives;

• planned course of action;

• milestones and deliverables, project schedule and time allocations for each task;

• responsibilities of subcontractors (if any) and individual staff members;

• anticipated resource allocations among the tasks;

• draft research, analysis, and risk plans;

• initial options for conducting industry outreach, etc.; and

• other matters the Contractor or Government identifies.

The Contractor shall anticipate two (2) business days for this meeting. The Contractor shall have technical personnel present who can discuss the technical details of its management plan, program objectives, and quality control procedures to NHTSA personnel.

C.4.5.2 NHTSA Works hop The Contractor shall attend an annual training workshop. The Contractor shall have its entire staff attend the workshop and assist in the training of crash technicians during the fieldwork (actual hands-on training in the field) aspects of the training and conduct presentations on topics agreed upon in advance of the workshop when requested by NHTSA. The training will focus on new or changing data elements and requirements to enhance the data set, changes in field procedures, new and/or modified investigation techniques, case review topics, quality control enhancements or improvements and any areas that have been deemed problematic.

The Contractor shall submit topics for an agenda to the COR four (4) months prior to the workshop.

The Contractor may be required to assist in the scheduling of travel to and from the designated location and hotel accommodations and/or presenting training material at various sessions at the request of the COR. This workshop has historically been conducted in person but may circumstances may require a virtual workshop.

C.4.5.3 Technical Meetings NHTSA sometimes conducts specialized training (i.e., event data recorder training), and the Contractor shall plan to have up to six (6) representatives travel to Washington D.C. or another location specified by the COR. Details of the meeting times and agendas shall be received by the Contractor at least four (4) weeks prior to the meeting. These meetings are historically in person but may be conducted virtually through a virtual meeting platform.

C.4.6 PSU Guidance, Forms, Manuals, and System Improvement

C.4.6.1 PSU Guidance The Contractor shall collaborate with the PSU Operations contractor to provide guidance to PSUs on their activities. The Contractor shall assist the PSU Operations Contractor to establish internal office procedures for case control, in-house quality review and effective communications. The Contractor shall coordinate with NHTSA and PSU Operations other affiliated parties to maintain the proper equipment for both field investigations and case data reduction and submission of cases. The Contractor shall maintain a thorough understanding of CISS data elements in compliance of established CISS protocols. The Contractor shall regularly provide guidance to CISS PSUs in listing of police reports, obtaining medical records, documenting scene evidence, inspecting vehicles, obtaining interviews, interpreting kinematics, conducting special studies, completing case reports, and entering data via CISSWeb.

NOTE: Any recommended changes in CISS PSU procedures or clarifications of data items shall be brought to the attention NHTSA. Upon NHTSA’s approval, changes to data elements, policies or procedures will then be distributed by NHTSA. Any changes in sampling procedures or data element definitions shall be approved by NHTSA.

C.4.6.2 Revision of Forms and Manuals The Contractor may be asked by NHTSA to assist in the modification of specified sections of the Field Crash Investigation Coding and Editing Manual, Field Crash Investigation Digital Photography Guideline, Field Crash Investigation Vehicle Measurement Techniques, or other technical documents. In conjunction with updating the specific data elements for specified sections of the Field Crash Investigation Coding and Editing manual, the Contractor shall review and revise current edit checks and propose and develop new edit checks used in CISSWeb.

Changes to data elements, coding instructions and CISSWeb are implemented by NHTSA at the beginning of each data collection year. In general, there are two types of annual changes – minor and major. Minor changes are corrections, updates and improvements to the current data set and are implemented at the beginning of each new data collection calendar year. Major changes are modifications, deletions, or additions to the data set that would require: (1) a significant redesign of variable structures; (2) a significant rewrite of definitions, data gathering procedures and professional methodologies; and (3) a significant redesign and programming of CISSWeb. Major changes are typically implemented every three (3) to five (5) years if needed.

In years when minor changes are being proposed, two (2) Contractor representatives shall participate in up to two (2) meetings to discuss potential changes in data elements and form design, review data collection protocols, and assist in electronic data collection development. These meetings will take place in either in person at a location to be determined or virtually. A schedule will be provided by the COR.

In years when major changes are being proposed, up to five (5) Contractor representatives shall participate in up to four (4) meetings either in person at a location to be determined or virtually to discuss potential changes to data elements and form design, review data collection procedures and professional methodologies, to review new and revised edit checks, and assist in electronic data collection development. A schedule will be provided by the COR.

C.4.6.3 System Improvements The Contractor shall review field operations periodically and document methods for improvements in CISS protocols. The Contractor, if finding innovations, shall recommend improved methods for photographic techniques, scene and component vehicle measurements, discovery and documentation of physical evidence and more timely operations (e.g., sampling notification efficiencies and tracking of vehicles and drivers). All improvements and innovations should be documented in the Contractor’s Monthly (C.4.4.1), Mid-Year (C.4.4.2) and Annual (C.4.4.3) reports. The Contractor shall participate in an annual review and revision of all field procedures manuals and recommend changes to the COR to reflect current practices, if any.

C.4.7 Special Studies

C.4.7.1 Special Study Development The Contractor should anticipate that NHTSA will conduct special studies during the period of performance.