FHWA Pavement Assessment BAA 8-06-12.docx

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT

No. DTFH61-12-R-00055

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

General Information

Contracting Officer: Robin K. Hobbs, FHWA, (202) 366-4004, Primary, Robin.Hobbs@dot.gov

SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT DATES

The FHWA anticipates that the proposal, evaluation and award process for this BAA will proceed generally in accordance with the following schedule:

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION: Electronic transmissions of the proposal shall be sent to the pavement.assessment@dot.gov and the Contracting Officer (CO) at Robin.Hobbs@dot.gov no later than 3:00 p.m., EDT, on September 27, 2012. Proposals received after this date and time will not be considered. All questions pertaining to BAA DTFH61-12-R-00055 will be accepted through September 13, 2012 in order to prepare and provide responses in a timely manner. Responses to questions submitted will be provided as amendments to the BAA posted on FedBizOps.

INTRODUCTION:

The FHWA anticipates sponsoring research addressing the following three topics through the issuance of this BAA including the following:

Topic 1. Smart Pavement Monitoring System: Further advancing the current technologies for health monitoring of pavement structures in the long-term, creating a smarter system that can readily be placed or tossed into the paving materials onsite during construction or at the materials plant with minimal interruption to the pavement operation and periodically upload the data wirelessly and using it to enhance pavement management systems.

Topic 2. Analysis procedures for evaluating superheavy load movement on flexible pavements: Development of a comprehensive analysis process for evaluating superheavy load movement on flexible pavements focused on the evaluation of pavement structural adequacy against likelihood of instantaneous or rapid load-induced shear failure and, after structural adequacy is established, methods to determine the amount of damage caused by the movement of superheavy load and the resultant loss of economic value of the pavement for cost allocation estimation.

Topic 3. Flooded Pavement Assessment: Develop analytical procedures and guidance on the optimum time to reopen flooded pavements to vehicles with various weights and axle loads. Develop assessment procedures for the long term effects of flooding on pavement performance.

Award Type The FHWA may award either contracts or cooperative agreements as a result of this BAA. In consultation with the technical evaluators, the Contracting Officer will make the determination whether a contract or cooperative 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

· Degree of federal involvement

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 CO/COR must test and accept; assistance agreements do not include deliverables, but may require other submissions described in the award document.

Although the Government encourages cost sharing for both cooperative agreements and contracts, all applications submitted for cooperative agreement consideration shall include a 20 percent or greater non-federal cost share.

PROGRAM SCOPE: This announcement is intended to address specific technology and knowledge gaps that will help the FHWA to reduce the long term costs and improve the efficiency of the nation’s highways.

OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is soliciting proposals under its pavement research program for projects that could lead to advances in highway engineering and intermodal surface transportation in the United States. This program shall support scientific investigations and studies to advance the current knowledge and state-of-the-art in the sciences and technologies employed in the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and management of the nation’s highways. Strategically, this research will enable and expedite the development of approaches, methodologies, and breakthroughs required to drive innovation and greatly improve the efficiency of highway transportation.

Topic 1. Smart Pavement Monitoring System Presently, two approaches are typically taken to monitor the condition of pavements: manual distress surveys and automated condition surveys using specially equipped vehicles (e.g., imaging technology for distress surveys and transverse profiling for the wheel path rutting). However, these monitoring approaches remain reactive rather than proactive in terms of detecting damage, since they merely record the distress that has already appeared. Other testing approaches are also used (e.g., deflection testing). However, most of these methods either require significant personnel time or the use of costly equipment. Thus they can only be used cost-effectively on a periodic and/or localized basis. Normally, pavement instrumentation for condition monitoring is done on a localized and short-term basis.

The need for advanced sensors and monitoring systems to address the issues in the area of long-term performance pavement monitoring is well known. Several studies and actions have assessed the sensors and monitoring needs and some that have begun to address them have been conducted or are under way. Although these activities have advanced the state of practice in pavement structure health monitoring, gaps still remain, such as, easy installation of the system for health monitoring; optimization of the field’s data collection/storage and integration of the collected data with the databases of the agencies in order to best utilize the data available to help agencies build pavement inventories and plan for maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation, etc.

Description of Objectives: The overall objective of this research study is to further advance the current technologies for health monitoring of pavement structures in the long-term, creating a smarter system that can readily be placed or tossed into the paving materials onsite during construction or at the materials plant with minimal interruption to the pavement operation (e.g., measurement or positioning, continuously monitor pavement by storing key data that relates to the onset of distress through self-powered sensor networks and periodically upload the data wirelessly either manually through an operator or mounted on a moving vehicle).

The proposed study shall be conducted in two phases:

Phase 1: The Contractor shall develop prototype sensors with the features and functionalities listed above. Phase I includes laboratory demonstration of feasibility and the trial application of suitable technologies on at least one paving project.

The effort of Phase I of the study is to determine the scientific, technical and commercial merit of the proposed advanced sensor system and its quality of performance. Phase I work and results must provide a sound basis for the continued development, demonstration and delivery of the proposed innovation in Phase II and follow-on efforts. Successful completion of Phase I objectives are prerequisite to consideration for Phase II award.

Phase II: After completion of Phase I, FHWA may exercise the option to enter Phase II to conduct more widespread field trials and enhance the sensor system based on the results of Phase I trial findings. Phase II will include working with one or more State DOTs to install the sensors within their pavements and working with the State agency to integrate the data collected from the sensors into their decision making process. Phase II will result in guidelines for highway agencies that describe the capabilities of the sensor system, how the sensors are installed, what data they collect, how the data is retrieved and used to enhance pavement management systems.

NOTE: Integrating components of most current advanced sensors with the proposed sensors may be considered by the offeror.

Funds Available: FHWA anticipates providing up to $356,000 for the award. FHWA may make one or no awards on this topic based on the quality and distinctness of proposals and implementation plan.

FHWA anticipates periods of performance may range from a total of two to three years (including option periods) depending on approach, team composition, and institutional arrangements.

Topic 2. Analysis Procedures for Evaluating Superheavy Load Movement on Flexible Pavements Conventional pavement analysis methods are primarily intended for repeated loading and the resulting accumulated fatigue damage and permanent deformation based primarily on strain responses. However, permit requests for onetime movement of superheavy load first require the determination of whether the pavement is structurally adequate to sustain the superheavy load and involves the analysis of the likelihood of instantaneous or rapid load-induced shear failure. Once the risk of instantaneous shear failure has been ruled out, further analysis may be required to determine the amount of damage caused by the movement of superheavy load and the resultant loss of economic value of the pavement for cost allocation estimation. Superheavy load permit requests to State Highway Agencies (SHA) involve movement of large prefabricated items such as oil pressure or chemical reactor vessels, electrical transformers, and equipment such as off-shore pipe-laying equipment and may involve Gross Vehicle Weights (GVW) in excess of a few million pounds.

The state-of-the-practice approaches can be broadly divided into three categories:

1. Use of conventional analysis methods of accumulated fatigue and permanent deformation based on strain responses under repeated loading to determine the number of superheavy loads to failure in order to determine if the move is acceptable or if an alternative route should be considered.

2. Pavement management data or site visits are used to judge the structural adequacy of the pavement and condition surveys and video logging are used before, during and after the move to identify pavement damage due to superheavy load move and as a rationale for recouping repair cost where applicable.

3. A few SHAs, such as Texas DOT, Caltrans and Louisiana DOTD have developed analysis procedures based on linear or non-linear layered elastic analysis with 3-D Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion for determining the onset of yielding of pavement layers under specific superheavy load and axle/wheel configuration and used this to evaluate the likelihood of instantaneous shear failure. Once such likelihood is ruled out, optionally conventional analysis methods of accumulated fatigue and permanent deformation based on strain responses under repeated loading were used to determine the number of superheavy loads to failure and equivalency factor of superheavy loads to standard axle loads for cost attribution estimation.

The first category analysis fails to evaluate the risk of instantaneous or rapid load-induced shear failure and, if it occurs, the cost consequence could be very significant in terms of pavement repair and rehabilitation costs. The second category suffers from the same limitations and without detail evaluation to determine the structural adequacy of the pavement, leaves to chance the risk of instantaneous or rapid load-induced shear failure. Not only does this fail to meet the intent of the permitting process which is to prevent pavement damage, it also puts the SHA in a difficult position of apportioning repair / rehabilitation cost to the permit requester without having evaluated it as part of the permitting process.

The third category attempts to address both the likelihood of instantaneous shear failure and cost attribution estimation based on incremental damage. However, there are challenges such as a lack of material inputs for the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion. These are not often measured for pavement layers as they are not part of standard pavement design process and obtaining them within the processing time often associated with permit requests have made the use of this approach limited. In fact, Texas DOT led the development of this process but recent communication with them suggests that it is not being used for the reasons indicated. Also, the appropriateness of the Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion for asphalt layer has also been questioned.

In addition to the impact on the likelihood of failure and damage to pavement layers, an additional area of risk is to any buried underground utilities. Often, superheavy load vehicles are configured with the number and configuration of axles and wheels intended to distribute and minimize the stress induced on pavement and bridge structures. However, they may not have similar effect in reducing stresses within subgrade. The stresses within subgrade may be impacted more severely than within pavement structural layer and this may have consequence to the safety of any buried underground utilities.

Description of Objectives: The objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive analysis process for evaluating superheavy load movement on flexible pavements. The analysis process shall be theoretically sound, but it shall also consider practical limitations SHAs have in obtaining the required inputs in a timely and cost effective manner. To the extent possible, without compromising the validity of the analysis, the process shall consider inputs that are consistent with those used for pavement design or those that can be obtained from common non-destructive testing methods.

The analysis process shall include the following aspects:

· Evaluation of the likelihood of instantaneous or rapid load-induced shear failure.

· Consideration of the specific load, axle and wheel configuration and pavement geometry, including the presence or absence of bound shoulders.

· Estimation of the cost allocation based on incremental damage and resultant loss in economic value of pavement.

· Evaluation of risks to any buried underground utilities.

Funds Available: FHWA anticipates providing up to $300,000 per award. FHWA may make one or no awards on this topic based on the quality and distinctness of proposals and implementation plan.

FHWA anticipate periods of performance may range from two to three years depending on approach, team composition, and institutional arraignments.

Topic 3. Flooded Pavement Assessment On November 28th, 2011, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced $215 million in assistance to states around the country, where a variety of natural disasters had taken a toll on the infrastructure. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said “Communities suffering from disasters have been hard at work restoring vital transportation links so that people can resume daily activities as soon as possible.”

Highway research is needed to achieve the following objectives:

· Identify when emergency or other vehicles can safely be allowed on roads of different types, and on different soils, that have been or are flooded to various degrees (i.e. depths and durations).

· Determine the best times to allow heavy repair equipment on the roads (e.g. in terms of the tradeoff between the user costs of road closure (and detours) versus costs of increased road damage).

· Determine the effects of floods on long term pavement performance.

· Develop guidelines for use by highway agencies on how to assess flooded pavements for both short term and long term impacts.

There has been at least one previous damage evaluation of flooded pavements. The notable paper titled “Pavement Structures Damage Caused by Hurricane Katrina Flooding” was published in the ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-environmental Engineering, in May 2008, pages 633 to 643. Louisiana DOT hired a contractor to test 238 miles of roads, on the federal aid system, with and without flooding. About 39 percent were asphalt concrete pavements of which 77 percent had flooded, 21 percent were Portland Cement Concrete pavements of which 91 percent had flooded, and 40 percent were composite pavements of which 79 percent had flooded. Deflections were measured every tenth of a mile and ground penetrating radar gave thickness. Based on procedures in the 1993 AASHTO Guide, for effective structural number, they found considerable damage to the surface layers and subgrades of asphalt concrete pavements. More damage was found in thinner asphalt concrete pavements and those at lower elevations. For some reason despite higher center deflections, and lower subgrade moduli, the flooded composite pavements had higher effective structural numbers than non-flooded composite pavements.

Another recent example of flood recovery work was posted on the Iowa DOT website, www.iowadot.gov/floods/index.html weekly from September 6 to November 14, 2011. These progress reports gave site specific information for Missouri River Flood Recovery efforts. On July 27, 2011, the U.S. DOT announced that $2 million in quick release emergency money would be available to Iowa DOT. On September 2, 2011, the U.S. DOT gave notice that the 180 day clock for use of these funds started on May 25, 2011. The third progress report dated September 19, 2011, gave the status of the falling weight deflectometer (FWD) and ground penetrating radar (GPR) tests. Of the eight major sections of highway around the State that flooded, pavement tests were nearly complete on two, would start on two others when the waters receded, were not planned on three and were impossible on one due to extensive damage. The FWD and GPR tests were started on September 8th on sections that had been inundated, to “show Iowa DOT if the roadway is strong enough to support vehicles of differing weights…and to detect any voids/sinkholes.”

Recent research efforts by the Delaware and Washington State DOTs have been concerned with monitoring water levels and other pavement climate factors.

Description of Proposed Activities: This project shall be conducted in two phases. The first phase of this research shall perform and document a literature review of methods, including equipment (e.g. falling weight deflectometers, ground penetrating radar) and instrumentation that could be applied to evaluate the near term load capacity and the long term pavement damage due to floods. Offerors shall develop a detailed, updated work plan, for Phase II of the study, i.e. the equipment, models, tools, instruments, procedures and approach to evaluate flooded pavements. This work should result in analytical procedures to determine the optimum time when pavements can be reopened to vehicles of certain weights, and the long term effects of floods on pavement performance.

The second phase could include new data collection, or the use available data from previous floods, to demonstrate and validate the procedures developed.

For purposes of proposal preparation, please provide your current thinking regarding the anticipated nature of the work plan. This current, anticipated work plan shall be detailed enough, to provide reviewers the approach you will take to achieve the objectives. In other words cover the subtasks you will perform, as a minimum in terms of equipment, and test methods, and how the analytical procedures will be validated.

Funds Available: The FHWA plans one award on this topic. FHWA plans to fund both phases for up to a total of $425,000 with Phase 2 dependent upon an acceptable revised work plan. The first phase should take less than 6 months and use less than 15 percent of the total funds. A panel of FHWA staff will review the products from the first phase of work, and the work plan for phase 2. Based on this review, FHWA may exercise the option to conduct Phase 2.

Special Capabilities: The FHWA anticipates this research team will be multi-disciplinary from one or more companies and/or universities. The proposed team could include expertise on pavement performance, pavement construction (including embankments), highway materials, climate, nondestructive pavement testing, and statistics. In addition, FHWA expects offerors to collaborate with the European Commission (EC) on similar projects. This project should address development and deployment of pavement assessment techniques related to moisture in pavements in the context of flooding, and should capitalize on the existing experience available in Europe. It is expected that the European Commission (EC) will also fund an EC project on related topics. More information on the EC research call can be found at:

(http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/ShowDoc/Extensions+Repository/General+Documentation/All+work+programmes/2013/Cooperation/g-wp-201301_en.pdf The specific EC project can be found on pages 62-63 of this linked document. (Challenge 3: Competitiveness Through Innovation SST.2013.5-3 Innovative, cost effective construction and maintenance for safer, greener and climate resilient roads.)

Note: Offerors are encouraged to collaborate with the EC on similar projects. For this topic area only, offerors with planned efforts to collaborate with the EC will be given greater consideration for award.

GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS:

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION: Offerors are required to follow the guidance contained herein. The following sections provide information on proposal format, the submission process, evaluation and funding processes, and other general information. Proposals not meeting the format described in this BAA will not be reviewed.

All administrative correspondence or questions on this BAA should be directed to the Contracting Officer at the following email address: Robin.Hobbs@dot.gov.

EVALUATION CRITERIA: Evaluations will be performed using the following criteria listed in descending order of relative importance:

· Scientific and Technical Merit: Overall scientific and technical merit of the proposal, including the potential to result in increased understanding/knowledge in the field of pavement assessment. Demonstrated understanding of the scope of the effort as shown by the offeror’s discussion of its approach to meeting the Government's requirement, and its proposed program timeline and milestones schedule. Demonstrated understanding of the various disciplines required for the research to be conducted under the proposed topic(s).

· Capabilities and Experience: Overall capabilities, including the qualifications and relevancy, depth, and breadth of experience and education of the proposed principal investigator, team leader, and key personnel who are critical in achieving the proposal objective; the offeror's qualifications, capabilities, and experience in related technical areas; and the offeror's facilities and demonstrated ability for achieving the proposal objectives. For proposals involving prototype development this will include availability (either in-house, through subcontract, or through industrial affiliates) of design and development tools/capabilities appropriate to the proposed prototype.

· Research Management: Overall capability to manage the effort, including plans to objectively measure the value and impact of the research and ensure value whether the inquiry leads or does not lead to anticipated results.

· Importance to Agency Programs in providing foundational research that would promote research investment in applying technology, process improvements or policy solutions that could lead to significant innovations in the highway system.

- Total Cost and Cost Realism: Proposed cost to the Federal government and cost realism.

GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PROPOSAL PROCESS

Proposals will be evaluated by FHWA against the evaluation criteria outlined above. The anticipated number of awards has been identified at each topic area.

Offerors may submit more than one proposal; however each one must be in response to a single topic on the BAA. The topic of the proposal must be clearly identified in the proposal title on the cover page.

It will be of added value for the proposing organization's management to demonstrate flexibility in support of this approach. Examples of support are strong internal backing with matching funds, innovative approaches in contracting and leveraging current and past technology development efforts that support this program.

Awards under this program are subject to the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Act requires that all electronic products (including reports) prepared for the Federal Government be accessible to persons with disabilities, including those with vision, hearing, cognitive, and mobility impairments. Proposers can view Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm) and the Federal IT Accessibility Initiative (Home Page) (http://section508.gov/) for detailed information.

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA): Offerors are advised that any activities involving information collection (i.e., surveys, questionnaires, etc.) from 10 or more non-Federal entities, including States, are subject to PRA requirements and may require the FHWA to coordinate an OMB Information Collection Clearance, a process that generally takes six months.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

All proposals should be submitted in Microsoft® Word processing program or text searchable Adobe® Portable Document Format (PDF). Proposals shall consist of two separate volumes:

Volume I – Technical Proposal and Management Approach Volume II – Cost Proposal and Business Information The proposals shall be prepared in the following format: 8.5 x 11 inches, one and one-half line spacing or double spaced, in at least 10 point type.

Volume I Volume I must be no longer than 36 pages in length. The contents of any appendices shall count against the 36-page limit and shall be limited to figures that directly support items discussed in the text of the proposal. If items are included in an appendix, which is not explicitly discussed, in the basic proposal, the proposal may not be reviewed. Proposals with Volume I in excess of 36 pages may not be reviewed. Proposals with less than the maximum number of allowed pages will not be penalized. Offerors are encouraged to submit concise, but descriptive, proposals.

Volume I of the proposal shall include the following sections, each starting on a new page (an estimated page breakdown is included):

(a) Cover Page: This must include the BAA number, proposal title, project duration, type of business (large business, small disadvantaged business, other small business, HBCU or MI, other educational, or other nonprofit), complete list of subcontractors, technical and administrative points of contact including addresses, telephone numbers, electronic mail addresses, and facsimile machine numbers. The cover page does not count against the page limit for Volume I.

(b) Executive Summary: The summary (approximately 3 pages) should include: (1) a description of the proposed technology or system and how the proposed effort will meet the objectives of the BAA, (2) a description of the significant innovative ideas proposed, (3) a comparison of these innovative ideas with current approaches and the current state of the art, (4) the expected impact of the research if successful, (5) a description of the technical approach and the key technology and system development milestones for proof of concept, (6) the process and metrics recommended for measuring the impact of the developed technologies and system, and (7) a summary of the anticipated program deliverables.

(c) Innovative Claims (optional): Provide a summary of significant innovative technical claims (approximately 2 pages). Identify any innovative technologies and technical ideas to be pursued and the expected impact on the state of the art if the proposed efforts are successful.

(d) Vision: Describe (approximately 2 pages) the proposed technology or system and how the proposed effort will meet the objectives described in the topic’s description in the BAA. Describe the impact and relevance of this proposed research or technology development effort to pavement analysis. Describe the contribution and relevance of this proposed effort to related FHWA and highway programs and activities, where appropriate.

(e) Technical Rationale: The technical rationale section (approximately 6 pages) must include technical arguments to substantiate the technical quality and merit of the claims made in Sections (b), (c), and (d), provide a summary description of the technical approach, consistent with Sections (f) and (g), and also provide a comparison with other ongoing research indicating both advantages and disadvantages of the proposed effort/approach. Describe and order the two or three most challenging technical areas and activities related to the proposed research or technology development. Indicate approaches for mitigating technical and schedule risk should proposed technologies produce weaker than anticipated results. Describe any parallel or alternative development approaches or technologies, and the rationale for their use. Indicate the potential impact of these alternatives on the performance goals and objectives described for the topic in the BAA.

(f) Statement of Work (SOW): This section (approximately 6 pages) must detail the relevant background information, the objective(s) of the proposed effort, the overall planned scope of the effort, and the technical approach for accomplishing the proposed effort. A chart of the proposed Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) must be provided to describe both the high level tasks and the subtasks at a level of detail sufficient to ensure that individual subtasks are clearly identified and allocated to a single project group or functional group within the proposing organization or to a single clearly identified subcontractor. For each task and subtask, provide a description of the proposed effort, significant timing constraints associated with the specific task and subtask to be performed (such as, "this task y can only be initiated after successful completion of task x"), the anticipated duration in both calendar time (weeks) and in resource time (person-hours and person-weeks), the planned specific utilization of personnel from specific project groups, functional groups and subcontractors, and also the anticipated results, products, or deliverables associated with the completion of each task and subtask.

NOTE: Topics 1 and 3 anticipate successful results in an initial phase before moving into one or more subsequent phases. For these topics, proposals shall include a detailed work scope for the initial phase. Where the approach of subsequent phases is dependent on the work of the initial phase, proposers should use their best judgment to outline a likely approach, schedule, deliverables, key personnel, etc. FHWA will exercise options on awards with Phase 2 work when Phase 1 is completed and Phase 2 work is approved.

(g) Schedule, Milestones, and Evaluation Metrics: This section must provide a summary (approximately 3 pages) of the schedule, milestones, and associated evaluation metrics for the proposed effort. A Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) format will be utilized in which the technical tasks and subtasks from the SOW, described in section (f) above, will be listed along the vertical axis of the schedule chart and time, with planned program phases (in 12 month increments), calendar year and fiscal year identified along the horizontal axis of the schedule chart. All significant experiments, simulations, lab demonstrations and field demonstrations to be performed should be identified. Each milestone on the chart(s) shall be numbered. There shall be a separate table listing each of these milestones, the planned date of completion, the planned evaluation metrics, and the criteria for successful completion of the milestone. This table must be specific, with both goal and specific quantified performance criteria (or range of anticipated performance) described for each planned milestone. This section must also provide a summary description of any Measures of Effectiveness expressions planned to be utilized in this development effort. A descriptor of the proposed approach to designing experiments, simulations and demonstrations to ensure consistent and effective software/system development and associated test planning should be provided if appropriate. Techniques or methodologies to facilitate repeatable, risk mitigation experimentation in all phases of the proposed development effort should be described.

(h) Deliverables and Products: This section (approximately 2 pages) must consist of two subsections: Deliverables and Products. The deliverables subsection must describe and enumerate the anticipated deliverables for the proposed effort, both preliminary and final. The products subsection must describe and enumerate any additional anticipated results or products, including transferable technology expected for users on this program or for developers or users on related programs. This section should address specific innovative approaches the offeror will take to facilitate technology transition. This subsection should contain a clear description of how results will be made sharable to other funded highway research programs and what use these results might be to these other activities. Any restrictions on software, other data, or hardware developed under proposals that would affect this practice should be clearly identified in this section. The government expects to obtain no less than Government Purpose License Rights to all software delivered as a part of these funded efforts. All software deliveries, preliminary and final, shall include as a minimum, in addition to the executable version, well-documented source code in electronic readable format, overall software architecture documentation, overall and individual module interface documentation, other support and library files, and a user’s operations manual. The source code and support files included shall be in its entirety so that they can be compiled and linked using off the shelf software to recreate the executable version of software in its entirety. All hardware deliveries will include all documentation necessary to reproduce (assemble) and operate the delivered hardware system(s).

Note: FHWA seeks research that encourages continued research and development by providing reasonable and broad access to products such as models, algorithms, software, or data.

(i) Proprietary Claims: This section (approximately 1 page) must provide a summary of any proprietary claims to results, software, hardware, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, software, hardware, prototype, or system proposed for development under this BAA. Any claims made in other parts of the proposal, such as in sections (c) and (h) above, which would impact the claims in this section must be identified in a cross-reference table in this section. As mentioned in section (h) above, the government expects to obtain no less than Government Purpose License Rights to all software delivered as a part of these funded efforts. If there are no proprietary claims this section shall consist of a statement to that effect.

(j) Management Plan: This section (approximately 2 pages) must describe the overall approach to management of this effort, including a brief discussion of the proposed organization and the use of personnel and other resources. Provide a description of how the proposed effort, as described in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), will be executed. Refer to significant tasks and subtasks identified in the SOW (section (f) above) and to the Schedule, Milestones, and Evaluation Metrics (section (g) above) and provide a rationale for allocation of resources to proposed project groups, functional groups, and subcontractors. Indicate planned government research and facility interfaces, and planning, scheduling and control practices. This section should also describe the partnership structure between the entity proposing work and other public and private sector entities funding or otherwise substantially participating in the work, including State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Universities, Foundations, etc.

Note: The Management Plan and Technology Transfer Plan (section (k), next) should provide some discussion on how we will know the work is successful. Project evaluations will be conducted at key mid-point milestones or at completion to document accomplishments.

(k) Technology Transition Plan: The technology transition plan (approximately 1 page) should describe the plans and capabilities to accomplish technology transition. It should describe the anticipated stage of development of the technology at the completion of the proposed effort, describing how the research is anticipated to result in an increased understanding/expansion of the knowledge base for the topic, and the anticipated overall approach to advancing the technology further, either through further applied research, commercialization or other mechanisms.

(l) Facilities: This section should include a description (approximately 2 pages) of the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort.

(m) Experience: This section should include a description (approximately 2 pages) of relevant capabilities, work, and significant accomplishments in areas associated with proposed research area or in closely related areas. Associate the described relevant experience to the specific project group or functional group in the proposing organization or to the specific proposed subcontractor(s).

(n) Key Personnel: This section should include a list of key personnel (approximately 1 page), with title and identification of association to a specific project or functional group within the proposing organization or to a specific proposed subcontractor. Indicate the proposed amount of effort (person-hours) to be expended by each person during the proposed program (by both calendar year and by fiscal year). Resumes shall be provided for all key personnel. Resumes shall not exceed one page, and are not included in the total page limitation for this part of the proposal.

(o) Qualifications: This section should include a concise summary of the relevant qualifications of all key personnel proposed along with other major sources of support for them (limited to no more than one page per key person). If necessary, the government will request additional resume and qualification related information. Note: This section is not included in the page limit.

(p) Other Proposals: This section must include a summary list of all current and pending proposals (approximately 2 pages) being executed or proposed to be executed with the support of personnel proposed in this effort. This list should be ordered by the size of the effort and should include start and end dates, total project cost, and the average amount of time (person-hours per month) planned or currently being expended on each effort. The list should be organized by names of the key personnel and other significant senior personnel. If the summary list is greater than 2 pages long, indicate at the bottom of the second page the number of additional current and pending proposals and the total project cost associated with these remaining efforts. If required, a request for the complete list will be made.

(q) Bibliography: This section should include a bibliography (approximately 1 page) of relevant technical papers and research notes which support the technical concepts and innovative ideas described in this proposal.

Volume II Volume II of the proposal shall be limited to a maximum of 12 pages not including the Cover Page. If necessary, the government will request additional cost supporting documentation, as appropriate. Supporting documentation may include salary verifications, quotes for proposed equipment purchases, copies of audit reports for verification of proposed indirect rates, and other business information.

Volume II shall include:

A fully detailed cost break-down showing costs by each major cost category, including (as applicable) direct labor, fringe benefits, subcontract costs, other direct costs (travel, equipment, etc.), and indirect costs for the initial phase of the proposed effort.

Provide a separate and also fully detailed cost break-down for each optional future phase proposed.

NOTE: Some topics anticipate successful results in an initial phase before moving into one or more subsequent phases. In these cases, proposals shall include a fully detailed cost break-down for the initial phase. Where the approach of subsequent phases is dependent on the work of the initial phase, proposers should use their best judgment regarding the levels of direct and indirect costs and categories of personnel for additional phases.

The cost detail shall include:

Direct Labor:

· Personnel by name or labor category

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

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

· Escalation appropriately demonstrated based on an effective date of January 1, 2013

· Fringe Benefits Rates applied

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.

Indirect Costs. Discuss your proposed rates for all years. 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.

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.

Details of any cost sharing to be undertaken by the offeror shall also be included in the cost section. Describe the type of funds (cash, in-kind, etc.) and its contribution and relationship in enhancing the proposed effort.

Volume II must also include a separate breakdown of costs by major task area. Use the same task or subtask numbers as described in the SOW submitted as part of your Technical proposal in Volume I.

If necessary, the government will request additional cost back-up information, as appropriate.

(d) Other Business Information:

IMPORTANT NOTE: The FHWA may award either contracts or cooperative agreements as a result of this BAA. Due to the requirements of Public Law 11-244 (signed 6/6/08), the FHWA can offer cooperative agreements only if the proposer can offer a cost share of at least twenty (20) percent from non-federal sources of funding. Proposals selected for funding that offer LESS than 20 percent cost sharing may be awarded as contracts.

The requirements outlined below will vary depending on whether a contract or cooperative agreement is anticipated.

Proposals for CONTRACT awards that are received from other than small businesses and that exceed $650,000 must include a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 19.7. The Subcontracting Plan does not count against the page limit for Volume II.

All proposers shall include in the cost proposal the following mandatory business information regarding your business or institution:

a. Business Size

b. Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN)

c. Dun & Bradstreet Number

d. Name and contact information (mail address, telephone, and email address) of your authorized business representative/point of contact

e. Whether cost accounting systems have been approved by a Federal auditing agency

Special Instructions for Cooperative Agreement Applicants: In addition to the information above, proposals eligible for cooperative agreement awards shall also complete and submit the following forms (available at www.grants.gov or http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/424/index.htm).

Submission of these forms does not count against the 12-page limit for Volume II.

• SF424: (Note: Applicants may leave 5a, 5b, 6, 7, 13 and blank on the form)

• SF424: A Note: Section A: block 1(a) print title of your project, block 1(b) print 20.205, block 1(c) print $ Total Federal Funds Requested, 1(d) print $ Total Cost Share, and leave blank columns (e), (f), and (g) and rows 2, 3, and 4.

• SF424B:

• SFLLL: Note: The SFLLL form must be completed and submitted even if no lobbying to report. If no lobbying to report insert “none” or “n/a” in the relevant blocks.

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION: It is the policy of the FHWA to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. The Government may use selected support contractor personnel as special resources to assist in administering the evaluation of the proposals. These persons are restricted by their contracts from disclosing the proposal information or using it for other than performing the administrative task. Contractor personnel are required to sign non-disclosure statements. By submission of your proposal, you agree that your proposal information may be disclosed to those selected contractors for the limited purpose stated above.

This announcement constitutes the Broad Agency Announcement as contemplated by FAR 6.102(d)(2). A formal Request for Proposals or other solicitation regarding this announcement will not be issued. Requests for same will be disregarded.

The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement. In addition, the Government reserves the right to award either contracts, grants, or other instruments determined to be of benefit to the government in achieving the goals of this program.

This BAA is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any proposal preparation costs. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit proposals, which will be evaluated. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals. However, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation due to the desire to solicit ideas as broadly as possible.

End of Announcement.