Attachment_J.15_General_Requirement_7_CRSS_Quality_Control_Hypothetical_Task_vl _04-18-2014.docx

Request for Proposal, Hypothetical Task Order Number 7 DTNH22-14-R-00002 Attachment J 15 General Requirement 7 CRSS Quality Control Hypothetical Task

NOTE:

This Hypothetical Task Order is provided for evaluation purposes only and does not represent any currently known nor future requirement. Any actual Task Order Requirement will be communicated to the Contractor as a Task Order Request for Proposal after contract award.

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 Task Order in accordance with the Statement of Work, Section C, and other terms and conditions of this Task Order.

B.1.1 TASK ORDER TERM

The Task Order Term will be a period of sixty months (60) months from the effective date of award.

B.2 Estimated Total Cost The Estimated Total Cost Not-to-Exceed (NTE) ceiling amount for this Task Order is as follows:

Estimated Cost: $_________________ Fixed Fee: $_________________ Total Cost Plus Fixed Fee: $_________________

Of this amount, $X,XXX,XXX.XX is currently available and is estimated to defray the costs of performance from the effective date of award through XX/XX/XXXX or the end of performance of the Task Order.

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 in excess of the Federal funds available under this Task Order.

B.3 PRICE SCHEDULE

B.3.1 PRICE SCHEDULE

(End of Section B)

SECTION C – DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 BACKGROUND

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is charged with the responsibility of reducing the personal and property losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes. Many sources of information are needed to permit researchers to adequately measure the characteristics of the highway safety environment. NHTSA data are essential to reducing the human and economic cost of motor vehicle crashes. NHTSA’s various data systems are the only source of real-world crash data for conducting basic research, identifying problem areas, developing effective countermeasures, identifying program and rulemaking needs, developing and evaluating programs, rules, and standards, evaluating new technologies, and providing information to accurately assess and allocate grants for reducing crashes.

In the late 1970s, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) devised a multidisciplinary approach to meet the data needs of our end users that utilizes an efficient combination of census, sample-based, and existing State files to provide nationally representative traffic crash data on a timely basis. NHTSA's NCSA operates data programs consisting of records-based systems (crash records recoded for uniformity) which include the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS-GES); and detailed crash investigation-based systems which include the National Automotive Sampling System Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and the Special Crash Investigations (SCI) program.

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), established in 1975, is a data collection system that provides a census of all fatal traffic crashes in the United States. FARS data provides support for most of the traffic and highway safety programs aimed at reducing the number of fatalities on the Nation’s highways and are extensively cited in legislative, enforcement, and educational programs. These data are collected on a purely voluntary basis through cooperative agreements between NHTSA and each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

The FARS crash data files contain about 140 coded data elements characterizing the crash, vehicles, and people involved. Data on crashes must be compiled separately, by State, from multiple-source documents (police accident reports and medical service reports) and State administrative records (vehicle registrations and drivers’ licenses). NHTSA trains State staff and supervises the coding of the myriad data elements from each State into the common format of standard FARS data collection forms. Training procedures for each State must focus extensively on the detailed content and form of the State systems for compiling police accident reports and other records. These systems often differ between States. Some data items are available from multiple sources within a State, which facilitates cross-checking information for accuracy. The final data set is then entered into the standardized database for uploading to NHTSA.

In 1977, the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) (known then as the National Accident Sampling System) was begun with contract awards to ten Primary Sampling Unit (PSU) research teams and two quality control Zone Centers. The system grew to a complement of 50 PSUs and four Zone Centers in 1981.

In 1986, the program was reviewed by NHTSA and other organizations to assess its usefulness, efficiency, and statistical precision. It was determined that modifications were needed in case selection, data set definition, and PSU strata distribution. As a result, in 1988, NASS was divided into two systems: Crashworthiness Data System (NASS-CDS) and General Estimates System (NASS-GES). NASS-CDS focused on the crashworthiness of passenger cars, light trucks, and vans involved in crashes and damaged enough to be towed. NASS-GES, on the other hand, collected limited data on other highway crashes in order to produce general estimates. From 1991 until 2016, NASS-CDS has and will include 24 data collection sites, also known as primary sampling units (PSU), located in 17 states with two quality control Zone Centers. NASS-GES includes an additional 36 PSUs located in 9 additional states. All NASS-CDS and NASS-GES PSUs are currently established and functioning.

Each PSU team collects certain information from traffic-police accident reports (PARs), which will be used to generate estimates of the nation's highway crash experience. The PARs are the only source of information for the NASS-GES. The NASS-GES is the sole source of national estimates statistics on police-reported injuries other than fatalities. The NASS-CDS obtains police reports that include passenger vehicles that are towed due to the severity of the damage and have a high potential for major injury will generally be selected for full investigation. The investigation of each case includes interviewing drivers and occupants, inspecting scenes and vehicles, reviewing official medical reports, and reconstructing crash dynamics. Crashworthiness information will be entered into electronic data files and subject to review by quality control contractors and NHTSA.

For NASS-CDS, the Contractor enters information from each investigation into an electronic file. Photographs are taken using digital cameras that allow the information to be readily entered into computers for storage and clinical review. After completion and quality review of all cases, NCSA prepares an annual analysis file for public use that includes case weighting factors. All personal identifiers are removed from electronic files to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. These NASS files, in conjunction with other data systems, provide the detailed and reliable information with which NHTSA and other motor vehicle research organizations can identify safety problems, monitor trends, assess proposed standards and countermeasures, and evaluate those already in effect.

Since its design in the 1970’s, NASS has never been fully funded to collect data from the originally planned 75 data collection sites. At the same time, the data needs of the transportation community have increased and significantly changed over the last three decades. For example, the primary focus of the original NASS design was to enhance crashworthiness by providing detailed information about crush damage, restraint system performance and injury mechanisms. In recent years, however, the transportation community has been increasingly more interested in adding data elements related to what happens before a crash and related crash avoidance safety countermeasures. The scope of traffic safety studies has also been expanding. With the substantial reductions in passenger vehicle fatalities, more data is needed for the vehicle types that NASS-CDS currently does not collect detailed data on, such as those involving large trucks, motorcycles, and pedestrians.

Recognizing the importance as well as the limitations of the current NASS system, NHTSA is undertaking a modernization effort to upgrade our data systems by improving the information technology infrastructure, updating the data we collect and reexamining the sample sites. The goal of this overall modernization effort is to develop a new crash data system that meets current and future data needs. This statement of work applies to several data acquisitions systems, record-based data collection and investigation-based data collection. The record-based data acquisition process will produce general trends and be referred to as Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS). The investigation-based acquisition process will focus on follow-on passenger vehicle crashes and will be referred to as the Crash Investigation Sampling System (CISS).

CRSS and CISS data collection sites will be selected independently. Independent means that the new CISS PSU sites will not be a subsample of the new CRSS PSU sites or vice versa. By chance, it is possible that some of the new CISS sites and new CRSS sites will be located at the same location.

CISS and CRSS will be referred to as the Crash Data System (CDS).

This Task Order will provide for quality control and technical guidance for the 51 Crash Report Sampling System (CRSS) sites listed in Table 1. Table 2 is the implementation order of CRSS locations for future phases of this program.

Table 1

CRSS PSU Site Number

CRSSState CRSS PSU County

Table 2

CRSS PSU Site Number

CRSSState CRSS PSU County

Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations

C.2 OBJECTIVES

The objective of this Contract is to provide timely, efficient, effective support to NHTSA, and its partners, in the management of the NHTSA Crash Data System. This Statement of Work describes the responsibilities for the CRSS Quality Control. The activities include providing technical guidance, maintaining a coding assistance program, and maintaining a recoding program.

C.3 PURPOSE

The purpose of this Hypothetical Task Order is to acquire services to provide Quality Control for the Crash Report Sampling System to enhance and execute a cohesive program and quality evaluation 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 retrieval tools, and

3. To maintain and continue the work of harmonization of NCSA Data Collection Systems and their adherence to national standards.

C.4 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS (SR)

The Specific Requirements listed below expand on this contract’s General Requirements are provided to the Contractor for informational purposes only. For other than the minimum obligation of the government as identified in Section B.2 of this contract, the government is not obligated to fund, nor is the Contractor obligated to perform any work under this contract unless stated so in executed Task Orders.

C.4.A through C.4.B.6 - Not used in this hypothetical task

C.4.B.7– CRSS Quality Control

C.4.B.7.1 Provide Expert Consultation and Coordinate to support the NCSA Data Quality Control Hotline and NCSA Data Collection Systems The Contractor shall provide data coding consultation and coordination with respect to:

· MMUCC

· ANSI D16.1

· Federal Truck and Bus Reporting Criteria (from Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration)

· State Driver License Violations Code Schemes and Interpretations

· State and Police Data Collection Standards and Trends

· State Specific Coding Guidance and Instruction

· Harmonization of FARS and CRSS Data Coding Criteria

The Contractor shall coordinate data coding criteria with NCSA and shall provide expert consultation to NCSA with respect to the following:

1. Manage Vehicle Make-Model-Model Year-Body Type Tables (Vehicle Table) for NCSA Data Collection Systems Each year, the Contractor shall update the Vehicle Table and provide an updated copy to the COR via e-mail in Microsoft Word and PDF format. This table lists vehicle makes, models, model years and body types. The table is a major component of the annual specification for the various NCSA data entry systems. It is also included in the Coding Manuals to provide guidance to data users and FARS / CRSS analysts on correct code combinations for vehicles included in data files.

It is important that this table accurately, clearly and comprehensively displays valid combinations of codes (vehicle make, vehicle model, model year, body type) for any vehicle a FARS / CRSS analyst may encounter (earliest to the latest models). Maintaining this table requires skillful, competent and thorough research effort and vigilant awareness of trends and practices in the auto, truck, bus and motorcycle industries.

The current table will be displayed in the latest Coding and Validation Manual and incorporated into the Microcomputer Data Entry System (MDE) used by FARS Analysts and CRSS Coders to enter and submit cases.

2. Provide Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) Translation for NCSA Data Collection Systems The Contractor shall provide guidance and respond to queries on VIN coding and interpretation.

The Contractor shall maintain content and enhance automated systems for rendering NCSA Data System Codes from VINs.

C.4.B.7.2 Maintain Coding Assistance Program within the Hotline Domain FARS Analysts and CRSS Coders may encounter situations in which they desire guidance to ensure adherence to guidelines and consistent coding throughout the systems. These situations may arise out of unusual scenarios, ambiguous or conflicting information, a need for judgments on the limits of applicability of a rule (also known as grey areas) or difficulties with data entry system edit checks.

The Contractor shall operate a FARS/ CRSS Coding Assistance Program for FARS analysts and supervisors and CRSS Resource Center staff. The Hotline should be staffed Monday through Friday 8am -6pm Eastern time (excluding federal holidays) and respond to inquiries from the FARS and CRSS personnel within one hour.

The Contractor shall report to the COR on the activities related to the conduct of the Coding Assistance Program. This report shall be included in the monthly progress report.

The Coding Assistance Program shall have the following functions:

· Provide a definite pathway for analyst/coder inquiry concerning case analysis and coding issues;

· Provide a centralized mechanism for the uniform identification, documentation, and resolution of similar problems;

· Serve as a clearing house for tracking and documenting precedent and case history;

· Detect trends in inquiries; and,

· Broadcast resolutions and updated decisions to all analysts and data coders.

C.4.B.7.3 Maintain Case Recoding Program The Contractor shall devise and conduct an on-going program of case sampling and recoding for data quality monitoring, analyst performance evaluation and training. The design of this program shall be such that the effort combines the concepts of case recoding and analyses with state-specific training. NHTSA’s aim is to provide more immediate benefit from the recoding effort in the form of analyst and coder training and have more tangible effects on data quality than the usual after-the-fact recoding study. The Contractor shall recode 10,000 cases per year, allowing one hour per case.

The design of this program shall address providing state-specific reporting to satisfy interest in results and obtaining feedback from those states to enhance understanding and interpretation of recoding results.

The Case Recode Management will include the following functions:

· Recode Announcement

· Case Requests (emails and follow up)

· Compiling and Distributing Case Materials

· Collaborations with NHTSA IT Contractor

· Case Materials Review and Coding/Data Entry

· Analysis

· State Specific Report (SSR)

· Drafting, editing and Formatting SSRs

· Review of State Analysts feedback and compiling the final SSRs

C.4.B.7.4 Site Visit Validation Check The CRSS Resource Center staff shall monitor the operation of all the CRSS sites. The appropriate CRSS Resource Center staff shall conduct one (1) site visit each year to all CRSS PSUs to observe, diagnose, and correct sampling problems. If problems are discovered such as incorrect sampling, late submissions, or police cooperation difficulties, an additional visit may be required with approval of the COR.

C.4.B.7.5 CRSS Quality Control Reporting Procedures

C.4.B.7.5.1 CRSS Quality Control Monthly Progress Report For the active Task Order, the Contractor shall submit a monthly progress report to the COR and NHTSA Contracting Officer within fifteen (15) days following the month being reported. The monthly progress report shall include, but not limited to; actions occurring during the reporting month; actions anticipated for the coming month; any problems (either programmatic or contractual) encountered during the reporting month and corrective actions taken; any actions requested of NHTSA; and, any significant cost-savings measures taken by the Contractor during the reporting month.

C.4.B.7.5.2 CRSS Quality Control Financial Report Labor distribution by task, labor summary, and details of expenditures shall follow the format to be specified later by NHTSA for training development activities. Financial reporting for Contractor expenditures shall be separate from other financial reports. Invoice payments may be delayed if the Contractor submits late or unacceptable monthly progress reports. Some reasons for rejecting these reports include: incomplete description of work performed during the reporting period; incorrect spelling and grammar; failure to address problems encountered during the reporting period and corrective actions taken; and, failure to provide complete and accurate financial reporting information.

(End of Section C)