DTNH2215R00008.pdf

DTNH2215R00008

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 73

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

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

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

04/08/2015 X

NHTSA NPO-320

Office of Acquisition Management 1200 New Jersey Ave SE Washington DC 20590

1500 ES 05/08/2015

SETH MOODY

seth.moody@dot.gov

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PAGE(S)

Vincent Lynch

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

4-18 19-20 22-26 27-31 32-42

43-48

50-56

57-68

69-73

ITEM NO. SUPPLIES/SERVICES QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE AMOUNT

NAME OF OFFEROR OR CONTRACTOR

2 73

CONTINUATION SHEET

REFERENCE NO. OF DOCUMENT BEING CONTINUED PAGE OF

DTNH2215R00008

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

Solicitation DTNH2215R00008 is placed to procure services for the evaluation of community-oriented enforcement demonstrations as detailed in the below sections.

OPTIONAL FORM 336 (4-86)

Sponsored by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.110

NSN 7540-01-152-8067

Title: Evaluation of Community-Oriented Enforcement Demonstrations

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 SUPPLIES/SERVICES

Under this Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contract, the Contractor shall furnish all materials, and personnel necessary to provide the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) with the services described in Section C below.

B.2 TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT

B.2.1 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS (Section C.3.2 of the contract):

The total estimated amount of this contract is $ To be filled in at time of contract award, which is comprised of a total estimated cost of $ To be filled in at time of contract award and a fixed fee of $ To be filled in at time of contract award.

B.2.2 OPTIONAL TASKS (Section C.4 of the contract):

Ref: C.4.1 The total estimated amount of this Optional Task 1 is $ To be filled in at time of contract award, which is comprised of a total estimated cost of $ To be filled in at time of contract award and fixed fee of $ To be filled in at time of contract award.

Ref: C.4.2 The total estimated amount of this Optional Task 2 is $ To be filled in at time of contract award, which is comprised of a total estimated cost of $ To be filled in at time of contract award and fixed fee of $ To be filled in at time of contract award.

Estimated Cost ($) Fixed Fee ($) Estimated Cost

Plus Fixed Fee ($) Base Period of Performance (Months 1 - 40)

Optional Task 1, See C.4.1

Optional Task 2, See C.4.2

Total

The estimated Contract value including optional tasks (if exercised) is $ To be filled in at time of contract award, which consists of the estimated cost of $ To be filled in at time of contract award and a fixed fee of $ To be filled in at time of contract award.

(End of Section B)

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT

C.1 BACKGROUND

Lack of restraint use and impaired driving contribute to preventable motor vehicle crash fatalities each year. Efforts to increase seat belt use and decrease alcohol-impaired driving over the past two decades have yielded considerable success. However, these behaviors persist and require new and innovative approaches to further decrease motor vehicle crash fatalities.

Specifically, restraint use has increased over the past two decades. The 2013 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) shows that the national seat belt use rate at 87 percent. This is a significant increase from 79 percent in 2003 and 58 percent in 1994.1

The 2012 data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) shows a total of 21,667 occupants of passenger vehicles (passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs) died in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Among occupants whose restraint status was known, 52 percent were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash.2 Using this data, NHTSA estimates that belts saved 12,174 lives. However, if belts had been used 100 percent of the time, then an additional estimated 3,031 lives could have been saved.3 This estimate, as well as the documented effectiveness of belts, indicate a large, preventable, and costly loss of life.

In the past ten years, alcohol-impaired driving fatalities4 have declined by 23 percent from 13,472 in 2002 to 10,322 in 2012. However, alcohol-impaired-driving fatalities increased by 4.6 percent in 2012, compared to 9,865 in 2011, accounting for 31 percent of overall fatalities (NHTSA, 2013). The majority of those crashes involved drivers with a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of .15 or higher, nearly double the legal limit. That works out to an average of one fatality every 51 minutes (NHTSA, 2013).

Furthermore, the data indicates a relationship between impaired driving and unrestrained fatalities. For instance, 2012 data shows that drivers killed in 5,163 passenger vehicles (including passenger cars and light trucks [vans, SUVs, pickups, and other light trucks]) had a BAC of .08 or higher, while 70 percent of those driver fatalities for which restraint use was known were unrestrained.5

A proven countermeasure for increasing seat belt use and reducing impaired driving is high-visibility enforcement (HVE). When coupled with a communications plan, HVE has contributed to the increased belt use and decreased alcohol-impaired driving. To continue these

1 Pickrell, T. M., & Liu, C. (2014, January) Seat belt use in 2013 – Overall results. (Traffic Safety Facts Research

Note. Report No. DOT HS 811 875). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

2 U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analytics. (2014, March). 2012 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview (Report No. DOT HS 811 856).

Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811856.pdf

3 U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics and Analytics. (2013, November). Lives Saved in 2012 by Restraint Use and Minimum Drinking Age Laws (Report No. DOT HS 811 851). Available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811851.pdf 4 Alcohol-impaired fatalities are those where any driver had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 g/dL or higher.

5 NHTSA (December, 2013). 2012. DOT HS 811 870 Traffic Safety Facts. Alcohol-Impaired Driving. U.S.

Department of Transportation National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Washington, DC positive trends, NHTSA believes that additional and alternate approaches to enforcement need to be considered.

One potential approach is to apply law enforcement models shown to impact crime-related behavior and community perception to traffic safety. Specifically, law enforcement models shown to be successful at reducing fear of crime6, robberies7, and violent crime8 have yet to be applied to a highway safety project.

In Fiscal Year 2015, NHTSA will engage in two demonstration projects: Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement. These demonstration projects (which will be awarded under separate contracts) will be based upon existing law enforcement models and will be used to increase public awareness and build community support for law enforcement efforts in seat belt and alcohol-impaired driving enforcement. As this contract will be awarded to evaluate these two demonstration projects, for planning purposes, the Statements of Work and related Milestones and Deliverables tables for the demonstration projects are included with this solicitation as Attachments J.1 and J.2. While not an exhaustive list, two examples of models that may be employed for these demonstration projects include:

• The Problem Oriented Policing (POP)9 model emphasizing the use of analysis and assessment to address crime and disorder problems. POP offers police a multifaceted approach to solving problems and preventing new ones from occurring. Using a problem identification model, the police develop informed responses that may reduce the number of incidents from occurring or the harm resulting from those incidents.

• The Community Oriented Policing (COP)10 model combining traditional aspects of law enforcement with prevention measures, problem solving, community engagement, and community partnerships. A mix of these components is often used in policing a community, based on the community’s crime trends and identified needs.

Additionally, law enforcement entities use a number of problem identification models to gather the data needed to better focus enforcement strategies (e.g., location-based traffic crash data).

The problem identification models to be used in the Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement contracts include:

• The Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS)11 model, which integrates location-based crime and traffic crash data to determine the most effective methods for deploying law enforcement and other resources. Drawing on the deterrent

6 Fielding, N. G. (2005). Concepts and theory in community policing. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(5), 460-472.

7 Braga, A. A. (2006). The crime prevention value of hot spots policing. Psicothema, 18(3), 630-637.

8 Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising: A report to the United States Congress. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

9 Reisig, M. (2010). Community and Problem-Oriented Policing. Crime and Justice 39(1)pp.1-53. University of Chicago Press.

10 Mirsky, I. (2009). Community Oriented Policing. Internet Journal of Criminology. Retrieved on

1.27.14 from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Mirsky_Community_Oriented_Policing.pdf

11 Worden, R., McLean, S. (2009). DDACTS in Theory and Practice, The John F. Finn Institute For Public Safety:

Albany, NY.

value of highly visible traffic enforcement and the knowledge that crimes often involve motor vehicles, the goal of DDACTS is to reduce crime, crashes, and traffic violations.

• The Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) 12 model is a problem identification process used for applying the problem-oriented policing (POP) model.

Scanning involves looking at data, talking to people, and observing the community in order to identify potential problems. Analysis involves studying potential problems to determine if they deserve concerted attention and, if so, developing accurate descriptions and explanations of them. Response involves searching for a wide range of solutions and then choosing and implementing the most promising ones. Assessment involves collecting data after the response to determine if the problem has been reduced or eliminated. If success has not been achieved, then further analysis and a different set of responses may be needed.

C.2 Objectives

Under this contract, the Evaluation Contractor shall work closely with the Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement contractors:

1. To evaluate the effectiveness of community-oriented seat belt and impaired driving enforcement projects modeled after proven law enforcement models (e.g., COPS & POPS) with respect to increasing community support for enforcement;

2. To conduct a process evaluation to document the implementation of the program including, but not limited to, enforcement efforts/activities and communications;

3. To conduct an outcome evaluation including, but not limited to, changes in community awareness of and attitudes towards enforcement; and

4. As an option; to the extent possible, conduct an impact evaluation including, but not limited to, crash rates.

C.3 Scope of Work

C.3.1 General Requirements

NOTE: The work performed under this contract is for the evaluation of two demonstration projects named Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement. The evaluation contractor will have to rely upon the two demonstration contractors to meet the requirements of this contract. .

Accordingly, close coordination between the Evaluation Contractor, the demonstration project contractors, and NHTSA is essential.

The Evaluation Contractor shall be responsible for conducting an independent evaluation of the Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and the Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement projects previously discussed in this Statement of Work (SOW) and conducted under separate contracts. Specific countermeasures used for each of the two demonstration projects will depend upon the technical approach selected for those two contracts. Consequently, this contract’s SOW describes the general tasks that the Evaluation Contractor will be required to

12 Braga, A.A. (2002). Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention. Criminal Justice Press.

Monsey, New York, USA conduct to document and conduct program evaluations of those two projects. At a minimum, the program evaluations shall include a process evaluation of the program activity including the enforcement activity and communications, and a “community awareness and attitudes” survey to determine how the program activity influenced public awareness of and attitudes towards enforcement of impaired driving and seat belt use.

The Evaluation Contractor shall be responsible for planning appropriate documentation efforts, data collection activities, and statistical analyses. The Evaluation Contractor shall also be responsible for obtaining/receiving all needed data to evaluate the two projects, analyzing the data, and preparing technical and non-technical reports. The Evaluation Contractor shall work closely with the Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Building Community Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement contractors throughout the course of this contract.

Over a period of forty (40) months, the Evaluation Contractor shall:

1. Participate in initial project meetings.

2. Complete monthly reports and submit to the NHTSA Contracting Officer’s

Representative (COR).

3. Provide two revised work plans that incorporate any recommendations from the initial briefings into the study design submitted in the proposal as well as all Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) notices as required by the Office Management & Budget (OMB).

4. Develop attitudes/awareness survey including cognitive testing, mode of administration (e.g., paper/pencil, web, phone), and recruitment plan.

5. Prepare Institutional Review Board (IRB) application, OMB PRA notice, and privacy threshold/impact assessments for the appropriate entity.

6. Attend and participate in planning meetings with demonstration Contractors for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Building Community Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement contracts (4 total, 2 per demonstration Contractor)

7. Administer attitudes/awareness surveys (3 administrations).

8. Conduct process evaluation.

9. Produce an organized, clean database with a manual detailing variable names, labels, and range of responses.

10. Conduct outcome evaluation, including analysis of survey data.

11. Provide a Draft and Final Report.

12. Present a final briefing to NHTSA on the project findings.

13. Optional Task 1: Conduct pre- and post-implementation seat belt observations.

14. Optional Task 2: Conduct interviews of NHTSA Demonstration Contractors and

Community Partners.

C.3.2 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

C.3.2.1 Task 1: Initial Project Meetings

The Evaluation Contractor shall participate in four (4) initial project meetings that include: 1) an in-depth planning and administrative meeting; 2) a kick-off meeting for this evaluation contract;

3) a kick-off meeting with the Contractor awarded the NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement award; and 4) a kick-off meeting with the Contractor awarded the Building Community Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement contract.

Within one (1) month of Contract award, the Evaluation Contractor shall participate in the in-depth planning and administrative meeting and the kick-off meeting for this evaluation contract in Washington, D.C. at NHTSA headquarters. For budgeting purposes, the Evaluation Contractor shall plan on two staff members attending and for both meetings to last one (1) day total. Additional staff may participate via teleconference.

In-Depth Planning and Administrative Meeting: The Evaluation Contractor shall participate in a meeting with the COR and any other appropriate NHTSA personnel, to discuss all project objectives and tasks, and discuss any administrative matters. The objective of this meeting is to further develop the approach given progress made on the demonstration projects and to begin refining the work plan. The meeting shall include, but not be limited to:

• COR and Evaluation Contractor shall discuss the technical approach to fulfilling the requirements of this contract.

• COR and Evaluation Contractor shall review the administrative details of the project with other NHTSA personnel who are important to the administration of the contract. At a minimum, the discussions shall include the administration of the Contact with the Contract Specialist and the project (e.g., monthly reports and invoices).

Evaluation Project Kick-off Meeting: The Evaluation Contractor shall jointly conduct a short briefing with NHTSA personnel. The objective of this meeting is to provide an overview of the project and the planned approach to NHTSA personnel and interested parties (e.g., the demonstration Contractors). The NHTSA COR will take the lead in the briefing and provide the background, purpose, and rationale for the study. The Evaluation Contractor shall present and describe the proposed plan of work. The Evaluation Contractor shall also include any additional information decided upon by the COR and Evaluation Contractor at the initial planning meeting.

The Evaluation Contractor’s portion of the briefing materials shall be submitted to the COR no later than one (1) week before the briefing.

NHTSA Demonstration Project Contractors’ Kick-off Meetings: The Evaluation Contractor shall attend the kick-off meetings for each of the two demonstration projects. The meetings shall take place in Washington, D.C, however, the Evaluation Contractor may participate/attend in-person or via conference call, as determined by the COR. The demonstration Contractors for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement contracts will be required to hold kick-off meetings for their respective contracts within sixty-five (65) days of their contracts being awarded. It is anticipated that the demonstration project kick-off meetings will take place within 35 to 65 days following award of this evaluation contract.

C.3.2.2 Task 2: Monthly Reports

Each month (specifically by the 15th of each month), the Evaluation Contractor shall provide a report on the prior month’s performance including, at a minimum the following items:

1. Accomplishments made during the reporting period.

2. Funds status by major cost element, month’s obligations, cumulative obligations, estimated cost to complete, and percent of cost expended versus percent of completion. A response to the following statement: “Based upon expenditures to date, the actual total cost incurred in the performance of this contract is (Over Budget), (On Budget), (Under Budget) for the current contract term.”

3. Any actions proposed to correct an “Over Budget” situation (see #2 above) if applicable.

4. Plans for accomplishments in next reporting period.

5. Preliminary or interim results, conclusions, trends or other items of information that the Evaluation Contractor believes are of interest to NHTSA.

6. Problems or delays that the Evaluation Contractor has experienced in the performance of his/her services.

7. Specific action that the Evaluation Contractor would like NHTSA to undertake to alleviate a problem.

8. Due dates for remaining deliverables.

C.3.2.3 Task 3: Prepare Revised Work Plans and PRA Notice

Based upon the discussion and outcome of the initial project meetings (addressed in C.3.2.1 above), the Evaluation Contractor shall prepare two (2) revised work plans, one for each of the programs being evaluated through this contract (Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement) and submit drafts of both work plans to the COR within two (2) weeks after the Initial Project Meetings. The Evaluation Contractor must include details how to perform the SOW and may make use of the Evaluation Contractor’s proposal, contract negotiations, information discussed at the initial project briefings, the two NHTSA demonstration contracts, and developments in the IRB and OMB approval processes to develop its work plans. The Work Plans shall include a description of how the Evaluation Contractor plans to address each objective and task. In preparing the revised work plans, the Evaluation Contractor shall work closely with the demonstration project contractors to ensure their demonstration project approaches and timelines are reflected in the revised evaluation work plan. The COR will provide comments to the Evaluation Contractor regarding the work plans within two (2) weeks of their receipt. Other than planning, the Evaluation Contractor shall not perform any work on subsequent Specific Requirements prior to approval of the work plans by the COR.

The work plans shall be evolving documents that reflect the progress made on the evaluation and demonstration project contracts. The Evaluation Contractor shall make revisions to the work plans after major project developments, including, but not limited, to when the participating NHTSA Demonstration Contractors action plans are fully developed and program timelines are agreed upon. The work plans may require revision and re-approval by the NHTSA COR at several points in the project.

At a minimum, the work plans shall include:

• A calendar of events in which the Evaluation Contractor shall play a role (including the schedule for all activities and deliverables) and events for which the Evaluation Contractor will need action on the part of NHTSA.

• The estimated lead time required for each of those events.

• A list of planned travel and estimated travel costs.

• An overview of how the Evaluation Contractor will accomplish each of this research project’s objectives as described below.

• Any anticipated challenges and how these challenges will be addressed.

• The plan for project management and quality assurance.

Subsequent to review of the work plans by the COR, the COR may discuss the currently submitted item with the Evaluation Contractor or indicate that the work plans are approved. If the work plans are not approved, then the Evaluation Contractor and the NHTSA COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the NHTSA COR approves the work plan.

The Evaluation Contractor shall submit a draft of the PRA Notice no later than two months following the evaluation project kick-off meeting. The PRA requires that the Federal government submit information collections (including surveys) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. OMB regulations provide the instructions on completing this process and are located at 5 C.F.R. §§ 1320.1 et. seq. The initial step in the approval process is to publish a Notice in the Federal Register that notifies the public about the planned information collection, and that provides a period of 60 days for the public to offer comments. Any comments received are addressed and included in an information package about the data collection that is submitted to OMB for approval. This submission is divided into a series of sections that provides specific types of information about the data collection required by OMB.

A second Federal Register Notice is published shortly before NHTSA’s submission of the OMB package.

The COR will contact the Evaluation Contractor within two (2) weeks of receipt of the PRA 60- Day Notices with comments or required revisions.

C.3.2.4 Task 4: Develop Attitudes/Awareness Survey and Methodology

The Evaluation Contractor shall develop two surveys to measure attitudes towards and awareness of enforcement of seat belt use and impaired driving; one survey will focus on belt use and one on impaired driving. Inclusion criteria for respondents shall be 18 years of age, a licensed driver, and member of participating communities. The surveys shall be designed to address, at a minimum, the following:

• Awareness of enforcement activities specific to belt use or impaired driving (e.g., sobriety checkpoints) as applicable.

• Experience with enforcement specific to belt use or impaired driving as applicable.

• Attitudes towards enforcement specific to belt use or impaired driving as applicable.

• Belt use or impaired driving habits/behaviors as applicable

• Contact with law enforcement.

• Perceived effectiveness of law enforcement specific to belt use or impaired driving as applicable.

The Evaluation Contractor shall develop and prepare the survey instruments (e.g. question wording, response format, and response options) to uniquely address the objectives of each demonstration project. The Evaluation Contractor shall follow the cognitive testing procedures laid out in SubTask 4A for all new questions.

The Evaluation Contractor shall prepare the instruments in English and a second language, if supported by the demographics of the survey area. If appropriate and approved by the NHTSA COR, the Evaluation Contractor shall have multilingual data collectors and interviewers available to administer the survey.

Finally, the Evaluation Contractor shall determine the methodology for administering the survey including sample size, a sampling plan, recruitment procedures, and mode of administration (e.g., phone, web-based). The Evaluation Contractor shall work with the NHTSA Demonstration Project Contractors to plan the survey logistics. Additionally, for each demonstration project, the Evaluation Contractor shall identify a community to serve as a control condition. This community must be comparable with respect to population size, socioeconomic status, and demographics to each of demonstration program communities. The Evaluation Contractor shall must obtain permission and verified interest (e.g. a letter from the chief of police) from the community to participate in the survey. The NHTSA Demonstration Contractors for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement will be required to submit the community population and demographic information to the Evaluation Contractor within six (6) months of award of their respective contracts. The instrument and methodology shall be developed and determined within 2 months from receipt of the community population and demographic information from each of the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement. The “control” community must be identified and have provided written permission for involvement in the project within 2 months from receipt of the community population and demographic information from each of the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement.

Sub Task 4A. Conduct cognitive testing of survey instruments

The COR will provide the Evaluation Contractor of any edits, modifications or comments to the surveys prior to subjecting the questions to cognitive testing. Edits or modifications may range from developing questions to editing language of existing questions. The Evaluation Contractor shall submit the revised surveys to the COR for review in accordance with Section F.4, Deliverables/Milestones. Review of the surveys will require that the Evaluation Contractor and NHTSA COR to engage in an iterative process until the COR provides final approval.

The Evaluation Contractor shall subject each survey to cognitive testing. The testing shall consist of one-on-one cognitive interviews with nine (9) persons. The cognitive testing participants shall be drivers, no younger than 18 years old.

The Evaluation Contractor shall carry out all preparatory activities for conducting the cognitive interviews. This shall include determining appropriate probes to apply during the testing, securing an adequate facility for conducting the testing, and developing and carrying out a plan for participant recruitment.

The Evaluation Contractor shall conduct the cognitive interviews according to procedures specified in the work plans revised in Task 3. The interviews shall be recorded. The Evaluation Contractor shall not record any personal identifying information about the subjects of each survey.

The Evaluation Contractor shall meet with the COR at the conclusion of testing to brief the COR on the results of the cognitive testing as well as submit the recorded sessions to NHTSA.

The Evaluation Contractor shall provide a summary on the results of the cognitive testing. At the meeting, the Evaluation Contractor shall make recommendations concerning changes in question language or sequencing as the results of the cognitive interviewing may suggest. The COR will review the recommendations during the meeting, and will approve or disapprove each individual recommendation prior to the meeting’s conclusion. This meeting may be accomplished with a conference call at the discretion of the COR.

The Evaluation Contractor shall submit a memorandum to the COR one (1) week after development of the survey and methodology for each of the demonstration contracts that specifies, in bulleted form, the decisions made at the meeting and the results of the cognitive testing. The Evaluation Contractor shall include with the memo a current version of the questionnaires, which shall include any revisions approved by the COR during the meeting.

C.3.2.5 Task 5: IRB Application, PRA Clearance, and Privacy Threshold/Impact Assessments

In order to ensure research is conducted according to ethical and legal requirements in all locations, within 6 weeks of development of the survey and methodology for each of the NHTSA Demonstration Contract for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement, the Evaluation Contractor shall submit to the COR, applications to all organizations from whom an approval or certification is required, including clearance from OMB for PRA clearance and approval from a primary Institutional Review Board (IRB). In addition, the Evaluation Contractor shall assist the COR with preparing materials for a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA), and possibly, a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA), as required by the Privacy Act and E-Government Act.

OMB Clearance. The Evaluation Contractor shall prepare all materials necessary to obtain PRA clearance to conduct the information collection, as explained in detail in section C3.2.3.

IRB Approval. A primary IRB must be IRB certified, registered, and covered by an approved assurance of compliance under the Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Human Research Protections. The Evaluation Contractor shall identify the IRB they are most likely to use and identify common IRB concerns and solutions for overcoming such concerns. The Evaluation Contractor shall account for the time required to obtain IRB approval in their project timeline.

Consent Forms. Within 6 weeks of development of the survey and methodology for each of the NHTSA Demonstration Contract for NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement, the Evaluation Contractor shall submit a draft of any and all consent forms to the COR for review by NHTSA Chief Counsel.

Specifically, the Chief Counsel will review the consent forms to assure that the Evaluation Contractor has provided the appropriate notifications in order to allow NHTSA to retain all materials, data, and code generated by the Evaluation Contractor that are in part or wholly created for the purposes of this project.

Privacy Threshold and Impact Assessments. The Evaluation Contractor shall prepare all materials necessary for a Privacy Threshold Assessment and, if applicable, a Privacy Impact Assessment, as required by the Privacy Act and E-Government Act.13

Within two weeks of receipt, the COR will either approve the IRB submission, OMB package, and Privacy Assessments or will contact the Evaluation Contractor for revisions to one or more of these documents. The COR will be responsible for submission of the PRA materials and Privacy Threshold Assessments. The Contractor shall resubmit the IRB application to the COR upon receipt of revisions.

C.3.2.6 Task 6: Attend and participate in planning meetings with NHTSA Demonstration Contractors

The NHTSA Demonstration Contractors will be required to hold planning meetings for their respective contracts within nine (9) months and twelve (12) months of their contracts being awarded. Although the demonstration projects have not been awarded, the Evaluation Contractor shall plan on two staff members attending and for each meeting to last two (2) days.

Additional staff may participate via teleconference. Information concerning the date and location of these meetings will be provided to the Evaluation Contractor as soon as practicable.

The Evaluation Contractor shall attend four (4) planning meetings, two (2) per participating NHTSA Demonstration Contractor. Together with the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors, COR, and NHTSA personnel, the Evaluation Contractor shall discuss and develop a project logic model, which at a minimum shall outline the program inputs, outcomes, and impacts, if applicable, as well as the predetermined measure(s) of program success. After the initial meetings (required for the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors nine (9) months post-award), the Evaluation Contractor shall document all logic model-related discussions in a traditional logic model format, subject to approval by the COR. At the second set of meetings (required for the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors fourteen (12) months post-award), the Evaluation Contractor shall present the project logic model, describe the work plans, and coordinate with the NHTSA Demonstration Contractor representatives to determine respective roles and responsibilities for collecting the data needed to meet the evaluation objectives. The Evaluation Contractor shall attend the meetings fully informed about the communities in which the Demonstration projects

13 See OMB Guidance for Implementing the Privacy Provisions of the E-Government Act of 2002. (2003). OMB Memorandum (03-022). Retrieved from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda_m03-22 shall take place and be prepared to discuss plans for meeting the objectives of this contract and completing the evaluation process. NHTSA will work with NHTSA Demonstration Contractors to develop timelines for the project. The Evaluation Contractor shall design their data collection plans to support the program timelines established by each NHTSA Demonstration Contractor and integrate these plans and timelines into the work plans (Task 3).

C.3.2.7 Task 7: Administer Attitudes/Awareness Surveys

The Evaluation Contractor shall administer the surveys to potential respondents in the participating communities for each demonstration program as well as a comparable “control” community. The surveys shall be administered at 3 time points: one week prior to program implementation; at the mid-point of the program (in the 7th month of the program); and one week following the termination of the program. It is unknown at this time when the contracts will be awarded to the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors and when the program will be implemented.

However, the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors will be required to implement the program from months 15-30 after the award of each of NHTSA’s Building Community Support for Seat Belt Enforcement and Support for Impaired Driving Enforcement Contracts.

The Evaluation Contractor shall employ the methodology determined in Task 4. The Evaluation Contractor shall work with the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors to plan the survey logistics.

C.3.2.8 Task 8: Conduct Process Evaluation for Case Studies

The Evaluation Contractor shall collect comprehensive program process data for the case studies.

The process data shall describe the program activity, including the enforcement, community partner, and communications activities.

Enforcement Data: The NHTSA Demonstration Contractor shall be required to provide enforcement activity data to the Evaluation Contractor within six (6) months of demonstration project contracts award and ongoing through the project period (months 15-30 of demonstration project contracts award). The Evaluation Contractor will receive this data from the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors.

The NHTSA Demonstration Contractors shall provide the following types of data for three (3) years prior to the program (baseline enforcement data) and for the program activity period:

• Citation data o Seat belt citation data, including date, time, and location o Impaired driving arrests, including date, time, and location

• Collision data o Collision data involving unrestrained occupants, including date, time, and location o Impaired driving-involved/related collision data, including date, time, and location

• Community population and demographics

• Types of enforcement strategies implemented (seat belt/safety checkpoints, channelization, sobriety checkpoints, roving/saturation patrols, phantom/ghost checkpoints)

• Frequency of enforcement (record of when the enforcement of interest occurs to determine how often it occurs)

• Number of officers engaged in enforcement strategies, number of hours dedicated

The Evaluation Contractor shall use the baseline and program activity enforcement data to compare typical or regular activity with mobilization activity to determine how the enforcement activity changed.

The Evaluation Contractor shall convert the citation data to appropriate rates (e.g., citations issued per 10,000 population).

Enforcement Training: For each demonstration program, the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors will conduct enforcement training throughout the program. The Evaluation Contractor shall track and record all training efforts, including training attendance and content.

Enforcement Equipment: The Evaluation Contractor shall track and record all equipment given to law enforcement to implement each demonstration program, as well as the use of the equipment during the program implementation period. Equipment may include signage, safety equipment (e.g., retro-reflective vests), breath testing devices, and materials to increase program awareness (e.g., brochures, posters, or press releases). Distribution and use of this equipment will be tracked because it is a component of the enforcement activity and without this information, the process evaluation would be incomplete and not reflect all aspects of the program activity that took place.

Engaging Community Partner Support: The Evaluation Contractor shall record the available process information pertaining to the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors process of identifying and soliciting community partners to participate in the program. The NHTSA Demonstration Contractors will engage with local entities (e.g., allied law enforcement agencies, state agencies, businesses, schools, public health organizations, criminal justice professionals, advocacy groups, members of the media and marketing firms, etc.) to identify community partners to participate in the program. The NHTSA Demonstration Contractors will solicit partners to participate in the program, which will involve sustained program support throughout the program period and active participation in program activities. The COR will supply the community partner information to the Evaluation Contractor after receipt from the NHTSA Demonstration Contractors.

Community Partner Meetings: Over the course of each demonstration program period, there will be a series of meetings with community partners or stakeholders to develop the program intervention strategy. The Evaluation Contractor shall attend all community partner meetings and record, among other things, attendance, the major ideas discussed, and any outcomes, decisions, or action items. The Evaluation Contractor shall summarize these details for inclusion in the Final Report detailed in Task 11. The Evaluation Contractor shall plan to attend three (3) community partner meetings for each program, totaling six (6) community meetings.

NHTSA Demonstration Contractors will be required to submit a list of program strategies and activities developed at the community partner meetings. The COR will supply this list to the Evaluation Contractor for use in the process evaluation, which will include comparing the ideas generated at the community meetings to the strategies reported by enforcement during the implementation period.

Communication Activity: The NHTSA Demonstration Contractors must work with the community partners to develop a communications plan for each program. The communications component will only include earned media; no paid media will be included in the program. The Evaluation Contractor shall document all communication activities and summarize for inclusion in the Final Report detailed in Task 11.

C.3.2.9 Task 9: Provide Database with Manual

The Evaluation Contractor shall prepare and submit to the COR a final database including all data collected in the study, but without personally identifiable information. The database shall be provided in both SPSS and SAS format with all variable labels included. A manual including all details of the variables, including variable names, labels, and range of responses, in the database shall be provided by the Evaluation Contractor. These materials shall be delivered to the COR no later than 6 weeks after completion of Tasks 7 & 8.

The COR will provide comments within three (3) weeks of receipt of the database and manual.

C.3.2.10 Task 10: Complete Data Analysis

The Evaluation Contractor shall complete appropriate analyses of data collected including but not limited to the attitudes/awareness survey data and enforcement activity data within 10 weeks of delivery of the database and manual of Task 9. The data shall be analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods including inferential statistics and non-parametrics.

C.3.2.11 Task 11: Draft and Final Report

Within 2 months of completion of the data analysis of Task 10, the Evaluation Contractor shall submit a draft final report that includes a brief, 2-page executive summary of the project’s key findings. The report shall include the following sections: Background, Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions. The full report (excluding appendices) shall not exceed 50 pages. The Evaluation Contractor shall review the report for quality assurance prior to submission to the COR. The COR will provide the Evaluation Contractor with comments within two weeks of submission of the draft final report. The Evaluation Contractor shall incorporate those comments into the report and resubmit within two weeks of receipt of COR’s comments.

This report will be subject to agency review. Once the report has gone through the formal NHTSA review process, the COR will return comments to the Evaluation Contractor. The Evaluation Contractor shall make revisions to the report based on the comments received and then submit the report for further review to the COR. The NHTSA COR will engage in an iterative review/revision cycle with the Evaluation Contractor until the NHTSA COR and NHTSA’s Agency Review approve this item. For this task, the Evaluation Contractor shall plan on submitting three drafts of the Final Report to the COR and NHTSA for review.

C.3.2.12 Task 12: Contribute to a Final Briefing

The Evaluation Contractor shall contribute to a 45-minute presentation of the project with the COR for presentation at NHTSA in Washington, D.C. Within 4 months after submission of the Draft Report of Task 11, the Evaluation Contractor and COR shall conduct this final briefing. All sections of the final report shall be represented in the presentation. The presentation shall be submitted to the COR one week prior to the presentation for review.

C.4 OPTIONAL TASKS

Prior to the completion of Task 4, the Government will advise the Evaluation Contractor of its desire to exercise any of the following Optional Tasks in C.4.1 and/or C.4.2. The Government is not obligated to order these optional tasks, nor is the Evaluation Contractor obligated to perform these tasks unless a unilateral modification is executed by the Government. If the Government elects to proceed with any or both of the optional tasks, then the Evaluation Contractor will be required to provide the additional support and services. The Evaluation Contractor shall provide these services after receiving a unilateral modification signed by the contracting officer. Any unilateral modification will specify which optional tasks have been exercised under the contract and will be issued by the contracting officer and received by the Evaluation Contractor no later than __TBD______.

C.4.1 Optional Task 1: Conduct Seat Belt Observations

The Government may exercise the option to require the Evaluation Contractor to conduct seat belt observations one week prior to the seat belt program implementation and one week following the termination of the program in the participating community and in the “control” community. If exercised, the Evaluation Contractor shall identify a minimum of ten locations in each community to make seat belt observations. The observations shall include, but are not limited to, the belt status of the driver and any passengers, the type of vehicle (e.g., truck, SUV), and time of day. The Evaluation Contractor shall ensure that the data collectors receive appropriate and adequate training for making such observations. Data collections should take place for 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon/evening (during periods of heavier traffic [e.g., “rush hour”]) for a minimum of 3 days. If exercised, the Evaluation Contractor shall include this data in the database specified in Task 9. The Evaluation Contractor shall analyze the pre- and post-data using appropriate statistical techniques. The results shall be included in the draft/final report specified in task 11.

C.4.2 Optional Task 2: Conduct Community Partners and Law Enforcement Interviews

The Government may exercise the option to require the Evaluation Contractor to conduct interviews with law enforcement officers and community partners directly involved in the program activity at 3 time points; one week prior…