DTRT5715R20006_SOLICITATION.pdf

DTRT5715R20006

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 79

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

DTRT-RVT-21-102403/30/2015

X

V221

U.S. DOT/Volpe Center Off-Site Engin & R&D Contracts 55 Broadway, V-221 Cambridge MA 02142-1001

1500 ET 05/21/2015

Elizabeth A Segal 617 elizabeth.segal@dot.gov

494-2401

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

PAGE(S)

Elizabeth A. Segal

AUTHORIZED FOR LOCAL REPRODUCTION

Previous edition is unusable

STANDARD FORM 33 (Rev. 9-97)

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

Elizabeth.Segal Typewritten Text See Section L.3.C.

Elizabeth.Segal Typewritten Text See Block No. 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 CONTRACT LINE ITEMS (FEB 2015)

B.2 CONTRACT SCOPE (FEB 2015)

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

C.1 INTRODUCTION

C.2 PURPOSE

C.3 BACKGROUND

C.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

C.5 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

C.6 SUSTAINABLE ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 PACKAGING (MAY 1999)

D.2 MARKING (MAY 2012)

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

E.2 GOVERNMENT REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE (FEB 2015)

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.1 FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

F.2 CONTRACT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE (FEB 2015)

F.3 DELIVERIES (FEB 2015)

F.4 LIST OF MILESTONES AND DELIVERABLES (FEB 2015)

F.5 MEETINGS AND ORAL PRESENTATIONS (FEB 2015)

F.6 MONTHLY CONTRACT PROGRESS REPORT (FEB 2015)

F.7 MONTHLY CONTRACT COST REPORT (FEB 2015)

F.8 DELIVERIES (FEB 2015)

F.9 RIGHTS IN DATA (DEC 2007)

F.10 LICENSES (MAY 1999)

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.1 TAR 1252.242-73 CONTRACTING OFFICER’S TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE (OCT

1994)

G.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION (FEB 2015)

G.3 TECHNICAL DIRECTION (MAY 2012)

G.4 PAYMENTS AND CONSIDERATION (FEB 2015)

G.5 PAYMENTS UNDER COST REIMBURSEMENT CONTRACTS (FEB 2015)

G.6 PAYMENT OF FEE - COST-PLUS-FIXED-FEE (FEB 2015)

G.7 PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS (FEB 2015)

G.8 VOUCHER REVIEW (MAR 2003)

G.9 COST ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS (FEB 2015)

G.10 TRAVEL AND PER DIEM (FEB 2015)

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

H.1 NON-PERSONAL SERVICES (DEC 1998)

H.2 GPO PRINTING REQUIREMENT (DEC 1998)

H.3 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY (DEC 1998)

H.4 SALES TAX EXEMPTION (MAY 1999)

H.5 HANDLING OF DATA (MAR 2008)

H.6 INSURANCE (MAR 2003)

H.7 CONSENT TO RELEASE GOVERNMENT-ORDERED ITEMS (FEB 2015)

H.8 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (FEB 2015)

H.9 SECTION 508 ACCESS BOARD STANDARDS (SEP 2005)

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

I.1 FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

I.2 FAR 52.204-1 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT (DEC 1989)

I.3 FAR 52.209-9 UPDATES OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION REGARDING

RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JUL 2013)

I.4 TAR 1252.237-73 KEY PERSONNEL (APR 2005)

I.5 TAR 1252.239-70 CYBERSECURITY REQUIREMENTS FOR UNCLASSIFIED AND

SENSITIVE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) RESOURCES (JUN 2012)

SECTION J – LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

SECTION K - REPRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, AND OTHER STATEMENTS OF

OFFERORS OR RESPONDENTS

K.1 IMPORTANCE OF ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (FEB 2013) . 46

K.2 FAR 52.204-8 ANNUAL REPRESENTATIONS AND CERTIFICATIONS (DEC 2014)

K.3 FAR 52.209-7 INFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS (JUL 2013) ... 48

K.4 TAR 1252.237-71 CERTIFICATION OF DATA (APR 2005)

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS

L.1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

L.2 GENERAL INFORMATION

L.3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND COST AND BUSINESS

PROPOSAL PREPARATION

L.4 INSTRUCTIONS FOR COST AND BUSINESS PROPOSAL

L.5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

M.2 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.3 COST AND BUSINESS PROPOSAL EVALUATION

ATTACHMENT NO. J.1 - LABOR CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS ... 75

ATTACHMENT NO. J.2 - SAMPLE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONAIRE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS

B.1 CONTRACT LINE ITEMS (FEB 2015)

The Contractor shall furnish all personnel, supplies, facilities, materials, support, and management necessary to provide the services in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled State of Knowledge and Practice for Using Automated License Plate Readers for Traffic Safety Purposes, and other terms and conditions of this contract.

CLIN Supplies/Services Quantity Unit Line Item Type Amount 0100 The Contractor shall furnish all personnel, supplies, facilities, materials, support, and management necessary to provide the services in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW) entitled State of Knowledge and Practice for Using Automated License Plate Readers for Traffic Safety Purposes, and other terms and conditions of this contract.

1 Job Cost-Plus- Fixed-Fee – Completion

Estimated Cost Fixed Fee Total CPFF

B.2 CONTRACT SCOPE (FEB 2015)

The Contractor, acting as an independent Contractor and not as an agent of the Government, shall furnish all personnel, supplies, facilities, materials, support, and management necessary to provide the services required under this contract. The scope of this effort is defined in the Statement of Work (SOW) (see Section C).

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/STATEMENT OF WORK

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE FOR USING AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE

READERS FOR TRAFFIC SAFETY PURPOSES

C.1 INTRODUCTION

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) is a Federal fee-for-service organization within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R) of the United States Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). The Volpe Center’s mission is to improve the nation’s transportation systems. In partnership with sponsoring agencies, the Volpe Center provides technical research and analysis services to the U.S. DOT, other Federal agencies, state agencies, and other organizations in connection with the transportation-related components of their missions.

The Volpe Center utilizes a combination of Federal personnel and Contractor support to marshal the broad range and quantity of skills needed to perform sponsoring agencies’ projects. By establishing a “pool” of professional technical/scientific resources, the Volpe Center can respond to uncertain, long-range requirements of its technical program in a timely and effective manner.

C.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of this contract is to conduct preliminary qualitative research on the feasibility of using Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) as countermeasures to improve traffic safety. While ALPRs are deployed for a variety of purposes (e.g., homeland security, locating and recovering stolen vehicles, etc.), the purpose of this study is to focus on the use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. Within traffic safety, the emphasis will be on license offenses, including revoked, suspended, or restricted licenses.

However, the study should reveal whether ALPRs are being used for any other type of traffic safety function, e.g., speed enforcement. The research shall examine the full range of issues associated with the implementation and use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes, including, but not limited to:

• Extent of ALPR use for traffic safety purposes (overall and relative to other purposes)

• Development, implementation and maintenance of ALPR databases (e.g., “Hot Lists”)

• Cost to deploy and maintain ALPRs (including training)

• Effectiveness of ALPRs o Benefits/value/usefulness of deploying ALPRs for traffic safety purposes o Challenges and problems encountered when utilizing ALPRs for traffic safety purposes, including technical, operational and institutional (and how they were overcome)

• Legal issues surrounding the use of ALPRs and how have they been addressed

• Law enforcement acceptance for traffic safety purposes

• Community acceptance for traffic safety purposes

• Privacy concerns

• Other issues or concerns

It should be noted that this research does not involve the deployment of any technology. It is a qualitative, balanced assessment of the issues associated with the implementation of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes.

C.3 BACKGROUND

This project – the State of Knowledge and Practice for Using Automated License Plate Readers for Traffic Safety Purposes – is one of several studies selected for investigation under the National Cooperative Research and Evaluation Program (NCREP). The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), subsection 402(c) states that the Secretary of the U.S. DOT, acting through the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), shall establish a cooperative program to research and evaluate state highway safety countermeasures. NHTSA, in conjunction with the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), identified a need to discover and report on the state of knowledge and practice as it relates to automated license plate readers. Throughout the course of the study, Volpe Center staff will be coordinating with NHTSA Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and, through NHTSA with representatives of GHSA, to insure that the study is also meeting the needs of GHSA.

License sanctions (including suspension, revocation, and restrictions) are widely used to address the traffic risk posed by problem drivers. However, license actions are difficult to enforce due to the essentially invisible nature of the offense.1 The difficulty in detecting drivers who have suspended, revoked, or restricted licenses weakens the deterrent value of the laws, and research indicates that many of these drivers continue to drive.2 Moreover, drivers with license sanctions are overrepresented in crashes.3

A less common method used to address the traffic safety risk posed by drivers with license sanctions is the use of vehicle and license plate sanctions,4 such as the use of ‘zebra’ plates (e.g., Oregon and Washington State)5 and learner’s plates/ decal laws (e.g., New Jersey S2314). However, these approaches may be easily evaded through transfers of ownership and may affect the family members of offenders6. It is conceivable that ALPRs could be used in conjunction with a ‘Hot List’ of drivers with suspended, revoked, or restricted licenses to mitigate some of the concerns associated with ‘zebra’ plates and decals.

ALPR systems automatically capture an image of a vehicle’s license plate, transform that image into alphanumeric characters, compare the captured license plate number to one or more databases of vehicles of interest (e.g., Hot Lists), and alert the officer when a plate matching an agency’s Hot List is observed.

To date, several survey efforts have explored the use of ALPRs among law enforcement agencies (LEAs).

A 2007 survey found that 19 percent of law enforcement agencies overall were using ALPRs, with

1 Robert B. Voas, A. Scott McKnight, Tim Falk, and James C. Fell, Update of Vehicle Sanction Laws and their Application: Volume I – Summary, Report No. DOT HS 811 028A. (Washington DC: NHTSA, 2008), 6.

2 Anne T. McCartt, Lori L. Geary, and William J. Nissen, Observational Study of the Extent of Driving While Suspended for Alcohol Impaired Driving, Report No. DOT HS 809 491. (Washington DC:

NHTSA, 2002), 51.

3 Timothy Neuman, Ronald Pfefer, Kevin L. Slack, & Patricia Waller, Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses, NCHRP Report 500. (Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board,2003), I-1 - I-2) 4 Voas et al., Update of Vehicle Sanction Laws and their Application: Volume I – Summary, 2-3.

5 Neuman et al., Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses, NCHRP Report 500, V-2.

6 Neuman et al., Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan. Volume 2: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses, NCHRP Report 500, V-13.

significant differences by size of the agency.7 Among agencies with more than 1,000 sworn officers, nearly one-half (48 percent) were using ALPRs, as were 32 percent of agencies with 501 to 1,000 officers. By contrast, none of the smallest agencies (defined as those with fewer than 50 officers) reported using ALPRs, and only 9 percent of agencies with 51 to 100 officers indicated using the technology.

A 2009 survey of LEAs identified emerging practices in ALPR implementation in order to provide operational and policy guidance to the field.8 The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) administered the survey to a random sample of 444 local, state, and tribal law enforcement agencies.

Among the 305 agencies that provided a response, nearly one-quarter (23 percent) indicated that they were using ALPRs. While larger agencies were still more likely than smaller agencies to have deployed ALPRs, this survey also found increasing use of the technology among smaller agencies; 13.4 percent of agencies with 100 or fewer officers had adopted ALPRs.

The 70 agencies that reported using ALPRs were spread across the United States, with a slightly greater concentration in the Northeast, compared to other regions of the country. All agencies using ALPRs were sent a more detailed survey to assess their use and practices regarding the technology. Forty agencies responded to the more detailed survey.

Among the LEAs using ALPRs, 82 percent were using mobile ALPRs only, 5 percent fixed systems only, and 13 percent were using both fixed systems and mobile ALPRs. Agencies reported using ALPRs for a variety of purposes, including auto theft (83 percent), general investigations (70 percent), vehicle and traffic enforcement (50 percent), crime analysis (33 percent) and narcotics (28 percent). Among the benefits or values cited in using ALPRs were an increase in stolen vehicle recovery (68 percent), increase in arrests (55 percent), and increase in productivity (50 percent). When asked about the management of their Hot List, more than eight-in-ten agencies reported that their Hot List contained information on stolen vehicles (88 percent) and stolen plates (83 percent). Hot lists also tended to include information on vehicles associated with wanted persons (60 percent), AMBER alerts (45 percent), suspended or revoked licenses (30 percent), and lack of insurance (25 percent). Fifty-three percent of agencies updated their Hot Lists wirelessly, and a plurality (43 percent) updated their lists once each day. Agencies varied in the extent to which they retained data, with 40 percent doing so for six months or less. About one-half of responding agencies (48 percent) reported having a policy on ALPR use and operations, and 15 percent indicated they were in the process of planning one or developing one.

In addition to its survey effort, IACP has also developed a report, Privacy Impact Assessment Report for the Utilization of License Plate Readers, that describes the privacy issues surrounding law enforcement’s use of ALPRs and provides recommendations on how to address those concerns through information management policies.9

7 The data presented from the 2007 survey is excerpted from: David J. Roberts & Meghann Casanova, Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Systems: Policy and Operational Guidance for Law Enforcement. (Washington D.C.: US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2012).

8 The data presented from the 2009 survey is excerpted from: David J. Roberts & Meghann Casanova, Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) Systems: Policy and Operational Guidance for Law Enforcement.

9 Meghann Tracy, Heather Ruzbasan Cotter, and William Nagel, Privacy Impact Assessment Report for the Utilization of License Plate Readers. (Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2009).

The data collected to date indicates that some agencies are using ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. As cited above, 30 percent of agencies deploying ALPRs reported that their Hot Lists contained information on drivers with suspended/revoked licenses. However, the Government does not have any detailed information on agencies’ experiences using ALPRs for this purpose, including any specific problems, concerns, or benefits. This study shall explore the use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes in greater detail, with the goal of providing insights on the full range of issues associated with the implementation and use of ALPRs for traffic safety, with a specific emphasis on license offenses, including revoked, suspended, or restricted licenses.

C.4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

Over the course of the approximately 32 month period of performance for this study, the Contractor will perform the following activities:

• Meet bi-weekly (every other week) by telephone with the Volpe Center Contracting Officer Representative (COR) to provide progress reports

• Write a work plan

• Write a literature review plan

• Conduct a literature review to understand current knowledge and practice with respect to the use of ALPR technology for traffic safety purposes

• Recommend potential case studies for deeper investigation

• Write a discussion guide for use in the case studies

• Prepare (and update, as necessary) all materials required for a Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for this study, with format and content that meets the standards required by OMB and by the U.S. DOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and Office of the Secretary (OST)

• Prepare all materials necessary for a Privacy Threshold Assessment and, if applicable, a Privacy Impact Assessment10

• Develop a case study work plan

• Conduct the case studies

• Develop an analysis plan

• Analyze the qualitative data collected in the case studies, in conjunction with the literature review findings

• Write a Final Report of Findings

• Develop presentation materials

• Present findings at a technical briefing with the Volpe Center, NHTSA, and in a webinar format with GHSA

C.5 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

The specific activities to be performed under this Statement of Work are outlined below, and the deliverables and milestones are also summarized and described in Section F.

Task 1 Conduct Project Management The Contractor shall meet bi-weekly, by telephone, with the Volpe Center COR over the course of the project and shall prepare written Monthly Contract Progress Reports and Monthly Contract Cost Reports (see Section F, Paragraph F.6 and Paragraph F.7 for more details). All project management task activities shall occur for the duration of the project.

10 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.

Deliverables: Bi-weekly Update meetings, by telephone; Monthly Contract Progress Reports and Cost Reports delivered via email.

Task 2 Present at Kick-Off Meeting In order for the Contractor to receive input from the Volpe Center COR, Volpe Center project staff, and NHTSA subject matter experts (SMEs), a Kick-Off Meeting will be convened no later than four weeks after the award of contract. The Contractor shall meet at the Volpe Center (Cambridge, MA) to discuss key project objectives, roles and responsibilities, deliverables, and schedule. The Volpe Center and NHTSA SMEs shall provide the background, purpose, and rationale for the study (< 20 minutes). The Contractor shall then describe in broad terms and answer questions regarding the proposed plan of work.

The Contractor shall also include any additional thoughts since the proposal was prepared and share potential challenges and issues involved in the project, including how the Contractor plans to address these issues.

The Contractor shall plan on two staff attending the Kick-Off Meeting in person at the Volpe Center, including the Program Manager and a Social Scientist/Analyst. The Contractor shall prepare a draft Microsoft (MS) PowerPoint presentation (based off their proposed plan of work) to guide the discussion.

The draft MS PowerPoint shall be delivered to the Volpe Center COR for review. Based on feedback from the Volpe Center COR, the Contractor shall revise the MS PowerPoint presentation.

Deliverables: In-person attendance at Kick-Off Meeting (Cambridge, MA); Draft and final versions of a MS PowerPoint presentation for the Kick-Off Meeting

Task 3 Submit a Work Plan In order to support communication and coordination and to summarize the current state of understanding between the Contractor and the Volpe Center COR, the Contractor shall submit a Work Plan to the Volpe Center COR within one week after the Kick-Off Meeting.

The Work Plan shall reflect the current understanding between the Volpe Center COR and the Contractor.

The Work Plan shall be based on (and updated by) the SOW (Statement of Work), the Contractor’s proposal, and information discussed at the Kick-Off Meeting.

The Work Plan shall include:

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

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

• A list of planned travel and estimated travel costs (to be finalized in the Case Study Work Plan

(Task 6) after the case study sites have been selected).

• A detailed discussion of how the 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 Plan by the Volpe Center COR, the Volpe Center COR may discuss the currently submitted item with the Contractor or indicate that the Work Plan is approved. If the Work Plan is not approved, then the Contractor and the Volpe Center COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the Work Plan is approved. The Contractor shall not proceed with any subsequent project tasks until after the Volpe Center COR has approved the Final Work Plan and given the Contractor the okay to proceed.

Deliverable: Draft Work Plan (revised as necessary, based on Volpe Center COR feedback); Final Work Plan

Task 4 Submit Literature Review Plan The Contractor shall submit a draft Literature Review Plan that will discuss all the steps necessary to conduct a comprehensive literature review on the use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. As described in the Purpose Statement above, the literature review must address the following elements of the use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes:

• Extent of ALPR use for traffic safety purposes (overall and relative to other purposes)

• Development, implementation and maintenance of ALPR databases (e.g., “Hot Lists”)

• Cost to deploy and maintain ALPRs (including training)

• Effectiveness of ALPRs o Benefits/value/usefulness of deploying ALPRs for traffic safety purposes o Challenges and problems encountered when utilizing ALPRs for traffic safety purposes, including technical, operational and institutional (and how they were overcome)

• Legal issues surrounding the use of ALPRs and how have they been addressed

• Law enforcement acceptance

• Community acceptance

• Privacy concerns

• Other issues or concerns

The background research also will serve to identify LEAs that are currently using ALPRs to detect drivers with suspended, revoked or restricted licenses. The Contractor shall maintain a list of such agencies, as a subset is likely to be used for the case studies (see Task 7).11

At a minimum, the Contractor shall discuss the following elements in the Literature Review Plan:

SCOPE

The literature review needs to be extensive enough to bring in new information on topics and research relevant to the question, but at some point a literature review can become too broad. A review that is too extensive may lose its focus, and become so long and cumbersome that people will not use it. For the purposes of this project, the literature review shall be primarily confined to the use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. However, in some cases, the Contractor may want to include information that relates to the use of ALPRs for other purposes (e.g., locating and recovering stolen vehicles), because those findings are also relevant to the use of ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. In describing the scope, the Contractor shall detail to what extent or under what circumstances they will include findings that pertain to the other uses of ALPRs. Similarly, while the focus of the literature review shall be research conducted in the U.S., it may be appropriate for some topics to draw on study findings from other countries.

Based on the scope that is defined, the Government would then have boundaries for information to be included in the review.

11 While the literature review shall include data on a range of stakeholders (law enforcement agencies, the public, government officials, etc.), the case studies will focus exclusively on gathering information from law enforcement agencies. Limited resources preclude interviews with the public, government officials or other relevant stakeholders.

SCAN AND SCREEN FOR AVAILABLE RESOURCES

Given the Contractor’s defined scope from above, the Contractor shall next describe a search strategy to locate appropriate materials.

• What are appropriate search words, and combinations of words?

o Although this may appear simplistic, the chosen search words are extremely important, as again the Contractor will want to be inclusive, yet mindful that too many words can yield thousands of identified resources.

• What are appropriate sources (academic, journalistic, statutory, etc.)?

• What are appropriate search engines?

• What are appropriate search strategies?

• Once an initial set of matches is identified, how will a document (such as an abstract) or reference be further screened to determine whether it is appropriate to retrieve?

RETRIEVAL, ORGANIZATION, AND FILING METHODS

The Contractor shall next briefly describe how promising documents will be retrieved, along with the organization and filing strategies for these documents.

CRITICAL REVIEW

There are likely multiple steps necessary for a critical review of the document. First is an additional screen to confirm that the document is relevant for continued consideration. It is likely that there will be a number of documents that look appropriate given their title or abstract, or even their introductory information, but turn out to be inappropriate. The Contractor shall discuss how it will determine whether to continue with review of a document. The Contractor shall discuss appropriate criteria for whether a document should be included in the review.

Once documents have been selected, the Contractor will need to have a qualified person(s) review the document. The Contractor shall discuss the steps necessary for this process (e.g., listing the methods, strengths and weaknesses of a study and a determination of whether the author’s conclusions are sound). Here again, the Contractor may need another screening step to determine whether to proceed with the document for further work.

SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS

Next, the Contractor must synthesize and analyze the information from 1) individual documents, and 2) across documents. As noted earlier, it is important that the Contractor pull the relevant information from a study, and, in concert with the information obtained in other studies, extract the key points, analyze the information, and then summarize the information in an objective, yet illustrative manner. The Contractor must present conclusions that are appropriate to the content, and quality, of the research on which it is based. The Contractor shall discuss the process it would use to synthesize and analyze the information from the critically-reviewed documents.

Overall, it is anticipated that the Literature Review Plan will be approximately three to five pages in length. If the Draft Literature Review Plan is not approved by the Volpe Center COR, then the Contractor and the Volpe Center COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the Volpe Center COR approves the Literature Review Plan.

Deliverables: Draft and Final Versions of Literature Review Plan

Tasks 5a-c:

This task is divided into three subtasks: 5a) Conduct Literature Review, 5b) Prepare Webinar, and 5c) Prepare Literature Review Report. Each sub-task is described below.

Task 5a Conduct Literature Review Once the Literature Review Plan developed in Task 4 has been finalized and approved, the Contractor shall conduct the literature review as described in the approved Literature Review Plan. For each document critically reviewed for this project, the Contractor shall also provide a copy to the Volpe Center COR.

In addition, and as necessary, the Contractor shall contact no more than nine non-Federal staff/employees (including single points of contact at vendors, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and other relevant sources) to identify law enforcement agencies that may be using ALPRs for traffic safety purposes. The Contractor may contact as many NHTSA staff as necessary to obtain information. However, prior to initiating contact with any sources, the Contractor must obtain approval from the Volpe Center COR.

When the Contractor has developed an initial list of eligible LEAs, the Contractor shall contact up to nine LEAs to confirm that they are indeed using ALPRs for traffic safety purposes and to gauge their interest in participating as a case study. However, prior to initiating contact with any sources, the Contractor must obtain approval from the Volpe Center COR. The Contractor shall use the information gathered in these informal calls, as well as other information gathered to date to prioritize the list of LEAs for the case studies and to make recommendations for the best sites for the case studies.

As part of the literature review task, the Contractor shall also develop a list of data elements that it plans to collect for each case study (e.g., in addition to the interview data). Possible data elements include training hours for staff, cost and schedule information for deploying ALPRs, etc. The list of data elements shall support the study objectives and shall be collected to the extent that the data is readily available (see Task 9). Given the qualitative nature of this study, the Contractor shall not perform extensive quantitative data analyses.

Deliverables: PDF or MS Word formats of the documents that are reviewed; Prioritized list of potential LEAs for case studies with recommendations for best sites; list of data elements to be collected at each study site

Task 5b Prepare Webinar The Contractor shall convene a webinar with the Volpe Center COR, Volpe project staff and NHTSA SMEs to present and discuss the findings from the literature review. As part of the webinar, the Contractor shall present key findings from the literature review (Task 5a), including the list of data elements and the prioritized list of eligible LEAs for the case studies, with justification for its recommendations on the best sites for the case studies. If fewer than nine agencies are using ALPRs for traffic safety purposes, all identified agencies shall be utilized for the case studies. The Contractor shall not proceed with contacting the LEAs about conducting case studies until the Volpe Center has finalized the list and NHTSA has coordinated with the regional offices, providing them with advance notification of the study.

Two weeks prior to the webinar, the Contractor shall deliver a draft MS PowerPoint presentation to the COR. The Contractor and the Volpe Center COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the Volpe Center COR approves the MS PowerPoint presentation.

Deliverables: Draft and Final versions of MS PowerPoint presentation; Hosting of webinar.

Task 5c Prepare Literature Review Report Within two weeks of the webinar, the Contractor shall submit a Draft Literature Review Report that presents the findings of the literature review, incorporating any feedback received during the webinar presentation. The Draft Report shall include the prioritized list of law enforcement agencies that are using ALPRs for traffic safety (with recommendations for the best sites), in addition to the Contractor’s list of recommendations for additional data elements that should be collected for the case studies. The Contractor and the Volpe Center COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the Volpe Center COR approves the Literature Review Report.

Deliverables: Draft and Final versions of Literature Review Report

Task 6 Develop Case Study Work Plan At the same time that the Final Literature Review Report is delivered, the Contractor shall develop a Case Study Work Plan, based on the Final Work Plan developed in Task 2. The Case Study Work Plan shall include more detailed information about the case study data collection and feedback from the Volpe Center COR on which sites may be selected for the case studies. As described in Task 2, the Work Plan shall include the following elements:

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

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

• A list of planned travel and estimated travel costs.

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

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

• The plan for project management and quality assurance.

The Contractor and the Volpe Center COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the Volpe Center COR approves the Case Study Work Plan. This Case Study Work Plan will serve as input to the OMB package that is being prepared (see Task 8).

Deliverable: Draft and final versions of Case Study Work Plan that incorporates more detailed information on the case study data collection

Task 7 Develop Case Study Discussion Guide The Contractor, in consultation with the Volpe Center, shall develop a draft Case Study Discussion Guide that explores the full range of issues associated with the use of ALPRs. The literature review (Task 5) shall be used to inform the development of the discussion guide. In designing the discussion guide, the Contractor must meet the highest standards of scientific best practice (avoid biased questions, excessively erudite language, use probes, as needed, etc.). The discussion guide shall include a set of screener questions that serves two purposes:

1. To confirm that the law enforcement agency is indeed using ALPRs for traffic safety purposes

2. To assess the agency’s willingness to participate as a case study.

The Contractor must anticipate rapid iterative review and adjustment of the guide until it is sufficiently developed to satisfy the objectives of this project in the opinion of the Volpe Center COR. While it is anticipated that the same discussion guide can be used for all interviews, it may be necessary to have multiple versions of some questions based on whether the discussion is with a police/patrol officer versus a commanding officer (e.g., Captain or Chief).

Deliverable: Draft and Final versions of Case Study Discussion Guide in MS Word

Task 8 Prepare and Submit Package for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Approval Concurrently with Tasks 5, 6, and 7, the Contractor shall begin activities necessary for the review of data collection methods by OMB, if approval is necessary. OMB has strict requirements with regard to any surveys, interviews or focus groups conducted using federal funding. The Contactor must review OMB’s Guidance on Agency Survey and Statistical Information Collections (located on OMB’s website:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_statpolicy/) and make sure that all data collection conforms to the OMB guidelines.

It is expected that OMB clearance will be required for this data collection effort. The Contractor shall develop the Federal Register notices and the OMB application package for OMB approval that will be required for the project’s data collection efforts. The U.S. DOT OST and BTS will need to review the package and will submit the package to OMB. The Volpe Center shall coordinate with OST and BTS, as necessary, for this review prior to OMB submission.

The Contractor shall take the OMB process into account in the work plan and research time line. This is a lengthy process, usually taking about six to nine months and it must be integrated into the overall research design. While the OMB approval process shall be initiated once the Final Work Plan has been approved (Task 2), submission of the package cannot occur until the discussion guide has been developed (Task 7), as the discussion guide must be included in the OMB package. Once the package has been submitted, the Contractor shall work with the Volpe Center COR to address any issues or concerns that OMB may have regarding the data collection effort.

Deliverables: Federal Register Notices; OMB application documents (e.g., Supporting Statements, other relevant documentation)

Task 9 Collect Data on Case Studies The data collection for the case studies will commence upon OMB approval of the Information Collection Request (OMB review is assumed to take 36 weeks). This schedule may need to be adjusted, based on the time required for OMB approval. Upon receiving approval from OMB, the Contractor shall update the Case Study Work Plan and Discussion Guide, as necessary, to reflect any changes that were made per OMB’s request and shall provide an updated schedule.

Upon receiving approval from OMB, as well as the approval of the Volpe Center COR, the Contractor shall begin recruitment for the case studies, using the screener questions developed as part of the discussion guides and working from the prioritized list of LEAs (previously approved by the Volpe Center COR). The Contractor shall identify and contact the appropriate person to request participation in the case study. When recruitment has been completed, the Contractor shall update the Case Study Work Plan, if necessary, to reflect any changes (e.g., sites, schedule) that occurred during recruitment. The Government anticipates that a minimum of two to three interviews will be conducted for each case study in order to obtain a range of perspectives (e.g., police/patrol officers, as well as Captain or Chief).

The Contractor shall conduct research for no fewer than six case studies on-site (in-person) at the law enforcement agency in order to obtain a more detailed understanding of ALPRs and their use by LEAs in the field. The remaining case studies (approximately three to six) may be conducted by telephone. The Contractor and Volpe Center staff will work together to identify which case studies are most suitable for an on-site visit.

In addition to interviews, the Contractor shall collect the data from the list of data elements approved by the Volpe Center COR (see Task 5a), to the extent that LEAs can provide these data. These data shall be organized in MS Excel spreadsheet(s). In addition, the Contractor may obtain reports or other materials from the LEAs as part of their case study data collection.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/pmc_survey_guidance_2006.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_statpolicy/

As part of the bi-weekly check-in calls with the Volpe Center during the data collection period, the Contractor shall provide status updates, including any issues or concerns regarding the data collection.

Deliverables: Updated Case Study Work Plan and Updated Case Study Discussion Guide (revised per OMB’s feedback); Interview notes from the case studies in MS Word; MS Excel spreadsheet(s) with data elements collected from LEAs, as well as any other reports, data, or materials obtained in reference to the case studies.

Tasks 10a-b This task is divided into two subtasks: 10a) Develop Analysis Plan and 10b) Analyze Data, each of which is described below.

Task 10a Develop Analysis Plan Concurrently with Task 9, the Contractor shall develop an analysis plan (one to three pages in length) that summarizes how the analysis of the case study data will be conducted, and how that data will be synthesized with other information collected over the course of the study (e.g., literature review, data elements). The Contractor and the Volpe Center COR shall engage in an iterative review/revision cycle until the Volpe Center COR approves the Analysis Plan.

Deliverable: Draft and Final Analysis Plan

Task 10b Analyze Data As per the Analysis Plan approved by the Volpe Center COR, the Contractor shall analyze the data that has been collected to date, including coding and categorizing the data.

Task 11 Write Final Report of Findings The Contractor shall produce a Final Report that synthesizes information collected from all sources (including the literature review, the interviews and on-site observations) to provide a summary of the State of the Knowledge and Practice for using automated license plate readers for traffic safety purposes.

The report is anticipated to be approximately 50-75 pages long (excluding Appendices). The report shall contain the following sections:

• Executive summary

• Introduction: describe the topic being investigated

• Background: provide a detailed narrative of the literature review

• Methods: provide a summary of the methodology that was used

• Key Findings: present the results from the case studies (e.g., topics to be addressed are enumerated in the “Purpose” section of the SOW)

• Conclusions/Next Steps: based on the findings, draw any preliminary conclusions about the feasibility of using ALPRS for traffic safety purposes (as appropriate) and outline recommended next steps

• Appendices (detailed information on methods, discussion guides etc.)

The Contractor shall submit the draft Final Report to the Volpe Center COR within nine weeks of receiving the Final Analysis Plan. The Volpe Center COR shall provide feedback within 12 weeks of receiving the draft Final Report and following the technical briefing at NHTSA (see Task 12). The Contractor shall revise the Report until it is approved by the Volpe Center COR. The Contractor shall deliver the Final Report within four weeks of receiving comments from the Volpe Center COR.

Deliverable: Draft and Final versions of the Final Report

Task 12 Develop Presentation Materials and Attend Final Briefing and Webinar Within one week of delivering the Draft Final Report, the Contractor shall prepare and submit to the Volpe Center COR a draft MS PowerPoint presentation of findings and recommendations for presentation to NHTSA staff at an in-person technical briefing (Washington D.C.). The Contractor shall revise the MS PowerPoint presentation based on feedback from the Volpe Center COR until the Volpe Center COR approves the MS PowerPoint presentation.

The technical briefing will be conducted within approximately four weeks of delivering the Draft PowerPoint presentation and prior to finalizing the report, so that feedback from the briefing can be incorporated into the final report. For budgeting purposes, the Contractor shall plan for no more than two staff to attend the briefing in-person. The briefing may last up to three hours.

In addition, the Contractor shall work with Volpe Center staff to develop a MS PowerPoint presentation for a webinar to be convened with GHSA and NHTSA to present high level, key findings and recommendations. Within approximately six weeks of the Technical Briefing at NHTSA, Volpe Center staff and the Contractor shall jointly present findings at the Webinar (the Volpe Center will be responsible for the IT set-up and administration of the webinar).

Deliverables: MS PowerPoint presentation for technical briefing; In-person attendance at final technical briefing to GHSA and NHTSA; Input on webinar content; Remote participation in webinar

C.6 SUSTAINABLE ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS

To the maximum extent possible and consistent with FAR Part 23, during the performance of the work under this SOW, the Government requires the Contractor to provide or use products that are energy efficient (ENERGY STAR® or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-designated); water-efficient; biobased; environmentally preferable (e.g., EPEAT-registered or non-toxic or less toxic alternatives); non-ozone depleting; or made with recovered materials. Unless otherwise identified in this SOW or in an individual task order, each recovered materials or biobased product provided and delivered must meet, but may exceed, the minimum recovered materials or biobased content of an Environmental Protection Agency- or U.S. Department of Agriculture-designated product. The sustainable acquisition requirements specified herein apply only to products that are required to be (1) delivered to the Government during contract performance; (2) acquired by the Contractor for use in performing services (including construction) at a Federally controlled facility; (3) furnished by the Contractor for use by the Government; or (4) specified in the design of a building or work or incorporated during its construction, renovation, or maintenance.

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

D.1 PACKAGING (MAY 1999)

The Contractor shall ensure that all items are preserved, packaged, packed, and marked in accordance with best commercial practices to meet the packing requirements of the carrier and ensure safe delivery at destination.

D.2 MARKING (MAY 2012)

All items submitted to the Government shall be clearly marked as follows:

a. Name of contractor;

b. Contract number;

c. Description of items contained therein;

d. Consignee's name and address; and

e. If applicable, packages containing software or other magnetic media shall be marked on external containers with a notice reading substantially as follows: "CAUTION:

SOFTWARE/MAGNETIC MEDIA ENCLOSED. DO NOT EXPOSE TO HEAT OR

MAGNETIC FIELDS."

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.1 FAR 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) CLAUSES

NUMBER TITLE DATE

52.246-3 INSPECTION OF SUPPLIES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT MAY 2001

52.246-5 INSPECTION OF SERVICES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT APR 1984

52.246-16 RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUPPLIES APR 1984

E.2 GOVERNMENT REVIEW AND ACCEPTANCE (FEB 2015)

A. Technical inspection and acceptance of all work, performance, reports, and other deliverables under this contract shall be performed at the John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02142-1001.