QSM SSN.pdf

SOURCES SOUGHT NOTICE

for

Quantitative Spatial Models Development for FHWA Office of Transportation Policy Studies

1. SUBMITTAL INFORMATION

ISSUE DATE: 10/30/2024

DUE DATE FOR RESPONSES: 12/04/2024/10:00 AM Eastern Time

SUBMIT RESPONSES TO: Carolyn.Lethert@dot.gov and Josephine.helms@dot.gov

See below Section 5 entitled “REQUESTED CONTENT OF RESPONSES TO THIS SOURCES SOUGHT” for submittal content instructions.

2. INTRODUCTION

This is a Sources Sought Notice (SSN) (also known as a Request for Information (RFI). This is NOT a solicitation for proposals, proposal abstracts, or quotations. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is conducting a market survey to identify potential sources for an anticipated contract or cooperative agreement to establish and implement the FHWA Office of Safety. The purpose of this notice is to obtain information for planning purposes regarding the availability and capability of qualified sources to perform the work.

Pursuant to 48 C.F.R. Part 10, the Government is conducting market research to:

• Determine what Commercial sources exist that are capable of satisfying the Government’s requirements listed below in Section 4,

• Determine the practices of potential contractors,

• Determine the size and Small Business status of potential sources, and

• Determine the level of competition and possible acquisition strategies (i.e., 8(a), set-aside or full and open).

This SSN is issued solely for informational, market research, and planning purposes and does not commit the Government to any further contract actions, i.e., solicitation and/or contract.

Respondents are advised that the United States Government will not pay for any information or administrative cost incurred in responding to this SSN request. Not responding to this SSN does not preclude participation in any future Request for Proposals (RFP) that may be issued.

Responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the U.S Government to form a binding contract.

3. BACKGROUND

The purpose for this SSN is to conduct market research to identify potential offerors having an interest in performing the work, and the resources required to accomplish the work described herein. Consideration will be given to small business concerns, including the sub-categories of mailto:Carolyn.Lethert@dot.gov mailto:Kristen.Hayes@dot.gov

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), 8(a), Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) and woman-owned as well as identifying Best in Class and Spend Under Management solutions as identified in OMB Memorandum M-19-13 and subsequent memos. The result of this market research will contribute to determining the method of procurement.

This document contains a draft scope of work (Section 4 below). Your firm’s response regarding your firm’s experience and capabilities will be used to determine the availability of potential businesses, both large and small, and their capabilities in meeting the Government’s requirement.

Through this SSN notice, FHWA is seeking not only to identify potential sources for an anticipated contract but also to solicit feedback on the draft Scope of Work (SOW) itself, including on the content of the tasks and deliverables and reasonableness of the schedule that is described below.

4. DRAFT SCOPE OF WORK

The proposed NAICS code for this requirement is 541690, Economic consulting services. The proposed product service code for this requirement is R425 Support-Professional:

Engineering/Technical.

BACKGROUND

Signed in 2021, the Bipartisan Infrastructure law created $550 billion in funding between years fiscal years 2022 through 2026 towards transportation infrastructure.1 Concurrently, there is an emphasis on place-based policies to help communities.2 Economists have historically favored people-based policies, rather than place-based. However, as economic convergence between regions has slowed – and even reversed in places – economists now estimate place-based policies can sometimes be more effective than people-based ones.3 Given the massive amount of government funds allotted towards transportation infrastructure and the newfound importance of place-based policies, it is important for the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) to have robust modelling in place to ensure its infrastructure funding produces good results.

Currently, the USDOT reviews benefit-cost analyses for discretionary grant program projects prior to their construction. No systematic evaluation of project performance is done after construction for these projects. Within the USDOT and elsewhere, there is an interest in ex-post evaluation of funded infrastructure projects. However, using the standard USDOT Benefit-Cost Analysis (BCA) Guidance framework for this exercise would essentially be limited to running a travel demand model to verify traffic projections and conducting a crash analysis to verify the crash modification factors used.

1 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan-infrastructure-law/#:~:text=It%20provides%20%24550%20billion%20over,infrastructure%2C%20resilience%2C%20and %20broadband.

2 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/01/22/remarks-by-national-economic-advisor-lael-brainard-on-place-based-growth-helping-communities-making-a-comeback/ 3 https://www.nber.org/papers/w24548 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/M-19-13.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/M-19-13.pdf

Ex-post economic impact analysis methods exist but often fall short in terms of accuracy and comprehensiveness. For example, before/after studies may not account for the effects of omitted variables, potentially misattributing the cause of different outcomes. Econometric techniques such as difference-in-differences may not capture the wide range of effects of projects, especially for those larger in scale. General equilibrium (GE) modelling, while theoretically capable of modeling the vast set of relationships, has historically been hampered by a lack of data and tractability. Even in situations where GE modelling is feasible, it can be expensive and therefore not practical for less resourced organizations.

Quantitative spatial models (QSMs) solve these issues. They estimate how individual or multiple transportation infrastructure projects create and redistribute the spatial allocation of economic activity. QSMs are general equilibrium models that meaningfully connect to data and allow for counterfactual analysis (i.e., comparing the world with and without the transportation infrastructure in question). This counterfactual analysis can be performed for either economic impact analysis or benefit-cost analysis. There are multiple types of QSMs, but roughly speaking they are systems of equations with general “building block” equations that have many options (e.g., constant versus increasing returns in production technology, asymmetric versus symmetric transport costs of trading goods) to suit the specific needs of the modelling task at hand.

Importantly, these models are mathematically tractable, meaning the models are solvable, either analytically (finding a solution to a theoretical model), empirically (estimating/calibrating the model), or computationally (finding numerical solutions).4 Tractable models are easier to solve, which means equilibria are more likely to be found – which is required for counterfactual analysis. QSMs can account for many complications, including reverse-causality, agglomeration/dispersion, spillovers, and land use/zoning, which is often overlooked yet critical aspect to transportation investment impacts.

QSMs are structural models meaning their objective is to estimate an economic model that is consistent with observed data. This generally has three parts: model selection and development;

identification and estimation; and policy analysis. Econometric techniques – which are nonstructural – often cannot capture general equilibrium effects of policies. Structural models can, which is why QSMs are useful when estimating the effects of larger-scale transportation infrastructure.5 If estimated properly, structural model’s policy analysis produces “general equilibrium predictions for the spatial distribution of economic activity, which take full account of all the complex spatial interactions between locations … These interactions and general equilibrium effects are typically not identified in reduced-form difference-in-differences approaches because differencing between the treatment and control group eliminates any effect that is common to both groups. Thus, a key implication of this analysis is that locations are not independent observations in a cross-sectional regression but rather are systematically linked to one another through trade, commuting, and migration flows. Not recognizing this interdependence in reduced-form empirical analysis can lead to significant biases and substantial heterogeneity in treatment effects that threaten the external validity of the results. Finally, the use of the model’s structure makes it possible to compute the counterfactual change in welfare, 4 https://beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2018/04/20/how-tractability-has-shaped-economic-knowledge-a-follow-up/ 5 https://econpapers.repec.org/bookchap/eeeregchp/5-69.htm which is usually unobservable in reduced form approaches and yet is typically the object of ultimate interest for policy intervention.”6

Traditionally, modelling cities/regions has been theoretical. Abstractions such as assuming cities are perfectly monocentric and symmetric does not map to real-world data well. QSMs solve this issue, incorporating real-world data such as each location’s geography, productivity, amenities, commuting costs, and interactions with other locations. These complexities are more reason to need robust modelling, as there are likely heterogeneous treatment effects of the same transportation infrastructure in different places.

The following paragraphs detail how QSMs have been used in cutting edge research to estimate the effect land use and transportation infrastructure have on the economy.

As an example of a city-level QSM, Ahlfeldt et al. (2015) examined the construction and destruction of the Berlin Wall in the city of Berlin, which altered the footprint of the free part of the city. The authors wanted to know by how much the wall changed the spatial allocation of economic activity within the city, both at the intense and extensive margins. The authors found that agglomeration and dispersion forces accounted for the observed changes in city structure.

The authors stressed that “understanding the strength of the agglomeration and dispersion forces that underlie these concentrations of economic activity is central to estimating the impact of public policy interventions, such as transport infrastructure investments.”7

The Cold War provided another natural experiment, which Redding and Sturm (2008) used to create a country wide QSM. The authors used the division of Germany after WW2 to estimate how market access causes economic development; again, estimating what happens to the spatial allocation of economic activity when the physical characteristics of a place change. Not only measuring growth/decline, but also spatial redistribution. Their main finding was that following division, cities in West Germany close to the East-West German border experienced a substantial decline in population growth relative to other West German cities.8

Donaldson (2018) also created a country wide QSM, this time to estimate the effect of transportation infrastructure. Specifically, the author used archival data from colonial India to estimate the effect of India’s railroad network on the spatial allocation of economic activity and figure out what explains those benefits. The author found that railroads “(1) decreased trade costs and interregional price gaps; (2) increased interregional and international trade; (3) increased real income levels; and (4) that a sufficient statistic for the effect of railroads on welfare in the model accounts well for the observed reduced-form impact of railroads on real income in the data.”9

One main finding was that when the railroad network was extended to the average district, real agricultural income in that district rose by approximately 16 percent.

Especially relevant to FHWA, Allen and Arkolakis (2014) created a US-wide QSM to estimate the economic effects of the interstate system. The authors used three main types of data. The first type of data was the complete high-way, rail, and navigable water networks in the United States.

6 www.princeton.edu/~erossi/QSE.pdf 7 https://www.princeton.edu/~reddings/pubpapers/Berlin-Ecta-10876.pdf 8 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.98.5.1766 9 https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20101199

The second type of data was bilateral trade flow data, which we take from 2007 Commodity Flow Survey. The third type of data was county-level income and demographic characteristics, which we take from the 2000 U.S. Census. The authors found that geographic location accounted for at least twenty percent of the spatial variation in U.S. income. To conclude the paper, the authors conducted a benefit-cost analysis for the entire interstate highway system. They found it increased welfare by 1:1 to 1:4 percent, which is substantially larger than its cost.10

Allen and Arkolakis (2022) again created a US-wide QSM, as well as a single city one, for Seattle. The authors also conducted a benefit-cost analysis for each segment in both models, finding on average positive but highly heterogenous benefit-cost ratios. The highest ratios were generally found in the densest areas of economic activity and at chokepoints in the network. The authors stated “for the U.S. highway network, the returns on investment for a handful of highways serving as connectors just outside major metropolitan areas exceed 400%; in Seattle, a number of links surrounding downtown have annualized returns exceeding 60%. Conversely, a substantial fraction of U.S. highway links (mainly through the mountain west) and nearly half the links in Seattle are estimated to have a negative return on investment.”11

Finally, Tsivanidis (2023) creates a QSM to estimate the economic benefit of creating and expanding the bus rapid transit system in Bogota, Colombia. His methods found that the standard travel time savings method of measuring transportation benefits only captured 54% of the overall benefit of expanding the system. Importantly, the paper examines effects by levels of income and finds no increase in inequality, while also not increasing traffic congestion. The author concludes stating “the welfare gains would have been around 40% higher had the government implemented a more accommodative zoning policy,” which displays land use playing a key role in these models.12

These observations naturally lead to the research goal of creating a quantitative spatial model to estimate the effects of transportation infrastructure for use at the USDOT. Instead of anecdotes, “stylized facts,” and incomplete/inaccurate analysis, it is important to systematically assess how transportation infrastructure affects the spatial allocation of economic activity. This project will focus on creating a technical framework to do this, given the topic’s importance and the gap it represents in current policymaking. Importantly, this technical framework must be useable by people not at the cutting edge of economics research; if it was too complex, it would not be used by those outside academia.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this contract is to create – and provide documentation to use – a quantitative spatial model to estimate how transportation infrastructure affects the spatial allocation of economic activity for the Federal Highway Administration through related activities outlined in the task order work. Importantly, this model must be able to create outputs that can be used in benefit-cost analysis, so the full benefits of transportation infrastructure projects can be compared to their costs. It is vital that contractors create a model in line with the literature

10 http://www.econ.yale.edu/~ka265/research/Topography/AllenArkolakis.pdf 11 https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/89/6/2911/6519332 static1.squarespace.com/static/55bb98e2e4b0ba843f39599e/t/64c98e1aa0fcf82d1bda8d52/1690930717404/Tsivanid isTransMillenio_8.2023.pdf described above, rather than models that simply use spatial data.

TASK AREAS

Contractors must receive FHWA approval for all key staff assigned to each task. Any changes in key staff will require prior FHWA approval. Contractors must demonstrate the ability to work on varying tasks consecutively and/or simultaneously to ensure proposed schedules will be met:

• Task 1: Conduct a comprehensive scan of existing literature on the topic of quantitative spatial models and their use for estimating the effect of transportation infrastructure on the spatial allocation of economic activity;

• Task 2: Identify and compile data to be used by the model from relevant sources;

• Task 3: Develop a technical framework for a quantitative spatial model to be used for ex-post analysis of transportation infrastructure projects, considering potential confounding factors;

• Task 4: Implement the technical framework, estimating the effect of transportation infrastructure projects on key outcomes identified when creating the technical framework;

• Task 5: Create documentation materials. These are to be a final technical report, brief policy memo, and user guide.

• Task 6: Data and Code Documentation, Management, and Implementation; and

• Task 7: Framework integration with ex-post Benefit-Cost Analysis

Task 1: Literature Review

The contractor must review the existing literature on quantitative spatial models, specifically papers in the genre described in the background section above. The contractor must document data, methodologies, and findings. The review must compare the methodologies on data requirements, assumptions, and sophistication. The literature review must address common issues with the models such as tractability, data requirements, ease of use, and confounding factors. The contractor must submit suggestions on a technical framework suitable for this contract and justification. If multiple approaches are identified as potential frameworks for this type of analysis, the contractor must document their appropriateness, sophistication, and other technical attributes for FHWA review. The technical framework must include sufficient details regarding the technical approach, input data requirements and availability for implementation, and strengths and weaknesses. The final technical framework must incorporate comments from the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) before implementation.

The contractor must submit a draft report for a review of the literature and suggested technical approaches. Following review by the FHWA staff, the contractor must participate in an in-person meeting or via video conference meeting to discuss the literature review and proposed analytical approach with the COR. The contractor must submit a final literature review after FHWA feedback. The final report must address all comments and suggestions from FHWA staff.

Deliverables:

� Draft Literature Review Report

� Final Literature Review Report

Task 2: Data Collection

The contractor must identify potential datasets to be used by the technical framework. The contractor must identify all potential datasets from public and private sources that are relevant and suited to this research activity. The contractor must summarize all potential datasets and suggest which data sources would be most appropriate for this study. The contractor must obtain all information-relevant data. The contractor must submit a list of databases, including data sources, coverage, data quality and/or reliability, and variables included. Additionally, the contractor must list data availability, acquisition cost (if data purchase is required), and time required in obtaining these data. The contractor must discuss data compatibility and consistency across different sources and approaches for data harmonization as necessary.

After COR approval of recommended list of data sources, the contractor must collect the data from identified sources, combine them into one consolidated database while ensuring data validity and quality. The contractor must provide documentation of the data harmonization process and any changes made to the data. The final database must incorporate comments from the COR before implementation of database compilation and harmonization of the draft database.

The contractor must submit a draft list of all potential databases with detailed information on each database and suggested databases appropriate for this study. The draft list must include explanation of what aspect of economic development the database reflects. Following review by the FHWA staff, the contractor must participate in an in-person meeting or video conference to discuss the draft list and any necessary changes with the TOCOR. The contractor must provide the final list of databases to FHWA. The final list shall address all comments and suggestions from FHWA staff.

The contractor must submit a consolidated database with detailed information on each dataset.

The contractor must perform and document the approved data harmonization process in detail.

Following review by the FHWA staff, the contractor must participate in an in-person meeting or video conference to discuss the draft database and any necessary changes with the TOCOR. The contractor must provide the final database, documentation of the data harmonization procedure, and any accompanying spreadsheet or other electronic files to FHWA. The final database must be submitted after FHWA feedback. The final list must address all comments and suggestions from FHWA staff.

Deliverables:

� Draft Database List � Final Database List � Draft Database � Final Database

Task 3: Framework Development

The contractor must develop a technical framework to assess the effect transportation infrastructure has on the spatial allocation of economic activity. The technical framework must consider other potential influencing and confounding factors identified in literature and observation, such as socioeconomic conditions, land use patterns, local economic development, as well as other topics of import from the literature. There is likely both positive and negative effects, so the technical framework should identify both directions.

The contractor must address potential estimation issues arising from the technical framework, such as the direction of causality, counterfactual effects, and spatial variation. The contractor must make distinction between causality and correlation in describing the impacts. The contractor must perform sensitivity analysis regarding key parameters used in the analysis to ensure the robustness of the technical framework.

The contractor must submit draft results from the initial technical framework for Task 4, and a final version of results incorporating comments from the COR.

The contractor must work with the COR to organize and present to a peer review panel of knowledgeable professionals to provide critiques of the draft and final technical frameworks.

The peer review panel must be given the opportunity to review the draft and final technical frameworks prior to the meeting.

Following a review by the FHWA staff, the contractor must participate in an in-person meeting or video conference to discuss the draft results, their validity, and interpretation with the COR.

The final report must address all comments and suggestions from FHWA staff. The contractor must provide computer programing codes to FHWA along with the final report.

The contractor must work with the COR to assemble a peer review panel to critique the draft technical framework and incorporate that feedback for the final technical framework. The contractor must work with the COR to assemble a peer review panel to critique the final technical framework.

Deliverables:

� Draft Technical Framework � Final Technical Framework (Draft and Final) � Peer Review Panel of Draft Technical Framework � Peer Review Panel of Final Technical Framework

Task 4: Results Documentation

The contractor must provide written detailed documentation for the literature review (generated in Task 2), data collection and management (generated in Task 3), and technical framework (generated in Task 4) for FHWA communication. The Contractor must provide three documents for FHWA: a technical report, a policy brief, and a user guide. The contractor must write the technical report that is technically detailed, focusing on complete communication of findings in literature review, data collection and visualization, and technical framework creation. The technical report must document data, assumptions, analytical approach, results, and sensitivity analysis. The technical report must include a discussion on any limitations to the analytical approach and any issues encountered in the analysis.

The contractor must write the policy brief for a non-technical audience, and to assist the communication of the issue with the general public. The policy brief must summarize the technical report and be no more than two pages long, incorporating text and visualizations where appropriate.

The user guide is intended for policy analysts at the USDOT, so they can use the technical framework in a reproduceable manner for various evaluations of transportation infrastructure projects.

The technical documentation must be written in a manner so that they will not require substantial revision by FHWA. The language must be tailored for different audiences, that is, the technical report for technical analysts, the policy brief for the general public, and the user guide for policy analysts.

Following review by the FHWA staff, the contractor must meet with the COR to discuss the results of the study and any necessary changes to the draft version of the technical report, policy brief, and user guide. The final documents must address all comments and suggestions from the FHWA staff and be included in the final documents. This task includes one trip to Washington, D.C. for the contractors to present the project results.

Deliverables:

� Draft Technical Report, Policy Brief, and User Guide � Final Technical Report, Policy Brief, and User Guide

Task 5: Technical Support

The contractor must develop up to three technical memorandums and two webinars, and five responses to internal and external technical inquiries regarding the Task 5 deliverables (and Task 8 deliverables should it be exercised) as directed by the COR, including potential applications, assumptions, methodologies, and data and estimation results if applicable. This includes one trip to Washington, D.C. to participate in a discussion of feedback received following the release of the report. As each request for a technical memorandum or written response comes up, the COR will communicate to the contractor due dates associated with each request.

Deliverables:

� Technical Memorandums � Technical Webinars

Task 6: Data and Code Documentation, Management, and Implementation

The contractor must prepare and provide FHWA with a formal plan for Data and Code Documentation, Management, and Implementation (the Data Plan) which addresses the management and documentation of all input data, output data, and code including data and code maintenance, storage, security, access, sharing, automation, commenting, reproducibility, quality control, and supporting information and metadata collected and generated in completing the tasks.

At a minimum, the Data Plan must include the following:

• Code maintenance,

• Code quality control,

• Product input data file direct link downloadable,

• Dataset metadata questionnaire,

• Product output data file direct link downloadable,

• Data element dictionary Excel file,

• Reproducible and well-commented Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) code with supporting README documents,

• Reproducible and well-commented analysis/modeling code with supporting README documents,

• Access information and documentation to the online platform to run/reproduce the code and results (if relevant), and

• Information to support usability when relevant including keywords for topic queries, cautions in using the data, and additional helpful data information such as alternative data sources, definitional changes, etc.

The contractor must provide a draft Data Plan to FHWA within 90 days of task award. The Data Plan shall document all aspects of the data, data products, and tools utilized in this study. Within 14 days of FHWA review and comment, the contractor shall provide a final 508 compliant Data Plan in Word and PDF formats.

Deliverables:

� Draft Data Plan � Final Data Plan

Task 7: Framework integration with ex-post Benefit-Cost Analysis

Quantitative spatial models at a minimum are economic impact analyses – they can estimate the effect transportation infrastructure has on the spatial distribution of economic activity. This can be expanded to benefit-cost analyses (BCAs). The following two peer-reviewed papers are good examples of using the output of quantitative spatial models in BCAs. Brinkman and Lin (2022) did this for hypothetical freeway caps in Chicago and found “If only freeways within 5 miles of the city center are mitigated, the resulting utility gain is 1 percent, or $3.1 billion per year.

However, this intervention only requires mitigating 47 miles of freeway, implying a benefit of $66 million per mile per year or a lifetime benefit of $938 million per freeway mile. Thus, targeted projects that retrofit existing freeways could provide net benefits for cities.”13 Severen (2021) conducted this type of ex-post BCA for commuter rail in Los Angeles, finding Metro Rail generated “$94 million in annual benefits by 2000, or 12–25% of annualized costs.”14

Conducting ex-post BCAs is of direct importance to the USDOT, which conducts ex-ante BCA reviews for discretionary grant program applications. Across USDOT agencies there has been a stated desire to verify how projects perform after they are built; currently that typically does not happen. Therefore, this optional task is to integrate the framework so it can be used to conduct ex-post benefit-cost analyses.

The contractor must integrate the QSM with ex-post benefit-cost analysis. The contractor must also produce documentation that details how this was done and instructions for users to conduct ex-post BCA reviews of their own. All drafts must be delivered in Microsoft Word. Following review by the FHWA staff, the contractor must meet with the COR to discuss the results of the study and any necessary changes to the draft version. The final materials for Task 8 must be submitted after FHWA feedback. The final documents must address all comments and suggestions from the FHWA staff and be included in the final documents.

The contractor must work with the COR to organize and present to a peer review panel of knowledgeable professionals to provide critiques of the draft and final technical framework integrations. The peer review panel must be given the opportunity to review the draft and final technical frameworks integrations prior to the meeting.

Deliverables:

� Draft Technical Framework Integration with BCAs and documentation � Final Technical Framework Integration with BCAs and documentation � Peer Review Panel of Draft Technical Framework Integration � Peer Review Panel of Final Technical Framework Integration

5. SKILLS AND EXPERTISE REQUIRED

The contractor will be expected to possess the following skills and expertise:

• Demonstrated knowledge and expertise in the principles and practice of quantitative spatial models, examples of which are displayed in the Background section above.

• Demonstrated knowledge and expertise in the principles and practice of land use and transportation economics.

• Demonstrated experience and professional expertise in sophisticated data gathering and management and analysis.

13 https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/doi/10.1162/rest_a_01244/113170/Freeway-Revolts-The-Quality-of- Life-Effects-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext 14 https://cseveren.github.io/files/Severen_LAMetro_Final.pdf

• Demonstrated experience and professional expertise in all the software applications necessary to support all noted and potential tasks.

• Demonstrated ability to work with the appropriate stakeholder(s) to support the varying efforts for this contract as required. Stakeholder involvement is a key element in determining target audience needs.

• Ability to produce 508-compliant documents.

6. REQUESTED CONTENT OF RESPONSES TO THIS SOURCES

SOUGHT

Interested parties who consider their firms qualified to perform the above-listed services are invited to submit responses to this SSN as follows:

Format requirements are:

• Electronic responses only. No hard copy submissions will be accepted.

• 8.5”x11” size pages, with 1” margins on all sides and prepared in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

• Submissions shall include a cover page as described below.

• Not more than five pages in length, including all items submitted (not including cover page, table of contents, and acronym list).

• Font size should be 12 point or larger, Times New Roman.

• Charts and graphics must be in Microsoft Vision, or PDF format.

• Proprietary information submitted in response to this SSN will be protected from unauthorized disclosure as required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) as long as it is marked accordingly. All proprietary markings should be clearly delineated. The respondent must identify where data is restricted by proprietary or other rights and mark it accordingly.

• The services and/or any product solutions should include supporting data/rationale for the offered services, and any product solution(s) if applicable, adequately to determine capability.

The response to this SSN must include:

Cover Page: The cover page does not count towards the page limit. The cover page should contain at a minimum the following information:

- Company name

- Primary Point of Contact, including phone number and email address

- SAM.GOV Unique Entity ID (UEI)

- NAICS Code – a statement on whether your firm believes 541990 is an appropriate NAICS for these services as well as a list of any other NAICS codes that you think could be applicable.

- General Services Administration (GSA) Contract Number and SIN, if applicable.

- GSA OASIS Contract Number, if applicable.

- Other Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts available for DOT use, if applicable

- Recommend a contract type, i.e. Firm-Fixed Price, Time-and-Materials and why.

- Business Size: identify all applicable classifications for your organization under

NAICS 541690 as well as any other NAICS identified for this work. Please note if certain classifications only apply to certain contract vehicles.

• Small business?

• Woman-owned business?

• 8(a) business?

• Small disadvantaged business?

• HUBZone business?

• SDVOB business?

• Non-profit?

• Other relevant business type information

SSN Response: To support the Government’s review of the Contractor’s technical ability, the following questions should be directly addressed with regard to both the responding business entity and proposed personnel:

a. What experience do you have related to the scope of work as detailed in section 4 above?

b. What experience do you have with taking academic work and applying it to policy?

c. How will you ensure that you can provide staff with the experience described in Section

5?

d. Provide resumes or Bios for all proposed staff. Resumes or Bios are limited to 2 pages per person and do not count towards the page limit.

Note: Responses may include links or web addresses that demonstrate evidence of your technical expertise (i.e., final reports, technical journals, peer reviewed papers, etc.).

Questions: As a part of this SSN, you may submit any questions or comments on the Section 4 Draft Scope of Work. This will not count towards the page limit if the questions are submitted in a separately labeled document. FHWA reserves the right not to provide responses to these questions and comments but will use these questions and comments in continuing to define its requirement.

7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

To fully comprehend the information contained within a response to this Sources Sought, there may be a need to seek further clarification from respondents. This clarification may be requested in the form of brief verbal communication by telephone; written communication;

electronic communication; or a request for a presentation of the response to a specific FHWA group or groups. FHWA reserves the right to seek additional information from respondents identified with unique solutions that are determined to be beneficial to FHWA.