Accessibility Information

Users of assistive technologies such as screen readers should use the following link to activate Accessibility Mode before continuing: Learn more and Activate accessibility mode.

2010 Transportation Planning Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)

Solicitation Number: DTFH61-10-R-00013
Agency: Department of Transportation
Office: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Location: Office of Acquisition Management
  • Print

Note:

There have been modifications to this notice. To view the most recent modification/amendment, click here
:
DTFH61-10-R-00013
:
Combined Synopsis/Solicitation
:
Added: Jan 05, 2010 5:06 pm Modified: Mar 22, 2010 3:25 pmTrack Changes
 

 


 


BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA)

 


DTFH61-10-R-00013


January 2010


 


 


 


 


 

 


T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S


 

























































































































Section



Title



Page



 



 



 



1



 BAA Process Overview



3



 



 



 



2



Focus Areas



5



 



 



 



3



General Proposal Information



7



 



 



 



4



Instructions for Submission of Pre-Proposals



11  



 



 



 



5



Pre-Proposal Content



11



 



 



 



6



Pre-Proposal Evaluation



12



 



 



 



7



Instructions for Full Proposals



12



 



 



 



8



Proposal Format



13



 



 



 



9



Evaluation Criteria



16



 



 



 



10



Technical and Cost Negotiations



20



 



 



 



11



Attachments



21



 


 


                                             Section 1


 


BAA Process Overview


 


1.1 General Information


 


CONTRACTING POINT OF CONTACT: 


 


Joseph Fusari


Contract Specialist


Joseph.Fusari@dot.gov


 


1.2 Summary of Important Dates


 


This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) describes a two-phase process for proposal submission and evaluation.  In the first phase, short pre-proposals will be submitted for review.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will then ask for full proposals of those pre-proposals that are of interest to FHWA.  Further detail on proposal dates are as follows:


 


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


 


BAA opens (FBO publication)                                          January  5, 2009


Pre-Proposals Due 4:30 EST                                             February 16, 2010


Invitation for Full Proposal                                               March 12, 2010


Full Proposals Due 4:30 EST                                            April 23, 2010


Anticipated Contract Award Date                         
                               June 28, 2010


 


Proposals shall be sent by electronic transmission to: Joseph.Fusari@dot.gov.  Any questions relating to this announcement must be emailed to the contracting point of contact. 


 


No telephonic requests will be taken. 


 


1.3 Definitions


 


Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)


For additional information visit (http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm)


 


Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)


The forum for cooperative transportation decision-making; required for urbanized areas with populations over 50,000.


 


Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty


For additional information visit (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/index.htm)


 


Regional Planning Organization (RPO)


A multipurpose organization composed of representatives of local governments and appointed representatives from the geographic area covered by the council, and designated as the primary organization to address problems and plan solutions that are of


greater than local concern or scope


Research Programs


For additional information visit (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/research.htm)


 


Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)


For additional information visit (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/index.htm)


 


1.4 Background         


 


Section 5207 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) established the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program (STEP) authorizing funding to support this new program. The general objective of the STEP is to improve understanding of the complex relationship between surface transportation, planning and the environment.  Section 5207 of SAFETEA-LU identifies certain characteristics of STEP regarding program contents and administration including:


•·                                 Develop more accurate models for evaluating transportation control measures and system designs for use by State and local governments to meet environmental requirements;


•·                                 Improve understanding of transportation demand factors;


•·                                 Develop indicators of economic, social, and environmental performance of transportation systems to facilitate alternatives analysis;


•·                                 Meet additional priorities determined through the transportation research and development strategic planning process identified in section 5208 of SAFETEA-LU;


•·                                 Refine the scope and research emphases through outreach and in consultation with stakeholders.


 


Additional information on STEP including resources, research plans, focus areas, and proposal requests are located on page http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/index.htm.


 


1.5 Objectives and Description


 


The FHWA, through the Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty is soliciting for proposals for research and development projects that could lead to transformational changes and revolutionary advances for transportation planning in the United States.  The objective of this BAA is to advance the practice and application of transportation planning among state, metropolitan, regional, local, and tribal transportation planning governments in response to significant changes in the planning process and to identify new tools, techniques, and approaches that respond to national transportation planning priorities.


 


1.6 Program Scope


 


The program scope is intentionally ambitious and broad to address the wide spectrum of topics and objectives that the funded investigations can support. This program is intended to spur innovation and focus on high risk and high pay-off research and development projects. Incremental advances, demonstrations of existing technologies or applications of state and metropolitan transportation planning activities are not within the scope of this program.


 


 



Section 2

 


 


FOCUS AREAS


 


2.1 Focus Areas


 


The FHWA is looking for projects within seven focus areas that are of particular strategic interest and relevance. Proposals in these areas are highly encouraged. These areas are consistent with emphasis areas identified for the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research Program developed under Section 5207 of Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); see http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/index.htm for more information.  Additional information on the planning focus areas are located under the "Research Plans" heading located on page http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/step/plans.htm.  The seven focus areas include:


 


(2.1.1) Tools and Techniques That Support State and local Planning Capacity Building


 


The FHWA seeks to expand the knowledge, understanding, and implementation of efforts that will advance state and local planning capacity building including the consideration of audience needs, agency practices, and process requirements in statewide and metropolitan transportation planning.  Key emerging planning research issues for State Departments of Transportation (DOT), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO), and small and rural areas could consider:


•§                                   How States, MPO, and Regional Planning Organizations (RPO) and benefit from livability, performance-based planning, asset management, and program cost management,


•§                                   What new and innovative forecasting techniques are available through the development of new process or decision-support tools for planning that can be tailored to multi-use development, program finances and revenue, and coordination with new planning partners,


•§                                   What emerging tools and techniques are available that would assist communities in maintaining their transportation system and more effectively prioritize and limited program resources, and


•§                                   What jurisdictional and institutional issues exist, such as the development of new planning tools that provide a framework for developing a shared vision for the future by analyzing various forces (e.g., health, transportation, economic, environmental, land use, etc.) that affect growth.


•§                                   How jurisdictional and institutional issues including the development of new planning tools to provide a framework for developing a shared vision for the future by analyzing various forces (e.g., health, transportation, economic, environmental, land use, etc.) and their affects on each other to promote sustainable growth can be addressed.


•§                                   How regional and local impacts of transportation investments on various sustainability indicators (economy, environment, health, et cetera.) are considered in planning and project selection.


 


(2.1.2) Tools and Techniques That Support Tribal Planning Capacity Building  


 


The FHWA seeks to expand the knowledge, understanding, and implementation of efforts that will advance the development of innovative tools or approaches that promote the integration of tribal issues into the transportation planning and programming processes at the State and metropolitan levels. Tribes are not required by law to develop or maintain transportation planning programs.  This limits their ability to interface at the same level with States and metropolitan transportation planning and programming efforts minimizing their ability to interface through consultation efforts and their effectiveness when competing for State and metropolitan funding opportunities.  Key emerging planning research issues are:


•§                                   Development of "information tools" for Tribal Departments of Transportation can use to improve consultation practices in the statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes, and


•§                                   Identifying how innovative planning techniques can assist tribes in developing their own transportation planning program using novel processes that apply tools, techniques, and technology specifically designed for tribal transportation planning programs with limited staff and resources.


 


(2.1.3) Global Climate Change and Air Quality


 


Research needs should consider advancing the practice and application of transportation planning among state, regional, and local transportation planning agencies to successfully meet growing concerns about the relationship between transportation, air quality, and climate change. Key emerging research issues to consider include:


•§                                   How entities can better understand the contribution of transportation facilities and services to air pollution and greenhouse gases and their potential implications, including environmental and human health impacts,


•§                                   How entities can develop and assess analytical methods to adequately identify and reduce transportation emissions that contribute to global climate change,


•§                                   What cost-effective mitigation strategies are available to reduce transportation emissions that contribute to global climate change,


•§                                   How can State DOT's improve the understanding of climate change impacts on transportation facilities and systems and the ability to consider adaptation and mitigation,


•§                                   How can State DOT's evaluate greenhouse gas mitigation efforts,


•§                                   What new and innovative methods of communicating scientific and regulatory information on transportation-air quality to partners are available at State and local agencies and to stakeholders, and


•§                                   How can State DOT's assess the potential impacts of climate change on transportation; and determine how to avoid and minimize potential climate change impacts during transportation system planning


 


(2.1.4)Congestion Management


 


Congestion Management Systems reflects a substantive shift in perspective and practice to address congestion management through a process that provides for effective management and operations an enhanced linkage to the planning process, and to the environmental review process, based on cooperatively developed travel demand reduction and operational management strategies as well as capacity increases. In support of the reduction of congestion on America's transportation network as well as support other initiatives to link operations and transportation planning, key emerging research issues to consider includes:


•§                                   What innovations in congestion pricing and private sector involvement in transportation investment are available,


•§                                   What advanced analysis tools are available for use in the measurement and evaluation of operational improvements and strategies in transportation planning and advance the Congestion Management Process, and


•§                                   Whether new planning tools and programs for understanding, analyzing and responding to congestion problems are available.


 (2.1.5) Safety Planning


 


Transportation safety planning should include the development and improvement of data collection methods and project selection processes that respond to the needs of planning and safety decision making processes and how helping planning agencies (State DOTs, MPOs, and Tribal Governments) can build their institutional capacity to integrate safety into their transportation planning and decision-making process.


 


(2.1.6) Public Involvement, Environmental Justice, Visualization in Planning


 


There is a continued need for assessing new methods in public involvement and community impact assessment practice.  Environmental justice (including disabled and elderly which are 2 groups of individuals rapidly increasing in numbers) and visualization are emerging areas of research and practice for transportation planning practitioners that can be utilized to help convey and obtain technical information with communities that traditionally were not involved in the planning process. Increasing awareness among State DOTs, MPOs, and other government agencies of the importance of ensuring civil rights and environmental justice in the transportation planning process would be beneficial where there is an opportunity to make trade-offs to avoid impacts. Similarity, visualization applied to transportation planning is an emerging area of both research and practice. Stakeholders from State DOTs, MPOs, and other interested parties would benefit from knowing how to effectively apply visualization and how it can result in applying new methods of communication between transportation practitioners, decision-makers, and the general public.


 


(2.1.7) Freight Planning


 


Freight movements are growing as a share of transportation system volumes. Key emerging research issues to consider includes:


•§                                 How State DOTs can develop methods for the integration of freight into the transportation planning and programming processes at the State and metropolitan levels,


•§                                 What innovative methods for effectively engaging the private sector freight community into the State and metropolitan planning processes; how parameters such as price, travel time, permitting, and user fees affect modal shift; what elasticities are inherent in these parameters; and new approaches for applying benefits/cost analyses of freight projects in the transportation planning process, and


•§                                 How new planning tools and programs such as freight analytical techniques, freight modeling improvements, methods of innovative freight data collection and data sharing can be used.


 


SECTION 3


 


GENERAL PROPOSAL INFORMATION


 


3.1 General Information


 


All business and administrative correspondence or questions on this BAA should be directed to the contract specialist identified in section 1.


 


The FHWA has budgeted approximately $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2010 to fund this research announcement. Proposals will be evaluated using a two-part process consisting of pre-proposals and full-proposals. Offerors whose pre-proposals are of interest to the FHWA will be invited to submit full proposals. The FHWA may select for award all, none, or a subset of the acceptable proposals meeting its needs. The FHWA anticipates making multiple awards, typically of 12-24 months duration with the size of individual awards varying depending on the research area and study requirements.  The FHWA strongly encourages cost sharing under any contract that may result, and can offer cooperative agreements if the proposer can offer a cost share of 50 percent from non-federal sources of funding.


 


The FHWA strongly encourages proposals that offer a significant non-federal matching funds or in-kind resources. Cost reasonableness and realism will also be considered in the overall selection process. Individual proposal evaluations will be based on acceptability or non-acceptability without regard to other proposals submitted under the announcement. Selection will be based primarily on scientific or technical merit, partnership, relevance and importance to agency, and the availability of funds.


 


For cooperative agreements, the Federal share of the cost of a project or activity carried out under this program is limited by Section 5101(b) of SAFETEA-LU to fifty (50) percent, unless otherwise determined by the Secretary of Transportation. The number of awards, and their dollar value, will vary depending on the merit of proposals received and their potential to lead to transformational changes and advances in transportation planning practice.  Offerors should prepare proposals with a baseline period of performance of 12-24 months and, if needed, with one or more options up to an additional 24-month period of performance.


 


3.2 Note: Not all technically meritorious proposals may be funded due to budgetary constraints. 


 


3.3 Pre-Proposal and Full Proposal Process


 


Proposals may respond to one or more of the focus areas but must indicate which area is primary and which area or areas are subordinate.  Organizations also may submit more than one proposal when the proposed effort includes multiple disparate objectives and tasks, covers multiple or disparate technologies areas, or would have a more supportable budget if provided in parts; however, each proposal will be considered independently. Proposals will be evaluated using a two-part process consisting of a pre-proposal and a full-proposal. The FHWA will evaluate pre-proposals against the evaluation criteria outlined below. Those offerors whose pre-proposals are of interest may be invited to submit a formal full-proposal. 


 


Offerors whose pre-proposals are determined not to be of interest are not precluded from submitting a full proposal and may do so if they desire.  Approximately thirty (30) days after the pre-proposal submission deadline, offerors submitting pre-proposals will be contacted with a letter informing them either that the FHWA is requesting a formal cost and technical proposal or that the effort proposed is not of interest to the Government.


 


3.4 Other Administrative Information   


 


Proposals that plan to collect information from more than 9 non-Federal entities may require the FHWA to obtain clearance prior to the commencement of any information collection (Approximate time for clearance, 6 months).  Awards involving any Privacy Act-covered data will require special clearances and protections.


 


It is the policy of the FHWA to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation.  Only Government evaluators will make selections under this BAA. This announcement constitutes the public announcement as contemplated by FAR 6.102(d)(2), and no formal Request for Proposals or other solicitation regarding this announcement will be issued. Requests for same will be disregarded.


  


3.5 Deliverables


 


The specific deliverables will depend upon the scope and objectives of the negotiated award. At a minimum, the contractor shall present results for at least one peer review and submit a final report, with a technical summary, that documents the research conducted in each task identified in the proposal.  Additional deliverables such as interim reports, documentation, and instrumentation could be required and the specific deliverables will be identified in the negotiated statement of work.


 


3.6 Period of Performance


 


The base contract period of performance is negotiable, but shall be no more than 24 months from date of award.


 


3.7 Optional Future Phase or Phases


 


Proposals may include a discussion of work products for an optional, future phase or phases of work for up to an additional 24 months (up to three more pages).  Such discussion shall be clearly labeled as "optional future phase or phases of work."  The original phase or work shall in no way depend on work described under future phases in order to meet the program criteria.  If a future phase or phases are included, a separate budget shall be included for the phase or phases and be labeled clearly as "separate budget for optional future phase or phases."


 


3.8 Pre-Proposal and Full Proposal Information


 


The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement. In addition, the Government reserves the right to award either contracts, grants, or other instruments determined to be of benefit to the government in achieving the goals of this program. This BAA is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any direct pre-proposal or proposal preparation costs. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit proposals, which will be evaluated. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals. However, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation due to the desire to solicit ideas as broadly as possible.


 


The FHWA has budgeted approximately $1,500,000 to fund this research program.  Proposals will be evaluated using a two-part process consisting of pre-proposals and full-proposals.  Offerors whose pre-proposals are of interest to the FHWA will be invited to submit full proposals. The FHWA may select for award all, none, or a subset of the acceptable proposals to construct a balanced program meeting its needs.


 


The FHWA anticipates making multiple awards from the $1,500,000, typically of an 16-18 month duration.


 


Note: Awards with a total value (including full period of performance and any option periods) of $100,000 and below will be issued as purchase orders.


 


Note: Awards over $100,000 will be issued as contracts or cooperative agreements.  The FHWA strongly encourages cost sharing under any contract that may result, and can offer cooperative agreements if the proposer can offer a cost share of 50 percent or greater from non-federal sources of funding.  For cooperative agreements, the Federal share of the cost of a project or activity carried out under this program is limited by Section 5101(b) of SAFETEA-LU to fifty (50) percent, unless otherwise determined by the Secretary of Transportation.


 


The number of awards, and their dollar value, will vary depending on the merit of proposals received and their potential to lead to transformational changes and advances in transportation planning practice.  Offerors should prepare proposals with a baseline period of performance of 18 months and, if needed, with one or more options up to an additional 24-month period of performance.


 


The scope of this announcement is intentionally broad to invite innovation and to provide the FHWA the flexibility to sponsor research that best addresses its objectives.  In keeping with FHWA's desire for innovation and flexibility, the specific approach in the selected full proposals will vary and will be negotiated. 


Any resulting contracts will contain appropriate federal agency clauses for the type of procurement vehicle awarded.  Prior to award, the Offeror shall be required to submit "Certifications and Representations."  Data and reporting requirements will be negotiated with the offeror (s) selected for award(s). 


The proposal submission shall be conducted in two phases:


 


•1.                               Pre-proposal for FHWA review


•2.                               Full Proposal.


 


Proposals may respond to one or more of the subject areas but must indicate which area is primary and which area or areas are subordinate.  Organizations also may submit more than one proposal when the proposed effort includes multiple disparate objectives and tasks, covers multiple or disparate technologies areas, or would have a more supportable budget if provided in parts; however, each proposal will be considered independently.  Proposals will be evaluated using a two-part process: pre-proposals and full-proposals. The FHWA will evaluate pre-proposals against the evaluation criteria outlined above. Those offerors whose pre-proposals are of interest may be invited to submit a formal full-proposal, as described below.  Offerors whose pre-proposals are determined not to be of interest are not precluded from submitting a proposal and may do so if they desire. Approximately thirty (30) days after the pre-proposal submission deadline, offerors submitting pre-proposals will be contacted by the Technical Point of Contact with a letter informing them either that the FHWA is requesting a formal cost and technical proposal or that the effort proposed is not of interest to the Government.


 


The FHWA strongly encourages proposals that offer a significant non-federal matching funds or in-kind resources. Good proposals will evidence strong internal backing with matching funds, innovative approaches in contracting and leveraging current and past technology development efforts that support this program. Such proposals will receive consideration in addition to and above how they respond to the technical criteria above.  Cost reasonableness and realism will also be considered in the overall selection process.  Individual proposal evaluations will be based on acceptability or non-acceptability without regard to other proposals submitted under the announcement. Selection will be based primarily on scientific or technical merit, partnership, relevance and importance to agency, and availability of funds.


 



Section 4


 


4.1 Pre-Proposal Instructions


 


Pre-proposals must be submitted via electronic mail and must be received on or before 4:30 PM (EST), February 16, 2010.  Facsimile transmissions or hard copy transmissions of the pre-proposal will not be accepted; so any sent will be disregarded.


 


Pre-proposals shall be submitted via email to: Joseph.Fusari@dot.gov. 


 


SECTION 5


 


CONTENT OF PRE-PROPOSALS


 


5.1 Content of Pre-Proposals


 


Proposals should be submitted in Microsoft Word 2003 or Adobe Portable Document Format. The pre-proposals shall be no longer than 7 pages in length and include the following 7 sections: 


 


Page 1 shall include proposal information including (a) the Broad Agency Announcement Number, (b) project title, (c) name of organization, (d) name of  principle investigator(s), (e) phone and addresses for both technical and business contacts; and (f) the identification of the primary subject area and subordinate subject area or areas, if any, the proposal addresses.


 


Pages 2 & 3 shall provide a brief statement of objectives, narrative to demonstrate an understanding of current practices, trends and future needs, and major intended tasks and proposed deliverables.


 


Page 4 shall describe how the research would provide value to advancing practitioners involved in Statewide, metropolitan, rural, regional, local, or Tribal transportation planning.


 


Page 5 shall describe how the research will respond to current or future needs in Statewide, metropolitan, rural, regional, local, or Tribal transportation planning.


 


Page 6 shall introduce the research team, their general qualifications and other resources to accomplish the proposed effort.


 


Page 7 shall outline a draft budget (including the use of matching non-federal funds and resources, if applicable) The budget shall further include the anticipated period of performance and any anticipated option periods, and partnership/subcontractor structures.


 


Offerors should refer to the Evaluation Criteria below to ensure that their pre-proposal addresses the FHWA's requirements. 


 


SECTION 6


 


EVALUATION CRITERIA OF PRE-PROPOSALS


 


6.1 Evaluation Criteria


 


The primary basis for selecting pre-proposals will be technical merit, importance to the FHWA programs, and the availability of funds. Technical merit will be evaluated based on the following criteria, listed below in descending order of importance: 


 


Category I:  Category I proposals are well-conceived, scientifically/ technically sound, pertinent to program goals/objectives, and offered by a responsible offeror.  Category I proposals are recommended for full proposal (subject to availability of funds) and normally will be displaced only by other Category I proposals.


 


Category II:  Category II proposals are scientifically or technically sound that may require further development.  They can be recommended for full proposal, but are a lower priority than Category I.


 


Category III:  Category III proposals are not technically sound or do not meet agency needs.  Proposals in this category are not recommended for full proposal.


 


SECTION 7


 


INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF FULL PROPOSALS



7.1 Full Proposal Instructions


 


After the pre-proposals evaluation stage is complete, offerors who are invited to submit full proposals will be notified of the actual dates for submission and will provided with specific instructions for submission of full proposals.  Offerors who choose not to submit a pre-proposal, but who wish to submit a full proposal may do so, without invitation.  It is presently anticipated that full proposals will include a technical proposal that is 20 pages or less in length, as well as a separate appropriate cost proposal.


 


Offerors submitting full proposals will be asked to submit technical proposals that provide a refined research problem statement and work scope, a management plan, technology transition plan, staffing qualifications, and information regarding other ongoing research and work.  In addition to the technical proposal, offerors will be requested to submit a cost proposal that provides complete and detailed budget information (length as necessary), information on proposed cost sharing, and other general business information. If necessary, the FHWA will request additional cost back-up information, resumes or supplemental information as appropriate.


 


Recipients of cooperative agreements will be asked to complete the applicable SF-424 series of forms


 


Each Offeror shall submit their proposal electronically in Microsoft Office 2003 or equivalent formats.


 


The evaluation board may take into account when making its evaluation, any failure to conform to the instructions and rules in this section or any attempt to evade these specifications and rules on the basis of technicalities, as indicators of future performance.


 


If an Offeror does not understand the instructions as described herein, then they must submit their questions(s) to the Contract Specialist (Joseph Fusari) for clarification sufficiently in advance of the deadline for the receipt of offers to get an answer in time to meet that deadline.


 


7.2 Questions on the BAA content, issues, or procedures should be emailed to: Joseph.Fusari@dot.gov.


 


7.3 Proposal Due Date  


 


Proposals are due by 4:30 pm EST on April 23, 2010 electronically to:


 


Joseph.Fusari@Dot.gov


 


Offers must be received by the time and due date specified herein to be considered timely and acceptable.


 


SECTION 8


 


Proposal Format



  • 8.1 Proposal Format

  • Full proposals shall be submitted by an authorized representative and include a technical proposal 20 pages or less in length, a separate cost proposal, resumes, and past performance. The technical proposal shall include the following four (4) sections and subsections:


 


Part I Technical Proposal


 



  • (1) Cover Page with (A) the BAA number, (B) proposal title, (C) type of business (large business, small disadvantaged business, other small business, HBCU or MI, other educational, or other nonprofit), (D) complete list of subcontractors, (E) technical and administrative points of contact including addresses, telephone numbers, electronic mail addresses, and facsimile machine numbers.

  • (2) Refined research problem statement (up to three pages) with a description of the proposed visionary technology or system and how the proposed effort will meet the objectives of the broad agency announcement, a comparison of these innovative ideas with current approaches and the current state of the art and the expected impact of the research if successful.

  • (3) Complete work scope (up to five pages) describing research methods, steps, schedule (for a period of performance up to two years) with milestones, expected deliverables and associated evaluation metrics for the proposed effort.

  • (4) A Management Plan (no more than one page) describing the overall approach to management of this effort, including a brief discussion of the proposed organization and the use of personnel and other resources. This section should also describe the partnership structure between the entity proposing work and other public and private sector entities funding or otherwise substantially participating in the work, including State Departments of Transportation, State Air Quality Agencies, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Universities, Foundations, etc.

  • (5) A Technology Transition Plan (no more than one page) describing the how the research could be transferred into local or national practice.

  • (6) Facilities: (no more than one page) describing the facilities that would be used for the proposed effort.

  • (7) All work plans must include preparation of read-ahead documents, presentation materials, meeting facilities, and a two day presentation to a peer review panel of the base year validation results and plans for modeling scenarios implementation and scenario evaluation plans. In addition, at least one web conference will be subsequently held to respond to reviewer comments and present scenario evaluation findings. Members of the peer review will be identified in cooperation with FHWA. FHWA will arrange for peer travel and related expenses


(8)  The work plan shall clearly indicate how the proposed effort will lead to transformational changes and revolutionary advances for transportation planning.  The work plan shall describe the necessary tasks required to support the proposed work.  The work plan shall describe a timeline for completion of each task and the interrelationships of all tasks.



Part II Staffing Proposal:


 



  • (1) Research team qualifications (up to three pages) with title and identification of association to a specific project or functional group within the proposing organization or to a specific proposed subcontractor. Indicate the proposed amount of effort (person-hours) to be expended by each person during the proposed program.



(2) As part of its proposal, the offeror shall designate a Project Manager and other personnel deemed by the offeror to be essential to the successful completion of the contract.  These individuals will be listed in the contract as Key Personnel. In the event any of the Key Personnel are unable to perform as proposed for any reason during the performance of the contract, the contractor shall immediately notify the COTR and Contacting Officer in writing. Such notice will include an explanation of the problem, a proposed replacement by someone of equal or better qualifications and experience, and shall explain the impact on performance. All replacements are subject to the prior written approval of the Contracting Officer. However, the Government reserves the right to approve such replacements retroactively when circumstances prevent advance approval.


Part III Past Performance/Experience


 



  • (1) Reference to past relevant research at the national, state or regional level (up to two pages) describing capabilities, work, and significant accomplishments in areas associated with proposed research area or in closely related areas. Associate the described relevant experience to the specific project group or functional group in the proposing organization or to the specific proposed subcontractor(s).

  • (2) Other proposals (one page maximum) summarizing current and pending proposals being executed or proposed to be executed with the support of personnel proposed in this effort. This list should include project scale, start and end dates, and the average amount of time planned or currently being expended on each effort. The list should be organized by names of the key personnel and other significant senior personnel. If none, state none under this section.

  • (3) A Bibliography (one page maximum) of relevant technical papers and research notes which support the technical concepts and innovative ideas described in this proposal.


Part IIII Cost Proposal




  • (1) In addition to the above 20-page or shorter technical proposal, offerors shall submit a cost proposal that provides complete budget information (length as necessary). A separate summary budget shall be provided for the base period and for each proposed option period. Each summary budget shall include costs by each major cost category such as direct labor, fringe benefits, subcontracts, travel and other direct costs, overhead/indirect costs, and fee (if applicable). Direct labor information shall provide detail regarding each proposed individual or labor category, the number of hours or percent of time proposed for each period, and the unburdened hourly rate or salary for each person or category. For other direct costs (travel, materials and supplies, etc), provide detail and explanation for how each element of cost was derived and estimated. For any subcontracts, provide a separate detailed budget for the subcontract work, and provide a price analysis of the work. Please note that the FHWA can pay per diem for travelers, but cannot pay for special meals or receptions under contracts. Only small printing/duplicating costs should be proposed, if needed; any large printing jobs must be carried out by the FHWA in accordance with Government Printing Office regulations. A separate detailed cost breakdown shall also be provided by task and subtask, using the same task or subtask numbers as described in the scope of work in the technical proposal. If necessary, the government will request additional cost back-up information, resumes or supplemental information as appropriate. Details of any cost sharing to be undertaken by the offeror shall also be included in the cost section. Describe the type of funds (cash, in kind, etc.), and its contribution and relationship in enhancing the proposed effort. With the budget include the following mandatory business information regarding your company: Business Size; Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN); Dun & Bradstreet Number; Name and contact information (mail address, telephone, and email address) of your authorized business representative/point of contact. An SF1411, Contract Pricing Proposal Cover Sheet, is not required for this submission of your proposal.


 

(2) An estimated budget and spending plan for completion of the project must be clearly labeled and identified in the cost proposal.


  • 8.2 Subcontractors


Subcontractors' proposals must be similarly structured.  All subcontracted work must be properly identified as such.  If a subcontractor elects to submit an abbreviated proposal, it is the offeror's responsibility to see that the subcontractor submits the information requested in paragraph 4(e)(1) or (2) above and submits the proposal directly to the Government's point of contact.  The offeror must ensure that the subcontractor adheres to the guidance set forth herein.  FAR 15.404-3 requires that the offeror provide an analysis of subcontractors' cost proposals.  To that end, offeror's proposal must:


 


          (1)   Identify principal items/services to be subcontracted.


 


          (2)  Identify prospective subcontractors and the basis on which they were selected.  If non-competitive, provide selected source justification


 


          (3)  Identify the type of contractual business arrangement contemplated for the subcontract and provide a rationale for same.


 


          (4)  Identify the basis for the subcontract costs (e.g., firm quote or engineering estimate, etc).


 


          (5)  Identify the cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing data submitted by the subcontractor.


 


          (6)  Provide an analysis of the proposed subcontract in accordance with FAR 15.404-3(b).  Provide an analysis concerning the reasonableness, realism and completeness of each subcontractor's proposal.  If the analysis is based on comparison with prior prices, identify the basis on which the prior prices were determined to be reasonable.  The analysis should include, but not be limited to, an analysis of: materials, labor, travel, other direct costs and proposed profit or fee rates.  A guide as to how the analysis may be performed is located on Attachment No. 2.


 


     i.  Changes to Pricing Proposals:  Changes to previously submitted proposals must include documentation indicating how a previously submitted proposal is impacted or affected. 


 


          (1)  If changes to the original proposal are relatively insignificant and involve only minor changes to elements such as labor rates, overhead and General and Administrative (G&A) rates, bill of material changes, travel costs, and Other Direct Costs (ODC's), these change can be accomplished through the use of change pages or slip pages accompanied by new cost summaries.




  • 8.3 NOTE: The requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act may apply to certain deliverables under any resulting award, including the final report. The applicability of Section 508 will be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of deliverables under each award that results from this BAA.

  • 8.4 NOTE: Rights to copyrightable software delivered under any resulting award of this BAA shall be determined in accordance with 48 CFR 52.227-14 and alternatives I, II, III. Furthermore, all software deliveries, preliminary and final, will include as a minimum, well-documented source code in electronic readable format, overall software architecture documentation, overall and individual module interface documentation, and a users operations manual. All hardware deliveries will include all documentation necessary to reproduce (assemble) and operate the delivered hardware system(s). Also, if applicable, provide a summary of any proprietary claims to results, software, hardware, prototypes, or systems supporting and/or necessary for the use of the research, results, software, hardware, prototype, or system proposed for development under this broad agency announcement. If there are no proprietary claims, this section shall consist of a statement to that effect.


 


SECTION 9


 


EVALUATION CRITERIA OF FULL PROPORALS


 


9.1 Evaluation Criteria


 


The primary basis for selecting proposals will be technical merit, importance to the FHWA programs, and the availability of funds. Technical merit will be evaluated based on the following criteria, listed in descending order of relative importance: 


 


Full proposals will be evaluated based on the following criteria in descending order of importance below.


 


1.      Technical Approach (55 points)


 


•a.       Provides a sound, feasible, and achievable technical approach.  Discusses the steps (or tasks) to execute the methodology by which the project objective will be achieved (25 points) 


•b.       Discusses and demonstrates the ability to clearly describe the project objectives, needs, and the manner in which they will be addressed.  Technical approach is sound, feasible, and achievable. (20 points)


•c.       Demonstrates a solid grasp of the subject area; familiarity with regulatory or programmatic issues. (10 points)


2. Staffing (45 points)    

•a.       Includes the academic credentials, professional experience, subject matter expertise and technical competence of key personnel for this project, including all the personnel who will participate as subcontractors for this project (25 points)


•b.       Discusses the research team's relevant skills and experience that will ensure success.  Provide a short bio and list of relevant experience for each technical personnel. (15 points)


•c.       Provides contingency plans in place to replace key personnel over the life of the project without any adverse impact on performance (5 points)


 

























































































































































Evaluation Scale



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



Outstanding



Excellent



Good



Fair



Poor



Unsatisfactory



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



55 points



55



44



33



22



11



0



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



45 points



45



36



27



18



9



0



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



25 points



25



20



15



10



5



0



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



20 points



20



16



12



8



4



0



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



15 points



15



12



9



6



3



0



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



10 points



10



8



6



4



2



0



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



5 points



5



4



3



2



1



0



 


Outstanding - Very comprehensive, in-depth, clear response. The  Proposal consistently meets this standard with no omissions. Consistently high quality performance can be expected.


Excellent - Extensive, detailed response similar to outstanding in quality, but with minor areas of unevenness or spottiness. High quality performance is likely but not assured due to minor omissions or areas where less than excellent performance might be expected.


Good - No deficiencies in the response. Better than acceptable performance can be expected, but in some significant areas, there is an unevenness or spottiness that might impact on performance.


Fair -   Deficiencies are confined to areas with minor impact on performance and can be corrected during negotiation without major revision to the proposal.


Poor -  Deficiencies exist in significant areas but can be corrected during negotiations without major revision to the proposal or serious deficiencies exist in areas with minor impact.


Unsatisfactory - Serious deficiencies exist in significant areas. The proposal only indicates a willingness to perform without specifying how or demonstrating the capability to do so. Only vague indications of capability are present.


3.      Past Performance

 


•a.       Demonstrated successful experience and examples in developing, deploying, and delivering improved and/or new tools, techniques, and procedures to support the project being proposed.


•b.       Includes examples of successful performance in prior contracts.  The Government will evaluate the merits of each offeror's past performance based on its reputation with its former customers including some or all of the following past performance areas:  (1) Quality of Service; (2) Timeliness of Performance; (3) Price/Cost Control; and (4) Customer Satisfaction.  Evidence can include references, samples of correspondence from satisfied clients, letters of recommendation, etc.


 


In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government may use


information obtained from other sources.


 


The Government may consider the currency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem/problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the selection process.


 


A negative finding in any element may result in an overall high-risk rating.


 


The Government may also consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, other corporate entities or subcontractors where such information is relevant to this acquisition.


 


Offerors' past performance will be rated as follows:


 


Very Low Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, very little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


 


Low Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


 


Moderate Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


 


High Risk: Based on the offeror's past performance, significant doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.


 


Neutral Risk: The offeror has little or no recent/relevant past performance upon which to base a meaningful performance risk evaluation.


 


The Government is not required to interview all points of contact identified by


offerors.


 


It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide complete past performance


information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The Government is


not obliged to make another request for the required information.


 


9.2 Non-federal matching funds


The FHWA strongly encourages proposals that offer a significant non-federal matching funds or in-kind resources.  Good proposals will evidence strong internal backing with matching funds, innovative approaches in contracting and leveraging current and past technology development efforts that support this program.  Such proposals will receive consideration in addition to and above how they respond to the technical criteria above.  Cost reasonableness and realism will also be considered in the overall selection process.  Individual proposal evaluations will be based on acceptability or non-acceptability without regard to other proposals submitted under the announcement.  Selection will be based primarily on scientific or technical merit, partnership, relevance and importance to agency, and availability of funds.  Note that all technically meritorious proposals may not be funded due to budgetary constraints. 


 


In addition to the criteria listed above, cost/price will be considered in the award decision.  The proposals will be analyzed to assess their price reasonableness.  This means that the prices in an offeror's proposal are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's technical proposal.


 


The Government will accept the offer that is considered the best value to the Government.  A best value analysis will be performed taking into consideration the results of the technical evaluation, cost and past performance analysis, and the perceived ability to perform timely, high quality, consistently reliable support services as provided herein.


 


In the determination of Best Value, the relative weight given to all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, is more important than price.  However, offerors should note that as technical scores approach being essentially equivalent, cost would become more important in the selection decision.


 


9.3 Administrative Information


 


It is the policy of the FHWA to treat all proposals as competitive information and to disclose the contents only for the purposes of evaluation. Only Government evaluators will make selections under this BAA. This announcement constitutes the public announcement as contemplated by FAR 6.102(d) (2), and no formal Request for Proposals or other solicitation regarding this announcement will be issued.  Requests for same will be disregarded. The Government reserves the right to select for award any, all, part, or none of the proposals received in response to this announcement. In addition, the Government reserves the right to award either contracts, purchase orders, or other instruments determined to be of benefit to the government in achieving the goals of this program. This BAA is an expression of interest only and does not commit the Government to pay any pre-proposal or proposal preparation costs. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the Government's needs may submit proposals, which will be evaluated. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Minority Institutions (MI) are encouraged to submit proposals and join others in submitting proposals. However, no portion of this BAA will be set aside for HBCU and MI participation due to the desire to solicit ideas as broadly as possible


 SECTION 10


 


TECHNICAL AND COST NEGOTIATIONS


 


10.1 Contact Vehicle


 


The Contract Officer will determine the appropriate award vehicle depending on the work to be performed and notify the offeror of his/her decision.


 


10.2 Model Proposal


 


Once the proposal evaluation is completed and ranked, the offerors selected for negotiations are notified by letter, email or phone by the Contracting Officer.  If necessary, this notification letter may include further instructions.  The written notification shall also include a model contract.  The model contract provides the basis for negotiations on all contractual requirements, terms, and conditions.  If the offeror takes exception to any requirements, these must be specifically identified in the reply to the Contracting Officer.  The reply must also include any other information required by the Government.


 


10.3 Revised or Updated Cost Proposal


 


If necessary, at the same time an offeror is notified of their selection, they may be requested to submit either an updated or revised cost proposal and any additional cost information or backup cost data.


 


10.4 Technical Proposal Changes


 


Normally, if any clarifications are needed by the Government technical evaluators, the offeror will be contacted before completion of the evaluation and receipt of the notification letter.  However, a proposal may be selected for negotiations although additional technical data is still required.  If this occurs, the Government negotiator will request any technical documentation needed.


 


10.5 Buying Part versus All 


 


Normally an entire proposed effort is purchased; however, the FHWA may from time to time be interested in acquiring part or parts of a proposal.  This is one reason the Government requires offerors to write the SOW in the form of separate tasks.  It facilitates evaluation and provides an easy way to select desired tasks.  If the FHWA decides to buy only part or parts of a proposal, the notification letter may request the offeror to revise the cost proposal to reflect only what will be purchased.


 









SECTION 11


 


ATTACHMENTS


 


1•1.                               Sample Statement of Work


•22.                               Prime Contractors Analysis of Subcontractors  Costs


•33.                               Past Performance Questionnaire


 

Please consult the list of document viewers if you cannot open a file.

2010 Transportation Planning BAA

Type:
Other (Draft RFPs/RFIs, Responses to Questions, etc..)
Label:
2010 Transportation Planning BAA
Posted Date:
January 5, 2010
Description: 2010 Transportation Planning BAA

Attachments 1-3

Type:
Other (Draft RFPs/RFIs, Responses to Questions, etc..)
Label:
Attachments 1-3
Posted Date:
January 5, 2010
Attachment 1.doc (45.50 Kb)
Description: Attachment 1 - Sample Statement of Work
Attachment 2.doc (40.00 Kb)
Description: Attachment 2 - Prime Contractors Analysis of Subcontractors Costs
Description: Attachment 3 - Past Performance Questionnaire

Amendment 1

Type:
Mod/Amendment
Posted Date:
January 25, 2010
Amendment 1.doc (37.00 Kb)
Description: Amendment 1

Amendment 2

Type:
Mod/Amendment
Posted Date:
February 3, 2010
Amendment 2.doc (45.00 Kb)
Description: Amendment 2

Amendment 3

Type:
Mod/Amendment
Posted Date:
March 3, 2010
Amendment 3.docx (23.69 Kb)
Description: Amendment 3

Amendment 4

Type:
Mod/Amendment
Posted Date:
March 22, 2010
Amendment 4.docx (24.43 Kb)
Description: Amendment 4
:
HAAM, Mail Stop E65-101
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, District of Columbia 20590
:
Joseph A. Fusari,
Contract Specialist
Phone: 2023664244
:
Robert G Prior,
Contracting Officer
Phone: 2023664247