ACRP 02-78 [RFP]

Climate Resilience and Benefit Cost Analysis--A Handbook for Airports

Posted Date: 12/6/2016

Project Data
Funds: $450,000
Contract Time: 18 months
(includes 2 months for ACRP review and approval of the interim report and 3 months
for ACRP review and for contractor revision of the final report)
Authorization to Begin
Work: 5/1/2017 -- estimated
Staff Responsibility: Lawrence D. Goldstein
Phone: 202.334.1866
Email: [email protected]
RFP Close Date: 2/2/2017
Fiscal Year: 2017
BACKGROUND
There is an increasing emphasis among transportation infrastructure providers to ensure that new
capital investments and improvements are resilient to impacts from climate change and extreme
weather events; however, methods and procedures for maximizing resilience from new
investments in a cost-effective manner are not well documented. The benefits of resilient
infrastructure accrue across the lifetime of an asset but are most typically measured as potential
losses avoided rather than revenues gained. Given that assertion, Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) is
a potentially useful method for balancing gradually realized, unconventional, and risk dependent
benefits with upfront financial costs of adaptation investments. If appropriately applied, BCA
can help airport administrators better understand and demonstrate the tradeoffs of investing in
climate adaptation measures in the context of recognized uncertainties.
There are, however, significant, unique challenges to conducting climate risk-enhanced BCAs in
the airport context. These challenges include the diversity of available funding and financing
mechanisms as well as specific climate-related risks facing a given facility. These challenges
also include how to address quantifiable versus hard-to-quantify benefits and costs when
evaluating alternative investment strategies. Airport conditions reflect the individual
characteristics of an airport, and the issues an airport faces with respect to climate resiliency are
affected by that particular context. Methods to identify and apply evaluation techniques that can
incorporate unique airport conditions or characteristics would be useful in establishing a
procedure for effective investment evaluation.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this research is to develop a BCA handbook for airport infrastructure projects
designed to improve resilience to long-term impacts of climate change and extreme weather
events. This research should recognize, enhance, and adapt insights and procedures identified
from related research currently available or under development affecting both airports and other
infrastructure projects. At a minimum, this study should:
Identify the types of projects and applications that lend themselves to BCA;
Delineate the components of BCA that need to be taken into account, including
guidelines on incorporating both market and nonmarket valuation strategies as well
as qualitative and quantitative data and methods;
Identify and explain the role of key data and assumptions (required and optional) in
the climate-risk enhanced BCA process, including multi-stressor climate projections
for both acute and chronic stressors, freeboard/safety factors, discount rate, the
allocation of costs and benefits, and other components;
Identify environmental and social costs and benefits as input to the analytical
process;
Describe how the identified components of climate risk and uncertainty can be
incorporated into the BCA;
Describe how current project funding options and constraints affect applicable
BCA;
Identify cost-effective risk management methodologies within the BCA process,
including appropriate tools and techniques, to facilitate decision-making;
Identify potential tools and techniques that would be useful to analysts as well as
decision-makers; and
Prepare a user-friendly handbook to facilitate the analytical process and decision-
maker responsibilities, taking into account the critical issues of scalability and
implementability.
The product of this research will provide guidance to airport technical staff as well as
administrators (including necessary tools and techniques) that is designed to improve the process
by which infrastructure investment strategies are evaluated in the context of ensuring climate-
related resiliency. Procedures for presenting assumptions and results transparently, and for
implementing the process, should be included so that industry users and decision-makers
understand the outcome of the analytical process.

RESEARCH PLAN
The ACRP is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective.
Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can be realistically accomplished within
the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers’
thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of
their approach to meeting the research objective.
To meet the objectives of this study, a two-phase research plan should include, but not be limited
to, the following.
PHASE I

1. Evaluate State of the Practice

This component of the research should begin with a detailed literature review including,
but not limited to, previous studies prepared as part of the Cooperative Research
Programs, including not only Airports but Transit and Highways as well. Evaluate
existing models and analytical approaches currently in use, and address both traditional
 components of a BCA as well as social and environmental consequences of climate-
related risk and uncertainty.

2. Prepare Draft Handbook

This component should include a preliminary draft of the handbook. It should provide
guidance for different types and sizes of projects and for a range of airport sizes. The
handbook should consider the treatment of dedicated resilience projects (e.g., those
planned specifically to enhance resilience) vs. standard capital or operating projects into
which risk management measures are incorporated. Climate resiliency strategies
included should consider potential chronic and acute impacts to airport infrastructure.

PHASE II
3. Project Application—Proof of Concept
An approach to “proof of concept” is an important element of this research. It should
include a process to demonstrate the practical nature of the handbook. Proof of concept
should incorporate partnering with multiple airports of varying sizes to review and test
application of procedures developed. As part of the proof-of-concept approach, the
research plan should build at least two BCA concepts entailing varying levels of effort
and expertise for applications of differing scales (e.g., smaller vs. larger investments or
more or less robust climate projection information).

4. Finalize Handbook and additional Final Products

Finalizing the handbook should incorporate the results of the proof-of-concept
process. Include in the set of final products the following: (1) the finalized handbook that
describes best practices for implementing BCA methods suitable for evaluating
investment scenarios based on maximizing resiliency for airport infrastructure projects;
(2) a final report documenting the entire project, incorporating all other specified
deliverables of the research, including recommendations on priorities for additional
research; (3) a stand-alone executive briefing document summarizing the BCA process
and its potential benefits; (4) electronic presentation slides and other briefing material
that can be tailored for and targeted to decision-makers and other appropriate audiences;
and (5) a stand-alone technical memorandum titled, “Implementation of Research
Findings and Products” (see Special Notes E for additional information). Proposers may
recommend additional deliverables in support of the project objectives.
A kick-off teleconference of the research team and ACRP will be scheduled within 1 month of
the contract’s execution. In preparation for this kick-off conference, the research team will
prepare a revised scope of work, the amplified work plan (AWP), to incorporate responses to
initial panel concerns expressed as an output of the contractor selection process. This AWP must
be divided into two phases with tasks described in detail. As indicated, Phase I will consist of
information gathering and initial evaluation as indicated above, accomplishing sufficient tasks to
reach a natural decision-making point in the study. Phase I will conclude with submission of an
interim report that describes the work completed to that point and will present a revised scope of
work for Phase II tasks. It will also include an outline of the handbook and the preliminary plan
for disseminating and implementing the study output. Completion of Phase I and submission of
an interim report will also coincide with a face-to-face meeting with the ACRP panel to discuss
that report (scheduled approximately 3 weeks following delivery of the interim report). No work
shall be performed on Phase II without ACRP panel approval.
Phase II should include the proof-of-concept process and all additional tasks necessary to
complete the analysis and development of the handbook. This phase should also include
incorporation of the results of the proof-of-concept process into the final work product. The
ACRP panel will review the draft guidance and implementation plan and help to finalize
recommendations for the actual format and content of the final product. As part of the response
to this RFP, the ACRP panel is seeking insights of proposers on how they will implement the
proof-of-concept process and manage expected outcomes.
Note: The costs for the proof-of-concept activity, including invitational travel for attendees if that
should be part of the process, should be included in the detailed budget for the research. For the
purpose of estimating these costs, assume that the activity will be held at the Keck Center in
Washington, D.C. TRB will cover costs associated with the meeting space at the Keck Center and
ACRP panel travel.

Final deliverables will include those documents and other materials itemized in paragraph 4
above.
Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, the remaining 3 months shall be for
ACRP review and comment and for research agency preparation of the final deliverables.

SPECIAL NOTES
A. Proposers should consider related ACRP and other TRB/CRP research as they
develop their research plan; visit the TRB website to search for related
projects: http://www.trb.org/Projects/FindaProject.aspx.
B. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP staff and project panels consisting of
individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of the
research contractor is made by the project panel considering the following factors:
(1) the proposer's demonstrated understanding of the problem; (2) the merit of the
proposed research approach and experiment design; (3) the experience,
qualifications, and objectivity of the research team in the same or closely related
problem area; (4) the plan for ensuring application of results; (5) the proposer's plan
for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises--small firms owned and
controlled by minorities or women; and (6) the adequacy of the facilities.
Note: The proposer's plan for participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
should be incorporated in Item 12 of the proposal.
C. Proposals should include a task-by-task breakdown of labor hours for each staff
member as shown in Figure 4 in the brochure, "Information and Instructions for
Preparing Proposals"
(http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/crp/docs/ProposalPrep.pdf). Proposals also
should include a breakdown of all costs (e.g., wages, indirect costs, travel, materials,
and total) for each task using Figures 5 and 6 in the brochure. Please note that TRB
 Cooperative Research Program subawards (selected proposers are considered
subawards to the National Academy of Sciences, the parent organization of TRB)
must comply with 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. These requirements include
a provision that proposers without a “federally” Negotiated Indirect Costs Rate
Agreement (NICRA) shall be subject to a maximum allowable indirect rate of 10% of
Modified Total Direct Costs. Modified Total Direct Costs include all salaries and
wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to
the first $25,000 of each lower-tier subaward and subcontract. Modified Total Direct
Costs exclude equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental
costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and
the portion of each lower-tier subaward and subcontract in excess of $25,000.
D. Item 4(c), "Anticipated Research Results," in each proposal must include an
Implementation Plan that describes activities to promote application of the product of
this research. It is expected that the implementation plan will evolve during the
project; however, proposals must describe, as a minimum, the following: (a) the
"product" expected from the research, (b) the audience or "market" for this product,
(c) a realistic assessment of impediments to successful implementation, (d) the
institutions and individuals who might take leadership in applying the research
product, (e) the activities necessary for successful implementation, and (f) the
criteria for judging the progress and consequences of implementation.
E. The required technical memorandum titled “Implementation of Research Findings
and Products” should (a) provide recommendations on how to best put the research
findings/products into practice; (b) identify possible institutions that might take
leadership in applying the research findings/products; (c) identify issues affecting
potential implementation of the findings/products and recommend possible actions to
address these issues; and (d) recommend methods of identifying and measuring the
impacts associated with implementation of the findings/products. Implementation of
these recommendations is not part of the research project and, if warranted, details
of these actions will be developed and implemented in future efforts.
F. Item 5 in the proposal, "Qualifications of the Research Team," must include a
section labeled "Disclosure." Information relevant to the ACRP's need to ensure
objectivity and to be aware of possible sources of significant financial or
organizational conflict of interest in conducting the research must be presented in
this section of the proposal. For example, under certain conditions, ownership of the
proposing agency, other organizational relationships, or proprietary rights and
interests could be perceived as jeopardizing an objective approach to the research
effort, and proposers are asked to disclose any such circumstances and to explain
how they will be accounted for in this study. If there are no issues related to
objectivity, this should be stated.
G. Copyrights - All data, written materials, computer software, graphic and
photographic images, and other information prepared under the contract and the
copyrights therein shall be owned by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine. The contractor and subcontractors will be able to publish
 this material for non-commercial purposes, for internal use, or to further academic
research or studies with permission from TRB Cooperative Research Programs. The
contractor and subcontractors will not be allowed to sell the project material without
prior approval by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
By signing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, contractors accept
legal responsibility for any copyright infringement that may exist in work done for
TRB. Contractors are therefore responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions
for use of copyrighted material in TRB’s Cooperative Research Programs
publications. For guidance on TRB’s policies on using copyrighted material please
consult Section 5.4, “Use of Copyrighted Material,” in the Procedural Manual for
Contractors.

Proposals (12 single-bound copies) are due not later than 4:30 p.m. on
2/2/2017.

This is a firm deadline, and extensions are not granted. In order to be considered for award, all
copies of the agency's proposal accompanied by the executed, unmodified Liability Statement
must be in our offices not later than the deadline shown, or the proposal will be rejected.
Proposers may choose any carrier or delivery service for their proposals. However, proposers
assume the risk of proposal rejection if the carrier or delivery service does not deliver all the
required documents by the deadline.

Delivery Address:

PROPOSAL-ACRP
ATTN: Christopher J. Hedges
Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Transportation Research Board
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Liability Statement

The signature of an authorized representative of the proposing agency is required on the unaltered
statement in order for the ACRP to accept the agency's proposal for consideration.Proposals submitted
without this executed and unaltered statement by the proposal deadline will be summarily
rejected. An executed, unaltered statement indicates the agency's intent and ability to execute a contract
that includes the provisions in the statement.

Here is a printable version of the Liability Statement (pdf). A free copy of the Adobe Acrobat PDF
reader is available at http://www.adobe.com.

General Notes
1. According to the provisions of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21, which relates to nondiscrimination
in federally assisted programs, all parties are hereby notified that the contract entered into pursuant to this
announcement will be awarded without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or
disability.

2. The essential features required in a proposal for research are detailed in the current brochure
entitled "Information and Instructions for Preparing Proposals" (updated August 2016). Proposals must
be prepared according to this document, and attention is directed specifically to Section V for mandatory
requirements. Proposals that do not conform with these requirements will be rejected. This brochure is
available here.

3. The total funds available are made known in the project statement, and line items of the budget are examined to
determine the reasonableness of the allocation of funds to the various tasks. If the proposed total cost exceeds the
funds available, the proposal is rejected.

4. All proposals become the property of the Transportation Research Board. Final disposition will be made
according to the policies thereof, including the right to reject all proposals.

5. Potential proposers should understand that follow-on activities for this project may be carried out through either a
contract amendment modifying the scope of work with additional time and funds, or through a new contract (via
sole source, full, or restrictive competition).