Requests Closed
RESEARCH PROBLEM
STATEMENT:
High
traffic volumes, a limited number of runways, and a forecast of
an expanding air transportation industry offer decreasing opportunity
for the rehabilitation or reconstruction of airfield portland
cement concrete pavements. The airport owner and the user demand
a "get-in, get-out and stay-out" philosophy for pavement projects.
Successful and marginal projects have been accomplished at many
airports but the planning, the cost, and the impact on the airport
remain undocumented. The efforts of airport staff, engineers,
and contractors that accomplished projects must be documented:
the success and failure lessons must be captured and be employed
as a benefit to the airport industry.
OBJECTIVES:
The
research will result in the documentation of the planning, cost
implications, engineering considerations, and other than ordinary
construction techniques used at airports that have accomplished
pavement projects using "fast-track" or "accelerated" construction
techniques. The documentation is to be prepared for the use of
airport owners, operators, planners, designers and constructors.
The intent is to maximize the possibility for the success of projects
at airports with restraints similar to those airports that have
executed projects. Doing this should help others avoid pitfalls
by refining the planning process and the execution of pavement
projects.
PRODUCTS:
The
final product will be an industry reference for the use of portland
cement concrete pavement for the airside environment in a "fast-track"
or "accelerated construction" scenario. "Fast-track" or "accelerated
construction' includes any project that, as a result of planning
or innovation, resulted in the completion of the project under
a compressed time schedule. "Fast-track" is not limited to projects
that incorporate rapid strength gain concretes.
The
investigator will provide two originals, in a camera ready format,
of the final report including artwork, graphics or photos. The
publication will also be submitted in an electronic format compatible
with off-the-shelf desktop computer publication software. The
investigator will not be responsible for the reproduction of the
final document. The investigator may be asked to assist with editing
generated by the printing process.
The
investigator will be responsible for developing a series of sub-tasks
that when completed will result in completion of this study within
the time and budget available. It is not necessary that the proposal
reflect the exact budget or the performance period. However, any
deviation from the available resources must be justified and clearly
explained in the proposal.
The
following are considered as the minimum tasks that are necessary
to do the work to complete this study. The proposal may include
an increase in the number of tasks but the number of on-board
reviews will be retained.
Task
1 - Airport Project Review. Identify airports where projects
that are considered "fast-track" or "accelerated construction"
have been accomplished. The list will not be limited to only those
projects that the investigator considers should be included in
the study. The resources available should not limit the list of
projects. The list is a documentation of all projects that the
investigator can document.
Task
2 - Project Identification. Develop a list of projects from
the Task 1 list that can be studied, and the results reported,
within the resources available. The list must include project
scope, cost, and the names of owner representatives, planners,
designers, and constructors. The airports on the study list must
include the size of airport classified using the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) definitions by category of commercial airports.
The list must include a recommendation of the investigator as
why the airport is a candidate for inclusion in the study. The
list should be made up of a balance of projects based upon airport
size. The list should include not only high-profile projects at
primary airports that have received recognition but also projects
at small and non-hub airports. The list will be submitted for
IPRF review and concurrence. The IPRF may elect to add or subtract
study projects based upon the Task 1 list.
Task
3 - Document a Research Plan. Develop a plan for gathering
data from the study list. Determine what information is to be
gathered and from whom. IMPORTANT: The investigator will not accomplish
the data acquisition by mailing a printed survey. A survey is
defined as a written document sent to all those considered as
a prospective interview. The use of such surveys must receive
approval through the IPRF from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). That process requires a minimum of 90 days from the date
of application for the survey approval. The 90 day approval period
is not included in the time designated as the performance period.
The survey should be accomplished by direct contact (telephone,
personal interview, or e-mail) with the persons on the Task 2
list.
A
20% on-board review will be accomplished at the conclusion
of Tasks 1, 2 and 3. The investigator will not proceed to
Task 4 without approval of the IPRF. The on-board review must
be scheduled at least thirty-days prior to the actual meeting
date. The location of the meeting will be coordinated through
the IPRF. The investigator will provide a recording secretary
at the on-board review. The comments of IPRF technical panel
members and the disposition of each comment will be recorded.
Task
4 - Project Interviews and DRAFT Report. Conduct project interviews
and consolidate data. Develop a draft report that includes a summary
of the projects and the lessons learned.
A
60% on-board review will be accomplished at the conclusion
of Task 4. Comments of the IPRF technical panel will be discussed
at the on-board review. The draft report will be provided
to the technical panel at least 30 days prior to the meeting.
The investigator is expected to present to the technical panel
discussion items that will result in policy decisions for
critical elements of the final report. Additional research
may be needed to respond to questions that are developed as
a result of the on-board review. The location of the meeting
will be coordinated through the IPRF. The investigator will
provide a recording secretary at the on-board review. The
comments of IPRF technical panel members and the disposition
of each comment will be recorded.
Task
5 - Advanced Final Report. Make corrections using the 60% review.
Include in the 90% report all artwork, graphical presentations,
format, etc. The 90% document shall be in a form that, for all
intent and purpose, is complete with the exception of final comments
made by the technical panel.
A
90% on-board review will be accomplished. The review will
be a meeting between the investigator and the IPRF Technical
Panel. The draft report will be provided to the technical
panel at least 30 days prior to the meeting. The location
of the meeting will be coordinated through the IPRF. The investigator
will provide a recording secretary at the on-board review.
The comments of IPRF technical panel members and the disposition
of each comment will be recorded.
Task
6 - Final Report. Submit the final report to the IPRF and assist
with editing that is related to the publication process.
Products
Summary:
1. A final report complete with all artwork, graphics, tables,
pictures, documentation, etc. ready for
reproduction. The report will be submitted in two original documents
and one on electronic media.
2. A list of candidate projects and a proposed research plan.
Submit 8 copies. This is defined as the 20% level of completion.
The project list and the proposed methods on obtaining information
will be reviewed at an on-board meeting at a location to be
determined. The investigator will host the meeting.
3. The 60% on-board review will be accomplished approximately
30-days after submittal of a draft report. The draft report
(8 copies) will include a summary of data collected and recommended
discussion items. The investigator will host the meeting. Location
will be determined in coordination with the IPRF.
4. Advanced final report (8 copies) and 90% on-board review.
The investigator will host the meeting.
5. Final report (8 copies) for review and comment by the IPRF
technical panel.
Other
Considerations and requirements:
1. The investigator is responsible for the preparation of quarterly
reports that describe the progress of the research effort. Quarterly
reports are due in the offices of the IPRF on the last day of
the fiscal year quarter. The reports will be limited to two
pages. The first page will be a word document describing the
progress of the work. The second page will provide a summary
of the estimated costs versus the costs incurred through the
end of the quarter.
2. Because of the limited resources, it is not possible to have
an exhaustive list of projects to include in this study. Therefore,
in proposing candidate projects, the investigator should consider
thermal regimes (sub-tropical, central, and northern tier),
pavement features (taxiways, intersections, runways, aprons),
and projects that involve rehabilitation and reconstruction.
It is expected that the projects that were recently completed
at Atlanta Hartsfield, Memphis International, and Phoenix IAP
will be included.
3. Elements that will be included in the documentation should
be based upon materials selection, safety considerations and
quality of work. The elements that may also be included are:
- Planning
-
Phasing
-
Design
- Innovation
in Materials
- Techniques
- Safety
|
- Cost
-
Time
- Quality
-
Performance
- Procurement
of Contractor
|
- Change
Orders
- Testing
for Acceptance
- Schedule
- Incentives
(Penalty or Bonus)
- Risk
Assumptions
|
4.
Contact with those airports that are selected for study and
documentation will be initiated through the IPRF. The investigator
will provide a draft letter and the IPRF will edit and send
a letter of introduction to the airports selected for inclusion
in the study. The IPRF may opt to include an endorsement of
the introduction to the airport by the FAA. This is intended
to encourage participation by the airports and their sponsors.
5.
The projects included in the candidate list for study (Task
1) will not include projects that are considered as design-build.
Exception to this would be when there is a specific advantage
to the use of the design-build concept.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The
IPRF technical panel will evaluate each proposal and each of the
proposals will be rank ordered. The organization, group, or individual
that is ranked as the first and second choice for the recommendation
to award may be asked to make a presentation to the project technical
panel. The Principal Investigator, and one other person, representing
the investigator may be asked to participate in an interview.
The IPRF will reimburse the expenses (up to 2 people) to make
this presentation at a location yet to be determined. The interview
will occur within a 45-day window subsequent to the proposal submittal
deadline.
IPRF PROCEDURAL
GUIDANCE:
IPRF
procedural guidance documents are available on the web at http://www.iprf.org/
in the section titled "Airfields Research." Persons preparing
proposals are urged to review the following documents to be sure
that there is a full understanding of IPRF procedures and requirements.
Proposals must be prepared in the format specified in the instruction
documents. The proposal will be submitted as one (1) original
and in eight (8) copies.
The
documents that are necessary to reference and prepare the proposal
include:
PDF files require Acrobat Reader to view.
FUNDS
AVAILABLE: Not to Exceed $200,000
CONTRACT
TIME: Not to exceed 11 Months
PROJECT
DIRECTOR: James L. Lafrenz, P.E., (202) 842-1131, jlafrenz@pavement.com
ESTIMATED
NOTICE TO PROCEED DATE: June 19, 2003
PROPOSAL
DUE DATE: April 21, 2003 not later than 4:00 P.M. (Eastern
Time)
DELIVERY
INSTRUCTIONS:
Proposals
will be delivered to:
Innovative
Pavement Research Foundation
Cooperative Programs Office
1010 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 200
Washington DC 20001
(202) 842-1131
FAX: (202) 842-2022
Attention: Research Proposal Log
