BACKGROUND Airports use noise and operations monitoring systems (NOMS) to collect, manage, analyze, and communicate data such as flight tracks and procedures, aircraft identification, noise measurements, community complaints, and weather. These systems also can be used to respond to complaints and provide stakeholders with information about aircraft activity and noise, thus fostering trust and transparency. While NOMS can be beneficial, they require both financial and technical investment; moreover, airports may not have resources and industry knowledge to adequately evaluate the benefits and costs of these systems. Research is needed to help airports decide if a NOMS is appropriate for their situation, evaluate the benefits and costs of acquiring and updating such systems, and determine the general resources needed to acquire, operate, and maintain these systems. OBJECTIVE The objective of this research is to develop a primer and a decision-making framework to help airports and other stakeholders assess the benefits and costs of acquiring, maintaining, and updating an airport NOMS. The primer should describe current state of the practice in the United States, including, but not limited to: General overview of the core features and functions of NOMS; Types and approximate number of airports using NOMS; Types of data being collected; How NOMS are being used; Degree of public access and interface with the data (e.g., reports, website portal); Order-of-magnitude resource requirements (e.g., costs for acquisition, ongoing maintenance, and staffing needs); Potential funding sources; Reasons for acquisition; and Quantitative and qualitative benefits. The primer should include a matrix summarizing the information above and representative case study examples of airports that have installed NOMS or chosen not to, including lessons learned. The decision-making framework should be designed to help airports thoughtfully identify and assess the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs of acquiring, maintaining, and updating a NOMS. The framework should include simple tools (e.g., checklists, flowcharts) to facilitate the analysis and help airports consider their unique situation. 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 realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective. The work proposed must be divided into tasks, and proposers must describe the work proposed in each task in detail. The research plan should include, at a minimum, (1) data collection plan (including potential sources and contacts) and (2) an interim report that describes work done in early tasks, including a literature review, the results of the data collection effort, a list of candidate case studies (including a rationale for their inclusion), and an outline of the decision-making framework (including an initial approach for identifying the quantitative and qualitative benefits and costs). The research plan should also include, at a minimum, the following checkpoints with the ACRP project panel: (1) kickoff web meeting to be held within 1 month of contract execution to discuss the amplified work plan, (2) web meeting to review and approve the data collection plan, (3) interim meeting to review the results of the interim report, and (4) an additional conference call/web meeting to be schedule at the project panel’s discretion. Note: Following receipt of the interim report, there should be 2 months for ACRP review and comments and for the interim meeting. The final deliverables will include: Primer; Decision-making framework; Summary of Key Findings (see Special Note E); Further Recommended Research Memo (see Special Note F); and Technical memo titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products.” (See Special Note G.) Note: Following receipt of the draft final deliverables, there should be 3 months for ACRP review and comments and for contractor preparation of the final deliverables. For budgeting purposes, proposers should assume that ACRP will provide access to web-enabled teleconference services and will pay panel members’ travel costs for the in-person interim meeting. Proposers should assume that the meeting will be held in Washington, DC. SPECIAL NOTES A. The deliverables shall not name NOMS vendors or include product comparisons. B. Proposals are evaluated by the ACRP staff and project panels consisting of individuals collectively very knowledgeable in the problem area. Selection of an agency 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) how the proposer approaches inclusion and diversity in the composition of their team and research approach, including participation by certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises; and, if relevant, (6) the adequacy of the facilities. Note: The proposer's approach to inclusion and diversity as well as 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 Summary of Key Findings will be a stand-alone document. It should (a) convey the most pertinent and applicable results of the project’s research; (b) be geared toward the airport industry practitioner while minimizing technical language; (c) present results using text and graphics as appropriate; and (d) encourage readers to explore the primary project deliverables. The Summary of Key Findings should be limited to no more than 4 pages. F. The Further Recommended Research Memo will be a stand-alone document. It should (a) identify logical follow-on research that would benefit the industry yet was beyond the original scope and budget of the project; (b) describe how the proposed follow-on research relates to ACRP’s research roadmaps, if applicable; and (c) for the highest priority research needs, include research ideas and/or problem statements to be added to ACRP’s IdeaHub, the program’s online repository of research needs. G. The technical memorandum titled, “Implementation of Research Findings and Products” should provide: (a) recommended tactics to facilitate implementation; (b) possible institutions/partners and their potential implementation role; (c) potential impediments to successful implementation; (d) metrics to measure extend of product use and benefit; (e) related FAA guidance; and (f) appendices as needed. An annotated template for the memorandum is found here: onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/acrp/ACRP_Implementation_TechMemo_Template_2019.docx. H. If a proposer elects to include an electronic tool as a deliverable, it must be based on readily available commercial off-the-shelf software. A description of the tool’s development plan will need to be included in the interim report, and the method’s usability assessment plan must include a beta test of the electronic tool. I. 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. J. 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.

Bid Protests Not Available