[Skytel
Notes:

Re
High
Accuracy
Location,
and
associated
wireless.

See
pp.
11‐12.

]









BROAD
AGENCY
ANNOUNCEMENT

BAA‐2010‐1




Research
and
Demonstration
Projects
Supporting

the
Development
of
High
Speed
and
Intercity

Passenger
Rail
Service



July
28,
2010







Office
of
Railroad
Policy
and
Development

Office
of
Research
and
Development




[Skytel
Notes:

Re
High
Accuracy
Location,
and
associated
wireless.

See
pp.
11‐12.]




Contents 
1
 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1

1.1
 Background...................................................................................................................................1

1.2
 Objective ......................................................................................................................................1

1.3
 Schedule .......................................................................................................................................2

1.4
 Communications
Protocol
and
Data
Sources ...............................................................................2

1.4.1
 Communications
Protocol ....................................................................................................2

1.4.2
 Data
Sources.........................................................................................................................2

2
 Program
Guidelines ..............................................................................................................................3

2.1
 Participant
Eligibility.....................................................................................................................3

2.2
 Project
Qualification
Requirements .............................................................................................3

2.3
 Project
Funding ............................................................................................................................5

2.3.1
 Program
and
Project
Funding
Limits ....................................................................................5

2.3.2
 Cost
Sharing..........................................................................................................................5

2.4
 Project
Selection
Process .............................................................................................................6

2.4.1
 Project
Concept
Papers ........................................................................................................6

2.4.2
 Project
Proposals ..................................................................................................................6

2.4.3
 Oral
Presentations ................................................................................................................6

2.5
 Award
Types .................................................................................................................................7

2.5.1
 Contracts ..............................................................................................................................7

2.5.2
 Cooperative
Agreements......................................................................................................7

2.5.3
 Grants ...................................................................................................................................8

2.6
 Intellectual
Property
Rights ..........................................................................................................8

2.6.1
 Proprietary
Data
Restrictions ...............................................................................................8

3
 Technology
Research
Areas..................................................................................................................9

3.1
 Track
and
Structures.....................................................................................................................9

3.1.1
 Inspection
Technologies .......................................................................................................9

3.1.2
 Materials
and
Techniques ..................................................................................................10

3.1.3
 Innovative
Track
System
Designs........................................................................................10

3.1.4
 Vehicle
Track
Interaction....................................................................................................10


i



[Skytel
Notes:

Re
High
Accuracy
Location,
and
associated
wireless.

See
pp.
11‐12.]




3.2
 Train
Control...............................................................................................................................11

3.2.1
 Grade
Crossing
Hazard
Mitigation
Systems........................................................................11

3.2.2
 Signal
Communications
and
Train
Control
Systems ...........................................................12

3.2.3
 Wireless
Communication
Systems .....................................................................................12

3.2.4
 Train
Tracking
Systems .......................................................................................................13

3.2.5
 Risk
Assessment
and
Hazard
Analysis ................................................................................13

3.2.6
 PTC/Communication
Enabling
Projects ..............................................................................13

3.3
 Equipment ..................................................................................................................................14

3.3.1
 High
Speed
Non‐Electric
Locomotives
and
Equipment ......................................................14

3.3.2
 Rail
Vehicle
Weight
Reduction ...........................................................................................14

3.3.3
 Train
Occupant
Protection .................................................................................................14

3.3.4
 Emergency
Preparedness
and
Response............................................................................14

3.3.5
 Fire
Safety...........................................................................................................................15

3.3.6
 Risk
Assessments ................................................................................................................15

3.3.7
 High
Speed
Truck
Designs...................................................................................................16

3.4
 Human
Factors ...........................................................................................................................16

3.4.1
 Human
Factors
Engineering
Research ................................................................................16

3.4.2
 Engineering
Systems
Research ...........................................................................................17

3.4.3
 Advanced
and
Future
Technology
Research ......................................................................17

4
 Proposal
Submittal
Requirements......................................................................................................18

4.1
 Project
Concept
Papers ..............................................................................................................18

4.1.1
 Cover
page..........................................................................................................................18

4.1.2
 Technical
Approach ............................................................................................................18

4.1.2.1
 Background.....................................................................................................................18

4.1.2.2
 Scope
of
Work ................................................................................................................19

4.1.2.3
 Expected
outcomes ........................................................................................................19

4.1.2.4
 QUAD
Chart ....................................................................................................................19

4.1.3
 Qualifications......................................................................................................................19

4.1.3.1
 Project
Team...................................................................................................................19

4.1.3.2
 Past
Experience ..............................................................................................................19

4.1.3.3
 Unique
Capabilities.........................................................................................................20

4.1.4
 Schedule
and
Cost
Estimates..............................................................................................20


ii



[Skytel
Notes:

Re
High
Accuracy
Location,
and
associated
wireless.

See
pp.
11‐12.]




4.2
 Project
Proposals........................................................................................................................20

4.2.1
 Cover
Page..........................................................................................................................20

4.2.2
 Technical
Approach ............................................................................................................21

4.2.2.1
 Background.....................................................................................................................21

4.2.2.2
 Statement
of
Work .........................................................................................................21

4.2.2.3
 Technical
Approach ........................................................................................................22

4.2.2.4
 Project
Management
Plan ..............................................................................................22

4.2.3
 Capabilities
and
Experience................................................................................................23

4.2.4
 Intellectual
Property...........................................................................................................23

4.2.5
 Cost
and
Pricing
Data..........................................................................................................23

4.2.6
 Past
Performance ...............................................................................................................25

4.2.6.1
 Contract
Reference
List ..................................................................................................26

4.2.6.2
 Preliminary
Survey
Data .................................................................................................27

4.3
 Oral
Presentations......................................................................................................................27

5
 Evaluation
and
Award
Process ...........................................................................................................28

5.1
 Evaluation
Criteria ......................................................................................................................28

5.1.1
 Project
Concept
Papers ......................................................................................................28

5.1.2
 Project
Proposals ................................................................................................................28

5.1.2.1
 Technical
Factors ............................................................................................................28

5.1.2.2
 Cost
and
Pricing
Factors .................................................................................................29

5.1.2.3
 Past
Performance
Factors...............................................................................................29

5.2
 Awards........................................................................................................................................29

5.2.1
 Notifications
and
Negotiations...........................................................................................30

Appendix
A
–
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey...................................................................................31

Appendix
B
–
Project
QUAD
Chart..............................................................................................................40




iii



[Skytel
Notes:

Re
High
Accuracy
Location,
and
associated
wireless.

See
pp.
11‐12.]




iv






1 Introduction 
1.1 Background 
The
Federal
Railroad
Administration
(FRA)
has
a
long,
successful
history
of
supporting
the
development

of
advanced
rail
technologies
to
meet
the
transportation
needs
of
the
country.

Over
the
last
few

decades,
the
FRA
has
provided
funding
and
technical
support
to
facilitate
research
and
to
stimulate

development
of
new
equipment,
infrastructure,
and
testing
technologies
to
enhance
the
nation’s
rail

transportation
capabilities.

Today,
the
United
States
government
is
committed
to
developing
a
world‐
class,
high
speed
rail
system
that
meets
the
growing
transportation
needs
of
the
country.

Supporting

this
effort,
the
FRA
is
tasked
with
facilitating
the
development
of
a
capable,
safe,
efficient,
and

integrated
network
of
intercity
passenger
rail
service,
including
high
speed
rail
service,
as
described
in

the
Vision
for
High
Speed
Rail
in
America,
announced
by
President
Obama
on
April
16,
2009.

The
FRA’s

Office
of
Research
and
Development
will
lead
the
effort
to
develop
the
advanced
technologies
that
will

bring
this
vision
to
reality.




1.2 Objective 
The
FRA’s
Office
of
Research
and
Development
is
leading
the
development
of
new
technologies
that
will

form
the
foundation
of
the
nation’s
high
speed
rail
system.

The
objective
of
this
Broad
Agency

Announcement
(BAA)
is
to
solicit
a
variety
of
basic
and
applied
technology
research
projects
to
advance

the
state
of
the
art
in
the
high
speed
rail
and
intercity
passenger
service
area.

Projects
shall
be
focused

towards
facilitating
the
development
of
technologies
that
can
be
used
to
achieve
safe,
efficient,
and

effective
deployment
of
integrated
passenger
rail
systems
in
the
North
American
rail
environment.

Such

technologies
will:


• Reduce
the
operational
and
program
deployment
risks
associated
with
mixed
use
rail
lines;

• Improve
safety
by
reducing
human
and
technology
failures;


• Bring
about
capital
cost
reductions
and
economy
in
producing
equipment
and
facilities;

• Reduce
operating
costs
of
rail
service
by
providing
more
efficient
operations;

• Improve
the
reliability
of
equipment
and
infrastructure
components
by
reducing
failures
and/or

reducing
false
failure
detections;

• Enhance
the
revenue‐generating
capability
of
high‐speed
operations
by
attracting
greater

ridership
by
reducing
trip
times,
upgrading
customer
service
quality,
increasing
reliability,
or

improving
on
time
performance;


• Enhance
the
social
benefits
and/or
environmental
aspects
of
high‐speed
rail;
and

• Facilitate
the
development
of
domestic
manufacture
of
rail
equipment
and
infrastructure

components.



NOTICE:



This
BAA‐2010‐1
supersedes
BAA‐2009‐1
which
has
been
closed.


FRA
will
no

longer
accept
new
proposals
submitted
in
response
to
BAA‐2009‐1.




1




 
 
 
 


1.3 Schedule 
The
FRA
will
accept
proposal
concept
papers
submitted
in
response
to
this
Broad
Agency
Announcement

No.
BAA‐2010‐1
through
September
30,
2012
(See
4.1
for
details).

Due
to
funding
limitations,
and
the

urgent
need
for
high
speed
rail
enabling
technologies,
interested
parties
are
encouraged
to
respond

promptly.


FRA
review
of
proposal
concept
papers
and
proposals
will
be
conducted
on
a
continuous
basis.

The
FRA

will
formally
respond
to
concept
papers
and
proposals.


1.4 Communications Protocol and Data Sources 
1.4.1 Communications Protocol 
Those
parties
interested
in
responding
to
this
BAA
are
strongly
encouraged
to
first
contact
the
FRA

Office
of
Research
and
Development
via
phone
or
e‐mail
(see

below)
to
discuss
the
prospective
project,

its
potential
responsiveness
to
the
BAA
and
potential
for
FRA
interest
before
devoting
resources

towards
completing
the
project
concept
paper.

All
non‐technical
inquiries
should
be
directed
to
the

Contracting
Officer.


Any
exchanges
of
information
must
be
consistent
with
procurement
integrity
requirements
of
section
27

of
the
Office
of
Federal
Procurement
Policy
Act
(41
U.S.C.
423,
as
amended)
(see
Federal
Acquisition

Regulation
(FAR)
3.104).

Communication
between
participants
and
FRA
is
encouraged
prior
to
and

throughout
the
project
concept
paper
phase.

After
submission
of
project
proposals,
all
information

exchanges
(both
technical
and
non‐technical)
will
be
conducted
through
the
FRA
Contracting
Officer
in

accordance
with
FAR
15.306.

There
shall
be
no
discussion
of
proposals
submitted
by
other
participants

nor
will
evaluation
information
be
discussed.


Participants
are
advised
that
any
indication
of
interest,
in
the
affirmative,
is
not
meant
to
imply
nor
in

any
way
impart
an
obligation
on
the
part
of
the
Government
that
an
award
will
be
forthcoming
for
the

offered
work
or
project.



All
submittals
shall
be
delivered
in
electronic
format
(WORD
or
Adobe
PDF)
to
the
e‐mail
address
listed

below.


1.4.2 Data Sources 
BAA
Official
Documents
 www.fbo.gov

www.fra.dot.gov

www.grants.gov

BAA
technical
information
exchange
e‐mail

FRARDBAA@dot.gov

address


BAA
Program
Manager,

Cameron
Stuart
 TEL:

202‐493‐6384




cameron.stuart@dot.gov

BAA
Contract
Specialist,

Isaac
Rosier
 TEL:

202‐493‐6149

isaac.rosier@dot.gov

Central
Contractor
Registration
 www.bpn.gov/ccr


2




 
 
 
 


2 Program Guidelines 
This
BAA,
due
to
its
broad
research
focus,
does
not
lend
itself
to
the
use
of
a
common
work
statement.


As
such,
no
single
North
American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS)
code
(formerly
Standard

Industrial
Classification
(SIC)
codes),
will
be
issued
for
the
BAA.

NAICS
codes
will
be
specific
to
each

individual
contract
award,
as
determined
by
the
type
of
activity
in
which
the
participant
will
be
engaged.



The
Government
reserves
the
right
to
select
for
award
any,
all,
part,
or
none
of
the
proposals
received
in

response
to
this
announcement.

This
BAA
is
an
expression
of
interest
only
and
does
not
commit
the

Government
to
pay
any
concept
paper
or
proposal
preparation
costs.



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.



2.1 Participant Eligibility 
This
is
an
unrestricted
solicitation.

Any
responsible
source
may
submit
a
proposal
concept
paper
for

consideration,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
states
or
local
governments,
or
organizations
of
state
or

local
governments,
universities
or
institutions
of
higher
education,
hospitals,
non‐profit
organizations,

private
individuals,
corporations,
and
businesses
or
commercial
organizations,
except
that
any
business

owned
in
whole
or
in
part
by
the
Federal
Government
is
not
eligible.

Although
businesses
owned
in

whole
or
in
part
by
the
Federal
Government
are
not
eligible
for
funding
under
the
Program,
they
may

contract
with
eligible
participants.

Cooperative
arrangements
(e.g.,
joint
ventures,
limited
partnerships,

teaming
arrangements,
or
collaboration
and
consortium
arrangements)
are
permitted
and
encouraged.


All
participants
must
be
registered
on
the
Federal
Government’s
Central
Contract
Registration
(CCR)
and

the
Online
Representation
and
Certifications
Application
(ORCA)
systems
prior
to
project
award

(www.bpn.gov/ccr).


Small,
Small
Disadvantaged
(SD),
and
Service‐Disabled
Veteran‐Owned
Business
Concerns,
and

Veteran‐Owned
(VO)
and
Woman‐Owned
(WO),
and
Historically
Underutilized
Business
Zone
(HUBZone)

Small
Business
Concerns,
and
Historically
Black
Colleges
and
Universities
(HBCU)
and
Minority

Institutions
(MIs)
are
encouraged
to
submit
proposal
concept
papers
on
their
own
and/or
in

collaboration
with
others.

However,
no
portion
of
this
BAA
will
be
set
aside
or
reserved
exclusively
for

Small,
SD,
or
Service‐Disabled
Veteran‐Owned
Business
Concerns,
or
for
VO,
WO,
or
HUBZone
Small

Business
Concerns,
or
for
HBCU
and
MIs.


2.2 Project Qualification Requirements 
The
FRA
is
seeking
projects
that
have
the
potential
to
positively
impact
its
mission
to
foster
the
rapid

development
of
a
safe,
efficient,
and
integrated
intercity
passenger
rail
system
in
the
United
States.


Projects
shall
be
targeted
to
one
or
more
of
the
primary
disciplines
–
Track
and
Structures,
Signals
and

Communications
Systems
including
Positive
Train
Control,
Human
Factors,
Operating
Practices
and


3




 
 
 
 


Rolling
Stock.

The
most
desirable
projects
are
those
that
advance
the
state
of
the
art
in
these

disciplines,
build
on
existing
research
and
development
and
are
directly
applicable
to
high
speed
rail

system
deployment.

Projects
shall
be
designed
to
complete
basic
and
applied
technology
activities,
to

increase
the
scientific
knowledge
base
of
the
rail
industry,
to
exploit
the
potential
of
existing

technologies
for
use
in
high
speed
and
intercity
passenger
rail
activities,
and
to
address
issues
that

impact
the
practical
application
of
improved
intercity
passenger
service,
including
high
speed
rail,
in
the

United
States.

Projects
designed
to
develop
magnetic
levitation
(Maglev)
technologies
will
not
be

considered
under
this
BAA.


This
BAA
will
not
be
used
to
sponsor
projects
that
develop
specific
products

or
systems
for
sale.

In
the
context
of
the
technology
readiness
levels
defined
below,
this
BAA
is

designed
only
for
projects
in
Levels
1
through
7,
with
preference
given
to
those
projects
that
are
already

advanced
to
the
proof‐of‐concept
testing
stage
(Level
3).

Detailed
project
solicitations
are
provided
in

Section
3
of
this
Announcement.


Technology
Readiness
Levels
 Description

1. 
Basic
principles
observed
and
 Lowest
level
of
technology
readiness.
Scientific
research
begins
to
be

reported.


 translated
into
applied
research
and
development.
Examples
might

include
paper
studies
of
a
technology’s
basic
properties.

2. 
Technology
concept
and/or
 Invention
begins.
Once
basic
principles
are
observed,
practical

application
formulated.
 applications
can
be
invented.
The
application
is
speculative
and


 there
is
no
proof
or
detailed
analysis
to
support
the
assumption.

Examples
are
still
limited
to
paper
studies.

3. Analytical
and
experimental
critical
 Active
research
and
development
is
initiated.
This
includes
analytical

function
and/or
characteristic
proof
 studies
and
laboratory
studies
to
physically
validate
analytical

of
concept.
 predictions
of
separate
elements
of
the
technology.
Examples

include
components
that
are
not
yet
integrated
or
representative.

4. Component
and/or
breadboard
 Basic
technological
components
are
integrated
to
establish
that
the

validation
in
laboratory
 pieces
will
work
together.
This
is
relatively
“low
fidelity”
compared
to

environment.
 the
eventual
system.
Examples
include
integration
of
“ad
hoc”


 hardware
in
a
laboratory.


5. Component
and/or
breadboard
 Fidelity
of
breadboard
technology
increases
significantly.
The
basic

validation
in
relevant
environment.
 technological
components
are
integrated
with
reasonably
realistic

supporting
elements
so
that
the
technology
can
be
tested
in
a


 simulated
environment.

Examples
include
“high
fidelity”
laboratory

integration
of
components.

6. System/subsystem
model
or
 Representative
model
or
prototype
system,
which
is
well
beyond
the

prototype
demonstration
in
a
 breadboard
tested
for
TRL
5,
is
tested
in
a
relevant
environment.

relevant
environment.
 Represents
a
major
step
up
in
a
technology’s
demonstrated

readiness.
Examples
include
testing
a
prototype
in
a
high
fidelity

laboratory
environment
or
in
simulated
operational
environment.

7. 
System
prototype
demonstration
in
 Prototype
near
or
at
planned
operational
system.
Represents
a

an
operational
environment.
 major
step
up
from
TRL
6,
requiring
the
demonstration
of
an
actual

system
prototype
in
an
operational
environment,
such
as
in
a
rail

vehicle
or
on
an
actual
track
system.

8. Actual
system
completed
and
 Technology
has
been
proven
to
work
in
its
final
form
and
under

qualified
through
test
and
 expected
conditions.
In
almost
all
cases,
this
TRL
represents
the
end

demonstration.
 of
true
system
development.
Examples
include
developmental
test

and
evaluation
of
a
component
of
subsystem
in
its
intended
system

to
determine
if
it
meets
design
specifications.

9. Actual
system
proven
through
 Actual
application
of
the
technology
in
its
final
form
and
under


4




 
 
 
 


successful
deployment.
 operational
conditions,
such
as
those
encountered
in
operational

test
and
evaluation.
In
almost
all
cases,
this
is
the
end
of
the
last

“bug
fixing”
aspects
of
true
system
development.





Source:

GAO/NSIAD‐99‐162


2.3 Project Funding  
2.3.1 Program and Project Funding Limits 
Funds
for
this
program
are
appropriated
in
the
Federal
budget
for
research
and
development.

FRA
will

make
available
up
to
$25.0
million
under
this
BAA
through
the
open
period
of
BAA
2010‐1,
for
projects

evaluated
by
FRA
and
found
to
be
consistent
with
the
objectives
of
this
BAA,
are
of
interest
to
the

Government,
and
for
which
adequate
funding
exists.

No
funding
provision
or
commitment
can
be
made

at
the
time
of
award
for
phased
or
expanded
work
or
projects
beyond
the
initial
or
base
phase
funded
at

time
of
award.

In
the
event
future
appropriated
funds
are
authorized,
FRA
may,
at
its
discretion,

provide
additional
funding
for
phased
or
expended
effort
under
existing
awards.




Awards
may
be
of
any
dollar
value
(so
long
as
those
amounts
do
not
exceed
the
total
amount
available

under
the
BAA),
but
it
is
anticipated
that
most,
if
not
all,
individual
awards
(or
that
part
of
the

Government’s
portion
in
a
cost
sharing
arrangement)
will
have
dollar
values
ranging
between
$25,000

and
$500,000
each.

Participants
are
advised
that
contract
awards
greater
than
$500,000
will
generally

require
the
awardees
(except
a
small
business
concern)
to
already
have
in
place
or
prepare,
at
or
before

the
time
of
award,
an
acceptable
plan
to
maximize
the
participation
of
small
business
enterprises
to

include
separate
goals
for
using
small
and
SD
businesses,
and
WO,
VO,
and
HUBZone
small
businesses
as

subcontractors.



2.3.2 Cost Sharing 
For
the
purposes
of
this
BAA,
cost
sharing
is
a
generic
term
denoting
any
situation
where
the

Government
does
not
fully
reimburse
the
participant
for
all
allowable
costs
necessary
to
accomplish
the

project
under
the
contract
or
other
award
instrument.

The
term
encompasses
cost
matching,

participation
in‐kind,
or
other
investment
of
resources
as
a
means
of
venture
sharing
in
lieu
of
a
formal

cost
sharing
arrangement,
third‐party
in‐kind
contributions,
cost
limitations
(direct
or
indirect)
and

similar
concepts.

Generally,
many
forms
of
cost
participation,
by
their
very
nature
and
definition,

minimize
or
negate
the
opportunity
for
profit
or
fee.




Cost
sharing
by
awardees
is
not
mandatory
under
this
BAA,
but
because
of
the
potential
for
long‐term

benefits
to
those
firms
or
institutions
involved
in
these
research,
development
and
demonstration

activities,
it
is
FRA’s
policy
to
obtain
cost
participation,
whenever
possible.

This
is
preferred
when
FRA

supports
efforts
where
the
principal
purpose
is
ultimate
commercialization
and
utilization
of
the

technologies
by
the
private
sector,
and
when
there
are
reasonable
expectations
that
the
participant
will

receive
present
or
future
economic
benefits
beyond
the
instant
contract/agreement
as
a
result
of
the

effort.

It
is
important
that
research
conducted
under
this
BAA
be
applicable
to
the
development

objectives
of
the
program,
and
that
the
results
of
these
research
activities
are
practical
for
deployment


5




 
 
 
 


within
the
railroad
industry.

Projects
that
include
partnerships
with
and
cost
sharing
from
railroad

operators
will
facilitate
future
industry
adoption
of
developed
technologies.

Such
projects
are

preferred.


2.4 Project Selection Process 
This
BAA
is
structured
as
an
open‐ended,
two
step
process.

Project
evaluations,
discussions,
and
awards

will
be
managed
throughout
the
open
period
of
the
BAA
(Section
1.3),
on
a
continuous
basis,
as
funding

and
Government
needs
dictate.




2.4.1 Project Concept Papers 
The
first
step
of
the
process
is
the
submission
and
evaluation
of
project
concept
papers.

As
detailed
in

Section
4.1,
the
concept
paper
provides
a
brief
overview
of
the
research
effort,
including
the
current

state
of
development,
the
next
steps
in
the
development
plan
and
rough
order
magnitude
cost
and

schedule
data.

Concept
papers
will
be
used
to
gauge
applicability
of
and
the
Government’s
interest
in

the
technology
research
area.

All
participants
must
submit
a
project
concept
paper
in
order
to
be

considered
for
an
award.


Discussions
between
the
participant
and
FRA
are
required
at
this
point
in
the
process
in
order
to

develop
or
refine
project
concepts
and
to
avoid
unnecessary
work
efforts,
by
either
party,
on
project

concepts
that
the
Government
does
not
value
or
cannot
fund.


Concept
papers
shall
be
submitted
in
electronic
form
via
e‐mail.

FRA
will
work
to
complete
concept

paper
evaluations
within
60
days
of
receipt
and
will
notify
the
participant
of
final
disposition
in
writing.


2.4.2 Project Proposals 
Following
concept
paper
evaluation
and
discussion,
FRA
may
request
that
the
participant
submit
a

detailed
technical
and
cost
proposal
for
award
evaluation.

Proposals
shall
be
prepared
in
accordance

with
the
requirements
of
Section
4.2.

Submissions
that
are
incomplete,
materially
lacking,
or
not

responsive
to
the
technical
requirements
of
this
BAA,
may
be
returned
unevaluated,
or
evaluated
as
is,

without
further
opportunity
for
revision,
at
the
discretion
of
the
FRA’s
evaluation
committee.


Per
the
communication
protocol
described
in
Section
1.4.1,
communication
between
FRA
and
the

participant
concerning
the
participant’s
proposal
is
restricted.

Clarification
questions
from
either
party,

both
technical
and
non‐technical,
shall
be
communicated
through
the
Contracting
Officer.

FRA
shall
not

provide
feedback
on
the
participant’s
proposal,
either
positive
or
negative,
during
the
proposal

evaluation
process.


Project
proposals
shall
be
submitted
in
electronic
form
via
e‐mail.


2.4.3  Oral Presentations 
FRA
may
request
that
participants
conduct
an
oral
presentation
of
the
proposal
following
an
initial,

evaluation
of
a
formal
proposal.

Oral
presentations
may
be
conducted
in
person
or
via
telephone
or

computer
conference
at
the
discretion
of
FRA.

Oral
presentations
shall
be
prepared
in
a
technical


6




 
 
 
 


briefing
format
following
the
requirements
of
Section
4.3.

FRA
may
ask
technical
questions
for

clarification
during
the
oral
presentation.


2.5 Award Types  
Project
awards
may
be
contracts,
cooperative
agreements,
or
grants.

In
consultation
with
the
technical

evaluators,
the
Contracting
Officer
will
make
the
determination
regarding
award
type.

Applicants
may

include
an
opinion
on
the
type
of
award
instrument
they
consider
would
be
the
most
suitable
or

appropriate
venue
for
their
proposed
technology
advancements
or
demonstrations
in
their
submissions.


This
will
normally
also
be
reflected
in
the
structure
of
the
cost/price
portion
of
the
applicants’
proposals.




All
awards
will
be
subject
to
the
availability
of
funds.

Participants
are
advised
that
only
the

Grants/Contracting
Officer
can
legally
commit
the
Government
to
the
expenditure
of
public
funds
under

this
BAA.




2.5.1 Contracts 
FRA
anticipates
that
contracts
(purchase
orders)
will
be
firm‐fixed
price
with
payment
made
upon

completion
and
acceptance
of
final
deliverables,
or
intermediate
milestones,
as
negotiated.


Cost‐reimbursement
contracts
are
suitable
for
use
only
when
uncertainties
in
contract
performance
do

not
permit
costs
to
be
estimated
with
sufficient
accuracy
to
use
any
type
of
fixed‐price
contract.


Other

contract
types,
as
described
in
FAR
Part
16,
may
also
be
used.




2.5.2 Cooperative Agreements 
State
or
local
government
entities
are
only
eligible
for
funding
through
a
cooperative
agreement.




In
compliance
with
the
E‐Government
initiative
of
the
President’s
Management
Agenda,
the
Federal

Railroad
Administration
will
only
accept
applications
for
a
cooperative
agreement
that
are
submitted

electronically
via
the
web
site
at
www.grants.gov.

The
term
“grant”
on
this
web
site
includes

cooperative
agreements.

Paper
applications
for
a
cooperative
agreement
will
not
be
accepted.

All

organizations
who
may
be
interested
in
applying
for
a
cooperative
agreement
resulting
from
this
BAA

opportunity
must
register
on
the
web
site
and
should
become
familiar
with
its
function.

The
web
site

provides
clear
guidance
for
the
registration
process.



These
preliminary
steps
are
required
before

registering
with
and
using
the
site:


1. A
prospective
grantee
must
have
a
Dun
and
Bradstreet
number
(DUNS).

If
your
organization

does
not
have
a
DUNS
number,
one
can
be
obtained
telephonically
at
(866)
705‐5711
or
by

visiting
https://eupdate.dnb.com.

2. The
organization
must
be
registered
in
the
Federal
government’s
Central
Contractor
Registry

(CCR)
found
at
www.crr.gov.

Please
note,
CCR
registration
cannot
be
completed
without
a

DUNS
number.

3. To
view
grant
application
instructions
and
complete
an
application,
you
will
also
need
to

download
and
install
Adobe
Reader
available
at:

http://get.adobe.com/reader.

This
small,
free


7




 
 
 
 


program
will
allow
you
to
access,
complete,
and
submit
electronic
applications
through
the

secure
web
site.


2.5.3 Grants 
When
awarding
federal
financial
assistance
through
a
grant
or
a
cooperative
agreement,
the
most

appreciable
difference
in
choosing
between
the
two
forms
will
be
the
level
of
involvement
between
the

FRA
and
the
recipient
when
carrying
out
the
activity
contemplated
in
the
agreement.

Substantial
FRA

involvement
is
permitted
in
cooperative
agreements.




Participants
pursuing
Federal
financial
assistance
(e.g.,
grants
or
cooperative
agreements),
must

complete
the
appropriate
application
forms
as
described
above
for
cooperative
agreements.




2.6 Intellectual Property Rights 
Awards
will
generally
contain
detailed
provisions
concerning
patent
rights,
rights
in
technical
data
and

computer
software,
data
reporting
requirements,
and
other
terms
and
conditions
which
may
be

negotiated
as
part
of
the
award
process.




2.6.1 Proprietary Data Restrictions 
Participants
are
advised
that
the
proposal
concept
papers
and/or
proposals
may
contain
data
the

participant
does
not
want
disclosed
to
the
public
for
any
purpose,
or
used
by
the
Government
except
for

evaluation
purposes.

If
the
participant
wishes
to
restrict
such
data,
the
cover
page
of
any
and
all

submittal
documents
must
be
marked
with
the
following
legend,
and
relevant
sheets
marked
as

instructed.


This proposal includes data that shall not be disclosed outside the Government and shall not be 
duplicated, used, or disclosed – in whole or in part – for any purpose other than to evaluate this 
proposal.  However, if a contract is awarded to this participant as a result of – or in connection 
with – the submission of these data, the Government shall have the right to duplicate, use, or 
disclose the data to the extent provided in the resulting contract.  This restriction does not limit 
the Government’s right to use information contained in these data if they are obtained from 
another source without restriction.  The data subject to this restriction are contained in Sheets 
[insert numbers or other identification of sheets].   

Each
restricted
data
sheet
shall
be
marked
as
follows:


Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page of 
this document. 

To
the
extent
that
such
restrictions
on
proprietary
data
or
information
would
not
interfere
with
the

intent
of
the
Government
to
make
the
results
of
the
work
and
projects
awarded
under
the
BAA
available

to
all
interested
parties,
and
if
in
conformance
with
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(5
U.S.C.
552,
as

amended),
the
Government
will
honor
those
desires.




8




 
 
 
 


3 Technology Research Areas 
The
objective
of
this
BAA
is
to
solicit
a
wide
range
of
interest
for
the
development
of
basic
and
applied

research
results
that
can
lead
to
practical,
safe,
and
efficient
implementation
of
high
speed
rail
system
in

the
United
States.


Any
technology
forming
the
basis
for
a
research
proposal
must
have
application
in

the
rail
environment
to
improve
the
ability
to
operate
service
at
higher
speeds,
to
enhance
safety,
to

increase
capacity
or
boost
the
efficiency
of
rail
operations.

As
detailed
in
Section
2.2,
this
BAA
is

designed
to
facilitate
the
rapid
development
of
new
and
emerging
technologies,
not
for
the

development
of
specific
products
for
sale.



The
technology
presented
must
possess
the
potential
for
performance
improvement
in
one
or
more

qualities,
such
as
performance,
cost
effectiveness,
reliability,
safety,
availability,
or
maintainability.

This

may
include
adaptation,
implementation,
testing
or
demonstration
of
candidate
technologies,
which

have
been
successfully
applied
in
other
industries,
such
as
defense
industries,
and/or
are
near
ready
for

direct
application
in
the
railroad
industry.

FRA
also
invites
proposals
for
the
integration
and
subsequent

evaluation
of
multiple
independent
(commercial
or
non‐commercial)
technologies,
where
the
integrated

product
may
offer
substantial
advantage
beyond
that
offered
by
the
components.



To
minimize
time
to
deployment
and
to
maximize
the
opportunities
for
industry
participation
and
cost

sharing,
FRA
preference
is
for
projects
at
or
above
Level
3
in
the
technology
readiness
level
chart.


However,
FRA
will
consider
less
mature,
but
highly
promising
or
unique
technologies
or
innovations.

In

general,
research
studies
or
analyses
which
result
only
in
research
reports
are
of
less
interest
to
FRA

than
those
projects
that
involve
actual
testing
and
demonstration
of
technology.

New
methodologies
or

analyses
that
aid
a
developer
in
design
or
validation
and
verification
processes
should
be
applied
to
a

real
system
that
has
been
deployed
or
to
be
deployed.




3.1 Track and Structures 
3.1.1 Inspection Technologies 
FRA
seeks
to
advance
the
state
of
the
art
in
track
and
structure
inspection
systems.

Improvements
in

measurement
speed,
accuracy,
and
cost
effectiveness
of
systems
are
sought.

Also,
enabling

technologies
that
provide
for
autonomous
measuring
systems
are
especially
important
as
track
time
for

inspection
is
reduced.

FRA
is
interested
in
improvements
in
all
types
of
track
inspection
technologies,

including:


• Innovative
solutions
and
techniques
to
assess/monitor
bridge
integrity,
including
new

techniques
in
the
design
and
maintenance
of
bridge
transitions
to
increase
service
life
and

improve
ride
quality

• Automated
switch
and
other
special
track
work
and
grade
crossing
inspection
technologies

• High
speed
internal
rail
flaw
detection
using
non‐traditional
approaches
and
technologies

• Internal
tie
condition
assessment
technologies
for
wood,
concrete,
and
composite
ties


9




 
 
 
 


• Track
ballast
and
subgrade
stability
assessment
technologies
that
enable
predictive
failure

analyses,
that
determine
inspection
frequencies,
and
that
can
quantify
structure
sensitivities
to

environmental
and
construction
variables

• Systems
to
perform
three
dimensional
imaging
of
internal
rail
flaws,
including
non‐destructive

testing
systems
to
quantify
internal
rail
stresses
without
a
neutral
reference
point

• Virtual
and
vision‐based
inspection
systems
for
track
and
equipment.

Advanced
processing

algorithms
for
the
analysis
of
vision/LIDAR
data

• Non‐contact,
high
accuracy
tachometer
and
rail
gage
systems
employing
a
3
inch
minimum

offset
from
rail

• Independent
vehicle
or
wayside‐based
power
generation
system
design
to
provide
power
to

autonomous
inspection
systems


3.1.2 Materials and Techniques  
FRA
seeks
technologies
that
improve
the
quality
and
long
term
reliability
of
rail
track
materials
and

structures,
including:


• Improved
field
welding
materials
and
techniques
that
can
reduce
the
time
and
expense

associated
with
welding
and
also
improve
the
quality
of
the
finished
welds

• Full‐scale,
accelerated
life
cycle
testing
systems
for
track
component
development

• Vehicle/track
interaction
testing
apparatus
or
rig
for
measuring
wheel/rail
contact
parameters

for
use
for
validation
of
analytical
models

• Rail
steel
improvements,
including
new
materials,
treatments,
or
designs
that
can
improve
the

performance
of
rail
steel,
such
as
reducing
the
occurrence
of
internal
rail
flaws

• Research
to
determine
ideal
or
optimized
cross
tie
designs
for
load
carrying
capacity,
longevity,

and
resource
sustainability


3.1.3 Innovative Track System Designs 
FRA
seeks
innovative
approaches
to
track
element
designs
that
will
improve
high
speed
ride
quality
and

reduce
vehicle/track
interaction
forces.

Many
high
speed
rail
track
structures
in
the
US
must

simultaneously
support
passenger
and
freight
train
load
dynamics.

Track
must
be
durable,
stable,
and

able
to
withstand
repetitive
dynamic
loading
without
excessive
deformation
or
ride
quality
degradation.


The
design
requirements
for
curves
and
special
track
work
are
of
special
interest.

Ballast
retention

under
high
wind
forces,
optimum
curve
designs,
kinematic
switch
designs,
and
track
panel
shift
control

are
among
the
research
topics
proposed.
Research
interests
also
include
alternative
construction

techniques
such
as
slab
track,
ballast‐less
track
and
other
designs
that
may
reduce
capital
and/or

maintenance
costs
or
that
better
manage
mixed
use
track
demands.


3.1.4 Vehicle Track Interaction 
The
Vehicle
Track
interaction
research
focuses
on
all
aspects
of
vehicle/track
interaction
safety.

A

number
of
train
derailments
or
accidents
cannot
be
attributed
to
defects
in
either
track
or
train
alone.

Rather,
they
result
from
the
adverse
dynamic
interaction
between
the
two
or
the
existence
of
unsafe

conditions
at
the
wheel‐to‐rail
interface,
such
as
improper
lubrication
or
contact
geometry.
Such


10




 
 
 
 


interaction
includes
the
instantaneous
transfer
of
dynamic
forces
from
vehicle
to
track
and
extends
to

cover
cumulative
effects
on
track
degradation,
such
as
wheel/rail
wear,
surface
fatigue
of
the
railhead,

and
deterioration
of
track
geometry.

Safety‐improvement
research
needs
include:


• Improved
understanding
of
the
impact
of
high‐speed
passenger
service
on
existing
tracks

• Influence
of
combined
track
geometry
anomalies
on
vehicle
safety

• Improvements
to
measurement
technology
to
measure
track
geometry,
vehicle
track

interactions,
and
wheel/rail
contact
conditions,
and
wheel/rail
forces
at
speeds
up
to
220
mph

• The
design
requirements
for
curves,
spiral
and
special
track
work

for
high
speed
operation

• Influence
of
suspension
parameters
and
other
truck
components
on
vehicle
curving
and
stability

performance,
especially
for
high
speed
operation

• 
The
development
of
guidelines
for
optimum
inspection
and
maintenance
practices
to
enhance

system
safety
and
durability

• Analytical
and
experimental
methods
to
study
or
measure
wheel/rail
contact
condition
and

forces



• Research
to
establish
recommendations
for
rail
head
wear
and
wheel
profile
limits
and
to

develop
safety
guidelines
for
wheel/rail
profiles
and
contact
conditions.


• The
development
of
optimum
wheel/rail
profile
maintenance
and
monitoring
methods

• Improved
analytical
and
experimental
methods
for
assessing
derailment
risk
due
to
anomalous

interactions
of
track
geometry
and
railcar
suspension
systems

• Development
and
enhancement

of
simulation
tools
for
modeling
vehicle/track
dynamics


3.2 Train Control  
3.2.1 Grade Crossing Hazard Mitigation Systems 
Highway
rail
grade
crossings
are
a
major
safety
and
investment
issue
in
achieving
increased
train
speeds.


One
of
FRA’s
specific
objectives
is
to
reduce
the
number
of
injuries
and
deaths
resulting
from
crashes
at

highway‐rail
crossings.

This
becomes
especially
important
as
more
modern
passenger
train
consists

allow
speed
regimes
to
increase
toward
and
above
110
mph.

FRA
is
interested
in
all
feasible

technologies
that
will
advance
grade
crossing
safety,
providing
nearly
the
same
security
as
grade

separations
but
at
much
lower
cost.

Projects
shall
include
assessment
and
consideration
of
the
human

factors
associated
with
increased
and/or
variable
speeds
at
existing
grade
crossings.



New
technologies
are
needed
which
will
protect
both
the
rail
and
highway
users
without
incurring
the

disruption
of
grade
crossing
closure
or
the
cost
of
grade
separation
by
bridge
or
tunnel.

Specific
issues

include
the
design
of
highway
warning
and
protection
devices,
train
detection
and
communication,
and

grade
crossing
obstruction
detection
sensing
and
communication.

Candidate
technologies,
some
of

which
are
already
in
place
in
other
countries,
include:

inductive
loops,
ultrasonic,
microwave
or
laser

beams,
and
video
surveillance.

Numerous
sensor
and
command‐and‐control
technologies
that
have

been
developed
for
other
usages
could
find
ready
application
in
the
grade‐crossing
protection
area.


Many
crossings
on
potential
high‐speed
corridors
are
equipped
only
with
passive
crossbuck
warning

devices.

Traffic
density
on
many
of
these
crossings
may
not
warrant
even
conventional
gates
and
lights,

and
alternative
systems
that
can
reliably
warn
highway
users
while
protecting
train
operations
are


11




 
 
 
 


sought.

Other
areas
of
particular
interest
are
train
detection,
intrusion
alerts,
constant‐warning‐time

logic,
train
control
interface,
driver
warning,
and
crossing
malfunction
response
facilitation.

Proposals

are
expected
to
depict
means
to
communicate
and
interface
with
locomotive
on‐board
PTC
system
for

further
reinforcing
the
protection
through
warnings
or
enforcements.


3.2.2 Signal Communications and Train Control Systems 
Positive
Train
Control
(PTC)
systems
are
implementations
of
an
advanced
train
control
concept
using

micro‐processor
based
technology
to
improve
safety
in
the
three
areas:


• Train
to
train
collisions

• Over‐speed
derailments

• Roadway
worker
protection


Besides
safety,
FRA
has
been
promoting
and
sponsoring
PTC
development
and
demonstration
with
the

following
additional
objectives:


• Fulfill
regulatory
requirement
to
allow
high‐speed
passenger
service
above
79
mph
in
freight

territories

• Improve
signaling
and
train
control
infrastructure

• Promote
enabled
technologies,
such
as
train
pacing
and
moving
block
operation
to
improve
the

operation
efficiency
and
asset
utilization



All
U.S.
Class
1
railroads
have
deployed
or
been
developing
their
versions
of
PTC
systems.

In
view
of

these
activities
already
underway,
it
is
not
anticipated
that
the
scope
of
projects
under
this
BAA
will

permit
development
or
demonstration
of
completly
new
PTC
systems.

However,
FRA
remains

interested
in
additional
new
concepts,
components
and
innovations
that
can
reduce
the
cost
of

implementing
these
systems.




3.2.3 Wireless Communication Systems 
Wireless
communication,
especially
for
transmitting
digital
packets,
is
becoming
a
very
important

technology
in
the
railroad
operation.

With
the
advent
of
microprocessors,
digital
communication
is
a

natural
application
for
communication
of
information
and
data
among
various
segments
of
the

operation.

Its
application
extends
to
end‐of‐train
devices,
remote
controlled
locomotives,
and
complex

systems
such
as
PTC.


It
is
the
desire
of
FRA,
to
have
interoperable
radio
communication,
especially
in
the
train
control

functions.
This
will
provide
more
seamless
operation
in
the
run‐through
train
operation
at
interchange

points,
when
PTC
is
more
widespread.

Some
advancement
in
communication
management
unit
(CMU),

which
acts
as
a
switch
for
the
on‐board
system
to
communication
from
one
network
to
another,
has

been
achieved.

Software
defined
radios
are
also
designed
to
be
used
to
allow
interfacing
with
multi‐
networks
of
communication.

However,
more
research
and
development
is
necessary
in
order
to
achieve

full
interoperability
in
radio
communication.


12




 
 
 
 


3.2.4 Train Tracking Systems 
Train
location
data
is
critical
to
PTC
system
functionality.

PTC
systems
must
enforce
speed
limits,
signal

and
form
authorities,
work
zone
entries,
train
spacing
in
moving
block
implementation,
switch
locations,

and
track
discrimination
algorithms.

Ascertaining
the
track
a
train
occupies
involves
complicated

algorithm,
but
is
a
critical
function
in
any
vital
PTC
system.

FRA
is
interested
in
developing
technologies

that
improve
the
accuracy
of
train
location
and
that
monitor
the
state
of
the
tracking
accuracy
and

declare
a
failure
when
this
accuracy
is
outside
the
safety
limits.


3.2.5 Risk Assessment and Hazard Analysis 
The
new
PTC
rule
(49
CFR
part
236,
subpart
H),
adopted
by
FRA
in
March
2005,
is
a
performance‐based

rule,
and
as
such,
applicants
are
required
to
perform
hazard
analyses
and
risk
assessments
as
a
part
of

the
validation
and
verification
process.

The
hazard
analyses
involves
a
preliminary
hazard
analysis,

continued
maintenance
of
a
hazard
log,
detailed
hazard
analysis
(including
identifying
hazards
relating

to
operation
and
support),
and
a
hazard
mitigation
analysis.
Risk
assessment
and
the
safety
analysis

required
by
this
rule
must
establish
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence
that
introduction
of
the
product

will
not
result
in
risk
that
exceeds
the
previous
condition.

In
some
cases,
an
abbreviated
risk
assessment

is
allowed
in
lieu
of
the
full
risk
assessment.

For
these
abbreviated
analyses,
the
applicants
only
need
to

show
that
MTTHE
(Mean
Time
To
Hazardous
Event)
for
the
proposed
product
is
greater
or
the

probability
of
failure
for
each
hazard
is
acceptable
by
AREMA
Manual
Part
17.3.5.

“Acceptable”
here

means
more
favorable
than
“undesirable”,
as
defined
in
the
AREMA
Manual.

In
most
cases,
however,

full
risk
assessment
is
required
instead.

As
a
final
result,
the
full
risk
assessment
has
to
reveal
that
the

proposed
system
is
equal
to
or
better
than
the
base
systems,
in
terms
of
damage
and
casualty
cost
per

train
mile
or
per
passenger
mile,
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence.

The
methodology
for
the
full
risk

assessment
has
not
been
standardized,
but
any
method
used
has
to
be
approved
by
FRA’s
Office
of

Railroad
Safety.


FRA
desires
a
comprehensive
train
movement
model
that
incorporates
probabilities
of
incidents
and

failures,
as
well
as
random
events
to
predict
the
potential
risks
and
consequences.




3.2.6 PTC/Communication Enabling Projects 
Effective,
efficient
and
reliable
PTC
system
development
requires
control
over
technical
and
operational

information.

For
PTC
to
reach
its
full
potentials,
additional
developments
may
be
needed
to
expand
the

versatility
and
functionality.

Some
examples
are
interfacing
with
dispatching
system
to
provide
train

pacing,
interacting
with
smart
train
technology
to
constant
monitor
and
broadcast
the
health
of

locomotives
and
trains,
better
integration
with
other
electronics
tools
used
by
the
crew
and
workers
for

enhanced
safety
and
productivity.


FRA
is
interested
in
developing
technologies
that
enhance
critical
PTC
communication
channels.


13




 
 
 
 


3.3 Equipment 
3.3.1 High Speed Non­Electric Locomotives and Equipment 
Most
of
the
proposed
high
speed
rail
corridors
are
not
electrified.

Therefore,
there
is
a
need
to
develop

diesel
or
other
propulsion
technology
to
enable
up
to
125mph
operations
on
non‐electrified
track.



Topics
to
be
addressed
include:
definition
of
tractive
effort
demands
(propulsion
and
braking)
for

particular
types
of
service,
the
potential
for
distributed
power
options,
and
an
assessment
of
the

impacts
for
use
of
Tier
IV
compliant
engine
designs
on
high
speed
performance.


FRA
is
interested
in
projects
that
assess
the
impact
of
high
speed
service
on
equipment
design

requirements,
including
trucks,
propulsion,
and
braking
systems.

Analytical
models
that
can
provide

quantitative
data
on
system‐level
and
train‐level
design
and
performance
are
desired.




3.3.2 Rail Vehicle Weight Reduction 
Equipment
weight
and
un‐sprung
mass
are
important
factors
influencing
the
efficiency
of
high
speed
rail

operations.

Lowering
overall
vehicle
weight
reduces
operating
costs
for
the
equipment
and
reducing

un‐spring
mass
improves
vehicle
ride
quality
and
lessens
the
dynamic
force
imparted
to
the
track

structure.












In
addition
to
developing
lower‐mass
locomotives
for
high
speed
rail
operations,
research
is
needed
to

explore
options
for
reducing
un‐spring
mass.


One
area
of
research
is
carbody‐mounted
traction
motors

for
operation
over
track
geometry
typically
seen
in
the
US.

The
presence
of
larger
track
geometry

variations
seen
on
US
shared
use
tracks
(as
compared
to
typical
European
dedicated
tracks)
increases

the
suspension
travel
and
the
amount
of
articulation
required
in
the
transmission
and
gear
assemblies.


Therefore
research
support
is
sought
to
develop
transmission
and
gear
assemblies
that
will
permit

carbody
mounted
traction
motors
for
operation
at
high
speed
on
US
tracks.

Other
research
ideas
in
this

area
are
encouraged,
including
gearless
direct‐drive
traction
systems.


3.3.3 Train Occupant Protection 
Work
conducted
under
this
program
area
will
help
insure
the
development
of
research

strategies/analytical
foundations
and/or
prototype
testing
to
enable
production
of
cost
effective,
safe

high
speed
passenger
equipment
for
150mph
+
service.

Topic
areas
to
be
addressed
include:

determination
of
appropriate
levels
of
vehicle
structural
crashworthiness;
adequate
design
and

implementation
of
refined
interior
occupant
protection
sub‐assemblies
such
as
energy
absorbing
seats

or
workstation
tables;
advanced
curving
performance
resulting
from
either
passive
or
active
tilt
systems;

improved
ride
quality
across
multiple
classes
of
track
for
shared
use
systems
at
Tier
I
speeds;

development
of
wheel/rail
interaction
optimization
for
mixed
use
track
segments;
and
development
of

enhanced
locomotive
cab
displays.


3.3.4 Emergency Preparedness and Response 
FRA
requests
technical
research
to
address
the
safe,
timely,
and
effective
emergency
evacuation
of
high‐
speed
intercity
and
commuter
rail
passengers
during
various
emergency
scenarios.


A
key
objective
of


14




 
 
 
 


the
research
is
to
reduce
casualties
that
may
occur
by
requiring
that
high‐speed
passenger
rail
system

operators
follow
established
procedures.

Further
refinement
of
emergency
preparedness
protocols
and

response
capabilities
through
development
of
emergency
plans
and
procedures,
crew
training
and

passenger
awareness
programs,
the
installation
of
certain
passenger
rail
car
emergency
equipment

system
features
for
the
use
of
passengers
and
crew,
and
responders
in
emergency
situations
is
desired.


The
research
conducted
should
provide
improve
strategies
over
current
passenger
rail
equipment

regulations
related
to
emergency
preparedness.




3.3.5 Fire Safety 
This
program
area
involves
providing
technical
support
to
FRA
efforts
directed
at
developing
rail
fire

safety
regulations
that
reflect
advances
in
fire
safety
engineering
for
high‐speed
rail
operations.



Specific
areas
requiring
additional
research
include
development
of
heat
release
rate
criteria,
better

understanding
the
potential
risk
posed
by
wiring
and
cabling
on
flame
ignition,
spread,
and
smoke

toxicity,
as
well
as
development
of
refined
standard
for
floor
burn
through
tests
on
smaller
scale

samples.


3.3.6 Risk Assessments 
FRA
wishes
to
develop
risk
assessment
models
for
the
introduction
of
new
or
alternative
passenger
rail

equipment
on
existing
rail
line,
as
applicable
to
new
start
operating
authorities.




The
introduction
of
equipment
designed
to
standards
other
than
those
specified
in
the
Code
of
Federal

Regulations
poses
a
challenge
not
only
to
the
car
builder,
operating
authority
and
its
consultants,
but

also
to
FRA’s
Office
of
Railroad
Safety.

Existing
guidance
is
available
under
the
FRA/FTA
“Joint

Statement
of
Agency
Policy
Concerning
Shared
Use
of
the
Tracks
of
the
General
Railroad
System
by

Conventional
Railroads
and
Light
Rail
Transit
Systems,”
FRA’s
“High
Speed
Rail
Safety
Strategy,”
and

FRA’s
“Statement
of
Agency
Policy
Concerning
Jurisdiction
Over
the
Safety
of
Railroad
Passenger

Operations
and
Waivers
related
to
Shared
Use
of
the
Tracks
of
the
General
Railroad
System
by
Light
Rail

and
Conventional
Equipment.”

Despite
the
guidance
provided
in
these
documents,
industry
parties

have
asked
FRA
for
additional
clarification
of
the
process
to
be
followed
when
introducing
new

equipment.

Specifically,
the
industry
requests
a
clear
definition
of
equivalent
safety.

Therefore,
this

program
area
will
review
the
current
international
interoperability
crashworthiness
standards,
in

relation
to
the
requirements
set
forth
in
49
CRF
Parts
238,
to
assess
potential
compatibilities
of
such

designs,
as
well
as
areas
where
additional
design
work
may
be
required
on
new
equipment
or
the

application
of
other
system
constraints
to
assure
equivalent
levels
of
performance
in
the
event
of
typical

collision
or
derailment
scenarios.

To
accomplish
this
goal,
generic
system
safety
plans
and
hazard

analysis
programs
should
be
developed
to
serve
as
templates
for
emerging
high‐speed
operating

authorities.


The
second
risk‐related
study
is
targeted
for
the
development
of
a
set
of
guidelines
which
can
be
used

by
start‐up
operating
authorities
about
how
to
run
a
safe
railroad.

Industry
representatives
and

standards
bodies
have
requested
assistance
of
FRA’s
Office
of
Railroad
Safety
and
Office
of
Research
and

Development
to
develop
such
guidelines
to
ensure
that
a
holistic
review
of
the
proposed
service
is


15




 
 
 
 


conducted
prior
to
revenue
service
to
ensure
safe
operations.

Review
of
current
operating,

infrastructure
and
equipment
maintenance
practices,
as
well
as
equipment
specifications,
will
serve
as

input
into
a
generic
system
safety
plan,
and
a
hazard
analysis
program
will
be
developed
to
serve
as
a

template
for
how
to
approach
this
issue.


3.3.7 High Speed Truck Designs 
Increasing
passenger
train
speeds
to
improve
trip
times
usually
involves
increasing
speeds
through

curves.

Tilt‐body
and
other
railcar
elements
are
designed
to
minimize
lateral
forces
on
passengers
while

negotiating
curves
at
higher
unbalance
speeds.

Increasing
unbalance
speeds
increases
the
lateral
force

exerted
on
the
track,
reducing
safety
margins
and
increasing
track
maintenance
requirements.

These

issues,
as
well
as
passenger
ride
quality
performance,
can
be
addressed
with
improved
truck
designs.


The
objective
of
this
program
area
is
to
develop
detailed
design
requirements
for
a
high
speed

passenger
truck,
based
upon
performance
criteria
appropriate
for
US
railway
standards
used
in
mixed

freight/passenger
territories.


In
addition,
FRA
is
interested
in
improving
freight
truck
technology
to
facilitate
the
safe
operation
of

freight
trains
at
elevated
speeds,
up
to
125
mph.

Projects
designed
to
advance
the
state‐of‐the‐art
of

freight
truck
designs
will
be
considered
as
part
of
this
BAA.


3.4 Human Factors 
FRA
seeks
human
factors
research
projects
that
support
the
agency’s
mission
to
use
the
scientific

method,
the
canon
of
human
factors
and
human
systems
integration
research,
program
evaluation

standards,
and
technology
transfer
to
systematically
improve
safety
and
efficiency
in
the
US
railroad

industry.

FRA’s
Cab
Technology
Integration
Lab
(CTIL)
is
available
to
support
these
research
projects.


CTIL
allows
research,
development,
test
and
evaluation
of
advanced
technologies
that
enhance
and

support
human
performance
in
the
locomotive
cab.

CTIL
is
the
foundation
for
broad,
focused
applied

research
for
incorporation
of
advanced
technology
into
locomotive
cabs.




Human
factors
can
have
a
great
influence
on
the
success
of
high
speed
rail
development
in
the
United

States.

The
following
broad
research
topic
areas
are
provided
as
insight
into
some
of
the
areas
of
FRA

research
interest.

This
is
not
intended
to
be
an
all–inclusive
list.

Participants
are
encouraged
to
contact

the
FRA
with
additional
research
topics
for
discussion
and
consideration
under
this
program.


3.4.1 Human Factors Engineering Research 
FRA
seeks
to
improve
system
designs
and
integration
of
advanced
technology
equipment
in
locomotive

cabs
by
including
human
capabilities
and
limitations
in
the
design
space
for
new
solutions.
The
goal
is
to

reduce
risk
of
human
error
with
introduction
of
new
control
and
display
technologies
in
the
locomotive

cab.

Research
interests
include:


• The
effect
of
distractions,
e.g.
mobile
phones
and
other
personal
electronic
devices,
on
the
safe

operational
performance,
and
the
study
of
methods,
devices,
and
technologies
that
can
reduce

in‐cab
distractions


16




 
 
 
 


• Increasing
technological
complexity
and
system
automation
and
the
need
for
improved

operational
procedures
to
ensure
safe
and
efficient
human
performance

• Locomotive
staffing
requirements
and
the
knowledge,
skills,
and
workload
required
to
balance

human
capabilities
with
operational
requirements

• Training
and
selection
of
train
crew
personnel
–
skill
set
and
aptitude
determination
studies

• Systems,
processes,
and
tools
to
improve
decision‐making

• Fatigue
effects
on
performance
and
safety,
and
methods
to
monitor
fatigue

• Defining
human
information
requirements,
communications
methodologies
and
systems
to

ensure
effective
communication
within
the
train
and
between
the
train
and
external
interfaces,

e.g.
dispatching
centers


3.4.2 Engineering Systems Research 
This
area
of
interest
assesses
systems
design
implications
and
focuses
on
the
impacts
of
the
capabilities

and
limitations
of
users
on
the
design
of
systems,
including
boundary
conditions
for
requirements

specifying
the
design
and
acquisition
of
individual
pieces
of
new
equipment,
as
well
as
the
constraints
to

integrating
new
and
existing
equipment
sets.

Research
interests
include:


• Integration
and
interoperability
of
cab
equipment
and
the
effect
of
such
system
designs
on

human
performance,
operational
efficiency
and
system
safety

• Assessment
of
the
effects
of
operating
cab
automation,
display
integration,
and
information

flows
on
human
performance

• Risk
assessment
and
prediction
of
the
unintended
consequences
of
advanced
technologies
and

automated
technologies
on
human
train
control


3.4.3 Advanced and Future Technology Research 
Advanced
technologies
continue
to
emerge
that
may
impact
the
safety
and
efficiency
of
locomotive
cab

operations.

FRA
seeks
to
investigate
these
emerging
technologies
to
identify
their
potential
effects
of

automation
and
other
technologies
on
human
performance.

Research
interests
include:


• Positive
Train
Control
(PTC)
technologies
and
their
effect
on
in‐cab
human
factors,
including

automated
train
control
information
requirements,
display
designs,
real‐time
(and
latent)
and

information
flows,
and
the
effect
of
operator
experience
on
performance

• Applicability
of
integrated,
multi‐function,
synthetic,
moving
map,
and
heads‐up
displays
to
the

locomotive
cab
and
the
effect
of
these
systems
on
human
performance,
including
the

identification
of
critical
system
design
requirements

• Identifying
the
key
information
items
and
hierarchical
criticality
of
information
access
for
multi‐
function
displays

• Operational
policy
and
procedures
research
for
fully
automatic
train
control
systems,
including

un‐manned
train
operation


17




 
 
 
 


4 Proposal Submittal Requirements 
4.1 Project Concept Papers  
Participants
must
submit
a
project
concept
paper
for
projects
proposed
under
this
BAA.

In
the
case
of

multiple
project
proposals
from
a
single
participant,
a
separate
concept
paper
is
required
for
each

project.

No
project
will
be
considered
for
an
award
without
an
approved
project
concept
paper.



Project
concept
papers
shall
be
prepared
simply
and
economically,
and
shall
provide
a
concise

description
of
the
proposed
research
project,
organized
as
defined
in
the
following
sections.

Concept

papers
shall
be
no
more
than
10
pages
in
length,
10
point
type,
single
spaced,
single‐sided
letter
size

pages.
Project
concept
paper
submissions
should
not
include
promotional
brochures,
advertisements,

taped
recordings,
or
other
extraneous
material.




4.1.1 Cover page 
Project
concept
papers
shall
include
a
cover
page
containing
the
following
information:


• Working
title
of
the
proposed
project

• BAA
title
and
reference
number

• Names,
phone
numbers,
and
e‐mail
addresses
for
the
principal
technical
and
contractual
points

of
contact

• Primary
and
secondary,
if
any,
participant
organization
addresses

• Date
of
submittal

• Proprietary
data
restrictions,
if
any
(See
Section
2.6.1)


4.1.2 Technical Approach 

4.1.2.1 Background 
In
this
section,
the
participant
shall
describe
the
following:


Mission
Statement
–
Briefly
describe
the
technology
proposed
for
research.

Provide
a
statement(s)
that

conveys
the
participant’s
vision
of
the
fully
developed
technology
and
its
impact
on
the
safe
and

efficient
development
of
high
speed
rail.





Description
of
Need
–
Describe
the
specific
issue
intended
to
be
solved
or
improved
by
the
technology

proposed
for
research
and
development.

Discuss
the
proposed
application
to
high
speed
rail

development
in
the
United
States.

Estimate
the
probability
of
the
rail
industry
adopting
this
technology,

and
provide
a
rationale
for
this
estimate.


Technology
Assessment
–
Quantify
the
maturity
of
the
technology
in
the
context
of
the
technology

readiness
levels
detailed
in
Section
2.2.

Provide
analytic
and
empiric
evidence
to
support
the

assessment.

Describe
how
the
proposed
research
or
technology
is
technically
or
scientifically
innovative

with
respect
to
high
speed
rail
development
needs.


18




 
 
 
 


Development
Framework
–
Describe
the
development
history
of
the
technology,
both
within
the

participant’s
organization
and
from
other
sources,
as
applicable.

Discuss
the
technical,
financial,

programmatic,
or
other
significant
factors
that
have
impacted
the
development
of
this
technology
to

date,
both
positively
and
negatively.

Provide
a
technological
risk
assessment
for
future
development
of

this
technology.



4.1.2.2 Scope of Work 
The
participant
shall
describe
the
general
scope
of
work
planned
for
this
research
activity.

This
section

shall
describe
the
major
research,
testing,
and
analysis
activities
in
sufficient
detail
to
communicate
the

breadth
of
activities
proposed.

A
detailed
work
breakdown
structure
is
not
required.

The
participant

shall
indicate
major
progress
milestones
and
associated
deliverables
as
part
of
this
section.


The
scope
of
work
shall
identify
all
participants
in
the
major
activities
of
the
project,
and
shall
indicate

the
estimated
work
effort
required
from
each
participant,
expressed
as
a
percentage
of
the
total
effort

for
each
activity.

In
addition,
the
participant
shall
identify
any
third
party
resource
needs
that
are

required
during
the
project.

These
resources
may
include
Government‐furnished
equipment.


4.1.2.3 Expected outcomes 
Identify
the
significant
outcomes
planned
for
the
project.

Describe
these
outcomes
in
the
context
of
the

technology
readiness
levels,
and
in
terms
of
their
impact
of
the
outcomes
on
the
development
of
high

speed
rail
systems.


4.1.2.4 QUAD Chart 
Include
a
Quad
chart
summarizing
the
project
concept,
as
per
the
example
and
instructions
provided
in

Appendix
B.


4.1.3 Qualifications 

4.1.3.1 Project Team 
List
all
key
participants
proposed
for
the
project,
including
participants
from
outside
the
prime

participant’s
organization.

Organize
the
team
by
organization
name
and
briefly
describe
each
person’s

roles
and
responsibilities
on
the
project.

Provide
a
short
synopsis
of
each
key
person’s
education,

experience,
and
other
qualifications
applicable
to
the
proposed
project.

Provide
information
on
the

business
type
(small,
large,
or
disadvantaged)
for
each
participant
organization.


4.1.3.2 Past Experience 
Describe
the
relevant
past
experience
of
each
organization
participating
in
the
project.

Identify
any

publicly
available
and
accessible
resources
that
may
provide
more
details
regarding
this
experience,
e.g.


public
web
site
links
to
past
or
current
project
documents.


19




 
 
 
 


4.1.3.3 Unique Capabilities 
Briefly
describe
any
unique
capabilities
that
the
participant
team
possesses
that
may
reduce
project
risk,

may
reduce
project
duration,
or
may
improve
project
financial
performance.

Describe
these
capabilities

within
the
context
of
the
objectives
of
the
BAA
and
the
proposed
project’s
scope
of
work.


4.1.4 Schedule and Cost Estimates 
Provide
milestones
for
the
proposed
project
that
includes
start,
finish,
and
major
activity
completion

times.

Express
milestones
dates
as
the
number
of
weeks
from
project
start.


Provide
a
rough
order
magnitude
estimate.

Provide
a
breakdown
of
these
costs
(percentage)
for
each

organization
in
the
project
team.


Provide
a
funding
plan
for
the
project.

Identify
each
funding
source
and
their
contribution
to
the
whole,

expressed
as
a
percentage.

Include
all
anticipated
sources,
including
participant
internal
sources,

Government
funds,
and
other
participant
organizations.


4.2 Project Proposals  
Following
review
and
discussion
of
the
concept
paper,
the
FRA
may
request
that
the
participant
submit

a
formal
proposal
for
the
project.

The
project
proposal
builds
upon
the
contents
of
the
concept
paper,

as
modified
through
discussions
between
the
participant
and
FRA.

Additional
content
and
more

detailed
information
is
required
in
the
proposal
document,
as
described
in
the
sections
that
follow.


Proposal
documents
are
produced
to
the
same
formatting
requirements
as
the
concept
papers,
except

for
a
20
page
limit.

This
20
page
limit
is
exclusive
of
resume
and
past
performance
data.

Submissions

that
are
incomplete,
materially
lacking,
or
not
responsive
to
the
technical
requirements
of
this
BAA,
may

be
returned
unevaluated,
or
evaluated
as
is,
without
further
opportunity
for
revision,
at
the
discretion

of
the
FRA’s
evaluation
committee.


Participants
are
advised
that
the
FRA
evaluation
of
a
project
for
possible
award
is
based
solely
on
the

contents
of
the
participant’s
project
proposal
document,
oral
presentation
documents
(see
Section
4.3),

and
the
participant’s
answers
to
any
technical
clarification
questions,
as
transmitted
through
the

Contracting
Officer.

Furthermore,
following
proposal
submittal,
any
communication
to
or
from
FRA
shall

be
through
the
Contracting
Officer.


It
is
the
policy
of
FRA
to
treat
all
proposals
as
competitive
information
and
to
disclose
the
contents
only

for
the
purposes
of
evaluation.




Project
proposals
shall
include
the
following.


4.2.1 Cover Page 
Provide
the
same
data
as
required
for
the
concept
paper
submittal,
see
Section
4.1.1.

Include
the
words

“Project
Proposal”
directly
below
the
project
title.


20




 
 
 
 


4.2.2 Technical Approach 

4.2.2.1 Background 
Proposal
documents
shall
address
the
same
requirements
with
the
concept
papers,
see
Section
4.1.2.1.


Address
Expected
Outcomes
(as
described
in
Section
4.1.2.1)
in
this
section
of
the
proposal.


Participants
shall
explain,
specifically,
how
the
proposed
technology
or
method
enhances
the
ability
to

implement
higher
speed
passenger
operations;
how
it
could
be
incorporated
into
existing
railroad

equipment,
infrastructure,
or
operations
(to
include
how
major
barriers,
impediments
or
obstacles
could

be
overcome
or
mitigated);
and
the
interface
modifications
required
to
accomplish
a
demonstration.


Also
explain
how
its
application
will
bring
about
an
improvement
to
capital
equipment
or
infrastructure,

or
operating
methods,
safety
and/or
performance
improvements.

Correlative
benefits
to
general

railroad
operations,
if
any,
should
also
be
cited,
since
they
can
also
enhance
the
feasibility
of
passenger

service
added
to
freight
routes.

Quantitative
support
should
be
provided
for
assertions
made.




Proposals
may
include
a
discussion
of
optional,
future
phase
or
phases
of
work.

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
rough
order
magnitude
cost
estimate
shall
be
provided
as
a
separately
labeled

section
in
the
costs
and
pricing
section
of
the
proposal.


Proposals
shall
include
references
to
past
relevant
research
describing
capabilities,
work,
and
significant

accomplishments
in
areas
directly
associated
with
proposed
research
area
or
in
closely
related
areas.
A

bibliography
of
relevant
technical
papers
and
research
notes
that
support
the
technical
concepts
and

innovative
ideas
described
in
this
proposal
shall
be
included
for
technical
reference.


4.2.2.2 Statement of Work 
A
statement
of
work
document
shall
be
prepared
as
a
separate
document
contained
within
the
proposal

submittal.

There
shall
be
no
company‐sensitive
or
proprietary
data
included
in
this
document.




This
statement
of
work
shall
be
organized
as
follows:


1.0 Scope


Describe
the
work
to
be
accomplished
as
part
of
the
research
project.

Include
the

technology
under
development,
the
objectives
and
goals
of
the
effort,
major

milestones,
and
the
expected
outcome
for
high
speed
rail
development.


2.0 Requirements


Define
the
work.

Separate
the
work
effort
into
major
tasks
and
subtasks
as
numbered

paragraphs.

Identify
all
project
reviews,
test,
demonstrations,
and
all
deliverables

resulting
from
the
execution
of
the
project.


21




 
 
 
 


4.2.2.3 Technical Approach 
Participants
shall
provide
a
narrative
description
of
work
to
be
performed,
organized
as
it
is
expected
to

be
performed.


The
technical
approach
shall
include
activities
designed
to
integrate
rail
industry
in
the

development
effort,
either
through
active
participation
in
the
technology
development
or
through

demonstration
and/or
testing
support.

Describe
the
steps,
tasks,
and
activities
necessary
to
achieve
the

desired
project
results.

Identify
and
describe
all
deliverables,
presentations,
demonstrations,
test,
and

periodic
reports.

Describe
the
quality
requirements
for
the
project
and
identify
the
processes
and/or

procedures
that
will
be
employed
to
ensure
these
requirements
are
satisfied.


The
technical
approach
shall
include
a
risk
assessment.

Technical,
programmatic,
market
and
other
risk

elements
shall
be
analyzed
for
their
impact
on
the
project.

A
scoring
or
ranking
scheme
shall
be

developed
to
quantify
potential
impacts.

Data
shall
be
presented
in
a
probability/impact
chart
or
other

suitable
format.




4.2.2.4 Project Management Plan 
The
proposal
shall
contain
a
detailed
management
plan
for
the
project
based
upon
the
following

minimum
requirements.


Work
Breakdown
Structure
(WBS)
–
Divide
the
project
requirements
into
tasks
and
work
packages.

Hierarchically
organize
the
project
work
down
to
the
work
package
level.



Project
Schedule
–
Sequence
the
project
activities,
identify
and
estimate
resource
requirements
and

activity
durations.

Identify
the
critical
path.

Present
the
project
schedule
as
a
bar,
or
Gantt‐style
chart,

including
activity
relationships
(dependencies).

Provide
a
milestone
chart
for
the
project
illustrating
key

activities
and
their
expected
completion
time
(weeks
from
project
start).

Include
intermediate
progress

reviews,
demonstrations
or
tests,
and
periodic
reporting
activities
in
the
schedule.


Mobilization
Plan
–In
the
context
of
the
project
schedule,
describe
the
plan
to
acquire
and
deploy

resources
needed
for
the
project,
including
personnel,
facilities,
equipment,
and
other
resources,

including
Government
Furnished
Equipment
(GFE),
deemed
necessary
for
project
execution.


Organization
Chart
–
Deliver
an
organization
chart
for
the
project
illustrating
resource
roles
and

reporting
relationships.

Include
all
participant
organizations.

Clearly
highlight
organizations
that
are

participating
in
cost
sharing
activities.

Identify
the
type
of
business
(large,
small,
disadvantaged,
or

educational)
for
each
participant
organization.

Provide
resumes
(2
page
maximum)
for
all
key
personnel

on
the
project.

Resumes
shall
be
organized
in
an
appendix
to
the
proposal.

Resumes
do
not
count

toward
the
20
page
limit
for
the
proposal.


Subcontracts/Teaming/Cost
Sharing
Management
Plan
–
Identify
and
describe
the
participant’s
plans
for

subcontracting,
teaming,
and
cost
sharing.

Clearly
identify
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
all

organizations
working
within
the
project
team,
including
technical
and
financial
elements.


Testing
Plan
‐
Describe
the
testing
requirements,
environments
and
methods
needed
to
assess
or

demonstrate
the
suitability
of
the
technology
in
the
railroad
environment
and
to
demonstrate
the


22




 
 
 
 


success
of
the
proposed
project.

Cite
railroad
companies
or
other
rail‐related
organizations,
such
as

railroad
industry
suppliers,
that
have
expressed
their
willingness
to
permit
and/or
support
such
testing

or
demonstrations.

Letters
or
statements
attesting
to
an
outside
organization’s
interest
or
commitment

to
permit
and/or
support
testing
or
demonstrations
should
be
furnished
with
the
proposal
as
an

attachment.

Such
letters
or
statements
will
not
count
towards
the
proposal’s
20
page
limit.



4.2.3 Capabilities and Experience 
Identify
and
describe
the
capabilities
and
experience
of
key
personnel
and
organizations
within
the

project
team
as
these
elements
relate
to
the
proposed
project
specifically
and
the
high
speed
rail

industry
as
a
whole.

Describe
any
relevant
technological
and
scientific,
railroad
or
other
industrial
or

defense
capabilities,
experience,
and
resources
(or
those
of
its
team
members)
that
will
serve
to

demonstrate
its
ability
to
successfully
conduct
the
proposed
research
or
technology
advancement

project.

Describe
the
team
member’s
(or
organization’s)
familiarity
with
or
position
in
the
railroad

community
and
access
to
critical
resources
for
the
project.


Describe
any
unique
capabilities
that
the
participant
team
possesses
that
may
reduce
project
risk,
may

reduce
project
duration,
and/or
may
improve
project
financial
performance.

Describe
these
capabilities

within
the
context
of
the
objectives
of
the
BAA
and
the
proposed
project’s
scope
of
work.


4.2.4 Intellectual Property 
Participants
shall
submit
information
describing
the
intellectual
property
that
will
be
used
in
the

performance
of
the
contract,
and
any
proposed
restrictions
on
the
Government’s
use
of
the
intellectual

property.




Participants
must
provide
a
good
faith
representation,
in
writing,
that
it
either
owns
or
possesses

appropriate
licensing
rights
to
the
intellectual
property
that
will
be
utilized
under
proposals
for
this

program.

If
participants
are
unable
to
make
such
a
representation
concerning
the
intellectual
property,

provide
a
listing
of
the
intellectual
property
needed,
and
explain
how
and
when
the
participant
plans
to

obtain
these
rights.


For
issued
patents
or
published
patent
applications,
provide
the
patent
number
or
patent
application

publication
number,
a
summary
of
the
patent
or
invention
title,
and
indicate
whether
the
participant
is

the
patent
or
invention
owner.

If
a
patent
or
invention
is
in‐licensed
by
the
participant,
identify
the

licensor.

If
a
patent
application
has
been
filed
for
an
invention
that
has
not
been
made
publicly
available

and
contains
proprietary
information,
provide
the
patent
application
serial
number,
patent
application

filing
date,
a
summary
of
the
invention
title,
and
indicate
whether
the
participant
is
the
invention

owner.

If
the
invention
is
in‐licensed
by
the
participant,
identify
the
licensor.


4.2.5 Cost and Pricing Data 
Identify
each
funding
source
and
their
contribution
to
the
whole,
expressed
as
a
percentage.

Include
all

anticipated
sources,
including
participant
internal
sources,
Government
funds,
and
other
participant

organizations.


23




 
 
 
 


The
cost
or
pricing
portion
of
the
project
proposal
should
contain
a
cost
estimate
for
the
proposed
effort

to
allow
for
meaningful
evaluation
and
determination
of
price
reasonableness
and
cost
realism.

The

cost
estimate
may
be
prepared
using
the
applicant’s
own
format
or
as
indicated
in
Table
15‐2
of
FAR

15.408.

The
cost
estimate
shall
account
for
the
entire
cost
of
the
project,
inclusive
of
that
portion
of

cost
the
applicant
or
other
participants
would
bear
in
any
proposed
cost
sharing
arrangement
or
other

investment
of
resources,
as
a
means
of
venture
sharing,
in
lieu
of
a
formal
cost
sharing
arrangement.


The
cost
estimate
shall
be
broken
down
for
each
year
of
the
proposed
work,
and
by
all
years
combined.


At
a
minimum,
the
cost
estimate
shall
include
the
following
information:


Labor
‐
A
breakdown
of
direct
labor,
by
WBS
index
number,
identifying
the
labor
categories
or

individuals
and
projected
hours,
and
their
associated
subtotals.




Overhead
and/or
fringe
‐
Labor
overhead
and/or
fringe
rate(s)
and
base(s),
and
cumulative
effect
on

labor
costs.




Materials,
supplies,
and
equipment
‐
Description
and
cost
of
materials,
supplies,
and
equipment,
to

include
the
basis
of
the
cost
estimate
(e.g.,
historical
data,
competitive
market
quotes,
and
in
house

transfers).

Specific
mention
should
be
made
of
any
highly
specialized
or
costly
test
equipment
or

supplies
needed
to
accomplish
the
project.




Travel
and
transportation
‐
Breakdown
of
travel
and
transportation
costs.




Subcontracts
‐
Breakdown
of
individual
subcontracts.

State
the
amounts
of
time
of

subcontractor/consulting
services
to
be
devoted
to
the
project,
including
the
cost
to
be
charged
to
the

proposed
contract/agreement.




ODC
‐
Breakdown
of
other
direct
costs
(reproduction,
computer
time,
and
consultants).




Misc.
‐
Identification
of
any
other
direct
or
indirect
cost
elements
not
identified
elsewhere.

For
each

indirect
rate
(identified
here
or
elsewhere),
indicate
if
the
proposed
indirect
rate
and
allocation
base

have
been
approved
by
a
Government
audit
or
cognizant
agency
for
use
in
proposals
and
when
the

rate(s)
was
approved
and
the
name
of
and
telephone
number
of
the
cognizant
auditor
or
approving

official.




General
and
Administrative
‐
G&A
rate
and
base,
and
cost
outcome.




Profit
or
fee
‐
Generally,
the
FRA
does
not
anticipate
providing
profit
or
fee
under
contracts
awarded

under
the
BAA,
because
of
the
potential
for
long‐term
benefits
to
those
firms
or
institutions
involved
in

these
demonstration
activities.

However,
profit
or
fee
may
be
proposed,
and
if
proposed,
is
subject
to

final
negotiations.




Cost
Sharing/Cost
Participation
‐
Identify
extent
of
cost
sharing/cost
participation,
if
any
(exclusive
of
the

participant’s
prior
investment),
to
include
the
actual
dollars
or
the
percentage
of
the
cost
share
of
the

proposed
research
or
technology
project,
to
be
provided
by
the
applicant,
or
third
party
contributors
or

other
Federal
funding
sources,
if
allowable;
the
type
and
extent
of
cost
limitations
(direct
or
indirect);
or


24




 
 
 
 


the
specifics
for
and
extent
of
similar
concepts
indicative
of
cost
participation.

(Note:
The
applicant
may

be
required
to
certify
that
it
has
secured
the
appropriate
cost
share
funding
levels,
and
identify
the

source
of
funding.


The
value
of
any
proposed
cost
participation
in
the
form
of
participation
in‐kind
or
other
investment
of

resources
as
a
means
of
venture
sharing,
in
lieu
of
a
formal
cost
sharing
arrangement,
or
third‐party
in‐
kind
contributions,
must
be
assessed
by
the
Government.

(Note:

These
latter
forms
of
cost

participation
are
best
suited
for
and
may
only
be
applicable
as
the
participant’s
cost
share/match
in
a

grant
or
cooperative
agreement
award.)


4.2.6 Past Performance 
As
a
separately
bound
part
of
its
project
proposal
submission,
the
participant
(excepting
states
or
local

governments
or
organizations
of
state
or
local
governments,
or
universities
or
institutions
of
higher

education)
shall
provide
past
performance
information
in
the
form
of
a
contract
reference
list
and

preliminary
survey
data
for
projects
valued
at
$250,000
or
more.

This
past
performance
information
will

not
count
as
part
of
the
20‐page
proposal
limit.


Technically
acceptable
proposals
that
are
considered
realistic
and
reasonable,
in
terms
of
proposed
cost,

and
fee,
if
applicable,
will
be
subject
to
a
review
of
past
performance
information
provided
by
the

participant
or
obtained
from
sources
other
than
those
identified
by
the
participant,
and
used
in

assessing
performance
risk,
making
a
responsibility
determination,
and
making
a
best
value
decision.


References
provided
by
the
participant
or
sources
other
than
those
identified
by
the
participant
may
be

contacted
at
this
stage
and
advised
of
a
specific
date
that
completed
surveys
should
be
submitted
to

FRA.

References
will
generally
be
allowed
a
minimum
of
3
working
days
to
respond
by
facsimile
or
email

(with
original
to
be
provided
upon
request).

Participants
are
advised
that
time
is
of
the
essence,
and

that
if
surveys
are
not
received
by
the
time
specified
or
references
otherwise
do
not
avail
themselves
for

an
interview,
the
participant
may
be
assessed
as
an
unknown
performance
risk
and
assigned
a
neutral

performance
rating.




Participants
are
reminded
that
a
past
performance
rating
is
not
a
precise
mechanical
process
and
will

usually
include
some
subjective
judgment.

It
is
a
comparative
evaluative
process
that
seeks
to
identify

the
level
of
risk
associated
with
contracting
with
each
participant.

The
resulting
evaluation
is
a

reflection
of
the
degree
of
confidence
the
Government
has
in
the
participant’s
likelihood
of
success.




Upon
request,
past
performance
information
may
be
made
available
to
other
Federal
procurement

activities.

However,
past
performance
information
about
a
participant
shall
not
be
provided,
without

the
participant's
consent,
to
any
private
party,
except
where
the
agency
determines
such
information

must
be
released
pursuant
to
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act.




On
the
rare
occasion
that
there
is
no
information
on
past
contract
performance,
or
no
relevant
past

performance
information,
the
participant’s
lack
of
past
performance
will
be
treated
as
an
unknown

performance
risk.

In
such
cases,
past
performance
will
be
treated
as
“neutral,”
that
is
to
say
the

participant
will
not
be
evaluated
favorably
or
unfavorably
on
the
factor
of
past
contract
performance.



25




 
 
 
 


This
will
be
accomplished
by
assigning
the
participant(s)
without
a
[relevant]
performance
record,
the

mid‐range
score
available
for
any
numerical
or
quantitative
rating
used,
or
an
equivalent
value
in
any

adjectival
or
qualitative
rating
used.




4.2.6.1 Contract Reference List 
The
past
performance
information
contract
reference
list
shall
include
the
identification
of
three
(3)

governmental
(Federal,
state
or
local)
or
commercial
contracts/orders
(each
having
an
aggregate
value

of
at
least
$25,000)
that
the
participant1
has
performed
and
asserts
are
relevant
to
the
subject
proposal

concept,
and
is
demonstrative
of
its
capabilities
to
successfully
perform
substantially
similar
work.

The

greater
the
similarity
in
scope
and
complexity
and
technical
nature
of
the
referenced
contracts/orders

to
the
research
project,
technology
advancement
and/or
demonstration
being
proposed
under
the

subject
BAA,
the
greater
the
perceived
relevancy.

The
burden
of
proving
acceptability
of
past

performance
is
the
responsibility
of
the
participant.




Contracts/orders
advanced
by
the
participant
should
be
either‐



(a)
 on‐going
contracts/orders
awarded
within
the
last
3
years
and
in
which
the
participant

has
performed
for
at
least
six
months,
or



(b)
 contracts/orders
that
ended
within
the
last
3
years,
but
in
which
some
part
or
all
of
the

performance
occurred
within
the
last
3
years
from
the
date
of
proposal
submission.


The
contract
reference
list
should
recap,
for
each
reference,
the
name
of
the
awarding
agency/firm,

contract/order
title,
contract
number,
point
of
contact
and
telephone
number,
and
email
address,
if

available.

The
participant
must
ensure
that
points
of
contact
and
telephone
numbers
for
its
listed

contract/order
references
are
current,
complete
and
accurate.

Significant
problems
encountered
in

checking
references
provided
by
the
participant
will
generally
be
considered
a
lack
of
due
diligence
on

the
part
of
the
participant
and
may
be
considered
in
the
selection
process.




If
the
participant
has
received
fewer
than
3
contract
awards
within
the
last
3
years
having
an
aggregate

value
of
a
least
$25,000,
the
participant
should
provide
information
on
the
number
of
contract
awards

available
for
referencing.

If
the
participant
has
not
received
any
contract
awards
within
the
last
3
years

having
an
aggregate
value
of
a
least
$25,000,
the
participant
should
state
that
fact.


































































1

For the purposes of this contracting action, relevant past performance under these contracts/orders may be that 
of the participant itself (as a prime contractor or a subcontractor under the referenced action) and its key 
personnel, or that of a subcontractor, consultant or party to a cooperative arrangement who will be directly 
involved under the proposed research project, technology advancement and/or demonstration, provided that (1) 
the entity or individual will be performing the substantially same type of effort/requirement and in the substantially 
same capacity as that upon which the relevant past performance assertion is made, and (2) the entity or individual 
will be performing 50% or more of the effort involved, in terms of the estimated total contract cost.   

26




 
 
 
 


4.2.6.2 Preliminary Survey Data 
For
each
contract
reference,
the
participant
shall
complete
and
submit
Part
I
–
Administration,
and
Part

II
‐
Relevancy/Perspective
of
the
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey,
see
Appendix
A.

For
Part
I
of
the

survey,
the
participant
will
complete
the
identifying
and
administrative
information
sought
for
the

specific
contract
in
question.

For
Part
II,
the
participant
will
complete
and
insert
a
single
page
that

addresses
the
following
three
areas
of
inquiry
(as
described
in
the
survey):

Description
of
Prior
Contract

Services,
Relevancy,
and
Problem
Resolution
and
Quality
Honors.

The
text
of
the
participant’s
responses

for
all
three
inquiries
combined
shall
not
exceed
one
page.



As
early
as
possible
in
the
proposal
preparation
phase,
participants
should
send
each
of
their
references

a
copy
of
the
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey
(or
advise
them
of
its
location
on
FRA
websites)
and
a

letter
that,
in
effect,
authorizes
its
private
sector
reference
to
provide
past
performance
information,

when
and
if
requested
by
FRA,
and
alerts
its
government
references
that
information
may
be
requested

from
another
government
agency.

Participants
should
advise
references
that
in
addition
to
completing

Part
III
of
the
survey
(when
and
if
requested),
they
may
be
contacted,
at
the
Government’s
discretion,

and
asked
to
consent
to
a
telephone
interview,
using
the
survey
as
the
starting
or
focal
point
of
the

interview.




Participants
are
advised
that
any
relevant
contractor
performance/customer
evaluations
previously

prepared
within
the
last
three
years
by
the
agency/firm
(the
reference),
and
subsequent
responses
or

rebuttals
from
the
participant/contractor,
may
be
requested
of
the
reference
to
augment
or
furnished
in

lieu
of
the
survey
or
interview.




References
should
be
advised
that
when
and
if
they
are
requested
to
complete
a
survey
by
FRA,
they
are

to
send
the
completed
survey
directly
to
the
FRA
at
the
address(es)
identified
in
the
Survey
and
not
to

the
participant
seeking
a
reference,
nor
are
they
return
a
duplicate
to
the
participant.

This
does
not

preclude
the
reference
from
advising
the
participant
that
a
survey
was
completed
and
submitted,
or
an

interview
conducted,
if
it
so
chooses.




To
ensure
frank
and
open
evaluations
and
expressions
of
opinions
by
evaluators
or
others,
all
parties
are

advised
that
the
identity
of
respondents
completing
the
survey
will
be
held
in
confidence
and
will
not
be

released
or
disclosed
to
the
participant
outside
the
Government.
However,
as
specified
under
FAR

15.306,
conditions
may
exist
in
which
the
participant
may
be
provided
an
opportunity
to
discuss
adverse

past
performance
information
on
which
the
participant
has
not
had
a
previous
opportunity
to
comment.




4.3 Oral Presentations 
FRA
may
request
an
oral
presentation
following
an
initial
review
of
the
proposal.

The
participant
may

submit
oral
presentation
slides
at
the
same
time
as
the
project
proposal,
or
wait
until
FRA
requests
the

presentation.


Oral
presentations
will
be
one
hour
–
30
minutes
for
presentation
and
30
minutes
for
questions.

Oral

presentations
are
an
opportunity
for
the
participant
to
provide
higher
resolution
to
the
topics
discussed

in
the
formal
proposal.

The
presentation
shall
address
technical
factors
only,
not
cost
or
pricing
data,


27




 
 
 
 


and
shall
not
address
topics
not
presented
in
the
proposal
submittal.

FRA
may
ask
technical
clarification

questions
during
the
presentation.

FRA
will
not
provide
feedback
to
the
participant
during
the

presentation.


Oral
presentations
will
be
held
at
the
FRA
offices
in
Washington,
DC
or
they
will
be
conducted
using

computer/telephone
tools.

Location
and
format
decisions
will
be
made
by
FRA.


5 Evaluation and Award Process 
All
submittals
will
be
evaluated
by
Government
officials,
exclusively.

Participants
will
be
notified
of

evaluation
results
via
letter.


5.1 Evaluation Criteria 
5.1.1 Project Concept Papers 
Project
concept
papers
will
be
evaluated
for
overall
technical
value
to
the
Government’s
area
of

interest,
within
the
context
of
available
funding.



FRA
will
estimate
the
degree
of
the
potential
impact

on
the
development
of
a
high
speed
rail,
the
technology
readiness
level,
and
the
reasonableness
of

estimated
costs
for
each
concept
paper
submitted.

FRA
will
also
evaluate
the
participant’s
capability
to

perform
the
work
based
on
the
technical
approach,
background,
and
referenced
resources
provided
in

the
concept
paper.


FRA
may
request
formal
proposals
for
project
concepts
that
are
deemed
to
have
technical
value
to
the

FRA’s
high
speed
rail
development
objectives
and
are
found
to
fit
within
funding
constraints.

Project

concept
papers
are
not
evaluated,
or
considered,
as
part
of
the
award
evaluation
process.


5.1.2 Project Proposals 
Proposals
will
be
evaluated
solely
on
the
criteria
published
in
this
announcement.

Proposals
will
be

evaluated
as
submitted,
without
opportunity
for
revision
beyond
participant
responses
to
technical

clarification
questions
from
FRA.

Oral
presentations
will
be
considered
a
subset
of
the
proposal
material

and
evaluated
using
the
same
criteria.

Oral
presentations
will
not
be
evaluated
for
oral
delivery
style,

polish,
or
the
style
or
format
of
the
submitted
material.




FRA
will
evaluate
project
proposal
submissions
using
the
following
criteria.


5.1.2.1 Technical Factors 
Responsiveness
to
BAA
Objectives
and
Requirements


The
degree
to
which
the
proposed
project
meets
the
program
objectives
of
the
BAA
and
conforms
to

the
funding
limitations
detailed
herein.



The
degree
to
which
the
proposal
is
responsive
to
the

requirements
published
in
this
announcement.



28




 
 
 
 


Technical
Approach


The
degree
to
which
the
project
impact’s
the
success
of
high
speed
rail
deployment,
enhancing
safety,

performance,
and
efficiency
aspects
of
rail
operations,
maintenance,
and/or
design.


The
degree
to
which
the
participant
comprehends
the
technological
framework
for
the
proposed
project

in
terms
of
analytical
science,
prior
development
progress,
and
rail
industry
application.


The
degree
to
which
the
proposal
provides
a
reasonable
and
logical
technical
approach
to
the
project,

integrates
the
rail
industry
in
the
scope
of
work,
provides
appropriate
reports
and
deliverables
to

document
progress
and
outcomes,
quality
controls,
and
a
realistic
project
risk
assessment.


The
completeness
of
the
project
management
plan
in
terms
of
required
elements,
and
the
degree
to

which
the
participant
has
prepared
the
project
for
the
execution
phase.


The
degree
of
experience
and
capability
of
the
project
team,
including
key
personnel
and
team

organizational
partners,
as
these
elements
relate
to
the
project
work
and
influence
the
project’s

potential
for
a
successful
outcome.


5.1.2.2 Cost and Pricing Factors 
Project
proposals
that
are
evaluated
favorably
from
a
technical
perspective,
have
no
outstanding
issues

or
areas
for
clarification,
and
are
determined
to
be
consistent
with
the
objectives
of
the
BAA
and
of

interest
to
the
Government,
will
be
subject
to
a
cost
evaluation.




Cost
and
pricing
data
submissions
shall
be
evaluated
for
completeness
and
reasonableness.

FRA
will

estimate
the
relative
value
of
work
proposed
against
the
estimated
costs.

FRA
will
consider
the
level
of

proposed
cost
sharing
as
part
of
the
evaluation.



5.1.2.3 Past Performance Factors 
Technically
acceptable
proposals
that
are
considered
realistic
and
reasonable
in
terms
of
proposed
cost,

and
fee,
if
applicable,
will
be
subject
to
a
review
of
past
performance
information
provided
by
the

participant
or
obtained
from
sources
other
than
those
identified
by
the
participant.




Past
performance
evaluations
determine
the
extent
or
level
of
relevant
corporate
past
performance,
or

relevant
past
performance
by
key
personnel,
or
by
subcontractors
or
parties
to
cooperative

arrangements.

Evaluations
shall
be
based
on
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey
results
for
projects

exceeding
$250,000.


Assessments
of
past
performance
will
not
be
applicable
to
offers/applications

from
states
or
local
governments
or
organizations
of
state
or
local
governments,
or
universities
or

institutions
of
higher
education.


5.2 Awards 
A
proposal
must
be
acceptable
under
all
evaluation
factors
to
be
considered
eligible
for
award.

All

evaluation
factors
other
than
cost
or
price,
when
combined,
are
significantly
more
important
than
cost

or
price
alone.

Technical
evaluation
is
appreciably
more
important
than
cost
or
price
and,
as
such,


29




 
 
 
 


greater
consideration
shall
be
given
to
technical
excellence
rather
than
cost
or
price
alone.

Cost
or
price

is
somewhat
more
important
than
past
performance
and,
as
such,
greater
consideration
shall
be
given

to
cost
or
price
rather
than
past
performance
alone.

Tradeoffs,
as
described
in
FAR
Part
15,
are
also

allowed.


Recommendations
for
awards
will
be
made
to
participants
providing
the
best
value
to
the
Government,

in
terms
of
technical
excellence,
cost
or
price,
and
performance
risk,
and
other
factors
–
to
include

consistency
and
accord
with
the
objectives
of
the
BAA
and
the
FRA’s
mission
and
its
interest
in
pursuing

the
proposed
technology
advancement
and/or
demonstration.


All
awards
will
be
subject
to
the
availability
of
funds.

Only
the
Contracting
Officer
can
legally
commit

the
Government
to
the
expenditure
of
public
funds
under
this
BAA.




5.2.1 Notifications and Negotiations 
All
participants
will
receive
written
notification
of
the
final
disposition
of
its
proposal.

If
chosen
for

award,
the
Contracting
Officer
will
contact
the
participant
with
further
instructions,
including

negotiation
procedures,
if
needed.


30



 


Appendix A – Contractor Past Performance Survey 
FEDERAL
RAILROAD
ADMINISTRATION


CONTRACTOR
PAST
PERFORMANCE
SURVEY


INTRODUCTION



The
Federal
Railroad
Administration
(FRA)
is
currently
conducting
a
competitive
procurement
solicitation
entitled

“BROAD
AGENCY
ANNOUNCEMENT
(BAA)
2010‐1”
for
which
the
prospective
participant/applicant
(excepting
states
or

local
governments,
or
universities)
has
been
requested
to
identify
Government
agencies
or
commercial
business
firms
it

has
previously
contracted
with
or
to
whom
it
is
currently
under
contract,
to
serve
as
potential
references
on
its
past

performance
record.

You
are
being
asked
to
complete
the
attached
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey.

Parts
I
and
II

are
to
be
completed
and
returned
by
the
participant/applicant
with
its
submission.

Part
III
should
be
completed
by
the

evaluator/respondent
and
forwarded
directly
to
FRA
(See
Note
below
regarding
Part
III
transmittal.)

You
may
also
be

contacted
by
an
FRA
procurement
official
to
arrange
a
telephone
interview,
using
the
survey
as
the
focal
point
of
the

interview.


To
ensure
frank
and
open
evaluations
and
expressions
of
opinions
by
evaluators,
all
parties
are
advised
that
the
identity

of
respondents
completing
the
survey
will
be
held
in
confidence
and
will
not
be
released
or
disclosed
to
the
contractor

or
outside
the
Government.

However,
as
specified
under
Federal
Acquisition
Regulation
15.306,
conditions
may
exist
in

which
the
contractor
may
be
provided
an
opportunity
to
discuss
adverse
past
performance
information
on
which
the

contractor
has
not
had
a
previous
opportunity
to
comment.

Any
relevant
contractor
performance/customer
evaluations

previously
prepared
within
the
last
three
years
by
the
agency/firm
providing
this
reference,
and
subsequent
responses

or
rebuttals
from
the
contractor,
may
be
requested
to
augment
or
furnished
in
lieu
of
this
survey
or
interview.




NOTE:

Part
III
–
“Evaluator’s
Assessment”
of
this
survey
should
NOT
be
returned
or
furnished
in
a
copy
to

the
subject
participant/applicant.

The
evaluator/respondent
should
mail
Part
III
directly
to:


Federal
Railroad

Administration,
Office
of
Acquisition
&
Grants
Services,
ATTN:

Isaac
Rosier,
Room
W36‐107,
1200
New
Jersey
Avenue,

SE,
Washington,
DC

20590.

If
you
have
any
questions,
please
contact
Mr.
Rosier
at
202/493‐6149,

Email:


Isaac.Rosier@dot.gov




31



 
 
 
 
 


EVALUATION
RATING
GUIDELINES



Exceptional
(5)
‐
Performance
in
the
respective
area
of
evaluation,
consistently
and
reliably
far exceeded standards
or
expectations

as
set
forth
in
the
contract,
or
as
prior
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
industry
would
suggest
or
dictate.

There
were
essentially
no 
major  problems,
weaknesses,
or
deficiencies
of
consequence,
nor
negative
performances
issues
as
it
applies
to
the
respective
area

of
evaluation.
The
contractual
performance
of
the
element
or
sub‐element
being
assessed
was
accomplished
with
few minor 
problems
for
which
the
contractor
took
highly effective and timely corrective action.


Very
Good
(4)
‐Performance
in
the
respective
area
of
evaluation,
consistently
and
reliably
exceeded standards
or
expectations
as
set

forth
in
the
contract,
or
as
prior
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
industry
would
suggest
or
dictate.

There
were
essentially no major 
problems,
weaknesses,
or
deficiencies
of
consequence,
nor
negative
performances
issues
as
it
applies
to
the
respective
area
of

evaluation.
The
contractual
performance
of
the
element
or
sub‐element
being
assessed
was
accomplished
with
some minor 
problems
for
which
the
contractor
took
effective and timely corrective action.


Satisfactory
(3)
‐

Performance
in
the
respective
area
of
evaluation,
consistently
and
reliably met standards
or
expectations
as
set

forth
in
the
contract,
or
as
prior
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
industry
would
suggest
or
dictate.

There
were
essentially no major 
problems,
weaknesses,
or
deficiencies
of
consequence,
nor
negative
performances
issues
as
it
applies
to
the
respective
area
of

evaluation.
The
contractual
performance
of
the
element
or
sub‐element
being
assessed
was
accomplished
with
some minor 
problems
for
which
the
contractor
took
competent and timely corrective action.


Marginal
(2)
‐
Performance
in
the
respective
area
of
evaluation,
did not  meet standards
or
expectations
as
set
forth
in
the
contract,

or
as
prior
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
industry
would
suggest
or
dictate.

There
were
problems,
weaknesses,
or
deficiencies
of

consequence,
or
negative
performances
issues
as
it
applies
to
the
respective
area
of
evaluation.
The
contractual
performance
of
the

element
or
sub‐element
being
assessed
was
accomplished
with
some minor problems and one or more major problems
for
which
the

contractor
took
minimal or ineffectual and/or untimely corrective action.


Unsatisfactory
(1)
‐
Performance
in
the
respective
area
of
evaluation, failed to meet standards
or
expectations
as
set
forth
in
the

contract,
or
as
prior
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
industry
would
suggest
or
dictate.

There
were
problems,
weaknesses,
or

deficiencies
of
consequence,
or
negative
performances
issues
as
it
applies
to
the
respective
area
of
evaluation.
The
contractual

performance
of
the
element
or
sub‐element
being
assessed
was
accomplished
with
numerous minor and numerous major problems

for
which
the
contractor
took
virtually no, or minimal or ineffectual, and/or untimely corrective action.


 



 


32



 
 
 
 
 


PART
I

‐

ADMINISTRATION
–
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey


  (To be completed by Participant/Applicant
and submitted with its Offer/Submission)




Name
of
Agency/Business



Reference
Conducting
Assessment:


 


Name
of
Participant/Applicant
Making
Submission

 Name
of
Organization/Person
To
Whom
Reference

Applies
If
Other
Than
Participant/Applicant:

Under
BAA‐2010‐1:










































Contract
or
Project
Title:









Contract
No.

































































Delivery/Task
Order
No.












Performance
Period(s):


Base
Period‐
from













to













&



Base
plus
All
Options
‐
from


















to




Dollar
Value(s):













Base
Period
‐





































&



Base
plus
All
Options
‐




Contract
Type
and
Method
of
Contracting:
(Check all that apply)


[

]
Full
&
Open
Competition
[

]
Other
Than
Full
&
Open
Competition


[

]
Negotiated
[

]
Sealed
Bid
[

]
Simplified
Acquisition
[

]
FSS/MAS
[

]
2‐Step
or
Phased



[

]
Firm
Fixed
Price

[

]
Other
FP
type























(specify)


[

]
Cost
(no
fee)
[

]
Cost
Plus
Fixed
Fee
[

]
Other
Cost
Reimbursement
type























(specify)


[

]
Other
Contract
type
























(specify)


[

]
SBA
8(a)
[

]
SBIR
[

]
HUBZone
Set‐Aside
[

]
SDB
Price
Adjustment
[

]
Small
Business
Set‐Aside





 


33



 
 
 
 
 


PART
II

‐

RELEVANCY/PERSPECTIVE
–
Contractor
Past
Performance
Survey
 


(To be completed by Participant/Applicant and submitted with its Offer/Submission)




For
Part
II,
the
participant
shall
complete
and
insert
a
single
page
that
addresses
the
following
three
areas
of
inquiry:


Description
of
Prior
Contract
Services,
Relevancy,
and
Problem
Resolution
and
Quality
Honors.

The
text
of
the

participant=s
responses
for
all
three
inquiries
combined
shall
not
exceed
one
page.





 
 


Description
of
Prior
Contract
 Relevancy:
Describe
how
the
 Problem
Resolution
and
Quality


Services:
Provide
a
short
description
 referenced
contract
evaluated
herein
 Honors:

The
participant
may

of
supplies/services
the
participant
 is
relevant
(in
terms
of
scope,
 describe
problems
encountered
in

furnished
in
the
referenced
contract
 magnitude,
cost,
human
resources,
 the
identified
contract
and
the

evaluated
herein.

 or
other
aspects)
to
the
research
 demonstrated
effectiveness
of
the

project,
technology
advancement
 participant=s
corrective
actions.

(Recommend 5 ‐10 lines.)  

and/or
demonstration
being
 Identify
any
Federal
Government


 proposed
in
the
participant=s
 contracts/orders,
of
any
type,
at
any

proposal
concept
paper
submitted.

 dollar
value,
held
by
the
participant


 Identify
whether
the
participant
was
 which
were
terminated
for
cause
or

the
prime
contractor
or
a
major
 for
default
(partial
or
complete)



subcontractor
(in
terms
of
total
 within
the
past
three
(3)
years
and


 contract
cost,
25%
or
more),
or
 subsequent
corrective
action.

The

served
in
some
other
capacity/role
or
 participant
may
also
describe
any

relationship.  Provide
name,
point
of
 specific
quality
awards
or
quality

contact
and
phone
number
of
prime
 certifications
received
in
connection

contractor,
if
other
than
participant.
  with
the
referenced
contract.





(Recommend 20 ‐25 lines.)


 (Recommend 15 ‐20 lines.)  



























































































34




 
 
 
 


 


NOTE:



Do
not
return
or
furnished
a
copy
of
this
Part
III
to
the
subject
participant/applicant.

The

evaluator/respondent
should
complete
this
part
and
mail
it
directly
to
FRA,
Office
of
Acquisition
&
Grants
Services,

Attn:

Isaac
Rosier,
Room
W36‐107,
1200
New
Jersey
Avenue,
SE,
Washington,
DC
20590.



If
you
have
any
questions,

please
contact
Mr.

Rosier
at
202/493‐6149,
Email:


Isaac.Rosier@dot.gov




 PART
III

‐

EVALUATOR/RESPONDENT=S
ASSESSMENT


  (To be completed and signed by refererred Evaluator/Respondent for BAA‐2010‐1)


Contractor:

__________














































Contract
No.
_________________________







































1.
 Quality
of
Product
or
Service


‐


 The
participant
is
to
be
evaluated
on
its
compliance
with
contract
requirements,



accuracy
of
reports,
technical
excellence
to
include
quality
awards/certificates,

or
other
quality‐related
contract
standards.



 


Were
services
and/or
deliverables
in
compliance
with
contract
requirements
or
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a

specifications?

(Check one)


 


Were
the
services/tasks
performed
and/or
deliverables
furnished
in
conformance
with
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a


standards
of
good
workmanship
and
otherwise
acceptable?



(Check one)


 





































Corresponding
Adjectival
&
Numerical
Ratings
(Circle one)


 
 
 
 

QUALITY
OF



Unsatisfactory
 






Marginal
 



Satisfactory
 




Very
Good
 




Exceptional

PRODUCT/SERVICE


 
 
 
 
















1
 













2
 













3
 













4
 













5





Use remaining space (and additional cross‐referenced sheets, as necessary) toB    

(1) Explain the rationale for the assigned adjectival/numerical rating (i.e., recount specific extraordinary or poor 
contractor performance, or problems and responses that support assessment) , and (2) Describe the basis for any Ano@ 
responses to questions. 







35




 
 
 
 




Contractor:

__________














































Contract
No.
_________________________







































2.
 Timeliness
of
Performance


‐
 The
participant
is
to
be
evaluated
on
meeting
milestones,
reliability,
responsiveness


to
technical
direction,
deliverables
completed
on‐time,
adherence
to
contract

schedules
including
contract
administration,
or
other
time‐related
contract

standards.




 


Were
all
deliverable(s)
and/or
report(s)
furnished
on
or
before
the
time/event
specified
in
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a

or
agreed
to
pursuant
to
the
contract?

(Check one)


 


Were
contract
schedules
consistently
met
and
adhered
to,
and
were
timely
adjustments
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a

made
in
response
to
technical
direction
so
as
to
stay
on
agreed
schedule(s)?


(Check one)


 



 





































Corresponding
Adjectival
&
Numerical
Ratings
(Circle one)


 
 
 
 

TIMELINESS
OF



Unsatisfactory
 






Marginal
 



Satisfactory
 




Very
Good
 




Exceptional

PERFORMANCE


 
 
 
 
















1
 













2
 













3
 













4
 













5





Use remaining space (and additional cross‐referenced sheets, as necessary) toB    

(1) Explain the rationale for the assigned adjectival/numerical rating (i.e., recount specific extraordinary or poor 
contractor performance, or problems and responses that support assessment) , and (2) Describe the basis for any Ano@ 
responses to questions. 







36




 
 
 
 




Contractor:
_____________









































Contract
No.

_________________________






































3.
 Cost
Control



‐
The
participant
is
to
be
evaluated
on
its
ability
to
perform
within
or
below
budget,
use
of
cost

efficiencies,
relationship
of
negotiated
costs
to
actuals,
submission
of
reasonably
priced
change

proposals,
and
providing
current,
accurate,
and
complete
billing
in
a
timely
fashion.
For
fixed

price
contracts,
this
area
assesses
whether
the
contractor
met
the
original
price/cost
estimated

or
needed
to
negotiate
cost
changes
to
meet
program
requirements.


 


Did
the
contractor
operate
at
or
below
budget,
or
at
the
stated,
fixed
price?
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a


(Check one)


 


Were
actual
cost
expenditures
reported
by
the
contractor
generally
in
line
with
projected
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a

costs
(including
approved
shifts
in
effort)
for
designated
time
frames
or
specific

supplies/services?
 (Check one)


 



 





































Corresponding
Adjectival
&
Numerical
Ratings
(Circle one)


 
 
 
 

COST





Unsatisfactory
 






Marginal
 



Satisfactory
 




Very
Good
 




Exceptional

CONTROL

 
 
 
 
 
















1
 













2
 













3
 













4
 













5





Use remaining space (and additional cross‐referenced sheets, as necessary) toB    

(1) Explain the rationale for the assigned adjectival/numerical rating (i.e., recount specific extraordinary or poor 
contractor performance, or problems and responses that support assessment) , and (2) Describe the basis for any Ano@ 
responses to questions. 







37




 
 
 
 




4.
 Business
Relations

‐



 The
participant
is
to
be
evaluated
on
its
ability
to
provide
effective
management,
meet


applicable
subcontractor
and
small,
small
disadvantaged,
and
women‐owned
business
goals,

cooperative
and
proactive
behavior
with
the
technical
representative(s)
and
Contracting

Officer,
flexibility,
responsiveness
to
inquires,
problem
resolution,
and
customer
satisfaction

with
the
overall
performance,
and
final
product
or
services.


 
 
 
 
 


 


Was
the
contractor
responsive
to
complaints
and
did
the
contractor
commit
adequate
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a

resources
to
meet
contract
requirements
or
otherwise
provide
effective
solutions
to
solve

(Check one)

problems
as
they
arose?


 


Would
you
recommend
or
elect
to
contract
with
this
contractor
for
future
work
of
the
 [

]
yes
‐
[

]
no
‐
[

]
n/a

same
or
substantially
similar
nature
as
that
conducted
under
the
contract
evaluated
in
this

[

]
n/a
to
assessment


survey?

period


 



 





































Corresponding
Adjectival
&
Numerical
Ratings
(Circle one)


 
 
 
 

BUSINESS



Unsatisfactory
 






Marginal
 



Satisfactory
 




Very
Good
 




Exceptional

RELATIONS
 
 
 
 
 
















1
 













2
 













3
 













4
 













5





Use remaining space (and additional cross‐referenced sheets, as necessary) toB    

(1) Explain the rationale for the assigned adjectival/numerical rating (i.e., recount specific extraordinary or poor 
contractor performance, or problems and responses that support assessment) , and (2) Describe the basis for any Ano@ 
responses to questions. 

































































































38



 
 
 
 
 


5.

Evaluator’s
Identification/Signature


  


Contractor:


_________________

































Contract
No.
_______________________










































Name
of
Evaluator/Respondent:


Position
or
Title: 

(e.g., COTR, Task Monitor, Project Manager, etc.):































































Address
of
Activity/Business:







Telephone
No.





























Fax
No.





























Email
Address:






Signature:















































































Date:

 

(To be completed by Gov’t Interviewer only when survey is completed on behalf of valuator/Respondent.  
Otherwise leave blank.) 
 

Name
of
Interviewer:




Telephone
No.





























Fax
No.





























Email
Address:




Signature:















































































Date
of
Interview:




39




 
 
 
 


Appendix B – Project QUAD Chart 

 
The
Quad
Chart
is
used
by
numerous
Government
agencies
during
briefs.

It
provides
a
synopsis
of
the

project
objectives
and
progress,
as
well
as
providing
a
graphical
representation
of
the
project.

The
Quad

Chart
is
one
landscape
oriented
page
divided
into
four
quadrants
and
suitable
for
use
in
briefings
which

help
Task
Monitors
explain
your
work
to
others.

Emphasis
is
placed
on
brevity
and
factual
statements.


Also,
technical
engineering
details
are
not
included,
as
the
Quad
Chart
may
be
used
to
brief
those
who

are
not
technical
experts
in
the
art.


Each
of
the
four
quadrants
that
comprise
the
Quad
Chart
conveys
information
on
a
specific
aspect
of
the

project.

The
first
quadrant,
located
in
the
upper
left‐hand
corner,
comprises
visually
appealing
graphics

or
pictures
that
clearly
represent
the
key
technological
idea(s)
or
the
expected
impact
of
the
research.

If

more
than
one
picture
is
needed
to
clearly
convey
the
technological
idea(s),
then
a
plurality
of
pictures

may
be
used.

Due
to
the
limited
space,
the
number
of
graphics
and
pictures
should
be
limited
to
a

maximum
of
five.

If
a
plurality
of
pictures
are
included,
they
can
be
presented
in
any
clear,
appealing

layout,
such
as
a
simple
array
of
pictures
or
a
collage
of
overlapping
of
pictures.

However,
they
must
fit

neatly
within
the
first
quadrant.

There
may
be
something
subtle
or
non‐obvious
to
the
casual
observer

in
one
or
more
of
the
pictures.

If
this
is
the
case,
graphics,
such
as
red
arrows,
may
be
added
to
bring

attention
to
important
aspects
of
the
picture(s).


The
second
quadrant,
located
in
the
upper
right‐hand
corner,
includes
a
brief
project
description.

A

bulleted
list
format
is
used
to
present
this
information.

For
purposes
of
brevity,
the
description
should

be
limited
to
a
maximum
of
five
bullets.


The
third
quadrant,
located
in
the
lower
left‐hand
corner,
includes
three
to
five
quantitative
statements

discussing
how
the
project
work
will
revolutionize
an
area
of
importance
to
the
safety
of
railroads,
such

as
preventing
derailments
and
detecting
defects.

Some
questions
that
may
be
appropriate
to
address
in

this
section
are:
How
is
the
current
system
or
procedure
implemented
now
and
with
what
limitations?


What
is
truly
new
in
your
approach
which
will
remove
current
limitations
and
improve
performance
and

safety?

And
how
much
can
performance
and
safety
be
expected
to
improve?

As
in
the
second

quadrant,
a
bulleted
list
format
is
used
to
present
this
information.


The
fourth
quadrant,
located
in
the
lower
right‐hand
corner,
includes
three
to
five
significant
project

milestones
and
the
approximate
cost
or
projected
cost
associated
with
each
of
the
milestones.

The

information
is
depicted
on
a
three
year
horizontal
timeline
or
in
a
bulleted
list
format,
as
in
the
second

and
third
quadrants.


The
Quad
Chart
also
includes
a
project
title
that
is
clearly
visible
and
centered
at
the
top
of
the
page.


The
Quad
Chart
concludes
with
the
name
of
the
FRA
Task
Monitor
in
the
bottom
left‐hand
corner
and

the
name
of
the
project
partner
in
the
bottom
right‐hand
corner.


40




 
 
 
 


In
order
to
achieve
uniformity,
certain
fonts
and
font
sizes
are
used
in
each
of
the
above
sections.

All

the
text
on
the
Quad
Chart
is
placed
in
a
common,
clearly
legible
font,
such
as
Times
New
Roman
or

Arial.

The
project
title
has
a
font
size
between
30
and
36.

The
text
found
in
the
second,
third,
and

fourth
quadrants
has
a
font
size
between
14
and
16.

The
primary
purpose
of
these
limitations
is
to

make
the
information
clearly
legible
and
to
limit
the
amount
of
information
on
the
Quad
Chart.


Quad
Charts
will
be
accepted
in
PowerPoint
and
Adobe
PDF
formats
only.

The
Quad
Charts
are
limited

to
one
page,
and
the
file
size
is
limited
to
500,000
bytes
(0.5
MB).

If
you
are
having
trouble
meeting
the

size
requirements,
a
possible
solution
is
to
reduce
the
size
of
the
images
included
in
the
file.


A
sample
Quad
Chart
outline
is
found
on
the
following
page.


The
following
are
the
Project
Evaluation
Questions*:


• What
are
you
trying
to
accomplish?

• How
is
it
done
now,
with
what
limitations?

• What
is
truly
new
in
your
approach
which
will
remove
current
limitations
and
improve

performance?

How
much
will
performance
improve?

• If
successful,
what
difference
will
it
make?

• What
are
the
mid‐term,
final
exams
or
full
scale
applications
required
to
prove
your
hypothesis?

When
will
they
be
done?

• How
could
this
transition
to
the
end
user?
(FRA/railroads)

• How
much
will
it
cost?





*George
Heilmeyer
Criteria

41




 
 
 
 


42