**FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION**

**1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE**

**Washington, DC 20590**

**BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT 2009-1**

**FUNDS AVAILABILITY FOR**

**DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS**

**FOR FRA POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL (PTC)/COMMUNICATION RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM**

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

> **PART I INTRODUCTION Page No.**

Background 3

Objective 3

Qualifying Projects 3

> **PART II** **ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES**

Eligible Participants 4

Exchanges of Information 5

BAA Time Line 5

Source For BAA Document 5

Funding Authority & Related Information 5

> **PART III TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND**

**AREAS OF INTEREST**

Technology Application 7

Areas of Technology Interest 8

-   Grade crossing hazard mitigation systems 8

-   Positive Train Control 9

-   Wireless Communication System 10

-   Train Tracking system 11

-   Risk Assessment & Hazardous Analysis 12

-   PTC/Communication Enabling Projects 12

> **PART IV PROPOSAL CONCEPT PAPERS AND**

**PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS**

Function 13

Contents and Format 14

-   Section A - Technical Concept 14

-   Section B - Cost or Pricing 16

-   Section C - Past Performance Information 18

-   Section D - Phased or Follow-on Projects 21

> **PART V EVALUATION CRITERIA,**

**EVALUATION PROCESS AND AWARD**S

-   Evaluation Criteria 21

-   Evaluation Process 22

-   Awards 23

> **PART VI MISCELLANEOUS** 24
>
> **PART VII SUBMISSION** 27

***APPENDIX A Contractor Past Performance Survey** 5 pages*

**[PART I - INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

**BACKGROUND**

Adoption and application of new technology in railroad services is a key
focus in the FRA Research and Development program. Throughout the last
few decades, FRA has provided funding and technical supports to search
and stimulate development of new equipment, new infrastructure and new
processes to enhance the safety, capacity and efficiency of both
passenger and freight services in the railroad industry. One particular
area of new development to help achieving this goal is in the advanced
train control system, such as the new concept of Positive Train Control
(PTC), which uses microprocessors, advanced navigation and tracking
systems, and wireless technology to interconnect the various segments of
railroad operation to virtually eliminate train to train collision and
over-speed derailments, as well as to provide roadway worker protection.
It should be pointed that this solicitation centers around advanced
train control systems, and only proposals relating to PTC will be
considered.

**OBJECTIVE**

This Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) is being made to solicit
demonstrations of various technology advancements or techniques,
**related to advanced train control** that can enhance the safety,
capacity and efficiency of the rail service in the United States. To
assure that the results of projects supported under this Broad Agency
Announcement (BAA) are used to maximize public benefit, FRA intends to
make the results of the work and projects awarded under the BAA
available to all interested parties within the public domain.

Train control technologies most likely to help facilitate the
improvement of railroad services are those which will:

-   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; and/or

-   Enhance the social benefits and/or environmental aspects of
    high-speed rail.

Refer to Part III for technology application and areas of interest
pertaining to this BAA.

**QUALIFYING PROJECTS**

[Enhance the implementation of Train Control Technology]{.underline}

Qualifying projects are those which could make a significant difference
in the ability to implement the positive train control concept. Areas
related to PTC development being focused in FRA are those that will
provide better accuracy and higher reliability of train tracking ,and
communication schemes among various operation segments of the system to
provide higher throughput and to minimize message loss. The focus of
this BAA is not for a full system integration, but rather advance
development of sub-systems or components that will provide substantial
improvement in the reliability and vitality of any PTC systems. Projects
which are related to grade crossing protection, dispatching, train
network, train and track integrity will also be considered, if they are
tied to PTC or Intelligent Transportation System (ITS.)

[State of Development]{.underline}

The focus of this BAA is on technologies or methods that are ready, or
nearly ready, for deployment; they may need some final development or
modification for demonstration purposes, but would be ready to
demonstrate with less than a year of further work. If technology
validation by vigorous analysis and field data collection is necessary,
they should be performed within that year prior to demonstration. It
should be stressed that any proposal that is merely an idea or a concept
without prior proofs or tests to demonstrate its technical and
scientific soundness will not be considered. It is also important that
manners of the proposed approach to be applied in real world are
practical and compatible with the railroad environment. Partnership with
an operating railroad to perform a real-life demonstration of the
technology will be a very favorable factor to the reviewers.

### Innovation

The intent of the BAA is to identify technologies or methods which
represent new approaches, or existing technologies which are applied in
a new and usefully innovative manner.

## 

## PART II - ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES

**ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS**

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,
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.

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.

**EXCHANGES OF INFORMATION**

**Those interested in responding to this BAA are strongly encouraged to
first call the primary technical point of contact, Mr. Terry Tse (Tel:
202/493-6335, Fax: 202/493-6333, Email:** <terry.tse@dot.gov>**) to
discuss the prospective idea, its potential responsiveness to the BAA
and potential for FRA interest. Taking this action could forestall
costly effort on the part of interested parties whose proposed work may
not be of interest to the FRA under this BAA.**

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).

Offerors are advised that an indication of interest, in the affirmative,
is not meant to imply nor in any way imparts an obligation on the part
of the Government that an award will be forthcoming for the offered work
or project. All non-technical inquiries should be directed to the
Grants/Contracting Officers, Mr. Robert Carpenter (Tel: 202/493-6153,
Fax: 202/493-6171, Email: <robert.carpenter@dot.gov>) or Ms. Jeanette
Hernandez-Guiilleaume (Tel: 202/493-6149, Fax: 202/493-6171, Email:
<jeanette.hernandez-guilleaume@dot.gov>). After submission of proposals,
all exchanges (both technical and non-technical) will be conducted
through the FRA Contracting/Grants Officers in accordance with FAR
15.306.

**BAA TIME LINE**

**BAA-2009-1 will be open from the date of posting through September 30,
2011.** The FRA will accept proposal concept papers as of the posting
date. Unless BAA 2009-1 is superseded or canceled, FRA will continue to
accept concept submissions and inquiries through September 30, 2011.
Although the BAA is open for an extended period, interested parties
would be well advised to submit proposals as early as possible. Reviews
will be conducted continuously on receipt of concept papers. Offerers
will be notified as soon as initial reviews are completed. FRA's target
for initial review results is 60 days after submission.

**SOURCE FOR BAA DOCUMENTS**

The BAA 2009-1 package may be downloaded or printed from the following
Internet address: <http://www.fra.dot.gov/>, and then through the
choices of "Research and Development" (from upper left home page menu),
"Funds for Research" and then "Broad Agency Announcement." The FRA does
not intend to make the BAA 2009-1 Package available in paper copy.

**FUNDING AUTHORITY AND RELATED INFORMATION**

Funds for this program are appropriated in the Federal budget for
research and development in train control and PTC development. FRA will
make available up to \$3.0 million under the BAA during fiscal year 2009
(FY 09) through fiscal year 2011 (FY 11), through the BAA 2009-1 open
period, for awards of proposal concept papers evaluated favorably and
determined by the FRA to be consistent with the objectives of this BAA
and of interest to the Government, and for which adequate funding
exists. FY 09 awards are subject to the availability of FY 09
appropriations or the continued availability of unobligated FY 08 or
other prior no-year funds. 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 that the applicant may
propose in its submissions. In the event future appropriated funds are
authorized for the Program, FRA may, at its discretion, provide
additional funding for phased or expended effort under existing awards.

[Project Funding Range]{.underline}

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. Prospective offerors
are advised that contract awards greater than \$500,000 will generally
require the awardee (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. Prospective offerors are
advised that contract awards greater than \$500,000 may require the
submission and certification of cost and pricing data.

[Cost Sharing]{.underline}

Although cost sharing by awardees is not mandatory under this BAA,
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 offeror will receive present or future economic
benefits beyond the instant contract/agreement as a result of the
effort.

For the purposes of this BAA, cost participation is a generic term
denoting any situation where the Government does not fully reimburse the
offeror for all allowable costs necessary to accomplish the project or
effort under the contract or other award instrument. The term
encompasses cost sharing, 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.

[Funding Mechanism for States and Local Governments]{.underline}

State or local government entities are only eligible for funding through
a cooperative agreement resulting from this Broad Agency Announcement.
The Federal government does not "contract" with a states or local
government entities.

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](http://www.grants.gov/). The term "grant" on this web
site includes cooperative agreements. Paper applications for a
cooperative agreement [will not]{.underline} 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]{.underline} the
[www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/) web site:

**First**, 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 be visiting
<https://eupdate/dnb.com>.

**Second**, the organization must be registered in the Federal
government's Central Contractor Registry (CCR) found at
[www.crr.gov](http://www.crr.gov/). Please note, CCR registration cannot
be completed without a DUNS number.

**Third**, to view grant application instructions and complete an
application, you will also need to download and install Pure Edge Viewer
available at: <http://atweb.grants.gov/DownloadViewer>. This small, free
program will allow you to access, complete, and submit electronic
applications through the secure web site.

[Funding Mechanism for Other Than States and Local
Governments]{.underline}

These can take the form of either a contract or a cooperative agreement,
depending upon the nature of a particular project and discussions
between the Federal Railroad Administration and the offerer.

To be eligible for award of a contract resulting from this solicitation,
a contractor must be registered in the Federal Government's "Central
Contractor Registration" (CCR), **[AND]{.underline}** be registered in
the Federal Government "Online Representation and Certifications
Application" (ORCA). Both of these separate registrations can be
accomplished through the following website:
[http://www.bpn.gov](http://www.bpn.gov/).

**NOTE**: When properly registered in each of these systems, the
contractor will receive an automatic acknowledgement confirming
successful registration in each system. Without such acknowledgements,
the registrations are not complete.

[Authorized Commitment From Government]{.underline}

Prospective offerors are cautioned that only the cognizant
Grants/Contracting Officers can legally commit the Government to the
expenditure of public funds under this BAA.

**[PART III - TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION AND AREAS OF
INTEREST]{.underline}**

**TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION**

Any technology forming the basis for a proposal must be capable of
application to improve the ability to operate the railroad service at
higher speed, to enhance the safety, to increase the capacity or to
boost the efficiency. This may include improvements to the railroad
capital equipment or infrastructure in train control and
dispatching/traffic control systems, or to the quality improvement of
processes and procedures of train operation. New methodologies and
analyses which can be used to improve the operation for safety, capacity
and efficiency are to be considered too. However, validation by vigorous
analysis or field tests, preferably applied to an existing system, is
expected to be a part of the project to develop new methodologies and
analyses. With the adoption of the new rule governing the Standards for
Development and Use of Processor-based Signal and Train Control Systems
final rule (PTC Rule), adopted in March 2005, FRA emphasizes the use of
safety analyses, hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation,
prior to deployment of a PTC system or its subcomponents.

The technology presented must possess the potential for performance
improvement in one or more qualities, such as 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.

FRA expects to emphasize generally mature technologies in its selection
of proposals for award, but it may give consideration to less mature,
but highly promising or unique technologies or innovations. Please note
that in general, research studies or analyses which result only in
research reports will not, for the purposes of this BAA, be of as great
of interest to FRA as those that involve actual testing, demonstration
or application of the proposed concept or technology. New methodology or
analyses which aid a developer to have a better design or to perform the
validation and verification process more thoroughly and more efficiently
need to be applied to a real system that has been deployed or to be
deployed.

**AREAS OF TECHNOLOGY INTEREST**

Technologies that are high­ priority candidates for evaluation pursuant
to this announcement include:

-   **Grade crossing hazard mitigation systems.**

-   **Positive Train Control systems**

-   **Wireless communication system**

-   **Train tracking systems**

-   **Risk assessment and hazard analysis**

-   **PTC/Communication Enabling projects**

**(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 already pursuing several research, development and
demonstration projects in this area, but continues to be interested in
all feasible technologies that will advance grade crossing safety. An
objective for all of these technologies is to provide nearly the same
security as grade separations but at much lower cost.

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 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.

\(2\) **Positive Train Control systems**

Positive Train Control (PTC) systems are implementations of an advanced
train control concept using new micro-processor based technology to
improve safety in the three areas:

-   Eliminate train to train collisions

-   Reduce over-speed derailments

-   Protect roadway workers

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

Briefly, major elements of communications-based train control systems
are:

-   position determination subsystems that automatically determine the
    exact location of a train on the rail network;

-   a computer on-board the locomotive that receives and processes
    information from the dispatch center, a central office server for a
    office centric system, wayside devices, and other sources and
    enforces operating rules;

-   digital or technologically advanced communication links between the
    train and central dispatching centers or other wayside facilities;

-   software that aids dispatchers in planning the meeting and passing
    of opposing or faster trains while assuring the safety of authorized
    train movements; and

-   capabilities that aid in the strategic planning of the rail network
    on a system scale.

FRA is already sponsoring or participating in several major
demonstration projects in the area of advanced communications-based
train control. The Incremental Train Control System (ITCS), which is now
in revenue service operation on Amtrak-owned track in Michigan, taps
into the existing signal system for status information, and then radios
the status information to each train where an onboard computer combines
the status, automatic location, and database information to inform the
engineer of safe operating conditions. The onboard computer limits the
speed and/or stops the train if unsafe operation is attempted. The
Illinois DOT Positive Train Control (IDOT PTC) Project which was managed
by the North American Joint Positive Train Control (NAJPTC) committee of
the Association of American Railroads (AAR), Illinois Department of
Transportation (IDOT), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and FRA had some
advancement in the development of a vital train control system. This
system proved to be very complex and would require substantial further
development for revenue service. The stakeholders decided to move this
development in January 2007 to TTCI, which is a better controlled
environment to develop such a system. FRA has sponsored with substantial
cost sharing on the development of Electronic Train Management System
(ETMS) on Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and Collision Avoidance
System (CAS) on Alaska Railroad. 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
complete new PTC systems. However, FRA remains interested in additional
new concepts, components and innovations that can reduce the cost of
implementing these systems.

Train control systems when coupled with management information systems
may be able to reduce congestion and increase track capacity, as well as
facilitate a number of maintenance and operational activities. Major
elements of the systems that increase the overall cost of train control
are the individual cost of small elements, such as the onboard computer
required on most of the locomotives operating in a corridor or the cost
of wayside units that determine track, switch position or the state of
some other feature and communicate this information to trains and
central or regional centers. Also critical is the amount and timeliness
of information and how this governs the communications requirements.
These technologies will be further discussed in the following sections.

**(3) Wireless Communication System**

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 from end-of-train
devices, remote controlled locomotives to the complex systems such as
PTC.

During development of ITCS and NAJPTC systems, wireless communication
has been found to be one of the weakest links in the overall
dependability of the systems. The old communication industry standard,
ATCS Spec 200, employing 900 Mhz and heavily overhead-burdened protocol,
does not provide sufficient coverage or throughput for PTC application.
While the systems were designed to be vital and fail-safe so that there
is no safety concern when communication is lost or message does not go
through, substantial train delays result because of the unreliable
communication network. Realizing that communication will be a key
element for the success of PTC deployment, FRA has sponsored a program
with Railroad Research Foundation and TTCI to define and test a "higher
performance digital radio."

PTC does not have a standard, but is defined as an implementation of
using several new technologies to achieve the safety goals stated before
to prevent train collisions, over-speed derailments and roadway worker
injuries. Therefore, there is not a standard on the communication
segment of any PTC implementation, in terms of both protocols and radio
frequencies. In terms of radio frequency, various implementations have
used the low band VHF, high band VHF and UHF, cellular and 2.4 GHz
802.11x. It is the desire of FRA, and the industry presumably, 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.

**(4) Train Tracking Systems**

It is necessary to track the locations of the trains in the PTC system
in order to determine what the correct behavior, e.g. speed, of the
train should be. There are basically two methods of tracking employed by
systems that have been deployed already: using track transponders and
using Global Positioning System (GPS) signals. Track transponders
planted in the track bed let the on-board systems know the discrete
locations of the trains. On the other hand, GPS signals give the
locations of the trains continuously. In order to perform some functions
such as train pacing or moving block operation, continuous tracking is a
must. Often, to enhance the reliability of the train tracking ability,
on-board inertial navigation systems and axle alternators are used to
supplement GPS signals. This improves the availability and accuracy of
the trains' locations. To further increase the accuracy, differential
stations are used to provide correctional factors on the GPS signals.
Some systems use the national differential GPS network operated by the
Federal government and some use their own differential stations.

Locations of the trains are important for a PTC system to enforce the
speed limits, signal and form authorities, and work zone entries.
Locations are also critical in determining the spacing of trains 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. Recently,
FRA and other agencies drive a development of high accuracy DGPS system,
which potentially provides direct train position tracking accurate
enough to be used to distinguish the track the train is on without
implementing complex software algorithm or requiring additional system.
The reduction of software complexity would in turn reduce the chances of
coding errors and therefore would increase the overall integrity of the
safety assurance. Regardless of the accuracy of the GPS scheme used, it
is important to be able to monitor the state of the tracking accuracy
and declare a failure when this accuracy is outside the safety limit the
system is designed for. Kalman filter is often used for this purpose.

**(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 Safety.

FRA Office of Railroad Development attempted to develop a comprehensive
train movement model called ASCAP, which incorporated probabilities of
incidents and failures as well as random events to predict the potential
risks and consequences, as a cooperative effort with University of
Virginia. There were mixed results of this effort. The project did
illustrate that modeling the train movements with injection of failures
and random events is perhaps an efficient way to perform risk
assessment. FRA Office of Railroad Development is currently continuing
this effort with Motion Analysis, Inc to improve upon the train movement
algorithm by building time-domain simulation of trains traversing a rail
line in time domain as if they were controlled by dispatchers. Using
equations of motion and Davis equation to predict the acceleration,
cruising, and braking of the trains, the meet and pass, switch
traversing, and speed changes can be simulated quite accurately. Any of
these events are potential exposures to hazardous incidents. The number
of exposures can be input to a fault tree analysis which is built up
with predicted probabilities. The exposures obtained from the modeling
of train movement can translate into absolute number of events. Another
possibility of using the model is to incorporate failures in some way so
that the potential number of hazardous events can be predicted by the
model itself. There can be other possible ways that the model of this
kind can be used in the overall risk assessment.

**(6) PTC/Communication Enabling Projects**

Through several years of development and demonstration, it became
obvious that in order for a PTC system to be effective, efficient and
reliable, some technical and operational information need to be better
controlled. Some other new technology or processes need also to be
developed, in order to enable PTC to be operated and functioned as
originally envisioned.

For a given train, the braking characteristics are generally difficult
to predict unless the train type, car types, light weights, loaded
tonnages, and type of airbrake equipment for each car are known and well
specified. Given this uncertainly and the requirement not to over-run
the authorities, conservative assumptions are always taken to
over-estimate the braking distance of the trains, resulting in too early
an application of penalty braking. In order to avoid penalty braking,
engineers also tend to slow down or stop the trains earlier than they
usually do. As a result, trains tend to run slower than necessarily and
sometimes stop substantially short of the target. In some previous PTC
tests, trains stopped occasionally 2000 feet in front of an intended
target for a stop. Needless to say, the efficiency of the train
operation that may affect the capacity of the line greatly suffered.

To implement the moving block operation as envisioned in the original
concept of advanced train control system, accurate braking prediction is
definitely a prerequisite. The associated problems of inaccurate train
consist information extends beyond the difficult prediction of braking
characteristics of a train. For moving block implementation, it is
obvious that the length of the train has to be accurate so that the
spacing between trains can be as close as possible without jeopardizing
safety. The potential benefit of moving block operation is very
substantial as it can greatly increase the line capacity without huge
investment in infrastructure. Therefore, demand should be placed in
research and development in accurate braking prediction and train
consist so that the full implementation of moving block operation is
possible.

Another benefit of PTC is to replace the physical infrastructure of
signal system. Some of the signal systems in various rail lines are
aging, and soon may need an overhaul or replacement. One inexpensive
alternative is to implement PTC so that it can perform the signaling
functions without the physical installations of conventional signal
controllers and interlocking devices. Such a PTC system sometimes is
termed as virtual signaling or communication based signaling. However,
using PTC to replace signaling would lack one of the functionalities of
the signal system. PTC is mainly designed to direct and control train
movements, but would not detect broken rails as a signaling system
could. The conventional signaling system with its planted track
circuits, usually about 2 miles long, can detect a broken rail based on
the discontinuity of the track circuit. The discontinuity will result in
a red or stop signal ahead of the train. In cab signal territory, the
on-board signal will flip to a restricting signal immediately to alert
the engineers of the broken rail problem. For virtual signaling without
any track circuits, this type of warnings is absent, so some other means
of detecting broken rails will need to be developed.

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.

**[PART IV - PROPOSAL CONCEPT PAPERS AND PREPARATION
INSTRUCTIONS]{.underline}**

**FUNCTION:** For the purposes of this BAA, proposal concept papers are
considered offers and should contain the offeror\'s best terms from both
a cost or price and a technical standpoint. Successful proposal concept
papers may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for award in any
ensuing contract or other award instrument as the scope of work,
statement of objectives, or work statement, or they may be used as the
basis for negotiations and subsequent award pending the submission of
any additional or supplemental information or clarification, as
requested.

**CONTENT AND FORMAT:** Proposal concept papers should be **twenty
(20)** pages or less (except as otherwise noted), in letter print no
less than 10 point type, on letter‑size paper, numbered, and fully
legible in all required copies.

Each concept should be submitted only once. An offeror's submission of
substantially the same concept (under different topical Areas of
Interest) will only be evaluated once. FRA will consider each proposal
concept paper in the topical Area of Interest identified in the BAA that
is most relevant and provides for the greatest opportunity or chance for
award.

Proposal concept paper submissions should not include promotional
brochures, advertisements, taped recordings, or other extraneous
material.

Proposal concept paper submissions must contain a [Technical Concept
Section]{.underline} and a separate [Cost or Pricing
Section]{.underline}. A separate [Past Performance Information
Section]{.underline} is also required from all offerors other than
states or local governments, or organizations of state or local
governments, or universities or institutions of higher education where
the total estimated project cost is \$100,000 or greater. A separate
[*Optional* Phased or Follow-on Section]{.underline} is required for
concepts involving phased or follow-on projects.

Offers (i.e., proposal concept papers) being pursued as cooperative
agreements, or which FRA subsequently determines should be funded
through a cooperative agreement, must include reference to appropriate
registration and application information entered through the
[www.grants.gov](http://www.grants.gov/) web site (see Funding
Mechanisms, pages 6-7).

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 Source Selection Authority.

To facilitate evaluation, proposal concept papers should fully address
the content requirements described in this subpart and be formatted as
follows:

**Section A - Technical Concept**

1\. [Title]{.underline} - Provide a working title descriptive of the
research or technology advancement project being proposed.

2\. [Applicant/Offeror]{.underline} - Provide the name, address and
telephone number, and ownership characteristics of the individual,
company, state or local government, educational institution or
non-profit organization submitting the proposal concept paper. In a
proposed cooperative arrangement, one entity, by agreement, must be
designated as the lead applicant/offeror (and prospective awardee, if
selected). (Note: Letters or statements formally attesting to a
cooperative arrangement need only be provided upon request.) The
applicant/offeror should also identify (a) the principal investigator
and/or key persons; (b) one or more authorized negotiators for the
applicant/offeror, (c) the official(s) with authority to legally bind
the applicant/offeror to the terms of any award instrument; and (d) the
participating entities in any proposed cooperative arrangement,
subcontractors, or consultants. Identification for secondary
organizations should include name and address. Identification for
individuals should include name, title or functional role, telephone
number, fax number and email address.

3\. [Capabilities]{.underline} - Describe the applicant's/offeror's
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. List or
chart team members/partner's primary functions or areas of
responsibility. Describe the applicant's/offeror's (or relevant team
members/partners') familiarity with or position in the railroad
community and access to necessary equipment or facilities. Describe the
management processes that will be put in place for monitoring and
controlling project implementation and ensuring that the triple
constraints of performance/quality, cost/budget, and timeliness/delivery
are fulfilled. For the principal investigator or key personnel (not to
exceed four persons per proposal concept paper), the applicant/offeror
should also submit a one to two page resume or curriculum vitae. (Note:
The resume or C.V. [will not]{.underline} count as part of the
recommended 20-page limit.)

4\. [Objective]{.underline} - Describe the key objective(s) and scope of
the proposed research or technology advancement project.

5\. [Potential Application]{.underline} - 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.

6\. [Maturity and Adaptation]{.underline} - Outline the current level of
maturity of the proposed technology or method and the amount or type of
development or modifications needed for high-speed rail adaptation and
demonstration. Include necessary background information and how they are
used in their current applications, and identify the area(s) of
high-speed rail application, in both hardware and performance venues.
Describe how the proposed research or technology is technically or
scientifically innovative, either in itself or in its application to
high-speed rail.

7\. [Project Description]{.underline} - Describe how the proposed
technology or method will be demonstrated. The effort should be broken
down into logical elements of work tasks and subtasks that support the
approach or plan of action to achieve key milestones or interim
objectives, and end objectives. Describe the steps/tasks/activities
necessary to achieve the desired result or successful project
completion. Identify deliverables, presentations, and demonstrations.

8\. [Test Bed]{.underline} - Outline the test requirements, environments
and methods needed to assess or demonstrate the suitability of the
technology in the railroad environment and the success of the proposed
project. **It is important to 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.** **(Note: 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 concept
paper.** Such letters or statements [will not]{.underline} count as part
of the recommended 20-page limit. Such letters or statements, if not
furnished with the initial submission, may be requested and shall be
furnished to assist in the evaluation and selection process.)

9\. [Project Duration]{.underline} - Provide a realistic schedule that
identifies and charts or tracks the target completion dates or time
parameters to accomplish key milestones or interim objectives, and end
objectives and the performance of demonstrations or presentation, or
delivery of reports, data, models or other deliverables. Include in the
schedule time required to complete any remaining development or required
modification to the technology prior to readiness for demonstration.
This should include an explanation of the relevant assumptions required
for the stated schedule. For the purposes of this BAA, projects or
phases of projects should generally be one to two years. For the
specific project or project phase being proposed (and to be funded
initially when follow-on or phased portions are proposed), include a
chart or schedule of key milestones for completion. (See Part IV,
Section D - Phased or Follow-on Research Projects, below.)

**Section B - Cost or Pricing**

The cost or pricing portion of the proposal concept paper should contain
a cost estimate for the proposed effort to allow for meaningful
evaluation and determination of price reasonableness and cost realism.
Unless and until advised otherwise, cost information submitted with the
concept paper will be considered "information other than cost or pricing
data." 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:

1\. [Labor]{.underline} - A breakdown of direct labor, by major tasks or
milestones, identifying the labor categories or individuals and
projected hours, and their associated subtotals.

2\. [Overhead and/or Fringe]{.underline} - Labor overhead and/or Fringe
rate(s) and base(s), and cost outcome.

3\. [Materials, supplies, and equipment]{.underline} - Description and
cost of materials, supplies, and equipment, to include the basis of the
cost estimate (e.g., historical data, competitive market quotes, in
house transfers, etc.). Specific mention should be made of any highly
specialized or costly test equipment or supplies needed to accomplish
the project.

4\. [Travel and transportation]{.underline} - Breakdown of travel and
transportation costs.

5\. [Subcontracts]{.underline} - 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.

6\. [ODC]{.underline} - Breakdown of other direct costs (reproduction,
computer time, consultants, etc.)

7\. [Misc.]{.underline} - 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.

8\. [General and Administrative]{.underline} - G&A rate and base, and
cost outcome.

9\. [Profit or fee]{.underline} - 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, the advanced stage of
development and reduced level of risk associated with such projects, and
the reasonable expectation that the performer will receive present or
future economic benefits beyond the instant contract/agreement as a
result of performance of the effort. However, profit or fee may be
proposed, and if proposed, subject to final negotiations, may be allowed
when the prospective offeror demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Grants/Contracting Officer that it has no commercial, production,
educational, or service activities on which to use the results of the
research and no means of recovering any cost participation (including
relinquished profit or fee) from such projects for its financial gain.
Under these circumstances, the Grants/Contracting Office may determine
(on a case-by-case basis) that cost sharing or other cost participation
does not apply, and further that fee may be applicable. The
applicant/offeror should also specifically note if profit or fee is not
sought/proposed.

10\. [Cost Sharing/Cost Participation]{.underline} - Identify extent of
cost sharing/cost participation, if any (exclusive of the
applicant's/offeror'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 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. **[Letters or statements attesting to an outside organization's
intent to furnish funding or third-party in-kind contributions or the
like should be furnished with the proposal concept paper]{.underline}.**
Such letters or statements [will not]{.underline} count as part of the
recommended 20-page limit. Such letters or statements, if not furnished
with the initial submission, may be requested and shall be furnished to
assist in the evaluation and selection process.) 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
applicant's cost share/match in a grant or cooperative agreement award.)

**Section C - Past Performance Information**

As a separately bound part of its proposal concept submission, the
offeror (excepting states or local governments or organizations of state
or local governments, or universities or institutions of higher
education) is to provide past performance information in the form of a
contract reference list and preliminary survey data for projects valued
at \$100,000 or more. (Note: The past performance information [will
not]{.underline} count as part of the recommended 20-page limit.)

Past performance information is relevant information, for source
selection purposes, regarding a contractor's actions under previously
awarded contracts. Past experience reflects ***whether*** the contractor
has performed similar work before. Past performance, on the other hand,
describes ***how well*** the contractor performed the work. Past
performance information can be one important indicator of the offeror's
ability to successfully perform a proposed contract. It includes for
example, the contractor's record of conforming to contract requirements
and to standards of good workmanship; its record of forecasting and
containing costs; its adherence to contract schedules, including the
administrative aspects of performance; its history of reasonable and
cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and its
business-like concern for the interest of the customer. It also includes
the contractor's resourcefulness in overcoming challenges that arise in
the context of contract performance.

1\. [Contract Reference List]{.underline} - The past performance
information contract reference list shall include the identification of
three (3) government (Federal, state or local) or commercial
contracts/orders (each of which has/had an aggregate value of at least
\$25,000) that the offeror\* has performed and asserts are relevant to
the subject proposal concept and 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 offeror.

> Contracts/orders advanced by the offeror should be either-
>
> \(a\) on-going contracts/orders awarded within the last 3 years and in
> which the offeror 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.

\*For the purposes of this contracting action, relevant past performance
under these contracts/orders may be that of the offeror 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.

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 offeror must ensure that points of contact, telephone numbers, etc.
for its listed contract/order references are current, complete and
accurate. Significant problems encountered in checking references
provided by the offeror will generally be considered a lack of due
diligence on the part of the offeror and may be considered in the
selection process.

> If the offeror has received fewer than 3 contract awards within the
> last 3 years having an aggregate value of a least \$25,000, the
> offeror should provide information on the number of contract awards
> available for referencing. If the offeror has not received any
> contract awards within the last 3 years having an aggregate value of a
> least \$25,000, the offeror should state that fact.

2\. [Preliminary Survey Data]{.underline} - Preliminary survey data
shall be comprised of the following-

> For each contract reference, the offeror shall complete and submit
> Part I - Administration and Part II - Relevancy/Perspective of the
> Contractor Past Performance Survey **(Appendix A)**. For **Part I** of
> the survey, the offeror will complete the identifying and
> administrative information sought for the specific contract in
> question. For **Part II**, the offeror 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
> offeror's responses for all three inquiries combined shall not exceed
> one page.

3\. As early as possible in the proposal preparation phase, offerors
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. Offerors 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.

4\. Offerors 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 offeror/contractor, may be requested of the
reference to augment or furnished in lieu of the survey or interview.

5\. 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
offeror seeking a reference, nor are they return a duplicate to the
offeror. This does not preclude the reference from advising the offeror
that a survey was completed and submitted, or an interview conducted, if
it so chooses.

6\. 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 offeror outside the Government.
However, as specified under FAR 15.306, conditions may exist in which
the offeror may be provided an opportunity to discuss adverse past
performance information on which the offeror has not had a previous
opportunity to comment.

7\. Technically acceptable proposal concept papers 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 offeror or obtained from sources other than those
identified by the offeror, and used in assessing performance risk,
making a responsibility determination, and making a best value decision.
References provided by the offeror or sources other than those
identified by the offeror 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). Offerors 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 offeror may be assessed as
an unknown performance risk and assigned a neutral performance rating.

8\. Offerors 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 offeror. The
resulting evaluation is a reflection of the degree of confidence the
Government has in the offeror's likelihood of success.

9\. Upon request, past performance information may be made available to
other Federal procurement activities. However, past performance
information about an offeror shall not be provided, without the
offeror\'s consent, to any private party, except where the agency
determines such information must be released pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act.

10\. On the rare occasion that there is no information on past contract
performance, or no relevant past performance information, the offeror'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 offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the
factor of past contract performance. This will be accomplished by
assigning the offeror(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.

**Section D - Phased or Follow-on Projects *(Optional - For
Informational Purposes Only)***

When a follow-on project phase is proposed which is beyond that project
being advanced in the proposal concept submission (for initial funding),
the applicant may include a separate, supplemental section outlining the
follow-on work or phased project activities the applicant maintains
would be necessary or beneficial to bring the research project to final
completion. A realistic cost estimate for each additional phase or
follow-on project should also be provided. Supplemental section
submissions generally should not exceed 3 - 5 pages. (Note: This 3 - 5
page summary supplement [will not]{.underline} be counted as a part of
the recommended 20-page limit.) Applicants whose projects would not
require additional phases or follow-on project activities beyond the
activity in the project being advanced in the proposal concept
submission (for initial funding), may disregard this section.

[**PART V - EVALUATION CRITERIA, EVALUATION PROCESS, AND
AWARD**S]{.underline}

**[EVALUATION CRITERIA]{.underline}**

Proposal concept papers (and other submissions, if and when requested)
will be evaluated using the following criteria, which are listed in
descending order of relative importance:

A.  **Technical Factor:**

1\. *Responsiveness to BAA Intent and Requirements*: Degree to which
proposal meets the conceptual intent and submission requirements of the
BAA.

> 2\. *Significance for Implementing High Speed Rail and Fit with FRA
> Mission*: Degree to which successful implementation of proposed idea
> would make higher speed rail more technically or economically
> practical; includes contribution to cost effectiveness, reliability,
> safety, availability, or maintainability, and fit within FRA mission.
>
> 3\. *Technical Merit*: Degree to which proposed ideas exhibit a sound
> scientific and engineering basis; how well the proposed ideas could be
> practically applied in, and would be compatible with, the railroad
> environment; perceived likelihood of technical and practical success.
>
> 4\. *Key Personnel and Supporting Organization*: The technical
> qualifications and demonstrated experience of key personnel proposed
> to lead and perform the technical efforts; qualifications of primary
> and supporting organizations to fully and successfully execute
> proposal plan within proposed time frame and budget.
>
> 5\. *Cost and Relative Value*: Affordability and degree to which
> proposed effort appears to be a good value for the amount of funding
> requested, including extent of cost sharing.
>
> **B. Cost/Price Factor:**
>
> 1\. The reasonableness and realism of the proposed costs and fee (if
> any).
>
> 2\. The extent of any proposed cost sharing/cost participation under
> the proposed effort (exclusive of the offeror's prior investment).
>
> **C. Past Performance Factor:**
>
> The extent or level of relevant corporate past performance, or
> relevant past performance by key personnel, or by subcontractors or
> parties to cooperative arrangements. (Note: 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.)

**[EVALUATION PROCESS]{.underline}:**

All materially complete proposal concept papers submitted under this BAA
will be subject to technical review in accordance with the established
evaluation criteria.

Proposal concept papers which are evaluated favorably from a technical
perspective and determined by the FRA to be consistent with the
objectives of the BAA and of interest to the Government, and in which
there are no significant or outstanding issues or areas for
clarification, will be subject to a cost review.

Technically acceptable proposal concept papers 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 offeror or obtained from sources other than those
identified by the offeror (excepting those offerors previously
identified as not being required to submit past performance
information).

Proposal concept papers which are evaluated favorably from a technical
perspective and determined by the FRA to be consistent with the
objectives of the BAA and of interest to the Government, but in which
there are outstanding issues or areas for clarification, from a
technical, cost, or past performance perspective, must be resolved
favorably before they can be advanced to each subsequent stage of
consideration. In such cases, the Grants/Contracting Officer may contact
the offeror and request additional or supplemental information or
clarification to augment the initial submissions and assist in
determining if the offer will receive further consideration.

In the case of proposal concept papers that are not evaluated favorably,
contain material deficiencies or significant weaknesses, or are
otherwise deemed unacceptable from a technical perspective, or that are
not consistent with the objectives of the BAA or not of interest to the
Government, proposers will not be afforded further opportunity to submit
proposal information or revisions, will not be subject to cost or past
performance review, and will be rejected/declined.

**[AWARDS]{.underline}:**

An offer must be found acceptable under all applicable 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, 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.

Awards will be made to those responsible offerors whose offers provide
the best value to the Government, in terms of technical excellence, cost
or price, and performance risk (as applicable), 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. Awards may take the form of contracts,
grants or cooperative agreements.

Contracts will be used when the principal purpose is the acquisition of
supplies or services (including research and development) for the direct
benefit or use of the Federal Government.

-   It is anticipated that most contracts resulting from this BAA will
    be cost-reimbursement type contracts (i.e., cost, cost-sharing, or
    cost-plus-fixed-fee). These types of contracts permit reimbursement
    of the actual cost of performing the contracted work, and may or may
    not allow for profit or fee. 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. Some contracts resulting from this BAA
    may be awarded on a fixed-price basis (e.g., firm-fixed price
    completion, or firm-fixed-price level-of-effort term contracts).
    Fixed-price contracts are used when the work effort can be estimated
    accurately and the services to be rendered are reasonably definite.
    Other contract types, as described in FAR Part 16, may also be used.

-   To the maximum extent practicable, the Government will structure
    contracts awarded under the BAA using "Performance‑based
    contracting" methods. As described in FAR Part 37.6,
    performance‑based contracting methods are intended to ensure that
    required performance quality levels are achieved and that total
    payment is related to the degree that services performed meet
    contract standards. Performance‑based contracts --

a)  Describe the requirements in terms of results required rather than
    the methods of performance of the work;

b)  Use measurable performance standards (i.e., terms of quality,
    timeliness, quantity, etc.) and quality assurance surveillance
    plans;

c)  Specify procedures for reductions of fee or for reductions to the
    price of a fixed‑price contract when services are not performed or
    do not meet contract requirements; and

d)  Include performance incentives where appropriate.

-   Because of the broad range and diversity of activities that may be
    proposed under the BAA, it 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 actual offeror will be engaged,
    and as a function of the ownership characteristics of the
    prospective offeror.

> Grants or cooperative agreements will be used when the principal
> purpose of the transaction is to stimulate or support research and
> development for public purposes.
>
> 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.

-   Offers (i.e., proposal concept papers) being pursued as (or which
    are subsequently determined by FRA as) Federal financial assistance
    (e.g., grants or cooperative agreements), must be accompanied by the
    appropriate application forms.

Applicants may include in their submissions for consideration 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. 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. Prospective
offerors are cautioned that only the Grants/Contracting Officer can
legally commit the Government to the expenditure of public funds under
this BAA.

**[PART VI - MISCELLANEOUS]{.underline}**

**Cautionary Note!** - Prospective offerors are cautioned that the
proposal concept paper may contain data the offeror does not want
disclosed to the public for any purpose, or used by the Government
except for evaluation purposes. If the offeror wishes to restrict such
data, the title page 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 offeror 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 *\[insert
> numbers or other identification of sheets\]*.

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.

**Terms and Conditions** - Awards will generally contain, where
appropriate, detailed provisions concerning patent rights, rights in
technical data and computer software, data reporting requirements, and
other terms and conditions which will be negotiated as part of the award
process.

**Deliverables, Presentations and Demonstrations** - Any specific
deliverables (e.g., hardware, models, data, etc.), presentations, and/or
demonstrations to be provided or conducted during the course of, or at
the conclusion of an awarded contract, will largely be a function of
that presented in the offeror's proposal concept submission or as
negotiated at time of award and specified in the resulting contract.

**Reporting Requirements** - The number and types of reports will be
specified in individual award documents. Progress, and interim, draft
and/or final reports will be prepared and submitted in accordance with
FRA reporting requirements, which will be provided with the award
documents.

**Internet Sites of Interest for Contracting with the**

**Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration**

U.S. Department of Transportation

Acquisition and Grants Home Page

[http://www.dot.gov/ost/m60/]{.underline}

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Acquisition and Grants Services

<http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/389>

U.S. Small Business Administration

<http://www.sba.gov/>

DOT Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

[http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/]{.underline}

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

[http://www.arnet.gov/far]{.underline}

Dun and Bradstreet website for US Federal Government Contractors and
Grantees

<http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform/displayHomePage.do;jsessionid=D80E2768FDD0F82A61734ABE7D589202>

U.S. Government Central Contractor Registration (CCR) (mandatory for
contracting with Federal agencies)

<http://www.ccr.gov/>

U.S. Government Online Representations and Certifications Application
(ORCA) (mandatory for contracting with Federal agencies)

<https://orca.bpn.gov/>

U.S. Government Federal Business Opportunities (contracting)

[http://www.fedbizopps.gov/]{.underline}

US Government Grant Opportunities

<http://www.grants.gov/>

Office of Management and Budget Grants Management (Circulars/Forms)

[http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/]{.underline}

# PROPOSAL CONCEPT PAPER

# Content Summary Recap

*(The BAA-2009-1 Package must be read in its entirety. The following is
for illustration purposes only.*)

Section A - Technical Concept\*

Title; Applicant/Offeror; Capabilities; Objective; Potential
Application; Maturity and Adaptation; Test Bed; Project Description; and
Project Duration.

Section B - Cost or Price\*

Labor; Overhead/Fringe; Materials, Supplies and Equipment; Travel and
Transportation; Subcontracts; Other Direct Cost (ODC); Miscellaneous;
G&A, Profit or Fee (if any); and Cost Sharing/Cost Participation.

**[Section C - Past Performance Information]{.underline}** (N/A to State
or Local Govt. or Univ.)

For projects \$100K or more, the Offeror completes Appendix ASurvey Part
1 & Part 2 for each of 3 relevant contract references. Does not count in
20-page limit.

[**Section D** - **Phased or Follow-on Work**]{.underline}

Optional Section not to exceed 3 - 5 pages. Do not furnish if project
does not entail phased or follow-on work. Does not count in 20-page
limit.

**[Resumes/C.V.s]{.underline}**

1 to 2 pages per Key Person. Not to exceed 3 persons per concept paper.

Does not count in 20-page limit.

**[Outside Support]{.underline}**

Statements or letters of commitment from 3^rd^ parties to support
activities or share in project costs should be furnished or made
available upon request. Does not count in 20-page limit.

**[Application for Federal Financial Assistance]{.underline}**

Offerors seeking to enter into a grant or cooperative agreement (usually
States) must submit appropriate application forms. Otherwise disregard.
Does not count in 20-page limit.

**\*Section A + Section B [\<]{.underline} 20 pages**

**[PART VII - SUBMISSION]{.underline}**

In preparing proposal concept paper for submission to the FRA, offerors
are reminded to carefully read this entire BAA and to comply with all
content and format requirements.

For identification purposes, submissions should reference the BAA number
and title

(BAA-2009-1 - Funds Availability for Research Projects and Technology
Advancements For FRA Research and Development Program) on the outer
packaging and on the submission itself.

Offerors shall submit

-   An original and four (i.e., a total of five) paper copies of each
    proposal concept paper and related materials; and

Offerors shall submit proposal concept paper and related materials via
regular U.S. mail or express delivery to the following address:

> Federal Railroad Administration

Attention: Robert Carpenter

Office of Acquisition and Grants Services,

West Building, Room W34-302

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

**Note: Neither facsimile nor other electronic
submissions/applications/offers are authorized.**

**Submissions that are incomplete or materially lacking, pursuant to the
instructions in the BAA 2009-1 Package, may be returned unevaluated, or
evaluated as is, without further opportunity for revision, at the
discretion of the Source Selection Authority.**

**Appendix A**

**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) 2009-1"** for which the prospective                |
| offeror/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 offeror/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                 |
| offeror/applicant. The evaluator/respondent should mail or FAX Part   |
| III directly to: Federal Railroad Administration, Office of           |
| Acquisition & Grants Services, Room W34-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,  |
| SE, Washington, DC 20590. FAX to 202/493-6171.** If you have any      |
| questions, please contact Robert Carpenter, Tel: 202/493-6153, Email: |
| [:Robert.Carpenter@dot.gov](mailto:Robert.Carpenter@dot.gov); or      |
| Jeanette Hernandez-Guilleaume, Tel: 202/493-6149, Email:              |
| <jeanette.hernandez-guilleaume@dot.gov>.                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**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*.                                   |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**PART I - ADMINISTRATION -- Contractor Past Performance Survey**

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

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Name of Agency/Business           |                                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| Reference Conducting Assessment:  |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Name of Offeror/Applicant Making  | Name of Organization/Person To    |
| Submission                        | Whom Reference Applies If Other   |
|                                   | Than Offeror/Applicant:           |
| Under **BAA-2009-1**:             |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  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                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**PART II - RELEVANCY/PERSPECTIVE -- Contractor Past Performance
Survey**

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

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| For Part II, the      |                       |                       |
| offeror 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       |                       |                       |
| offeror=s responses   |                       |                       |
| for all three         |                       |                       |
| inquiries combined    |                       |                       |
| shall not exceed one  |                       |                       |
| page.                 |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Description of      | **Relevancy:**        | **Problem Resolution  |
| Prior Contract        | Describe how the      | and Quality Honors:** |
| Services:** Provide a | referenced contract   | The offeror may       |
| short description of  | evaluated herein is   | describe problems     |
| supplies/services the | relevant (in terms of | encountered in the    |
| offeror furnished in  | scope, magnitude,     | identified contract   |
| the referenced        | cost, human           | and the demonstrated  |
| contract evaluated    | resources, or other   | effectiveness of the  |
| herein.               | aspects) to the       | offeror=s corrective  |
|                       | research project,     | actions. Identify any |
| *(Recommend 5 -10     | technology            | Federal Government    |
| lines.)*              | advancement and/or    | contracts/orders, of  |
|                       | demonstration being   | any type, at any      |
|                       | proposed in the       | dollar value, held by |
|                       | offeror=s proposal    | the offeror which     |
|                       | concept paper         | were terminated for   |
|                       | submitted. Identify   | cause or for default  |
|                       | whether the offeror   | (partial or complete) |
|                       | was the prime         | within the past three |
|                       | contractor or a major | (3) years and         |
|                       | subcontractor (in     | subsequent corrective |
|                       | terms of total        | action. The offeror   |
|                       | contract cost, 25% or | may also describe any |
|                       | more), or served in   | specific quality      |
|                       | some other            | awards or quality     |
|                       | capacity/role or      | certifications        |
|                       | relationship. Provide | received in           |
|                       | name, point of        | connection with the   |
|                       | contact and phone     | referenced contract.  |
|                       | number of prime       |                       |
|                       | contractor, if other  | *(Recommend 15 -20    |
|                       | than offeror.         | lines.)*              |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | *(Recommend 20 -25    |                       |
|                       | lines.)*              |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**BAA-2009-1**

**S O U R C E S E L E C T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N**

The disclosure of which is restricted. See FAR 3.104

***NOTE:*** **[Do not return or furnished a copy of this Part III to the
subject offeror/applicant]{.underline}**. The evaluator/respondent
should complete this part and **mail or FAX it directly to FRA, Office
of Acquisition & Grants Services, Room W34-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE, Washington, DC 20590. FAX number: 202/493-6171.** If you have any
questions, please contact Robert Carpenter, TEL: 202/493-6153, Email:
<robert.carpenter@dot.gov> ; or Jeanette Hernandez-Guilleaume, TEL:
202/493-6149, e-mail: <jeanette.hernandez-guilleaume@dot.gov>.

**PART III - EVALUATOR/RESPONDENT=S ASSESSMENT**

*(To be completed and signed by refererred Evaluator/Respondent for
**BAA-2009-1**)*

Contractor: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Contract No.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**1. Quality of Product or Service** - The offeror 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 | \[ \] yes -   |
| contract requirements or specifications?             | \[ \] no - \[ |
|                                                      | \] n/a        |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Were the services/tasks performed and/or             | \[ \] yes -   |
| deliverables furnished in conformance with standards | \[ \] no - \[ |
| of good workmanship and otherwise acceptable?        | \] n/a        |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

  ----------------- ---------------- ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------
  QUALITY OF        Corresponding                                           
  PRODUCT/SERVICE   Adjectival &                                            
                    Numerical                                               
                    Ratings *(Circle                                        
                    one)*                                                   

                    Unsatisfactory   Marginal    Satisfactory   Very Good   Exceptional

                    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.*          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**2. Timeliness of Performance** - The offeror 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   | \[ \] yes -   |
| on or before the time/event specified in or agreed   | \[ \] no - \[ |
| to pursuant to the contract?                         | \] n/a        |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Were contract schedules consistently met and adhered | \[ \] yes -   |
| to, and were timely adjustments made in response to  | \[ \] no - \[ |
| technical direction so as to stay on agreed          | \] n/a        |
| schedule(s)?                                         |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

  -------------- ---------------- ----------- -------------- ----------- -------------
  TIMELINESS OF  Corresponding                                           
  PERFORMANCE    Adjectival &                                            
                 Numerical                                               
                 Ratings *(Circle                                        
                 one)*                                                   

                 Unsatisfactory   Marginal    Satisfactory   Very Good   Exceptional

                 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.*          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

Contractor: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Contract No.
[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

**3. Cost Control** - The offeror 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 | \[ \] yes -   |
| the stated, fixed price?                             | \[ \] no - \[ |
|                                                      | \] n/a        |
|                                                      |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Were actual cost expenditures reported by the        | \[ \] yes -   |
| contractor generally in line with projected costs    | \[ \] no - \[ |
| (including approved shifts in effort) for designated | \] n/a        |
| time frames or specific supplies/services?           |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

+-------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| COST        | Corre    |          |          |          |          |
|             | sponding |          |          |          |          |
| CONTROL     | Ad       |          |          |          |          |
|             | jectival |          |          |          |          |
|             | &        |          |          |          |          |
|             | N        |          |          |          |          |
|             | umerical |          |          |          |          |
|             | Ratings  |          |          |          |          |
|             | *(Circle |          |          |          |          |
|             | one)*    |          |          |          |          |
+-------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|             | Unsati   | Marginal | Sati     | Very     | Exc      |
|             | sfactory |          | sfactory | Good     | eptional |
+-------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|             | 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.*          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**4. Business Relations** - The offeror 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  | \[ \] yes -   |
| the contractor commit adequate resources to meet     | \[ \] no - \[ |
| contract requirements or otherwise provide effective | \] n/a        |
| solutions to solve problems as they arose?           |               |
|                                                      | *(Check one)* |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
| Would you recommend or elect to contract with this   | \[ \] yes -   |
| contractor for future work of the same or            | \[ \] no - \[ |
| substantially similar nature as that conducted under | \] n/a        |
| the contract evaluated in this survey?               |               |
|                                                      | \[ \] n/a to  |
|                                                      | assessment    |
|                                                      | period        |
+------------------------------------------------------+---------------+

+-------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
| BUSINESS    | Corre    |          |          |          |          |
|             | sponding |          |          |          |          |
| RELATIONS   | Ad       |          |          |          |          |
|             | jectival |          |          |          |          |
|             | &        |          |          |          |          |
|             | N        |          |          |          |          |
|             | umerical |          |          |          |          |
|             | Ratings  |          |          |          |          |
|             | *(Circle |          |          |          |          |
|             | one)*    |          |          |          |          |
+-------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|             | Unsati   | Marginal | Sati     | Very     | Exc      |
|             | sfactory |          | sfactory | Good     | eptional |
+-------------+----------+----------+----------+----------+----------+
|             | 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.*          |
|                                                                       |
| **BAA-2009-1**                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**5. Evaluator's Identification/Signature**

Contractor: [\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} 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 Evaluator/Respondent. Otherwise leave blank.)*

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of Interviewer:

  Telephone No. Fax No. Email Address:

  Signature: Date of Interview:
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

**BAA-2009-1**

**S O U R C E S E L E C T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N**

The disclosure of which is restricted. See FAR 3.104