|Lead Organization:||Federal Highway Administration|
|Partners:||IADOT, MI, MS, NY, PADOT, VA|
|Est. Completion Date:||Jun 30, 2012|
|Last Updated:||May 11, 2015|
|Contract End Date:|
|Total Commitments Received:||$445,000.00|
|100% SP&R Approval:||Approved|
|Organization||Year||Commitments||Technical Contact Name||Funding Contact Name||Contact Number||Email Address|
|Iowa Department of Transportation||2008||$25,000.00||Todd Hanson||Cheryl Cowie||515-239-1447||Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us|
|Iowa Department of Transportation||2009||$25,000.00||Todd Hanson||Cheryl Cowie||515-239-1447||Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us|
|Iowa Department of Transportation||2010||$25,000.00||Todd Hanson||Cheryl Cowie||515-239-1447||Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us|
|Iowa Department of Transportation||2011||$25,000.00||Todd Hanson||Cheryl Cowie||515-239-1447||Cheryl.Cowie@iowadot.us|
|Michigan Department of Transportation||2008||$25,000.00||John Staton||Andre' Cloverfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Michigan Department of Transportation||2009||$25,000.00||John Staton||Andre' Cloveremail@example.com|
|Michigan Department of Transportation||2010||$25,000.00||John Staton||Andre' Cloverfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Michigan Department of Transportation||2011||$25,000.00||John Staton||Andre' Cloveremail@example.com|
|Mississippi Department of Transportation||2009||$25,000.00||James Watkins||James Watkinsfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|New York State Department of Transportation||2008||$25,000.00||Gary Frederick||Gary Frederickemail@example.com|
|New York State Department of Transportation||2009||$25,000.00||Gary Frederick||Gary Frederickfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|New York State Department of Transportation||2010||$25,000.00||Gary Frederick||Gary Frederickemail@example.com|
|New York State Department of Transportation||2011||$25,000.00||Gary Frederick||Gary Frederickfirstname.lastname@example.org|
|Pennsylvania Department of Transportation||2008||$25,000.00||Steve Koser||Lisa Tarson||(717) email@example.com|
|Pennsylvania Department of Transportation||2009||$25,000.00||Steve Koser||Lisa Tarson||(717) firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Pennsylvania Department of Transportation||2010||$25,000.00||Steve Koser||Lisa Tarson||(717) email@example.com|
|Pennsylvania Department of Transportation||2011||$25,000.00||Steve Koser||Lisa Tarson||(717) firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Virginia Department of Transportation||2008||$5,000.00||Celik Ozyildirim||Bill Kelsh||434-293-1934||Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov|
|Virginia Department of Transportation||2009||$5,000.00||Celik Ozyildirim||Bill Kelsh||434-293-1934||Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov|
|Virginia Department of Transportation||2010||$5,000.00||Celik Ozyildirim||Bill Kelsh||434-293-1934||Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov|
|Virginia Department of Transportation||2011||$5,000.00||Celik Ozyildirim||Bill Kelsh||434-293-1934||Bill.Kelsh@VDOT.Virginia.gov|
In March 2005, Iowa State University completed work under a cooperative agreement with FHWA to develop a Long-Term Plan for Concrete Pavement Research and Technology (www.cproadmap.org/). A comprehensive, strategic plan, called the CP Road Map, was created with the full backing and participation of the concrete pavement industry, State DOTs, FHWA, and academia. In that sense, it is the concrete pavement community research plan.
The CP Road Map is strategic in that it guides the investment of concrete pavement research dollars toward the development of specific technologies and systems identified by stakeholders as critical for accomplishing customer-driven goals. It is comprehensive in that it helps the concrete pavement community meet today& paving needs and tomorrow pavement challenges.
Composed of integrated research tracks, with more than 250 research problem statements, the CP Road Map is not itself a funded program. Instead, it provides a collaborative management structure for existing local, State, and national concrete pavement research programs to focus their investments (about $300 million over 10 years) on stakeholder-identified priorities.
The CP Road Map collaborative management structure consists of four groups:
1. The Executive Committee: representatives from the three major interest groups¿Federal and State agencies and industry. It is primarily a decision- and policy-making group.
2. Sustaining Organizations: funders/sponsors of research and/or those who conduct specific elements of the research, generally through collaborative partnerships.
3. Track Team Leaders: individuals and organizations that collaborate to guide the conduct of each track.
4. Operations Support Group: paid, professional management support services to the Executive Committee and, to some degree, the Track Team Leaders. The group implements the Executive Committees decisions and acts as the committee hands and feet in fulfilling its responsibilities to foster collaborative partnerships and community-wide communications, prioritize tracks and organize Track Team Leaders, promote innovative and cross-track technology transfer activities, and serve as Track Team Leader for Track 11, business and economic initiatives.
This management structure is unique. With no dedicated source of funds, it broadly outlines a research funding approach by which sponsors collaborate to coordinate existing funding.
While this management structure does not interfere with the independence of various research programs, it asks them to embrace the value of working with possible competitors and to devote resources to goals identified by the broader community. And it requires new tools to overcome institutional and other barriers to inter-organizational collaboration.
The potential benefits of this collaborative management structure are significant:
- Ability to fund major research that is too expensive for any one organization or program.
- A strategic, proactive approach to optimizing pavements of the future that goes beyond knee-jerk reactions to existing challenges.
- Less duplication of effort across the country.
- Faster and broader implementation of results.
- Less waste.
The degree to which stakeholders experience these benefits, however, depends largely on the degree to which they fund the necessary operations support services. The FHWA has hired the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center (CP Tech Center) at Iowa State University as the Operations Support Group.
Through this solicitation, FHWA and industry are seeking partner State departments of transportation (DOTs) to share the cost of operations support services. Continued FHWA funding is, to some degree, contingent on industry and States sharing the burden. Industry has committed to participating as described briefly in the full length proposal (see link at the bottom of this solicitation) and also has the flexibility to provide some special-needs funds.
By participating in this pooled fund, State DOTs will help ensure that Federal support continues. They will also demonstrate their own commitment to ensuring that the CP Road Maps groundbreaking approach to research will succeed and that they will be able to reap its potential benefits.
The Operations Support Group tasks, generally defined in the CP Road Map report (www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pccp/pubs/05052/index.cfm), have been more specifically defined through the CP Tech Center contract and task orders with FHWA. The tasks that may be pursued, subject to funding availability and concurrence of the participating agencies, generally fall into three categories, as shown in table 1.
In addition to general tasks outlined in table 1, every other month the Operations Support Group will provide a briefing and collect feedback by teleconference with FHWA and the pooled-fund TAC (or its board). Minutes will be recorded, sent to all via e-mail, and posted on the website (www.cproadmap.org/).
State agencies participating in the Road Map will benefit from all categories of operations support. However, participating States will most directly benefit from tasks that support organizing, funding, and/or conducting research at the track, subtrack, and project level, as well as core tasks like communications, the Help Desk, and collaborations facilitation, to the extent that those tasks are funded.
Table 1. General Operations Support Group Activities/Example Tasks
- Coordinate and facilitate Executive Committee leadership and oversight activities and decisions
- Oversee track- and project-level budgets
- Provide detailed financial and progress reports as described under Reporting, below
- Inspire and facilitate stakeholders; support for and active participation in the CP Road Map
- Champion the CP Road Map to stakeholders and the public
Core support elements:
- Develop and maintain (through at least annual surveys) the research database that composes the Road Map tracks and update the Road Map as research gaps are filled
- Facilitate ad hoc and/or longer term collaborations for funding and/or conducting research, assisting in the development of tools that make inter-organizational collaborations possible
- Develop and maintain project management system for tracking project tasks, coordinating and integrating research across tracks and across projects as appropriate, broadly disseminating products of research, etc.
- Staff an expert "Help Desk" to provide one-on-one assistance to stakeholders as needed
- Support communications within and among tracks and to all stakeholders and other audiences through an interactive website, targeted publications, e-newsletters, etc.
- Organize and support track and subtrack leadership
- Develop detailed research framework for each track, identifying priority needs, timeframes, potential funding partners and/or mechanisms, etc.
- Plan, coordinate, and facilitate track leader; meetings (face-to-face and teleconference)
- Annually revisit track priorities
$300,000 total per year from States SP&R (This funding will be combined with FHWA and industry support as outlined in the solicitation.)
$25,000 per year per State is recommended. (Work can begin as soon as annual State commitments total at least $100,000 and will expand as additional States join and/or commitments are made.)
|Final Report Volume I||CP Roadmap Volume I - Final.pdf||Final Report||Public|
|final Report Volume II||CP Roadmap Volume II Final.pdf||Final Report||Public|
|Technical Completion Memo||Technical Completion Technical Completion Statement for DTFH61-06-D-00023.pdf||Memorandum||Public|
|TPF-5(185) Closeout Letter||TPF-5(185) Close out Memo - Signed.pdf||Memorandum||Public|
|TPF-5(185) Closeout Funding Spreadsheet||TPF-5(185) Closeout Funding Spreadsheet.pdf||Other||Public|
|Quarterly report: 10/1/08 - 12/31/08||Quarterly_Report_2008-12-31.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly report: 1/1/09 - 3/31/09||Quarterly_Report_2009-03-31.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly report: 4/1/2009 - 6/30/2009||Quarterly_Report_2009-06-30.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly Report: 7/1/2009 - 9/30/2009||Quarterly_Report_2009-09-30.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly Report: 10/1/2009 - 12/31/2009||Quarterly_Report_2009-12-31.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly report: 1/1/10 - 3/31/10||Road Map_March_10.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly report: July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010||CPRoadMapSept10.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly Report: 10/1/2010 - 12/31/2010||CPRoadMapQuarterlyReportOctthruDec2010.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly Report: - 1/1/2011 - 3-31-2011||CPRoadMapQuarterlyReportJantoMar2011.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly Report: 04/01/2011 - 06/30/2011||CPRoadMapQuarterlyReportAprtoJun2011.pdf||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|Quarterly Report: July-September||TPF-5(185) CP Road Map Quarterly Report HARRINGTON.docx||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|October-December 2011||CP Road Map TO5 HARRINGTON.dotx||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|January - March 2012||TPF-5(185) CP Road Map TO5 Jan-Mar 2012.docx||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|
|April - June 2012||CP Road Map TO5.docx||Quarterly Progress Report||Public|