RAC/CUTC PARTNERSHIPS

A survey was conducted in April 2011 on RAC/CUTC Partnerships. Two slightly different surveys were created: one for RAC members and one for CUTC members. This summary along with thesurveys, results, and sample agreements can be viewed at ftp://ftp.mdt.mt.gov/research/OTHER/RAC-CUTC_SURVEYS/.

Thirty-five states responded to the DOT survey, one of which did not indicate the responding state, and include:

1

Alaska

Arizona

California

Colorado

Georgia

Hawaii

Iowa

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

1

Twenty-six CUTC members responded, two of which didnot indicate the responding university, and include:

1

Georgia Institute of Technology

Iowa State University

Jackson State University

Kansas State University

Michigan Technological University

Montana State University

Morgan State University

Oklahoma State University

Oregon Transportation Research and Education Consortium (OTREC)

Pennsylvania State University

Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey

San Jose State University

University of Alabama, Birmingham

University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa

University of California, Davis

University of Memphis

University of Minnesota

University of Nevada, Reno

University of Tennessee

University of Texas, Austin

Utah State University

University of Vermont

University of Washington

University of Wisconsin

1

The survey summary is found on pages two through four. The remainder of this report consists of appendices which contain answers to open ended questions and comments. For each question, as appropriate, there are links between the summary and appendices.

Question 1: State DOTs and Universities were asked about the type of activities that are conducted jointly (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Activity / State DOT / CUTC
Research Projects / 28 / 24
Cross Membership on Committees or Advisory Boards / 25 / 20
Joint Meetings/Workshops / 20 / 22
Development of Research Ideas / 18 / 20
Workforce Development / 13 / 19
Manage LTAP / 12 / 9
Provide Continuing Education / 13 / 16
Other / 10 / 5

Table 1: Activities Conducted Jointly Among State DOTs and CUTC Members.

Responses to the “Other” category are in Appendix 1.

Question 2: State DOTs were asked whether they have formal agreements withuniversity-based transportation centers. Similarly, CUTC members were asked whether they have formal agreements with state DOTs (Table 2).

Agreements / State DOTs / CUTC
In state / 15 / 17
Out of State / 2 / 0
Both / 9 / 4
None / 9 / 3

Table 2: Formal Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members.

Comments regarding this question are in Appendix 2.

Question 3: State DOTs and CUTC members asked about the types of agreements they have with one another (Table 3).

Agreement Type / State DOT / CUTC
Master Agreements w/ Project-Specific Task Agreements / 19 / 12
Project specific agreements only / 10 / 12
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) / 6 / 7
Grants / 2 / 5
Don’t Have Agreements / 6 / 1
Other / 4 / 3

Table 3: Types of Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members.

Responses to the “Other” category are in Appendix 3.

Question 4: This question asked how research activities are funded through these agreements (Table 4).

Payment / State DOT / CUTC
As a Lump Sum / 5 / 6
Project by Project / 25 / 21
Don’t Have Agreements / 5 / 1
Other / 4 / 0

Table 4: Payment for Agreements among State DOTs and CUTC Members.

Responses to the “Other” category are in Appendix 4.

Question 5: This question asked whether state DOTs were required to provide match for their CUTC member (Table 5).

Match Required? / State DOT / CUTC
Yes / 9 / 4
No / 26 / 20

Table 5: Match Requirements

Comments for this question are in Appendix 5.

Question 6: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked to identify the agencies/organizations with which they have agreements. In addition, they were asked to identify each agreement and to elaborate on the purpose and terms of the agreements. These responses are in Appendix 6.

Question 7: Thisquestion asked if the agreement process works well (Table 6).

Agreement Process Works Well? / State DOT / CUTC
Yes / 19 / 15
No / 0 / 0
Sometimes / 9 / 7
Don’t Have Agreements / 7 / 2

Table 6: Agreement Process.

Comments to this question are n Appendix 7.

Question 8: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked about barriers to developing agreements with their in-state counterpart, ifapplicable. Responses are in Appendix 8.

Question 9: State DOTs were asked about barriers in developing agreements with out-of-state universities (Table 7).

Barriers to Developing Out-of-State Agreements / State DOT
State Law ProhibitsContracting with Out-of-State Agencies/Organizations / 0
State Policy / 0
Cost Considerations / 0
No Need / 16
Other / 7

Table 7: Barriers to Developing Agreements with Out-of-State Universities.

See Appendix 9: Response to the “Other” Category Regarding Barriers Affecting State DOTs’ Ability to Contract with Universities in Other Statesfor responses to the “Other” category.

Question 10: State DOTs and CUTC members were asked to list the criteria for developing successful partnerships. The top ten responses are listed below. All responses are in Appendix 10: Criteria for Successful Partnerships.

  1. Each partner must clearly understand the other’s culture, mission, goals, objectives, and schedules.
  2. The partnership must be beneficial for all partners; it must address both current priority needs of the DOT and the academic and business goals of the university.
  3. There must be a good working relationship among the partners based on trust, confidence, and respect.
  4. There must be clear expectations and accountability for all partners, based on precise problem statements, scopes of work, contracts, and deliverables.
  5. There must be effective, ongoing communication among the partners.
  6. There must be a willingness on all sides to contribute to the partnership (e.g., funds, expertise, equipment, time), creating incentives for all partners.
  7. All partners must have strong leaders who serve as champions for the partnership.
  8. The research must not be overburdened by administrative requirements.
  9. There must be a collaborative process to identify research needs and select projects.
  10. A good partnership among organizations begins with good relationships among individuals.

Question 11: State DOT and CUTC members were asked to rate each partnership on a scale of 1 (low) to10 (high). Responses are listed in Appendix 11: Partnership Rating (1=low and 10=high).

Question 12:The last question asked if the respondents were willing to provide additional information for case studies (Table 8).

Willing to Participate in Case Studies / State DOT / CUTC
Yes / 22 / 18
No / 5 / 1
Maybe / 8 / 5

Table 8: Willingness to Participate in the Development of Case Studies

1

Appendix 1: Responses to the “Other” Category Regarding the Types of Activities Conducted Jointly Among State DOTs and CUTC Members

See Table 1: Activities Conducted Jointly Among State DOTs and CUTC Members. for summary.

State DOT responses

We nominally serve on an oversight committee.

However, we do all of these things with the seven universities in the state that have colleges or schools of engineering. They each have a seat on the LTRC Policy Committee which acts in an advisory capacity to the LTRC Director.

MassDOT has very vigorous interaction with the University of Massachusetts (UMass) system.Within the UMass system, UMass Amherst is a Tier II UTC.I sit on the UMass Amherst UTC Advisory Committee.I am not clear where the dividing line between contracting with the UMass UTC and UMass System lies.MassDOT contracts with the Universities in the UMass System for various research projects.MassDOT contracts separately with UMass Amherst for research projects, LTAP (the Baystate Roads Program in MA), the Massachusetts Technical Assistance Program (this supports technical training and technology transfer activities for MassDOT employees), and for Transportation Planning activities.

We only solicit needs from internal customers but considering allowing universities to submit needs as well.

Our joint program is relatively new.The workforce and continuing education options are certainly possibilities for the future, although we do already have a department-wide internship program and staff pursuing advanced degrees.

We had more common activities w/ previous versions of UTC, but not w/ the current UTC.LTAP is managed by a university based institute, but not the UTC, although some of the people are the same. Continuing education and training situations are also similar.

Hawaii DOT has a partnership with the University of Hawaii System, which includes all the community colleges.

None.

We annually conduct a research forum, which university researchers are invited to attend and conduct university visits annually to present and discuss research needs.

Manual development, project consulting (mostly through the UW Madison Construction Materials Support Center), research program support staff.

Share a communication specialist.

CUTC Responses:

Our University also manages a TTAP program.

Conferences, Outreach Programs, Stakeholder Engagement Activities.

Fellowship exchange ProgramsEvent sponsorship.

The OkTC funds projects with LTAP and TTAP.

Joint appointments (university employees working on site for WisDOT).

Appendix 2: Comments Regarding Formal Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members

See Table 2: Formal Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members. for summary.

State DOTs

We have master agreements with each of the seven universities on the LTRC Policy Committee.

Not as a state DOT and UTC. Rather, as a state DOT and state university.

These are agreements for specific projects.

We have only one university involved (University of Rhode Island (URI)) with one UTC (URI Transportation Center (URITC)).

We have master agreements with instate and out-of-state universities, all institutes and centers operate under the respective university agreements.

We have a master agreement with the University of Idaho, which has a UTC called the National Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology (NIATT).We have similar agreements with two other Idaho universities that do not have a UTC or transportation center.We use task orders under the umbrella of these master agreements when initiating individual research projects.We also have project specific agreements with university-based transportation centers in Montana (WTI at Montana State) and Washington (TRAC or TRANSNOW at WSU).Finally, we are part of a 5-state consortium comprised of the state DOTs and UTCs in Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.This group meets annually, has bi-monthly teleconferences, and collaborates in a variety of ways.There is an MOU for this group, which is called the Region X Transportation Consortium.

No formal agreement but we do contract on project by project basis.

We have completed only one project with out of state UTC. There are no in-state UTC's in Maine

Missouri has one Out-of-State University formal agreement through a pooled fund that we are the lead state.

GTI-UTC,Georgia Transportation Institute – UTC.

Our UTC contains Universities that are in and out of state.

Yes, however, our agreement between PennDOT and the Penn State University-led Mid Atlantic Universities Transportation Center (MAUTC) is currently expired.

CUTC Responses:

The Center that the UTC is housed in has a formal agreement with the state DOT, but the UTC does not have a formal agreement.

MOU for Region X Consortium of UTCs and state DOTs.

A subcontract is being considered with another DOT but funding is not in place yet.The other DOT would provide data analysis services.

Appendix 3: Responses to the “Other” Category in Regards to the Types of Agreements State DOTs and CUTC Members have with One Another

See Table 3: Types of Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members. for summary.

State DOT responses:

We have a very loose agreement with Nextrans; not so much a memorandum of understanding as a letter offering minimal support.

With seven universities on LTRC Policy Committee.

Not as a state DOT and UTC. Rather, as a state DOT and state university.

Except for the one MOU with the Region X Consortium, our agreements are not with the UTC specifically, but with the University.We have Master Agreements with Oregon schools, project agreements with out of state universities.

We have master agreements with instate and out-of-state universities, all institutes and centers operate under the respective university agreements.

We have a Joint-Cooperative Master Agreement with the University of Hawaii System, which includes all the community colleges.

None.

We have master agreements with the universities in Mississippi to perform research projects.

CUTC Responses:

Additional Information:Master Agreement in place for Research and Related Projects MOU / Partnership Agreement to formalize partnership (non-contract) working relationships and activities.

Master Agreement with project specific notices to proceed.

The University has a Master Agreement with the state DOT, and we perform specific projects under that master agreement. (Our UTC does not have the Master Agreement; the university does.)

Appendix 4:Responses to the “Other” Category Regarding the Method of Funding Agreements

See Table 4: Payment for Agreements among State DOTs and CUTC Members. for summary.

State DOTs;

Nextrans projects that coincide with Illinois Center for Transportation efforts receive in-kind support.

Cost reimbursable inter-agency agreements.

On project agreements, payment is currently being made monthly, on a contract reimbursement basis. We are considering changing payment to a task basis; as tasks are completed and the task deliverables are accepted as final, we would pay for that task.

Moving towards all lump sum agreements as an agency although many schools still have cost plus agreements.

We provide a block grant to the URITC, but we also have approval rights on each individual project.

N/A.

Lump sum contact based on deliverables.

Master contract is lump sum - cost reimbursable;Task Orders are subProjects under the Master & approved individually by GDOT.

Payment is spread throughout the project as various deliverables are met.

CUTC Responses:

A Master Agreement funds "core activities and operations" with individual project specific "addenda" to a "Management Agreement" to address individual projects. All are cost-reimbursement agreements; no Fixed price agreements.

No fixed cost agreements.

Appendix 5: Responses to the “Other” Category Regarding State DOT Matching Requirements of CUTC Members

See Table 5: Match Requirements for summary.

State DOT responses:

Nextrans projects that coincide with Illinois Center for Transportation efforts receive in-kind support.

It isn't a requirement, per se. It's a result of a joint program operating between our two organizations and isn't really a match.The effective match is more program-based.The URITC provides what available funds they have for projects that support their mandate, but projects are selected jointly between RIDOT and URITC through a RAC.We will also be working towards getting third party matches for projects.

The Hawaii DOT provides all the funding (80% Federal Highway Funds & 20% State Highway Funds) for all Research, Development and Technology Transfer (RD&TT) activities between the University of Hawaii and Hawaii DOT.

The Universities are required to match their Federal Dollars with State Dollars.The State Dollars can come from KDOT's KTRAN Program, which is our State Funded University Research.

DOT requires state universities to match 20% on Joint Project Agreements (IGAs).

The California UTCs are managed by RITA, who provides a 50 percent federal match for each UTC.There are five (5) California UTCs, with Caltrans providing the remaining match.

Missouri uses Part 2 SPR funds, thus have a 20% match.Also have opportunity of matching funds through NUTC at Missouri University of Science and Technology and the Mid-America Transportation Center at University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Yes, we do match the Rita -ITS Institute.

Requirement is project-by-project, typically somewhat less than 50% UTC. Agreement is actually with a university member of the UTC consortium, not the UTC per se.

Three universities comprise the Southwest University Transportation Center (SWUTC) - the Texas Transportation Institute with the Texas A&M University System, the Center for Transportation Research with the University of Texas, and Texas Southern University.We look at the projects we are already funding with these universities and select those that best match the SWUTC mission, and total up the dollars which is then the match.We do not send any dollars specifically to the SWUTC.

Program - $1M per year for 3 years match required.GDOT match $800K / GTI match 200K.

CUTC Responses:

While there is no "Requirement" we work with the DOT on a project specific basis to address match requirements for federally funded activities (e.g., UTC).

Our DOT is not required to provide matching funds for our UTC.We have however identified research needs, and been issued contracts, that support the DOT and provide match for our Center.

NOTE: The State DOT (MN/DOT) does provide matching funds to our UTC (ITS Institute), but it is not required in our state. It is requested at the beginning of the grant, and MN/DOT has typically agreed to provide match. MN/DOT participates in project selection and have representation on the ITS Institute Board, the group that provides strategic direction for the ITS Institute's activities.

Yes, the DOT provides LTAP funds, SPR funds, and Program Income funds.If I understand correctly, it is by program and project, both. However, in most cases, in return the DOT requires match from the UTC (on an unofficial basis) besides the in-kind match it already provides.In addition the University discounts the F&A rate.Waived F&A is a big proportion of the University's match on projects.The "unofficial match" provided by the University to DOT and USDOT projects is substantial.The DOT also frequently requires contribution from the UTC’s F&A revenue toward other projects or events.