[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34005-34010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-13611]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Discretionary Cooperative Agreement To Support the Demonstration 
of a Model Impaired Driving Records Information System

AGENCY: DOT, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

ACTION: Announcement of a discretionary cooperative agreement 
opportunity to support the demonstration of a model impaired driving 
records information system and to evaluate its efficiency and 
effectiveness.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
announces a discretionary cooperative agreement opportunity to solicit 
support for the demonstration of a model impaired driving records 
information system and to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness. 
NHTSA is concerned that without a current and accurate record of driver 
information, it is difficult for law enforcement agencies, licensing 
agencies, the criminal justice system, and others to make sound 
decisions on how to respond to and take the appropriate action against 
drivers demonstrating unsafe behavior on the roadways. NHTSA solicits 
applicable State agencies (i.e., law enforcement agencies, the 
judiciary (judges, probation officers and prosecutors), Motor Vehicle 
Administrations or Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs), highway safety 
offices, and others, or a consortium of the above.

DATES: Applications must be received no later than July 20, 2004, at 1 
p.m., eastern standard time.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted to the U.S Department of 
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Office 
of Contracts and Procurement (NPO-220), ATTN: April L. Jennings, 400 
Seventh Street, SW., Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. All applications 
must include reference to NHTSA Cooperative Agreement Number DTNH22-04-
H-05110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions may be directed to Ms. April 
L. Jennings, Office of Contracts and Procurement, NPO-220, 400 Seventh 
Street, SW., 20590 by e-mail (preferred method) at 
[email protected] or by phone at (202) 366-9571. Interested 
parties are advised that no separate application packages exist beyond 
the contents of this announcement.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    The mission of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 
(NHTSA) is to reduce deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting 
from motor vehicle crashes. Each year, more than 1.4 million drivers 
are arrested for alcohol-impaired driving in the U.S. States bear the 
primary responsibility for enacting impaired driving laws and 
enforcing, adjudicating, and imposing sanctions against offenses. The 
driver license and licensing process provides a basis for driver 
control measures. During the 1950's, all States implemented an 
examination with road test as a condition of obtaining a driver 
license. License actions have become a central component of efforts to 
deter drinking and driving. Driver license sanctions are now almost 
universally used either administratively or through the judicial 
system. The effects of license suspension/revocation are short and 
long-term. The loss of the offender's privilege to drive by suspending 
or revoking a license for driving while intoxicated (DWI) has proven 
successful in reducing drinking and driving behavior. Although vehicle-
based sanctions (e.g., ignition interlock devices and the forfeiture, 
or impoundment of offenders' vehicles) hold great promise as deterrent 
measures, States rely heavily on removal of the offender's license as a 
primary penalty for DWI, because it is the most cost-effective sanction 
available, particularly when applied to first-time offenders.
    There are also instances in some States where license withdrawal is 
required as a penalty for offenses that lie outside the ambit of 
typical motor vehicle laws (e.g., use of a motor vehicle in the 
commission of a felony, motor vehicle theft, discharging a firearm from 
a motor vehicle, committing an immoral act in which a motor vehicle was 
used, advocating the overthrow of the government, defacing public or 
private property, non-payment of child support, withdrawal from high 
school, and illegal use of alcohol and other drugs). Often these 
violations and other driver history information are not transmitted to 
relevant agencies within state jurisdictions or between the States. 
This omission hinders roadside enforcement, the identification of 
problem drivers, and ultimately, the safety of others.
    While the transmission of this type of information is critical, it 
must be timely, accurate, reliable, and complete to be effective. 
Timely and accurate information is essential to the adjudication 
process. Decisions regarding licensing actions and penalties need to be 
based on an individual's complete driving history. Persons previously 
convicted of a variety of traffic offenses and violations should be 
sanctioned differently than those with no or otherwise minor traffic 
offenses. A fully developed driver history records information system 
for impaired driving would be a powerful tool for States to assist in 
developing an effective system of deterrence for the impaired driver. 
Yet, few States have such a system. For example, delays in reporting or 
exchanging information regarding the disposition of traffic citations 
between the courts and licensing agencies commonly last six months or 
longer--sufficient time for a driver to commit additional traffic 
offenses. ``At-risk'' drivers continue to drive virtually undetected, 
putting others at risk of death, injury, or loss of property.
    NHTSA is concerned that without a current and accurate record of 
driver information, it is difficult for law enforcement agencies, 
licensing agencies and others in the criminal justice system to make 
sound decisions on how to respond to drivers demonstrating unsafe 
behavior on the roadways. To correct this deficiency, NHTSA developed a 
model for an Impaired Driving Records Information System and an 
implementation guide that allows for accurate, reliable, and timely 
exchange and transmission of data between the law enforcement agencies, 
the courts, and the DMVs. In addition, model requirements identify core 
and essential data elements,

[[Page 34006]]

relevant records, and performance standards to receive, store, and 
transmit data.
    Many states have some form of a judiciary-based citation or case-
based impaired driving tracking system. However, as states have 
increasingly enacted administrative license and vehicle sanctions for 
impaired driving, DMVs have taken on an increasingly important role in 
managing these sanctions through the driver licensing systems. With the 
advent of electronic citation systems and technologies that allow 
immediate access by patrol officers to driver license and vehicle 
registration information, enforcement agencies also have an 
increasingly important role in developing and managing an Impaired 
Driving Records Information System. The system includes impaired 
driving-related information that is collected and managed by the 
system's stakeholders. Key system stakeholders in all states include 
law enforcement agencies, the criminal justice system (i.e., judges, 
probation officers, and prosecutors), DMVs, and highway safety offices. 
Within most states, other stakeholders may include treatment and 
correctional agencies, which may also maintain offender-based 
information systems. A model was developed for implementation within 
and among states for use as a collective resource and to curb the 
installation of costly and duplicative record systems.
    The project under this cooperative agreement encompasses the 
totality of a State's efforts to generate, transmit, store, update, 
link, manage, report, and retrieve information on impaired driving 
offenders and citations. Through the use of up-to-date technology and 
cooperative arrangements between the stakeholders, a Model Impaired 
Driving Records Information System provides for electronic access to 
driver history and vehicle information, electronic collection of data, 
electronic transmission of data between stakeholders, and on-line 
access to complete, accurate, and timely information on impaired 
driving cases. The system must provide access, as required, by all key 
stakeholders and address their needs.
    In 2002, under a similar solicitation, four States (Alabama, Iowa, 
Nebraska, and Wisconsin) were selected to demonstrate a Model Impaired 
Driving Records Information System.

Objective

    The objective of this demonstration, as with the 2002 demonstration 
efforts, is for States to implement a Model Impaired Driving Records 
Information System (for model requirements, see section titled: Model 
Impaired Driving Records Information System Requirements) and evaluate 
its efficiency and effectiveness. A Model Impaired Driving Records 
Information System enables a State to effectively perform the following 
functions:
    (1) Appropriately identify, charge and sanction impaired driving 
offenders, based on their driving history;
    (2) Manage impaired driving cases from arrest through the 
completion of court and administrative sanctions;
    (3) Identify target populations and trends, evaluate 
countermeasures, and identify problematic components of the overall 
impaired driving control system;
    (4) Provide stakeholders with adequate and timely information 
necessary to fulfill their responsibilities; and
    (5) Reduce administrative costs for system stakeholders and 
increase system efficiencies. While this effort is directed at impaired 
drivers, it is understood that data on the behavior of all problem 
drivers will result from use of such a system.

Availability of Funds and Period of Support

    A total of $2 million is currently available to support 
demonstration efforts. The government reserves the right to award one 
or more cooperative agreement(s) for a total performance period not to 
exceed 2 years. Offerors should submit projects and associated budgets 
for the 2 years of the performance period. The maximum dollar amount 
for any single award is set at $2 million.

NHTSA Involvement

    NHTSA will be involved in all activities undertaken as part of the 
cooperative agreement program and will:
    1. Provide a Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) 
to participate in the planning and management of each cooperative 
agreement and to coordinate activities between the Grantee(s) and 
NHTSA.
    2. Provide information and technical assistance from other 
government sources and available resources as determined appropriate by 
the COTR.
    3. Serve as a liaison between NHTSA Headquarters, Regional Offices, 
and other (Federal, State, and local agencies) interested in a Model 
Impaired Driving Records Information System, and the Grantee(s) as 
appropriate.
    4. Stimulate the transfer of information among cooperative 
agreement recipients and others engaged in alcohol program activities, 
specifically designed to address driver history records and impaired 
driving information systems.
    5. Review and approve draft and final versions of the deliverables.

Eligibility Requirements

    Applicants are limited to key State agencies (e.g., law enforcement 
agencies, Department of Motor Vehicle Administrations, highway safety 
offices, and other applicable State agencies or a consortium of the 
above). To be deemed eligible, each application package must include a 
letter of endorsement from the Governor's Highway Safety Representative 
and a letter of cooperation and participation from key system 
stakeholders, including at a minimum: the State Supreme Court 
Administrator; the Administrator of the DMV; and the State Police, and 
the State Association of Chief's of Police (SACOP). The SACOP must 
agree to solicit the support of the local law enforcement agencies to 
also participate in this project. Interested applicants are advised 
that no fee or profit will be allowed under this cooperative agreement 
program.

Application Procedures

    Each applicant must submit one original and three copies of the 
application package to: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
Office of Contracts and Procurement (NPO-220), Attn: April L. Jennings, 
400 Seventh Street SW., Room 5301, Washington, DC 20590. Submission of 
four (4) additional copies will expedite processing, but is not 
required. The application may be single spaced, must be typed on one 
side of the page only, and must include reference to NHTSA Cooperative 
Agreement Number DTNH22-04-H-05110. Unnecessarily elaborate 
applications beyond what is sufficient to present a complete and 
effective response to this invitation are not desired. Only complete 
application packages received on or before due date, (July 20, 2004) 
will be considered.

Application Contents

    1. The application package must be submitted with OMB Standard Form 
(SF) 424 (Rev. 9-2003, including 424A and 424B) Application for Federal 
Assistance, with the required information filled in and certifications 
and assurances signed. OMB forms are available for downloading and 
printing on the Internet at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/index.html site. While the SF 424A deals with budget information, and 
Section B identifies Budget Categories, the available space does not 
permit a

[[Page 34007]]

level of detail sufficient to provide meaningful evaluation of the 
proposed total costs. A supplemental sheet shall be provided which 
presents a detailed breakdown of the proposed costs, as well as any 
costs, which the applicant indicates will be contributed locally as 
matching funds, in support of the demonstration project.
    2. In addition to the documents listed above, the applicant must 
include a project narrative statement, which provides the following 
information in separately labeled sections with its submission:
    (a) A summary of State DWI laws and processes.
    (b) The identity of major stakeholders in the State's impaired 
driving system (include the court system and indicate whether it is 
unified or not). Describe each stakeholder's existing system for 
collecting and transmitting impaired driving information, including 
system components and capabilities, its strengths, deficiencies, and 
any improvements planned or underway.
    (c) A description of the current degree of uniformity within and 
across agencies in collecting and managing information, (i.e., among 
the courts, enforcement agencies, and DMVs). Describe the existing 
citation information flow-process from law enforcement to the 
prosecutors/courts to the State DMV. This must include identification 
of specific problems that delay or hinder the citation information 
flow-process. Include whether or not all or some enforcement agencies 
use a uniform traffic ticket (UTT) or uniform citation form (i.e., 
either an identical form or a form with exactly the same data 
elements). If different citation forms are used, describe the 
differences and the impact those differences might have on tracking 
citations through the court system(s) to the DMVs. Similarly, include 
whether or not all courts or some courts use the same forms and/or 
terminology.
    (d) Evidence of any systematic assessment or documentation of the 
impaired driving information system, including a Traffic Records 
Assessment, and any long-term improvement plans.
    (e) A description of the extent to which the State currently meets 
the ten specific features of the model system (identified in the 
``Model Impaired Driving Records Information System Requirements'' 
section of this announcement) and challenges and/or barriers.
    (f) A detailed project plan, including timetables and milestones.
    (g) Describe the project plan's improvements/innovations in detail 
and explain what percent of the state's system will be affected (e.g., 
all courts, half of enforcement agencies, etc.). Explain how each 
specific feature of the plan will be addressed by each system 
improvement/innovation. Explain how the proposal fits into the State's 
long-term plans for improving information systems.
    (h) A list of specific innovations to hardware or software and 
methods to be employed, including costs.
    (i) Identification of a designated lead agency and project 
director. The application shall identify the proposed project director 
and any personnel considered critical to the successful documentation 
of the proposed project. Describe the roles and responsibilities of 
each and describe the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder 
agency.
    (j) Specify a mechanism for ensuring participation or buy-in of the 
stakeholders throughout the project (e.g., an interagency advisory 
board).
    (k) The proposed level of effort in performing various activities 
shall also be identified. A staffing plan and resume for all key 
project personnel shall be included in the application. Briefly outline 
the organizational resources and specify funds the applicant will draw 
upon, and how the applicant will provide the project management 
capability and personnel expertise to successfully perform the 
activities stated herein. Include staffing titles and a 1-2 sentence 
description of the position duties. The budget should segregate 
documentation project costs from implementation and evaluation costs, 
and how the funds should be allocated.
    (l) Provide a budget for performance of this cooperative agreement 
effort. The budget shall be presented in two forms:
    (i) For each activity, the applicant shall provide the total direct 
labor, travel, other direct costs, and indirect costs.
    (ii) The Applicant shall also provide a detailed budget that 
further breaks down the general cost categories of direct labor, 
travel, other direct costs and indirect costs. For direct labor, the 
applicant must present the labor categories, hourly rate (or pro-rated 
annual salary), level of effort (i.e. manhours) and documentation 
supporting those costs. For travel and other direct costs, the offeror 
must explain how it arrived at the proposed costs and what assumptions 
were made in calculating those costs. Supporting documentation (e.g. 
vender quotes, etc.) should be provided. For indirect costs, the 
applicant should identify the basis for costs (e.g. If indirect cost 
rates have been audited and approved by another government agency, the 
applicant should provide details). The estimated costs should be 
separated and proposed by year (i.e. A twelve-month proposed period of 
performance shall require one budget; A proposed period of performance 
in excess of twelve months shall include one budget for the initial 
twelve months and a second budget for the period requested in excess of 
twelve months).
    (m) Clearly identify any financial resources by the applicant 
organization or other supporting organizations to support the project. 
Among equally rated proposals, preference will be given to applicants 
with matching state funds.
    (n) Letters of endorsement from the key stakeholder agencies that 
clearly state their buy-in and cooperation. Include the DMV, the State 
Supreme Court Administrators (or lower court equivalent), and State 
Police/Highway Patrol, including the SACOP.
    (o) Evidence that the State has had a history of supporting 
improvements to the impaired driving information system and using up-
to-date technologies and innovations.
    (p) Past Performance and Financial Responsibility. To evaluate this 
information adequately, the Applicant shall provide the following 
information:
    (i) Identify at least three references who can attest to the past 
performance history and quality of work provided by the Applicant on 
previous assistance agreements and/or contracts. In doing so, the 
Applicant shall provide the following information for each reference:
    (a) Assistance Agreement/Contract Number;
    (b) Title and brief description of Assistance Agreement/Contract;
    (c) Name of organization, name of point of contact, telephone 
number, and e-mail address of point of contact at the organization with 
which the Applicant entered into an Assistance Agreement/ Contract;
    (d) Dollar value of Assistance Agreement/ Contract;
    (e) Any additional information, which the Applicant may provide to 
address the issue of past performance and financial responsibility.
    (ii) The Applicant shall indicate if it has ever appeared on the 
General Service Administration's (GSA) List of Parties Excluded From 
Federal Procurement and Nonprocurement Programs or on GSA's ``Excluded 
Parties List.'' If so, the Applicant shall discuss the circumstances 
leading up to its inclusion in either of these listings and its current 
status to enter into Assistance Agreements and/or Contracts.

[[Page 34008]]

    (iii) The Applicant shall indicate if it has ever filed for 
bankruptcy, or has had any financial problems, which may affect, 
negatively, its ability to perform under this Assistance Agreement.

Model Impaired Driving Records Information System Requirements

    The Model Impaired Driving Records Information System that 
applicants are expected to implement under this program contain 
elements that provide for the following five functions: (1) Tracking 
each impaired driving offender from arrest through dismissal or 
sentence completion; (2) providing aggregate data, for example, numbers 
of arrests, convictions, BAC distribution, and offender demographics; 
(3) conforming to national standards and system performance standards; 
(4) ensuring that data is accurate, complete, and reliable; and (5) 
maintaining quality control and security features that will prevent 
core and essential data elements and/or impaired driving records from 
being compromised or corrupted.
    The model system has the following ten specific features.
    (1) Statewide coverage (i.e., DMV, all courts adjudicating impaired 
driving cases, all law enforcement agencies).
    (2) ``Real-time'' electronic access--the ability of law enforcement 
officers, DMVs, and the courts, including judges and prosecutors, to 
directly access driver license history information (e.g., license 
history and current status; vehicle registration status; applicable 
criminal history, and outstanding warrants) intrastate and potentially 
interstate, without relying on a dispatcher or other intermediary.
    (3) An electronic citation system that is used by officers at the 
roadside and/or at the police station and that supports the use of bar-
code, magnetic striping, or other technologies to automatically capture 
driver license and registration information on the citation and other 
standard legal forms, such as an implied consent form.
    (4) A citation tracking system that accepts electronic citation 
data (and other standard legal forms) from enforcement agencies; 
provides real-time tracking from the distribution of citation forms, to 
issuance by police officers, through final adjudication, and the 
imposition and completion of administrative and judicial sanctions; 
provides access by citation number and by offender; and allows on-line 
access by stakeholders.
    (5) Immediate electronic transmission of data from enforcement 
agencies and the judicial process to the driver license system to 
permit immediate and automatic imposition of administrative sanctions, 
if applicable, and the recordation of convictions on the driver 
license.
    (6) Electronic reporting to the courts and DMVs by probation, 
treatment, or correctional agencies, as applicable, with regard to 
compliance or non-compliance with administrative or court sanctions.
    (7) Linkage of information from the incident/case tracking system 
and the offender-based DMV license, treatment, and probation systems to 
develop a complete record for each offender, including driver history.
    (8) Timely access by all stakeholders, including the highway safety 
office, periodic to statistical reports needed to support agency 
operations and to manage the impaired driving control system, identify 
trends, and support problem identification, policy development, and 
evaluation of countermeasures.
    (9) Flexibility to include additional data and technological 
innovations.
    (10) Compliance with national standards developed by, for example, 
the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and 
the National Crime Information Center (NCIC).
    The core data elements in the system include the following:
     Driver identifying information to include: Name, address, 
driver license number, date of birth, and physical characteristics 
(i.e., gender, height, eye color, etc.)
     Driver license class and endorsements, status (valid, 
suspended, revoked, cancelled, hardship, commercial driver license 
(CDL), etc.), and restrictions
     Vehicle license plate number and state of registration, 
status (e.g., registered, impounded, stolen), Vehicle Identification 
Number (VIN), and DOT carrier identification number for commercial 
vehicles
     Relevant criminal history
     Outstanding warrants and other administrative actions
     In accordance with state policies for posting and 
retaining information on the driver record, offender's history or prior 
non-impaired driving traffic convictions and associated penalties, 
impaired driving convictions and/or pre-conviction administrative 
actions and associated penalties, crashes, current accumulated license 
penalty points, and administrative license actions

 Outstanding citations or arrests
 Arrest/citation information
    [ctrcir] Citation number(s), date, time of day, roadway location 
and jurisdiction
    [ctrcir] Arresting officer (LEA identifier)
    [ctrcir] Violation(s) charged
    [ctrcir] Crash involvement, severity, number of passengers
    [ctrcir] Alcohol test result: refusal, alcohol concentration 
(blood, breath, or other), or missing
    [ctrcir] Drug test result: refusal, drugs detected, or missing
    [ctrcir] Results of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests and other 
field tests, as applicable
 Pre-conviction administrative license and vehicle penalties 
imposed
    [ctrcir] Type and length of sanction
    [ctrcir] Date imposed
 Prosecution/adjudication data
    [ctrcir] Court case identifier and specific identifiers for the 
court, judge, and jurisdiction
    [ctrcir] Date of arraignment
    [ctrcir] Date of disposition
    [ctrcir] Completion or non-completion of pre-conviction or pre-
sentence deferral program (court deferred sentencing or conviction 
pending offender's completion of alcohol or other drug treatment 
program and/or other conditions)
    [ctrcir] Final disposition of charge (dismissed, acquitted, plea to 
reduced charge (specify), convicted of original charge after trial, 
diversion program, adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, pending, 
etc.)
    [ctrcir] Court penalties imposed (jail sentence, fines and 
penalties, probation, substance abuse assessment/treatment, ignition 
interlock device, community service, house arrest, dollar amount of 
fines, fees, and for victim restitution, vehicle forfeiture, license 
revocation or suspension, and other)
    [ctrcir] Probation report and/or pre-sentence assessment 
information, if applicable by law
 Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/
revoked, during license suspension period and resulting penalties
 Completion of treatment/assessment (start and finish dates)
 Completion/non-completion of court and/or administrative 
sanctions
 Penalties for failure to complete court and/or administrative 
sanctions or violations of probation, including license suspension/
revocation
 Whether license reinstated and if so, date of reinstatement

A Model Impaired Driving Information system represents a collective 
effort involving DMVs, law enforcement agencies, the courts, and other 
agency stakeholders to ensure each organization

[[Page 34009]]

has ready access to the information needed to plan and manage its work 
effectively and efficiently. The system also enables the highway safety 
office, the legislature, and other legitimate users in the highway 
safety community to obtain periodic and special statistical reports on 
the impaired driving system. The following are examples of the types of 
data that would be periodically generated or available on an ad hoc 
basis through a user-friendly protocol to the extent that state laws 
and policies permit:

 Referral rates to treatment statewide, by jurisdiction, and 
court and rate of treatment completion/non-completion
 Conviction rate, BAC refusal rate, age and gender of offender 
statewide and by jurisdiction
 Number of first and repeat offenders statewide and by 
jurisdiction
 BAC distribution statewide and by jurisdiction, enforcement 
agency, etc.
 Plea bargain rates statewide and by jurisdiction
 Sentence or adjudication diversions/deferrals, if applicable
 Referrals to treatment by first-time and repeat offenders
 Numbers of license and vehicle sanctions imposed by DMV
 Average time from arrest to first court appearance, 
conviction, and sentencing, statewide, by jurisdiction, and by court
 Numbers of warrants issued for failure to appear, etc., 
statewide and by jurisdiction
 Subsequent violations, including driving while suspended/
revoked, and resulting penalties during suspension/revocation

Review Procedures, Criteria and Evaluation Factors

    Upon receipt of the application package, each package will be 
reviewed initially to ensure eligibility and that the application 
contains all of the items specified in the Application Contents Section 
of this announcement. An Evaluation Committee using the following 
evaluation criteria will then review applications.

Factor 1.--Status of Existing Impaired Driving Information System and 
Improvements Planned Through Use of Cooperative Agreement Funding (65 
Percent)

    The following items will be evaluated under this factor:
    (1) The history of improvements to the impaired driving information 
system and the use of up-to-date technological innovations.
    (2) The range of existing DWI laws and systems (e.g., unified 
versus non unified court system, criminal versus civil offense, rural 
versus urban, complicated versus simple laws) and proposed improvements 
to include innovative approaches.
    (3) The extent to which proposed innovations leverage/build upon/
complement existing efforts and can be transferred to other states.
    (4) The extent to which the State has documented and assessed 
current system(s) and developed short and long-term plans for 
improvement. This includes but is not limited to: (a) How citations are 
provided to the court system (i.e., mailed, hand-carried, faxed, 
electronic transfer, etc.); and (b) the approximate length of time (for 
90% of drivers charged with alcohol-related driving offenses) from 
citation issuance or arrest through adjudication, from adjudication to 
the State DMV, then posted to the driver's license record and made 
available to law enforcement and the court system.
    (5) How technological innovations will improve system(s).
    (6) How the system improvements meet the five functions and ten 
features of the model system, described in this notice.
    (7) The proposal's feasibility, realism, and the ability of the 
lead agency, with stakeholder cooperation and buy-in, to implement a 
statewide model impaired driving information system. Additionally, the 
lead agency will indicate its willingness to work cooperatively with 
NHTSA.

Factor 2.--Project Management and Project Personnel (20 Percent)

    The clarity and soundness of the project management structure, 
budget and the delineation of partners and stakeholders role in the 
project will be evaluated. The project personnel will be reviewed in 
terms of qualifications and experience. The staffing of the project 
should be adequate to manage and implement the project. In addition, 
the proposed budget will be evaluated to determine the degree to which 
it effectively and efficiently utilizes both Federal Government and 
other funding. Financial contributions from stakeholder sources will be 
evaluated.

Factor 3.--Past Performance and Financial Responsibility (15 Percent)

    The extent to which the proposed Grantee has fulfilled its 
performance and financial obligations on previous Assistance Agreements 
and/or Contracts will be evaluated. This evaluation will include:
    (1) The proposed Grantee's record of complying with milestone and 
performance schedules applicable to previous Assistance Agreements and/
or Contracts;
    (2) The proposed Grantee's record of cooperation with the awarding 
agency under previous Assistance Agreements and/or Contracts;
    (3) The degree to which the proposed Grantee efficiently and 
effectively utilized Assistance Agreement and/or Contract funding;
    (4) The degree to which the proposed Grantee complied with the 
terms and conditions of previous Assistance Agreements and/or 
Contracts;
    (5) The degree to which the proposed Grantee complied with 
applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars and/or the 
Federal Acquisition Regulation, on previous Assistance Agreements and/
or Contracts;
    (6) The level of financial stability possessed by the proposed 
Grantee.

Terms and Conditions After Award

    1. Prior to award, each Grantee(s) must comply with the 
certification requirements of 49 CFR Part 20, Department of 
Transportation New Restrictions on Lobbying, and 49 CFR Part 29, 
Department of Transportation government-wide Debarment and Suspension 
(Non-procurement) and Government-wide Requirements for Drug Free 
Workplace (Grants).
    2. Reporting Requirement and Deliverables:
    a. Quarterly Progress Reports should include a summary of the 
previous quarter's activities and accomplishments, as well as the 
proposed activities for the upcoming quarter. Any decisions and actions 
required in the upcoming quarter should be included in the report. The 
Grantee(s) shall provide a progress report to the Contracting Office's 
Technical Representative (COTR) every ninety (90)-days following date 
of award, except when a final report is due.
    b. Project Work Plan, Implementation, and Evaluation Plan, with 
timelines to include critical path, major and minor milestones, and 
system checks. The Grantee(s) shall submit project work plan, 
implementation plan and evaluation plans with timelines incorporating 
comments received from the NHTSA COTR no more than 2 months after award 
of this agreement. This involves identification and resolution of 
potential technical problems and critical issues related to successful 
completion of this project. Briefly outline a specific work plan to 
document your project's history, how to implement a similar project, 
and a plan to evaluate its efficacy and effectiveness to include 
lessons-learned, best

[[Page 34010]]

practices, organizational support, and costs. This outline should 
identify specific tasks required to accomplish the goals and objectives 
of the project, detailing how the system will be documented for 
replication by another agency. The specific innovations, interventions, 
and activities must be included in the work plan.
    c. Draft Final Report. The Grantee(s) shall prepare a Draft Final 
Report that includes a description of the implemented project or 
system, partners, system design and innovations, evaluation methodology 
and findings, and recommendations for system improvements. In terms of 
ability to transfer the technology or the system to another State, it 
is important to know what worked and did not work, under what 
circumstances, and what can be done to avoid potential problems in 
future projects. The Grantee(s) shall submit the Draft Final Report to 
the COTR 90 days prior to the end of the performance period. The COTR 
will review the draft report and provide comments to the Grantee(s) 
within 30 days of receipt of the document.
    d. Final Report. The Grantee(s) shall revise the Draft Final Report 
to reflect the COTR's comments. The revised final report shall be 
delivered to the COTR one (1) month before the end of the performance 
period. The Grantee(s) shall supply the COTR one-camera ready version 
of the document, as printed and one copy, on appropriate media 
(diskette, etc.) of the document in the original program format that 
was used for the printing process. Some documents require several 
different original program languages (e.g., PageMaker for general 
layout and design, PowerPoint for charts, Project for project timeline 
management, and another for photographs, etc.). Each of these component 
parts should be available on disk, properly labeled with the program 
format and the file names. For example, PowerPoint files should be 
clearly identified by both a descriptive name and file name (e.g., 2000 
Fatalities--chart1.ppt). The document must be completely assembled with 
all colors, charts, sidebars, photographs, and graphics. This can be 
delivered to NHTSA on a standard 1.44 floppy diskette (for small 
documents) or on any appropriate archival media (for larger documents) 
such as a CD ROM, TR-1 Mini cartridge, SyQuest disk, etc. The 
Grantee(s) shall provide four additional hard copies of the final 
document.
    e. Briefings, Presentations and System Demonstrations. The 
Grantee(s) shall make a briefing and system demonstration to NHTSA 
officials and other invited parties in Washington, DC at the beginning 
and upon completion of the project. The Grantee(s) shall make a 
presentation concerning the project at a minimum of one national 
meeting (e.g., American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 
(AAMVA) or the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA)). The 
Grantee(s) shall prepare an article and submit it for publication in a 
professional journal. An initial briefing, an interim briefing 
approximately midway through the period of performance, in addition to 
a final briefing, may be required. All articles, briefings, and 
presentations/demonstrations will be submitted to NHTSA initially in 
draft format for review and comment. The Grantee(s) shall submit drafts 
to the COTR 60 days before the event date or publication submission 
date. The COTR will review the draft report and provide comments to the 
Grantee(s) within 15 calendar days of receipt of the documents.
    3. During the effective performance period of cooperative 
agreements awarded as a result of this announcement, the agreement 
shall be subject to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's General Provisions for Assistance Agreements, dated 
July 1995.

    Issued on: June 10, 2004.
Marilena Amoni,
Associate Administrator for Program Development and Delivery.
[FR Doc. 04-13611 Filed 6-16-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P