Chapter 4: Grant Development and Execution
Section 1: Project Scoring
Introduction
Each year, during the project scoring process, scoring teams
composed of Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) program managers
and Traffic Safety Specialists (TSSs) score general traffic safety
project proposals according to the criteria described in this section.
Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) proposals are non-competitive
and processed through the TxDOT Traffic Safety Electronic Grants
Management System (eGrants). Approved proposals are then incorporated
into the annual Highway Safety Plan (HSP).
The project selection teams are provided access to all general
traffic safety proposals through eGrants. After evaluating the needs
of various communities and statewide concerns and determining the
quality of traffic safety problem identification, the proposed solution,
and the proposed budget, a Traffic Safety Project Proposal Score
Sheet is used to score each project against a number of selected
criteria that are based on each element of the project proposal.
The criteria are the same regardless of geographic coverage (local,
multi-county, state, etc.).
The evaluations are conducted on the basis of the threats
identified in the problem identification, the reasonableness of
the problem solution, and other factors pertinent to the resolution
of the identified problem. If a problem and solution are considered
worthy of inclusion in the HSP, but the budget is considered inappropriate,
the negotiation for project budget development will occur prior to
HSP development.
A range of point values is assigned to most elements of the
project proposal and a range of criteria responses is also provided
to help the scorer determine the strength of the proposal. After
initial scores are assigned, a multiplier is applied based on the
relative importance of the criterion to the overall proposal, and
a final score is awarded to each scorable criterion.
Scoring Teams
Scoring teams are comprised of TxDOT Traffic Safety Division
- Behavioral Traffic Safety Section (TRF-BTS) program managers,
TSSs and other staff. Individuals on a scoring team serve one of
the two functions identified below:
Reviewer.
Reviewers assigned to a scoring
team are responsible for scoring assigned proposals within a designated
time period. Proposals can be scored via a computer with internet
access that meets the system requirements specified on the eGrants
login page. Scoring consists of:- Adding internal comments to any of the proposal pages (Reviewers do not combine comments on one page, but post comments directly on the page in question.).
- Selecting the appropriate response to score each question.
- Saving the score sheet.
- Notifying the appropriate Team Leader upon completion of their scoring prior to final submission of their scores. A pre-scoring conference call is held with each scoring team.
Team Leader.
The Team Leader does not
score proposals and is responsible for organizing/conducting conference
calls with their assigned scoring team. A Team Leader’s duties consist
of:- Serving as the point of contact for questions from the team and coordinating responses from reviewers during the scoring process.
- Checking the progress of the team during the scoring period.
- Reviewing proposal internal comments submitted by the reviewer to ensure they are grammatically correct and factually appropriate. The Team Leader is not, in any way, to persuade anyone to change their score or opinion about a proposal.
All TRF-BTS staff must sign a Texas Behavioral Traffic
Safety Program Non-Disclosure & Conflict of Interest Certification
Agreement each year at the beginning of the proposal scoring process.
Recommendation
After scoring of all general traffic safety projects is complete,
the TRF Planner tabulates the average of all scores and places the
projects, along with all STEP projects scored by the eGrants system, on
a draft proposed project list for further review and prioritization.
Priorities are assigned based on point scores, rankings, past performance
grades, and the estimated amount of federal dollars that will be
available for the HSP for the coming fiscal year.
Scoring teams indicate the recommended funding for the project
and provide a rationale statement if the recommended amount is lower
than the amount requested in the proposal. In no case can an amount
higher than that requested in the proposal be recommended.
Scoring Criteria
Scoring team members will review and evaluate each general
traffic safety proposal for applicability to Texas and community
traffic safety problems. Each qualifying project proposal will be
scored based on the following criteria:
- Strength of problem identification supported with verifiable, current, and appropriate documentation of the state or local traffic safety problem.
- Quality of the proposed solution plan.
- Realistic objectives, performance measures, targets/goals and activities.
- Cost eligibility.
- Percent of matching funding proposed.
- Reasonable and necessary budget.
TRF-BTS staff will review each STEP proposal to ensure that:
- All information on the required proposal pages is complete and meets minimum acceptable TRF-BTS standards.
- Project target numbers appear reasonable based on the baseline numbers supplied in the proposal.
- Any required attachments have been submitted with the proposal.
- All budgeted items are necessary and reasonable for the project.
- The TxDOT budget amount does not exceed the maximum amount allowable based on the proposing community’s population.
TRF-BTS staff reviewing STEP project proposals will add internal
comments to any of the proposal pages, if warranted, to assist the
Program/Project Manager in project negotiations.
Subgrantee Past Performance Grade Review
The subgrantee’s prior performance and grade will be reviewed
as a component of the subgrantee’s “demonstrated effectiveness”
in providing traffic safety projects and will be considered during
the awarding of projects. With funding being cut across all federal/state
agencies, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), it is especially important that grants be awarded to those
agencies that have proven to be capable of carrying out the terms
and conditions of their awards and that have made a positive impact
to the Traffic Safety Program.
After all proposals are scored, the TRF Planner will check
the proposing agency’s performance grade for the project’s previous
grant period. Agency projects that received a grade of A, B, or
C will be determined to have provided sound performance in the administration
of the grant during the previous grant period.
Agency projects that received a grade of D should not be awarded
a grant during the current year’s RFP process unless it is determined
to be in the best interest of TRF-BTS to do so. In these cases, the
agency will be considered a “high risk” subgrantee and will be expected
to demonstrate improved performance during the first three months
of the grant period.
Agency projects that received a grade of F should not be funded
through the current RFP cycle.
All
first-year
traffic safety projects
will be considered neutral in the grading process and will be viewed
as receiving a grade of C the prior year.Agency project grades for the prior year can also be used
in determining grant awards in certain circumstances. For instance,
if two proposals competing for a similar project have an identical
score (through the TRF RFP scoring process) and funding is limited,
the agencies’ prior year’s performance grades may be used to determine
the agency that is to be funded. A grade of A will beat a grade
of B, a grade of B will top a grade of C, etc. If the (letter) grades
of the agencies are the same, then TRF-BTS staff will view the numerical
grade (created by eGrants) to determine the award.
Scoring Sheets
The
is located on TxDOT Traffic Safety Request for Proposal (RFP) Page.
Process Overview
The following table lists the steps a typical grant agreement follows from negotiation to execution. Also shown are the parties responsible for each step of the process and the section of this chapter explaining each step.
Step | Action | Responsible Parties |
|---|---|---|
1 | Project Negotiation | Subgrantee and Project Manager (see Section 2 of this chapter) |
2 | Grant Preparation | Subgrantee (see Section 3 of this chapter) |
3 | Subgrantee Approval | Subgrantee (see Section 4 of this chapter) |
4 | Review | TRF Project Managers, including TSSs (see Section 5 of this chapter) |
5 | TxDOT Approval | Districts, TRF, or the Executive Director or his or her designee (see Section 5 of this chapter) |
6 | Execution | All parties (see Section 6 of this chapter) |
7 | Amendment (if necessary) | All parties (see Section 7 of this chapter) |