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 the surveys, 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:
Alaska
Maryland
Ohio
Arizona
Massachusetts
Oregon
California
Minnesota
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Mississippi
Rhode Island
Georgia
Missouri
South Dakota
Hawaii
Montana
Texas
Iowa
Nebraska
Utah
Idaho
New Hampshire
Washington
Illinois
New Jersey
West Virginia
Kansas
New Mexico
Wisconsin
Louisiana
New York
Maine
North Carolina
Twenty-six CUTC members responded, two of which did not indicate the responding university,
and include:
San Jose State University
Georgia Institute of Technology
University of Alabama, Birmingham
Iowa State University
University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Jackson State University
University of California, Davis
Kansas State University
University of Memphis
Michigan Technological University
University of Minnesota
Montana State University
University of Nevada, Reno
Morgan State University
University of Tennessee
Oklahoma State University
University of Texas, Austin
Oregon Transportation Research and
Utah State University
Education Consortium (OTREC)
University of Vermont
Pennsylvania State University
University of Washington
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
University of Wisconsin
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.
1
Question 1: State DOTs and Universities were asked about the type of activities that are
conducted jointly (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Activity
Research Projects
Cross Membership on Committees or Advisory Boards
Joint Meetings/Workshops
Development of Research Ideas
Workforce Development
Manage LTAP
Provide Continuing Education
Other
State DOT
28
25
20
18
13
12
13
10
CUTC
24
20
22
20
19
9
16
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 with university-based
transportation centers. Similarly, CUTC members were asked whether they have formal
agreements with state DOTs (Table 2).
Agreements
In state
Out of State
Both
None
State DOTs
15
2
9
9
CUTC
17
0
4
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
Master Agreements w/ Project-Specific Task Agreements
Project specific agreements only
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)/Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU)
Grants
Don’t Have Agreements
Other
State DOT
19
10
6
CUTC
12
12
7
2
6
4
5
1
3
Table 3: Types of Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members.
Responses to the “Other” category are in Appendix 3.
2
Question 4: This question asked how research activities are funded through these agreements
(Table 4).
Payment
As a Lump Sum
Project by Project
Don’t Have Agreements
Other
State DOT
5
25
5
4
CUTC
6
21
1
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?
Yes
No
State DOT
9
26
CUTC
4
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: This question asked if the agreement process works well (Table 6).
Agreement Process Works Well?
Yes
No
Sometimes
Don’t Have Agreements
State DOT
19
0
9
7
CUTC
15
0
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, if applicable. Responses are in Appendix 8.
Question 9: State DOTs were asked about barriers in developing agreements with out-of-state
universities (Table 7).
3
Barriers to Developing Out-of-State Agreements
State Law Prohibits Contracting with Out-of-State
Agencies/Organizations
State Policy
Cost Considerations
No Need
Other
State DOT
0
0
0
16
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 States for 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) to 10 (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
Yes
No
Maybe
State DOT
22
5
8
Table 8: Willingness to Participate in the Development of Case Studies
4
CUTC
18
1
5
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 Programs Event sponsorship.
 The OkTC funds projects with LTAP and TTAP.
 Joint appointments (university employees working on site for WisDOT).
5
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 universitybased 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.
6
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.)
7
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 inkind 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.
8
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 inkind 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,
9






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.
A 100% State DOT match is required. This is a lump sum match; it is not required on a
project by project basis. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will not
pay overhead, so the money we receive is used to fund research, education, and
technology transfer activities.
The state DOT does provide Program matching funds, but it is not a "requirement" that
they do.
I cannot speak for the DOT whether they are required to match our projects. I just know
that they do match our projects.
There is no requirement that the Oklahoma DOT provide matching funds; however, 60%
of our match comes from ODOT projects.
GDOT has agreed to match our UTC projects. They match 1:1.
10
Appendix 6
Agreements Among State DOTs and CUTC Members
Return to Question 6.
 State DOT responses:
 Nextrans.
 UMass Amherst, you can contact me off line for more details.
 Western Transportation Institute (WTI) - Other than the project-by-project agreements,
we have MPART Small project agreements, which are a master agreement. All that is
required to begin work is a proposal and letter telling WTI they can start work. MPART
is the Montana Partnership for the Advancement of Research in Transportation. These
small projects are defined as less than $35,000 and a year in duration. WTI cost shares
20% of the total cost. With the master contract in place, initiating these projects is
simplified, resulting in less time to initiate projects. These contracts are written for seven
years (the legal limit for contracting in MT).
 OTREC: Two current project work orders under master agreements with University of
Oregon and Oregon State University. Western Transportation Institute. Two project
agreements. Transportation Northwest: Three project level agreements at University of
Washington. Region X Consortium: Memorandum of Understanding among 10 entities; 5
UTCs and 5 State DOT Research Programs. Covers a range of collaborative activities.
 UTC's: UTRC Region 2 http://www.utrc2.org/ Rutgers University Tier 1 UTC. Other
Basic Agreements exist for the following institutions: New Jersey Institute of Technology
(NJIT) Princeton University, Richard Stockton College, Rowan University, Stevens
Institute of Technology, and The College of New Jersey University of Medicine
Dentistry NJ (recent and not yet procured)
 URITC - Through an MoU, we leverage our individual research efforts. Previously, we
received problem statements from the same pool of researchers as URITC. That involved
a lot of duplication of effort. We bring more technical expertise to the program and
URITC has more administrative capability. Being a university, they also have more
flexibility in disbursing funds and can react more quickly to needs. We have more funds
to be applied towards projects. As noted above, we have a joint problem statement
selection process, which is followed by RFPs for the chosen projects. We provide
technical monitors and oversight; URITC manages the administrative elements.
 University of Nebraska - Lincoln MATC.
 Although Hawaii does not have a University-based Transportation Center, Hawaii DOT
does have a partnership with the University of Hawaii at Manoa, which has the only
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering School in the State. Since The
University of Hawaii and its community colleges are State University and Colleges, the
Hawaii DOT have developed and implemented a "Joint-Cooperative Master Agreement"
between the University and its community colleges that helps to expedite RD&TT
Activities. Without the agreement it usually takes 4-6 months to execute a research
project. With the agreement it takes 4-6 weeks.
 Kansas State University Transportation Center - Research for Rural Roadways and
General Transportation Research. University of Kansas Transportation Research Institute
- General Transportation Research and LTAP.
11
 Iowa State University/Institute for Transportation - a Basic Agreement and more detail
Management Agreement directly related to research projects. Each is several pages long.
I would be happy to share e- copies. University of Iowa - a Basic Agreement, again
several pages long. Happy to send an e- copy. University of Northern Iowa - a Basic
Agreement, again several pages long. Happy to send an e- copy.
 None.
 Nextrans.
 California has five (5) University Transportation Centers (UTCs), including the
University of California, Berkeley – University of California Transportation Center
(UCTC), which funds surface transportation and policy research, the METRANS
Transportation Center jointly held by the University of Southern California and
California State University Long Beach funding research in goods movement and
international trade, urban mobility and infrastructure. The Mineta Transportation Institute
(MTI), at San Jose State University stresses policy research where activities are oriented
towards improving aspects of the development and operations of the nation’s surface
transportation systems. The University of California Davis - Sustainable Transportation
Center (STC) funds research related to Planning, the Environment and Operations and
Mobility and the California State University San Bernardino – Leonard Transportation
Center (LUTC) focuses on Transportation Finance and Public Transit research.
 We do not have formal agreement and we jointly fund research projects with Utah State
University UTC and Mountain-Plains Consortium (MPC) out of University of Utah.
 We worked with University of Vermont on a study. Had project agreement. We do not
have any long term agreements with UTC's.
 Missouri University of Science and Technology, University of Missouri-Columbia,
University of Missouri-Kansas City. MoDOT has a Master Agreement with each of these
universities and then contracts on a project specific basis through the use of Task Order
Agreements. MoDOT does have an agreement with Iowa State University through a
pooled fund project that Missouri is the lead state.
 University of Washington, Washington State University, Montana State University,
University of Alaska, Portland State University, Pennsylvania State University,
University of California - Berkeley, University of California - Davis, Texas
Transportation Institute, Utah State University, University of South Florida, University of
California at San Diego, University of Maine, Central Washington University, Eastern
Washington University, Royal Military College of Canada, University of Nevada - Reno
Center for Urban. Transportation Research
 Master agreements: UW-Madison - Construction Materials Support Center Project by
project agreements: UW-Madison - Center for Freight & Infrastructure Research
Education, UW-Madison - Recycled Materials Center, UW-Madison - College of
Engineering, Michigan Tech University – MISTI, University of Illinois - Urbana /
Champaign, Marquette University, UW-Milwaukee, UW-Platteville, University of
Delaware, Washington State, Rowan University, Iowa State University, Montana State
University, University of Kentucky, Northwestern University, Ohio State University, and
Virginia Polytechnic & State University.
 We currently have an RFP out for University Master Agreements. In the past we have
had agreements with eight Universities.
 RTI at Marshall University.
12
 Alaska University Transportation Center. Master Agreement.
 Mountain Plains Consortium (several agreements for projects with South Dakota State
University, an MPC member organization) and Western Transportation Institute (several
agreements for projects).
 GTI- UTC, separate standard contract for each separate year of GDOT support, see GTIUTC website, www.gti.gatech.edu.
 The Region 2 University Transportation Research Center (UTRC) is one of ten original
University Transportation Centers established in 1987 by the U.S. Congress. These
Centers were established with the recognition that transportation plays a key role in the
nation's economy and the quality of life of its citizens. University faculty members
provide a critical link in resolving our national and regional transportation problems
while training the professionals who address our transportation systems and their
customers on a daily basis.
 MAUTC 5 years Capacity of the agreement was capped at $25 million Projects were
identified jointly between PennDOT & Penn State and programmed on an annual basis.
 University of Maryland & Morgan State University. Both agreements are master
agreements for research and technical assistance. Tasks are issues each year for projects
of mutual interest.
 CUTC responses:
 All agreements are for primarily for research activities, with supporting outreach
activities as needed. 1. Master agreement: Iowa (Rolling 3-year; i.e., renewed annually
for 3 years) ad Minnesota (5 years) 2. Project specific agreements: California, Missouri,
Ohio, and Oregon.
 NJ-Department of Transportation
New Jersey Local Technical Assistance Program
(LTAP)
Transportation Safety Resource Center (TSRC)
Pavement Resource
Program
The Effect of WMA on RAP in Hot Mix Asphalt Partial Interchanges in
New Jersey: Data Development and Evaluation
Evaluation of Erosion Potential of
Estuarine Sediment in NY/NJ Harbor
Safety Analysis of Crash and Inspection
Data for Commercial Vehicles
Infrared Scan of Admixtures and Structural Steel
Paints Iowa Department of Transportation Comprehensive Bridge Deck Deterioration
Mapping of Nine Bridges by Ground Penetrating Radar and Impact Echo Florida DOT
Evaluate the contribution of Mixture Components on the Longevity of FC-5
CUNY-NYSDOT
Early Age Rutting Potential of Warm Mix Asphalt Determining
Binder Flushing Causes in New York State Grade Determination of Crumb RubberModified Performance Graded Asphalt Binder.
 PennDOT 1. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) -- 5 years, $25 million ceiling to fund
research, education and technology transfer projects conducted through the Larson
Transportation Institute. 2. PennDOT/MAUTC Agreement -- 5 years, $2.5 million to
provide cost share to MAUTC research, education and technology transfer projects. This
contract expired in 2010.
 Montana DOT, we have a standard contract language that is used for each project that is
conducted with the DOT. Match is provided by MDT on a case-by-case basis. WTI also
receives research funding from California DOT. Again, Caltrans has standard contract
language that is used for each of our projects.
13
 TDOT - We have project specific agreements in place periodically with the state DOT
sometimes offering in kind support or data support.
 Michigan DOT-Multiple master agreements and project or task specific authorizations.
Minnesota DOT-Master agreement with project specific authorizations. Wisconsin DOTProject specific agreements administered by the Wisconsin Highway Research Program
(WHRP). Iowa DOT-Project specific agreements. We have also performed pooled fund
work lead by various DOTs with project specific agreements.
 Minnesota Department of Transportation: 1. Master Agreement for Research and related
services. Work Orders are developed on a project-by-project basis. 2. Partnership
Agreement / MOU. This defines goals, objectives, benefits, structure, activities, and
working relationships in place between MN/DOT and the U of M for transportation
research and related activities. The agreement is undergoing a set of revisions; the new
agreement will be signed soon.
 In the past two years, we have successfully conducted matching funding with Mississippi
DOT for at least three research projects and are very likely to have more in the future.
The IMTrans at JSU has gradually won more trust and confidence from MDOT due to
good communications and responsible research attitude in both sides. The IMTrans is
very sensitive to the research needs of the state DOT and the DOT researchers and
engineers are serving in our Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) to participate in the
project selection process for IMTrans.
 Tennessee - Projects are selected with joint agreement between university researchers and
TDOT research staff.
 Individual research project contracts. Too many to list.
 The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the state DOT that we have an
agreement with. We have one master agreement which is not to exceed 5 million dollars.
This money serves as a match to the federal dollars we receive as a Tier 1 UTC and is
intended to pay for research, education, and technology transfer activities. As previously
indicated, the funds can't be used to pay overhead fees.
 Caltrans has: Master Agreement with the UC system - covers most research projects
Project-specific contracts - must adhere to the Master Agreement/Contract with UC
Davis for the Sustainable Transportation Center (a UTC) - provides program match.
 Washington State DOT Oregon State DOT.
 Oklahoma - research and operation activities.
 Maryland State Highway Administration Master Agreement for funded research projects
and summer internship. Notice to proceed issued when scope of work and budget
approved. All projects funded under two year renewable master agreement. Maryland
Department of Transportation Memorandum of Understanding for annual graduate
academic year internship program. Program hires Morgan State graduate students to work
two semesters and summer for modal administrations.
 Georgia DOT.
 Texas Department of Transportation, Cooperative Research and Implementation
Agreement. This is a master agreement that specifies ownership of intellectual property,
overhead rate, and liability and payment schedules. Project specific agreements are subelements of the master agreement and through the project specific agreements, all actual
work is performed.
14
 Vermont - 3 year Cooperative Agreement, $1 million MLA Maine - project specific
agreement
 Nevada DOT. Project by project agreement.
 Our UTC currently has projects funded by the Alabama DOT and the Wisconsin DOT.
 Kansas DOT cooperative university research program.
 Minnesota DOT -- master contract with specific task orders available as needed
Wisconsin DOTa -- contract template, with project by project specifications Wisconsin
DOTb -- master contract language with individual task orders (for different laboratories
(not for the UTC) (this contract is in place to manage a host of research, training, and
outreach services, including personnel agreements). This contract is in place with a single
source of funding Also have pooled fund agreements in place with the MAASTO states.
15
Appendix 7: Comments to the Question as to Whether the Agreement Process
Works Well
See Table 6: Agreement Process. for summary.
 State DOT responses:
 Again, this is new to us (we are in the second year of our joint program — our upcoming
Peer Exchange will be focusing on DOTs working with UTCs). So far, it's been
successful, as both organizations bring something important to the table.
 The master agreements with Idaho universities have worked pretty well. It has eliminated
renegotiation of standard terms and conditions on a project-by-project basis. We recently
updated the agreements and extended them. The task order process generally works well.
These documents just include project-specific information (e.g., objectives, tasks,
deliverables, budget, schedule, staffing, etc.). The project specific agreements with outof-state institutions have been a little more work because working with these institutions
is a new thing. We recently finalized agreements for two projects at MSU and are close
(hopefully) to finalizing an agreement for a project with WSU. I expect if we do future
projects with these universities, the process will be smoother.
 Helps expedite RD&TT activities between Hawaii DOT and the University of Hawaii
and its community colleges.
 We do not have agreements with UTCs.
 Getting the contracts (new and amendments) through our Caltrans contracting office is
sometimes a challenge.
 No formal agreement but.
 Contract language did take some time to work out, but overall the agreement process was
fine.
 Most issues associated with agreements and Universities are with timeliness of invoicing.
 Language requirements are sometimes different between universities. For example, issues
related to venue and indemnification.
 Most of the time it works great. When issues do arise we have a resolution tree process
that kicks. This allows issues to be resolved at the lowest level.
 Working on a Master Agreement.
 CUTC responses:
 Most of the time!
 Selecting projects that are of strong interest to faculty and meet the needs of PennDOT is
a challenge. A more collaborative approach to developing the research agenda would be
beneficial.
 On a project by project basis it does work well.
 Michigan DOT's process has been the most difficult, but we cannot conclusively state
that it's process related. The difficulties may be people related. WHRP process works
well in our opinion. We have limited experience with Minnesota, Iowa and other DOTs
and can therefore not provide an opinion.
 The master agreement allows for streamlined contracting, as individual contracts do not
need to be negotiated for each project. The partnership includes a committee structure for
various functions and topics. Committees/groups include representation from U of MN
16





and MN/DOT. Committees/groups work together to develop new initiatives, streamlined
processes, and discuss issues as they arise. Function groups include: research
development and management, contract management, communications and outreach, and
library services. Topic groups include: Traffic, Safety, and Technology; Pavements and
Materials; and Maintenance. The overall partnership is monitored by a Partnership
Management Group, who ensure that partnership activities are effective and serving the
partnership well.
The legal process is slow and cumbersome. Projects are prevented from starting on time
and also the project's end date could be extended several times. Also, the review and
amendment process to a proposal, before funding is approved is a slow process.
Agreement on the definition of the scope of work in a project can be a contentious area.
The renegotiation of the Caltrans-UC Master Agreement has been challenging. The
contract process for the STC has always gone smoothly.
We are working on refining our process to work better.
The process of working with our state DOT preceded the UTC program by many years.
The UTC program was simply an extension of a program that worked well prior to the
UTC effort. We have a very good working relationship with GDOT, at all levels of the
organization. GDOT officials work closely with us (and vice versa) in identifying
research needs and in producing research results.
Project by project agreements require substantial paperwork and are sometimes inhibited
by partnerships with out of state institutions (the availability of a master contract wouldn't
necessarily eliminate this).
17
Appendix 8: Barriers to Developing In-State Agreements
 State DOT reponses:
 NWU - dialogue has been limited; neither side has reached out.
 N/A - no UTCs in my state. However, there is nothing to preclude an agreement with an
out-of-state UTC if they are judged to best provide required research services.
 There is no need.
 N/A.
 There are four UTC's and over 130 institutions of higher learning in Ohio. Our DOT has
elected to leave our projects open to engage researchers around the state with
opportunities to further develop future and current transportation professionals.
 There are no UTCs in Arizona.
 We have a good working relationship with our UTC's and have not though about setting
up an agreement.
 We do not have a formal agreement and the work is done on project by project basis.
 Not applicable.
 University master agreements are setup with universities that can complement and
support our program.
 Intellectual property.
 N/A.
 There are no barriers. We just do not need an agreement.
 UTC is at University of Denver which does not have transportation engineering
emphasis.
 CUTC responses:
 Not applicable.
 We really would like to look at a Master Agreement with our State DOT instead of a
project by project basis in order to be on a more sustained basis.
 Legal language.
 Although we do not have an agreement at present, we have a mechanism of coordination.
We need more trust and confidence through more communications and collaborations
before we can establish a formal agreement.
 The barriers are delays-very slow approval process and protracted legal review process.
The University's subcontract approval process under the programs is slow and lengthy.
New risk assessment process has delayed the review process substantially.
 N/A
18
Appendix 9: Response to the “Other” Category Regarding Barriers Affecting
State DOTs’ Ability to Contract with Universities in Other States
See Table 7: Barriers to Developing Agreements with Out-of-State Universities. for
summary.
 State DOT responses:
 There has been no demonstrated need thus far. Also, state procurement laws require
advertising as if the project is a consultant contract if the state university is not used.
Thus, the project RFP would be open to all qualified vendors.
 As the need arises, we contract separately. Usually, if our in-state resources (i.e.,
universities and other agencies, such as USGS), can't handle our needs, we will issue an
RFP. Anyone can respond to the RFP and we have a set contract for this process.
 Although NJ works with UTRC Region 2 UTC, it is located in NY State governed by NY
laws and this has been an issue.
 We have had some issues up until recently contracting with organizations outside the
state system. We can now, but generally we can meet our research needs going through
our UTC. Note that we have a regional program (New England Transportation
Consortium) that expands the scope of our research and allows us to contract with a
larger field of investigators (occasionally other than universities). And of course, there
are the national efforts.
 To date, we have not identified a need to execute an agreement with a UTC.
 Have historically worked with in-state universities as well as private-sector consultants.
 We do not have a mechanism to pay them directly.
 The real barrier is matching up our research needs with interest/expertise at the UTC's.
 State Statute of Missouri, requires that engineering professional services be led by a
Professional Engineer licensed in the state of Missouri.
 N/A.
 Project agreements are made with outside universities. We do have non-binding
Memoranda of understanding with a consortium of universities and DOTs. (i.e. Region X
Consortium).
 UTC is at University of Denver which does not have transportation engineering
emphasis.
 They want to keep the funding in state as much as possible.
19
Appendix 10: Criteria for Successful Partnerships
 State DOT responses:
 Need to solve problems of mutual interest.
 Clearly defined research objectives and deliverables.
 Open and steady communication; qualified faculty; good facilities; and timely delivery of
products.
 1. Understanding the culture, goals, mission, and purpose; 2. Trust; 3. Willingness to help
each entity satisfy its needs (not just looking out for your own agency); 4. Open, honest,
timely and constant communication, with the right people placed in these communicator
roles; 5. Each entity must be willing to add to the partnership so that it is not just a
contractor-contractee relationship.
 First, the ability to coordinate project selection is very important in order to collaborate
on a project by project basis. Second, there have to be financial benefits on both sides.
We have found that some investigators expect to use 100 percent the UTC funds in a
jointly funded project to expand the project scope. That gives us no incentive to work
with them, and puts our primary objectives and timelines at risk. We respect that half the
UTC funds may be used to expand the scope, but the other half should address ODOT
objectives and offset ODOT costs.
 Trust.
 We have several criteria, although these also applied before we had the joint program.
This partnership just allows us to do it more effectively. Note that we did have significant
interaction with URITC before this agreement. One is to support URI and the URITC
generally, the development of new professors and the education and growth of students.
Given the size of the state, the links between RIDOT and URI are inevitably strong and
need to be kept vital. We also look for projects that can be implemented directly. While
we do have some that are closer to basic research, a great advantage is that we have
expanded the number of colleges within URI that we can tap for expertise. Before the
joint program we usually worked with the engineering school. We were expanding that,
but the partnership with URITC makes it much easier for us to do, given their broader
range of contacts. This has already allowed us to begin some very useful research. It is
also measured by the efficiency with which we can manage our research program. We've
already seen significant improvements in how we oversee projects, even as we work out
the bugs.
 Need to match the needs of both parties, i.e. benefits must be realized by both the DOT
and UTC.
 UTC people need to communicate with DOT people on a regular and ongoing basis, and
be inclusive of DOT people.
 I think partnerships should benefit both sides, and we've found this to be the case. We
benefit by having research done that meets department needs and by having graduate and
undergraduate students, who may be future department employees, involved in our
research. The university benefits because it receives additional financial support for
research and can offer practical research opportunities to their students. I think
communication is the key to the success of these partnerships. Our longest running
partnership with NIATT has become stronger as we've worked to increase ongoing
communications. I talk regularly to the UTC Director and Management Assistant, and
20














feel they are there to help if we have a problem. I serve on NIATT's advisory board,
which has helped me gain a better understand of their work and the challenges they face.
We involve faculty in the development of our problem statements and our staff have built
relations with a number of the researchers. I hope to build these types of relationships
with the other UTCs/transportation centers we are beginning to work with.
Cost-effective solutions for real transportation problems. Effective interaction to ensure
that needs are being met. Financial transparency and adequate bookkeeping.
Implementable results with tangible, measurable benefits.
Cooperation on meeting the needs of the state relating to research topics.
Three things: clearly defined expectations for both parties, mutual respect and
accountability to follow through.
The very low overhead cost that the University of Hawaii charges the Hawaii DOT,
currently at three and a half (3-1/2%) percent.
KDOT employees serve on the Advisory Councils of the UTC's. The UTC's are invited to
submit Research Ideas and are involved in all steps of the KTRAN Research Selection
Process. We are a relatively lower population state so we work together on almost all of
our Research Projects. The Universities and KDOT sponsor several of the annual
meetings together. There is a good familiarity between KDOT and the Universities in
general.
If together we are able to accomplish great things, make a difference in our agency, and
meet the needs and challenges in our business through our partnership and successful
research projects - then it is a success.
1. Must be true partnership between university (-ies) and state DOT 2. Must focus on
statewide needs, not just be a convenient source of funding for university 3. Should
include stakeholders beyond DOT and university (-ies), i.e., COG/MPO, Tribes
Good collaboration and identification of research needs and conduct of research.
We work together on common goals.
California is very fortunate to work closely and well with our UTCs. We credit this to
exemplary (UTC) leadership and commitment to the highest standards of excellence.
Communication, implementable research in the state of Utah, collaboration on useful
research.
Building good DOT-university working relationship, completing project(s) that provide
value to the organization, matching high priority needs of the DOT to UTC expertise.
Ultimately, it is through the development and completion of successful research projects.
Our agreements have gone quite smoothly so the administrative activities are not a
burden to the research. University visits and research forums the past few years have
brought about better research proposals which have led to more successful research. Thus
could be attributed to better partnerships with Universities.
Expertise to do the research we need. Implementable research. Awareness of our business
and research needs. The research interests of the university. Timing of our research needs
versus the university schedule. Collaborative development of research problem
statements/proposals. Partnering to obtain funding from other sources. Help fostering
tomorrow’s workforce through developing interest in transportation – from professors
and students representing diverse technical areas. Being on time and on budget. Getting
the outcome we expect.
21
 Clear and precise contracts. Clear and precise problem statements and scope of work.
Competitive proposal process.
 Respect, cooperation, support, good working relationship, understanding between both
parties, and research must address a transportation need, The university needs to keep on
top of contacting issues and make professors accountable.
 RTI has a great pool of personnel to choose from and to assist. Working on agreements.
 Trust, willingness to partner, strong leadership and project & program management.
 Without a definition of "success", the intent of this question is unclear.
 Communication, communication, communication. We also understand what we are all
trying to accomplish and support each other's goals.
 Expertise available at a university that is needed at a DOT.
 Constant communication, working well with GDOT via workshops to ID UTC projects.
 1) They should work to meet our needs. 2) We should be aware of their needs and meet
them when we can. 3) Regular discussions need to be held to deal with 1 and 2.
 Communication, ability to find projects of mutual interest (always projects that would
work to solve an applied need. Conducting projects that supported the mutual goals of
PennDOT & Penn State.
 It is important for the UTC to listen to the needs and priorities for the state DOTs and it is
important for the DOT to provide timely information and guidance.
 CUTC responses:
 1. Mutual respect, confidence and trust - at a minimum between key leaders on both
sides, 2. Ease of communications; Willingness to listen to the other side's concerns and
needs, 3. Collaborative efforts to identify needs, constraints, and opportunities, 4.
Simplified administrative / operational structure in support of education, research, and
outreach activities: a) A master agreement that takes care of the "legal / contractual"
aspects - to be handled by administrators; this would enable researchers to focus on
technical activities b) Project specific "technical proposals" that identify the scope of
work, key personnel, budget, resource needs, schedule, and deliverables - to be developed
by the researchers and the program managers.
 Frequent communication, Presence of DOT representation on advisory
boards/committees, Collaboration on events and/or outreach activities. Most importantly
though -- Avoiding duplication of sponsored research.
 Projects that meet both the needs of the agency and the university. Joint selection of
projects that provide implementable results for the agency and publishable research for
faculty and students.
 Communication, meeting project deliverable deadlines, staying within budget.
 A definite commitment from TDOT to the UTC with hard dollars or even an agreement
to match state research dollars with UTC dollars. The problem in TN is that there are
multiple universities that have engineering programs and our UTC only has two of the
universities as members.
 Separation of contractual and technical administration at the DOT is critical. Some
processes prohibit or limit contact with technical liaisons at the DOT. The ability to ask
questions, gather information about DOT needs throughout the proposal development and
research performance cycles facilitates a better research product.
 Shared goals and benefits.
22
 Trust and communication.
 Shared goals and objectives. Open communications and trust.
 1) The UTC must be sensitive to the local DOT's research needs; 2) The state DOT is
supportive to scientific research and has research resources; 3) There exist mutual trust,
confidence, and respect between the UTC and the DOT; 4) The university researchers
have good records of conducting research; 5) The UTC is fair in selecting projects.
 To know what issues are key to TDOT.
 Meeting their needs.
 A project that builds the relationship and fosters further work together.
 The UTC Directors would be in a better position to answer this question. What I see is
the inordinate amount of time spent in fruitless meetings about three or more times a
week. There must be a better way, and more efficient way, to communicate, rather than
spending countless hours commuting to meetings and spending countless hours in
inefficient meetings. What ever happened to video conferencing and conference calls?
 Open lines of communication and a partnership whereby the state DOT department and
employees we work with help to guide the research needs assessment, serve as members
of our Research Policy Oversight Committee (the objective committee used to select
projects for funding), and co-host webinars. We use the webinars to educate the Caltrans
employees on the research we are doing and how it can assist them in their positions with
the state DOT. Moreover, MTI offers three education programs – a Master of Science in
Transportation Management, a Certificate in Transportation Security, and a Certificate in
Transportation Management. These accredited courses are offered through two-way
video conferencing at San José State University and designated Caltrans district offices
throughout California. These examples are intended to provide evidence of how we work
hand-in-hand with our state DOT.
 Respect on the part of the UTC for the needs and priorities of the state DOT. Respect on
the part of the state DOT for the research process and educational mission of the UTC.
 Involving them as much as possible, asking for advice, taking advice, providing
information in a timely manner in other words, thinking of them as true partners. Helping
them by promoting their activities as much as possible.
 Building trust between the academics and the DOT.
 Champions at DOTs who are committed to workforce development, diversity and
research support. Center director who perseveres in establishing and maintaining
relationships with state DOT managers and commits some resources to the research and
internships. Center continuing to provide the outcomes desired by DOT.
 Joint identification of research needs. Recognition of the roles that each partner plays in
the relationship. Strong communication between the two. The DOT seeking our help on
research needs and we seeking their help on projects and financial assistance. Interaction
in workshops and committees.
 Both the University and the DOT must value the arrangement and view it truly as a
professional partnership.
 Membership on RAC Identification and coordination of research interest.
 Research results applied to improve DOT's practice.
 Having personal relationships with DOT members involved in research and in funding
research. Having a Master Agreement that speeds up the time-frame for project awards.
 Shared research interests.
23
 Recognition of each other's business models - recognition of each other's performance
measures - development of common goals and project oversight requirements - timely
(but not time invasive) reporting requirements.
24
Appendix 11: Partnership Rating (1=low and 10=high)
 State DOT responses:
 3.
 UMass Amherst 10.
 WTI – 9.
 OTREC: 7 WTI: 9 TransNow: 9.
 UTRC Region 2 http://www.utrc2.org / 6 Rutgers University Tier 1 UTC 6 New Jersey
Institute of Technology (NJIT) 7 Princeton University (not procured in last five years)
Richard Stockton College (new, not procured yet) Rowan University 7 Stevens Institute
of Technology (not procured in last six years) The College of New Jersey 7 University of
Medicine Dentistry NJ (recent and not yet procured).
 URITC - Given the newness of the joint program, it's hard to put a number on it, but I'd
say a '7' and feel that it can only go up from there.
 N/A.
 2.
 I'd rate the success of our partnership with NIATT as an 8. I'd give lower ratings to our
partnerships with other universities in Idaho (maybe a 4 for our partnership with ISU and
a 6 for our partnership with BSU). The lower ratings for our partnerships with these
universities are due to several factors. First, the quality of the research has not been as
consistent as it has with NIATT. Second, these institutions lack the support structure for
transportation research that NIATT has. By this I mean that NIATT has a Director and
Management Assistant that can help us when issues arise, and they have support staff
(grant writer/report editor) that assists researchers on projects. I'd rate our involvement in
the Region X Transportation Consortium as a 6. I think this group has been beneficial.
I've begun developing relationships with the UTC directors in the 5 states and we've
collaborated in a number of ways. Some of our biggest successes include undertaking a
regional pooled fund project focusing on accessing the likely impacts of climate change
in the Pacific Northwest and identifying potential adaptation strategies, working together
on an activity-based education/workforce development grant project, and establishing an
annual award for outstanding graduate student contribution to transportation research.
There have been challenges to working together. It's been difficult to identify projects
we're all interested in working on together and it has been challenging to meet together,
especially in these challenging economic times. However, I think this partnership offer
potential to become more effective. Our project-specific partnerships with WTI and
TRAC/TRANSNOW at WSU are just getting started and it's probably too early to rate
them. However, I am excited to be working with them. I was impressed by the quality of
the proposal we received from them and feel they offer expertise in areas that Idaho's
universities are not as strong in.
 About an 8.
 KSUTC 10 Extremely Satisfied, KUTRI 10 Extremely Satisfied.
 ISU - 9 U of Iowa - 8 U of N. Iowa – 6.
 Arizona does not have a UTC, however our partnership with Arizona's universities
(NAU, ASU, and U of A) is quite successful and has produced good research over the
years.
 Nextrans 3.
25
 University of California Transportation Center (UCTC) -10 Mineta Transportation Center
(MTI) -10 METRANS Transportation Center -10 Sustainable Transportation Center
(STC UCD) -10 Leonard University Transportation Center (LUTC) - 10.
 Utah State University- Pretty successful with our partnerships in areas of LTAP,
Research Projects - 8 MPC- Not so successful- 5.
 8 - our only project was with UVM.
 The universities listed in question 7 we would overall give the same rating to each and
that would be a 7.
 8 - In general they are all flexible.
 Depends on the contract. I could not provide a single rating for each individual
institution.
 8 - University of MN, CTS Iowa, Wisconsin, other universities – 8.
 8.
 Alaska University Transportation Center: 8.
 9.
 GTI-UTC 10.
 5.
 6 Our current agreement has expired and we haven't worked together to initiate a new
agreement at this time.
 University of Maryland - 7 Morgan State University – 8.
 CUTC responses:
 Iowa: 10, California: 4, Minnesota: 7, Missouri: 6, Ohio: 7, and Oregon: 7.
 IGA – 7, PennDOT/MAUTC – 8.
 Montana – 7, California – 7.
 Michigan DOT: currently 5, historically it has been better, Wisconsin DOT: 9, Minnesota
DOT (based on limited experience): 7, Iowa DOT (based on limited experience): new,
unable to score, South Dakota DOT (based on limited experience): 8.
 Research cooperative agreement – 10, Training agreement – 10.
 MN/DOT – 9
 I would rate our partnership with MDOT as 7 out of 10.
 TDOT - 9 Note this has been a work in progress and the great relationship has evolved
over the past five years.
 We really only have one, 7.
 7.
 Outreach and LTAP-7, SPR Research—5.
 Caltrans Partnership: 9.
 Caltrans – 7.
 Washington DOT - 8/9, Oregon DOT - 5 (neither good or bad partnership).
 Oklahoma - 10 (being high).
 SHA Internships – 9, SHA Research – 9, MDOT Graduate Internships – 8.
 Partnership with TxDOT - 10.
 Vermont -10, Maine – 10.
 With Alabama DOT – 8, with Wisconsin DOT - hard to say, we only have one project
with them.
 10.
 Minnesota DOT (7), Wisconsin DOT a (4), Wisconsin DOT b (8).
26