Practices for Transportation Agency Procurement and Management of Advanced Technologies (2025)
Chapter: 2 Current State of Practice
CHAPTER 2
Current State of Practice
Challenges in Technology Procurements at DOTs
There are several unique challenges that DOTs face based on the nature of their mission:
- The variety of technologies in DOTs is extensive, ranging from enterprise software solutions and mobile field technologies to traffic pattern analyses, vehicle tracking, and a variety of transportation infrastructure–monitoring equipment.
- The increasing complexity and diversity of technology solutions in DOTs, along with the growing number of technology providers, means that traditional procurement methods, which do not cater to the specific needs of the technology sector, are no longer sufficient.
- Long-term planning is critical for DOTs when acquiring new technologies. This includes considerations like life-cycle costing, integration with the broader technological environment of the organization, and ensuring compatibility for data-sharing across different platforms.
- The procurement process in DOTs is deeply collaborative. Depending on the situation, DOT professionals might be the primary users of the technology, working alongside their organization’s procurement and IT professionals during the proposal request and contracting phases, or they may act as subject matter experts guiding other departments throughout the acquisition process.
- Furthermore, it is important to note that some applications are unique to owners and operators of transportation assets and services, and so may have limited market competition.
Current State of Practice in DOT Technology RFPs
To better understand the current state of practice, 75 recent RFPs from 31 DOTs representing a variety of technology types were collected. A summary of the findings is presented in this section. Most of these RFPs were procured between 2016 and 2024 to ensure recency and relevancy of the data with respect to modern technologies. The oldest RFPs collected were from 2003, 2010, and 2012 (a single RFP from each year).
Evaluation Criteria for Selecting Transportation Technologies
Among the 75 RFPs included in this review, 48 RFPs (64%, roughly two-thirds) openly published their evaluation weights in the RFP. The average weights and ranges for these RFPs are shown in Table 1.
Several observations can be made based on the data shown in Table 1:
- Transportation technology RFPs currently use similar evaluation criteria. The top eight criteria listed account for roughly 93% of the evaluation weights.
- The data show the weights are somewhat evenly balanced among the criteria, where the top seven criteria have average weights between 19% and 40%.
- The wide ranges show that DOTs feel comfortable adjusting the weights based on project-specific needs, even as high as 50% to 70% for an individual criterion.
Table 1. Typical evaluation criteria and weights in transportation technology RFPs.
| Rank | Evaluation Criteria | Frequency of RFPs | Average Evaluation Weight | Range of Evaluation Weights |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Technology functionality and capability | 31 | 35% | 10 to 70% |
| 2 | Implementation plan | 38 | 27% | 5 to 70% |
| 3 | Company qualifications and experience | 30 | 22% | 5 to 45% |
| 4 | Cost proposal | 43 | 26% | 10 to 64% |
| 5 | Responsiveness to RFP requirements | 6 | 19% | 5 to 35% |
| 6 | Technology demonstration | 4 | 40% | 10 to 75% |
| 7 | Project team availability and experience | 16 | 25% | 15 to 45% |
| 8 | Minority business/DEI/targeted business groups/etc. | 8 | 9% | 5 to 15% |
| 9 | All other criteria combined | 12 | 10% | 5 to 20% |
Also of note—one RFP stated that the evaluation committee will not see the proposed costs while evaluating the other content contained in the proposal.
Procurement Timelines in the RFPs
Table 2 shows the timeline durations published in the RFPs for the bidding phase (defined as the RFP release date to the due date) and the evaluation phase (RFP due date to the selection date).
None of the RFPs published the duration of the contract and negotiation (selection notice to contract signature) or the DOT’s anticipated duration of the technology implementation phase (notice to proceed to “go live”).
Level of Detail in the SOW
Number of Itemized Requirements
Within each of the transportation technology RFPs included in this review, the number of itemized requirements was counted to understand the level of detail typically provided in the SOW. On average, the RFPs included a list of 60 detailed requirements that the solicited
Table 2. Typical evaluation criteria and weights in transportation technology RFPs.
| Planned Duration | Mean | Median | Minimum | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bidding phase (published in 90% of RFPs) |
1.2 months (39 days) |
1 month (35 days) |
1.4 weeks (10 days) |
3.6 months (109 days) |
| Evaluation phase (published in 30% of RFPs) |
3 weeks (21 days) |
2 weeks (14 days) |
3 days | 2.1 months (62 days) |
technology must meet. The full range was a minimum of five requirements to a maximum of 400 requirements published in the RFP.
Sharing the Budget and Schedule Constraints
Seven RFPs (9%) shared their budget. Fourteen RFPs (19%) provided the DOT’s goals for the implementation schedule.
Documenting the Current State
Twenty-four of the RFPs provided explicit and thorough information about their current state environment, which is one of the most important pieces of information that will help technology providers accurately price out their implementation services.
Contract Language Included in the RFP
The contracts included in each transportation technology RFP were evaluated to understand the details and the language provided in the scope. Findings included the following:
- Out of the 75 RFPs analyzed, 48 (64%) provided the client’s full contract language in detail, including the terms and conditions of the contract.
- Eleven RFPs (15%) provided “preferred/selected” contracts instead of the full contract language.
- Two RFPs (3%) analyzed asked for the technology provider’s contract language (also known as the vendor’s paper).
Case Studies of Current Procurement Practices for Technology Procurements
To supplement this chapter and illustrate current practices within the context of specific technology procurement scenarios, case studies are included later in the report, as follows:
- Chapter 8: Case Study for Highway Pavement Management System.
- Chapter 9: Case Study for Electronic State Transportation Improvement Program.
Tools for Practitioners
There are two appendices related to the current state of practice that may be useful to practitioners:
- Appendix F provides a screenshot of the folder structure for the downloaded RFPs along with the file-naming convention that was developed to keep the RFP library organized.
- Appendix G is an RFP library containing a copy of all 75 RFPs organized by the folder structure noted in Appendix F.
The RFP library can then be used by transportation professionals to see how other project teams have procured similar technologies in the past. Each RFP also contains a full copy of the SOW and itemized requirements (e.g., business, functional, technical, security), which may serve as useful inspiration, examples, and brainstorming fodder for future project teams.
