mdot organization and strategic framework...c. j. kjolhede student assistant jason marr student...

Michigan Department of Transportation

APPENDIX AAPPENDIX A

MDOT Organization and Strategic Framework

Michigan Department of Transportation A1

CO

OLa

rry

E. T

ibbi

ts, P

.E.

Sen

ior E

xecu

tive

20

Eng

inee

rO

ffice

of R

esea

rch

and

Bes

t Pra

ctic

esC

alvi

n R

ober

ts, P

.E.

Sta

te O

ffice

Adm

inis

trato

r 17

Libr

aria

nSt

atew

ide

Libr

ary

Ale

xand

ra B

risen

oLi

brar

ian

(A) -

12

Adm

inis

trativ

e E

ngin

eer

Bes

t Pra

ctic

es &

Leg

isla

tive

Initi

ativ

esA

ndré

Clo

ver,

P.E

.Li

cens

ed E

ngin

eer M

gr 1

6

Uni

vers

ity R

esea

rch

Adm

inis

trato

rTr

ansp

orta

tion

Res

earc

h Pr

ogra

mS

udha

ker K

ulka

rni,

P.E

.Li

cens

ed E

ngin

eer M

gr 1

6

C. J

. Kjo

lhed

eS

tude

nt A

ssis

tant

Jaso

n M

arr

Stu

dent

Ass

ista

nt

Kim

berly

San

ford

Stu

dent

Ass

ista

ntW

en-h

ou K

uoS

tatis

ticia

n 14

Nan

cy C

rider

Dep

artm

ent A

naly

st P

11

Hom

er S

prag

ueS

tatis

ticia

n 12

Ann

ette

Nea

ley

Sec

reta

ry E

9

Exe

cutiv

e S

ecre

tary

Ang

ela

Nel

son

Exe

cutiv

e S

ecre

tary

E10

Aub

rey

Mar

ron

Dep

artm

ent A

naly

st -P

11

Mar

ch 2

008

APPENDIX A: MDOT Organization and Strategic Framework

Jenn

ifer

M. G

ranh

olm

Gov

erno

r

Mic

higa

n D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

atio

n(J

uly

2008

)

Mic

higa

n A

eron

autic

sC

omm

issi

onSt

ate

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Com

mis

sion

Stat

e T

rans

port

atio

n D

irec

tor

Kir

k T

. Ste

udle

, P.E

.

Com

mis

sion

Adv

isor

Fran

k E.

Kel

ley

Off

ice

of

Com

mis

sion

Aud

itsJe

rry

J. Jo

nes,

CPA

Com

mis

sion

Aud

itor

Mac

kina

c B

ridg

eA

utho

rity

Rob

ert J

. Sw

eene

y, P

.E.

Exec

utiv

e Se

cret

ary

Chi

ef D

eput

y D

irec

tor

Jacq

uelin

e G

. Shi

nnC

hief

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Off

icer

Leon

E. H

ank,

CPA

Chi

ef O

pera

tions

Off

icer

Larr

y E.

Tib

bits

, P.E

.

Off

ice

ofH

uman

Res

ourc

esTa

mar

a K

irsch

enba

uer

Adm

inis

trato

r

Inte

rnat

iona

l Bri

dge

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Phill

ip M

. Bec

ker,

P.E.

Gen

eral

Man

ager

DIT

Age

ncy

Serv

ices

C. D

ougl

ass C

outo

Info

rmat

ion

Off

icer A

eron

autic

s &

Frei

ght S

ervi

ces

Rob

Abe

ntB

urea

u D

irect

or

Fina

nce

&

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Myr

on G

.Frie

rson

, CPA

Bur

eau

Dire

ctor

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Plan

ning

Susa

n P.

Mor

tel

Bur

eau

Dire

ctor

Frei

ght S

ervi

ces

Mel

vin

Will

iam

sA

dmin

istra

tor

Fina

ncia

l Ope

ratio

nsEd

war

d A

. Tim

pf, C

PAA

dmin

istra

tor

Stat

ewid

e Pl

anni

ngD

enis

e Ja

ckso

nA

dmin

istra

tor

Air

port

sR

icha

rd H

amm

ond

Adm

inis

trato

r

Con

trac

t Ser

vice

sW

ayne

E. R

oe, J

r.A

dmin

istra

tor

Ass

et M

anag

emen

tW

illia

m T

ansi

lA

dmin

istra

tor

Avi

atio

n Se

rvic

esPa

ulin

e M

isja

kA

dmin

istra

tor

Dep

artm

ent S

ervi

ces

Rob

erta

Tis

dale

Adm

inis

trato

r

Proj

ect P

lann

ing

Dav

id W

resi

nski

Adm

inis

trato

r

Perf

orm

ance

Exc

elle

nce

Col

een

Hin

esA

dmin

istra

tor

Inte

rmod

al P

olic

yTi

mot

hy H

oeff

ner,

P.E.

Adm

inis

trato

r

Off

ice

ofC

omm

unic

atio

nsB

illSh

reck

Dire

ctor

Off

ice

ofE

cono

mic

Dev

elop

men

tM

icha

el B

.Kap

pA

dmin

istra

tor

Pass

enge

rT

rans

port

atio

nB

urea

u(v

acan

t)D

irect

or

Hig

hway

Dev

elop

men

tJo

hn S

.Pol

asek

, P.E

.B

urea

u D

irect

or

Des

ign

Mar

k V

anPo

rtFle

et, P

.E.

Engi

neer

Con

stru

ctio

n &

Tec

hnol

ogy

Bre

nda

O'B

rien,

P.E.

Engi

neer

Hig

hway

Del

iver

yJo

hnC

. Frie

nd, P

.E.

Bur

eau

Dire

ctor

Rea

l Est

ate

Mat

thew

DeL

ong

Adm

inis

trato

rM

aint

enan

ce Jo

n R

einc

ke, P

.E.

Engi

neer

Inte

llige

nt T

rans

.Sy

stem

sG

rego

ry K

rueg

er,P

.E.

Stat

ewid

e M

gr.

Tra

ffic

& S

afet

yJa

mes

D. C

ulp,

P.E

.En

gine

er

Bay

Reg

ion

Tony

Kra

tofil

, P.E

.R

egio

n En

gine

er

Gra

nd R

egio

nR

oger

Saf

ford

, P.E

.R

egio

n En

gine

er

Met

ro R

egio

nG

reg

John

son,

P.E.

Reg

ion

Engi

neer

Nor

th R

egio

nB

rian

Nes

s, P.

E.R

egio

n En

gine

er

Sout

hwes

t Reg

ion

Rob

erta

Wel

ke,P

.E.

Reg

ion

Engi

neer

Supe

rior

Reg

ion

Ran

del V

an P

ortfl

iet,

P.E.

Reg

ion

Engi

neer

Uni

vers

ity R

egio

nM

ark

Cha

put,

P.E.

Reg

ion

Engi

neer

Off

ice

ofB

usin

ess

Dev

elop

men

tTe

rren

ce M

. Hic

ksD

irect

or

Off

ice

of

Gov

ernm

enta

l Aff

airs

Ron

ald

DeC

ook

Dire

ctor

Bus

ines

s Dev

elop

men

tD

ivis

ion

Patri

cia

A. C

ollin

sA

dmin

istra

tor

Pass

enge

rT

rans

port

atio

nA

dmin

istr

atio

nSh

aron

Edg

arA

dmin

istra

tor

Safe

ty &

Sec

urity

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Eile

en P

hife

rA

dmin

istra

tor

Off

ice

ofO

pera

tions

Adm

inis

trat

ive

Serv

ices

Sonj

a Sc

heur

erA

dmin

istra

tor

Off

ice

of R

esea

rch

&B

est P

ract

ices

Cal

vin

Rob

erts

, P.E

.En

gine

er

Equ

al E

mpl

oym

ent

Opp

ortu

nity

Che

ryl J

. Stra

yhor

nEE

O O

ffic

er

Michigan Department of Transportation A3

APPENDIX A: MDOT Organization and Strategic Framework

NAM

ETI

TLE

PHO

NECE

LLE-

MAI

LFA

XM

AIL

Rob

erts

, Cal

vin

Engi

neer

of O

RBP

517-

241-

2780

517-

204-

9842

robe

rtsc

517-

335-

2785

B450

Nel

son,

Ang

ela

Exec

utiv

e Se

cret

ary

517-

241-

2780

nels

onan

517-

335-

2785

B450

Mar

ron,

Aub

rey

Dep

artm

ent A

naly

st51

7-37

3-39

69m

arro

na51

7-24

1-31

94B1

55

MDO

T ST

ATEW

IDE

LIBR

ARY

Bris

eno,

Ale

xand

raLi

brar

ian

517-

373-

8548

bris

enoa

l51

7-24

1-31

94B1

55Kj

olhe

de, C

.J.

Libr

ary

Stud

ent A

ssis

tant

517-

241-

1809

kjol

hede

c51

7-24

1-31

94B1

55M

arr,

Jaso

nLi

brar

y St

uden

t Ass

ista

nt51

7-24

1-18

09m

arrja

517-

241-

3194

B155

Sanf

ord,

Kim

berly

Libr

ary

Stud

ent A

ssis

tant

517-

241-

1809

sanf

ordk

151

7-24

1-31

94B1

55

BEST

PRA

CTIC

ES &

LEG

ISLA

TIVE

INIT

IATI

VES

Clo

ver,

Andr

eAd

min

istra

tive

Engi

neer

517-

322-

5683

517-

749-

9001

clov

era

517-

322-

5664

E020

TRAN

SPO

RTAT

ION

RESE

ARCH

PRO

GRA

MKu

lkar

ni, S

udha

ker

Uni

vers

ity R

esea

rch

Adm

inis

trato

r51

7-32

2-56

70ku

lkar

nis

517-

322-

5664

E020

Nea

ley,

Ann

ette

Res

earc

h Ad

min

istra

tive

Assi

stan

t51

7-32

2-16

32ne

aley

a51

7-32

2-12

62E0

20C

rider

, Nan

cyR

esea

rch

Anal

yst

517-

322-

1211

crid

ern

517-

322-

1262

E020

Kuo,

Wen

-hou

Stat

istic

ian

517-

322-

1238

kuow

517-

322-

5664

E020

Spra

gue,

Hom

erSt

atis

ticia

n51

7-32

2-15

80sp

ragu

eh51

7-32

2-56

64E0

20

MIC

HIG

AN D

EPAR

TMEN

T O

F TR

ANSP

ORT

ATIO

NO

FFIC

E O

F RE

SEAR

CH A

ND B

EST

PRAC

TICE

S

A4 Michigan Department of Transportation


APPENDIX BAPPENDIX B

Program Developmentand Administration

Michigan Department of Transportation B1

Michigan Department Of Transportation

5302 (06/08) Office of Research and Best Practices Procedure to Request Statewide Planning and

Research, Part II, Money for Pooled Fund Projects

Revised June 2008

The following procedure is required to request State Planning and Research (SPR), Part II, Program money for Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) participation in pooled fund studies.

1) Submit a written document, followed by an electronic version in Word format, to the Engineer of Research and Best Practices with the following information:

a) What is the name and focus area(s) of this pooled fund study?

b) Location of activity?

c) Who are the other participants?

d) Explain what MDOT’s requirements will be to participate in this pooled fund study.

i) SPR, Part II, dollars.

ii) Dollars from other funds.

iii) MDOT staff participation.

iv) Duration of participation in what capacities.

v) Will out-of-state travel be required? If yes, please explain.

vi) Other considerations as applicable.

e) What is the expected result or end product?

f) Explain how this project outcome matches the strategic plan and goals of MDOT.

g) Explain how participation in this pooled fund will help meet MDOT’s goals.

h) Explain how MDOT will be able to implement or incorporate the results from this pooled fund study.

i) What specific recommendation(s) do we anticipate at the project completion?

j) What implementation of data in terms of end results are we specifically looking for?

k) Do we anticipate the recommendation(s) from the research will have an impact on any existing MDOT specification(s), manual, etc.? If so; explain how. What are we trying to improve in regards to the specification(s), manual, etc.?

2) The Office of Research and Best Practices (ORBP) will review and explore the viability of the benefits to MDOT and SPR, Part II, fund availability for the project.

3) ORBP will prepare a comprehensive proposal incorporating the above submittal and specifying the financial impact to any and all currently approved projects, regardless of start date, as well as the overall SPR, Part II, Program budget if MDOT participation in this proposed pooled fund study is approved.

4) The Engineer of Research will present this comprehensive proposal for executive review and decision.

APPENDIX B: Program Development and Administration

B2 Michigan Department of Transportation


YE

S

MD

OT

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

han

dB

estP

ract

ices

Poo

led

Fund

Stu

dy P

roce

ssD

evel

oped

byO

RB

P T

eam

, Jun

e 24

, 200

8

MD

OT

staf

fre

com

men

dspa

rtici

patio

n to

appr

opria

teB

urea

u (R

AC

Cha

ir)

RA

C C

hair

cons

ults

appr

opria

te F

ocus

Are

a M

anag

er(F

AM

)

Bur

eau

agr

ees

parti

cipa

tion

will

be

nefit

MD

OT

TC/P

M*

com

plet

es/

mod

ifies

and

(r

e)su

bmits

5302

** to

OR

BP

*

A te

chni

cal c

onta

ct (T

C) f

rom

the

parti

cipa

ting

stat

e m

ust b

e id

entif

ied.

If M

ichi

gan

is to

be

the

lead

age

ncy

durin

g a

stud

y,a

proj

ect m

anag

er (P

M) m

ust a

lso

be d

eter

min

ed.

The

TC a

nd P

M m

ay b

e th

e sa

me

pers

on.

**If

5302

is s

ubm

itted

to O

RB

P 2

1 w

orki

ng d

ays

prio

r to

a sc

hedu

led

RE

C M

eetin

g, it

will

be

plac

ed o

n th

e ag

enda

for t

hat m

eetin

g.**

* A

noth

er fu

ndin

g so

urce

cou

ld b

e so

ught

, suc

h as

Sta

tew

ide

Pla

nnin

g an

d R

esea

rch,

Par

t I.

Eng

inee

r OR

BP

Rev

iew

s fo

rco

mpl

eten

ess

NO

YE

SO

RB

Pde

term

ines

SP

R II

fund

ing

elig

ibili

ty a

ndav

aila

bilit

y

OR

BP

add

s st

udy

to p

ropo

sed

amen

ded

SP

RII

Pro

gram

tem

plat

e

NO

***

YE

S

OR

BP

sub

mits

prog

ram

tem

plat

eto

RE

Cfo

rap

prov

al

RE

C a

ppro

val

NO

OR

BP

not

ifies

TC

/P

M *

of R

EC

appr

oval

and

post

ing

on T

PF

Web

site

OR

BP

upd

ates

MD

OT’

sco

mm

itmen

t on

the

TPF

Web

site

(Apr

il &

Nov

.)

Sen

d M

DO

Tap

prov

ed S

PR

IIP

rogr

am te

mpl

ate

to F

HW

A fo

rap

prov

al

FHW

Aap

prov

al

OR

BP

not

ifies

all

inte

rest

ed p

artie

s(R

AC

, FA

M,T

C/

PM

*, P

lann

ing)

Exi

t

OR

BP

not

ifies

RA

C C

hair

And

TC

/PM

*

OR

BP

Res

earc

hA

naly

st (R

A)

Req

uest

sap

prov

ed fo

rm53

02

Poo

led

Fund

Stu

dy S

teer

ing

Com

mitt

ee a

ppro

ves

the

rele

ase

of fu

nds

NO

TC s

ubm

itsan

nual

prog

ress

repo

rts to

OR

BP

NO

YE

S

YE

S

Impl

emen

tabl

ere

sults

opt

aine

d?

Stu

dy e

nds

Ent

er M

DO

TO

RB

P P

roje

ctC

lose

Out

Pro

cess

YE

S

NO

NO

YE

S

Req

uest

an

MP

IN n

umbe

r

Req

uest

Obl

igat

ions

inM

FOS

Cre

ate

Pro

ject

Info

rmat

ion

fileFA

M a

ssig

nsth

e TC

/PM

* to

the

proj

ect

Michigan Department of Transportation B3


5307 (05/08)

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & BEST PRACTICES TRANSPORTATION POOLED FUND STUDY

ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2008

STUDY TITLE:

FUNDING SOURCE: SPR, Part II ( %) FHWA ( %) MFUNDS( %) NCHRP ( %) OTHER ( %)

TECHNICAL CONTACT:

TPF # MDOT START DATE JOB NUMBER MDOT COMPLETION DATE (Original) ORBP NUMBER COMPLETION DATE (Revised) LEAD AGENCY PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACTOR

BUDGET STATUS Total Budget FY 2009 Estimated Budget

TOTAL COST (Original)* TOTAL (Revised)**

EXPENDED FUNDS TO DATE*** SALARIES FY 2008 Budget EQUIPMENT (Expendable)

FY FUNDS (Original)**** EQUIPMENT (Non-expendable) (Revised)***** TRAVEL

FY EXPENDITURE OTHER PERCENT COMPLETE (By Budget) PERCENT COMPLETE (By Work)

PARTICIPATING STATES ABBREVIATE THE PARTICIPATING STATES. IF MDOT IS THE LEAD AGENCY, ALSO LIST THE CONTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE PER STATE.

( %), ( %), ( %), ( %), ( %), ( %), ( %),

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

FISCAL YEAR 2007 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

JUSTIFICATION(S) FOR REVISION(S) (List the approval date for the revision(s))

SUMMARY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION (Required the last year of participation)

*The original authorized total budget amount of the study **The authorized total budget amount as revised, if applicable *** The project life to date expenditure ****The current fiscal year’s original budget amount *****The revised fiscal year budget amount, if applicable



APPENDIX CAPPENDIX C

Research ProjectManagement

Michigan Department of Transportation C1

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES Research Advisory Panel (RAP) Members Selected

PROJECT TITLE:

PROJECT #: ORBP #:

PROJECTMANAGER PRINCIPALINVESTIGATORRESEARCHCONSULTANT AGENCY

RAP MEMBERS Name Division/Region/TSC Telephone E-Mail

Focus Area Manager’s Signature:

Date:

ORBP Initial of Receipt: Date of ORBP Initial:

cc: Project File

APPENDIX C: Research Project Management


C2 Michigan Department of Transportation

Mic

higa

n D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

Prop

osal

for P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t Ser

vice

s, “N

ame”

R

evis

ed T

imel

ine

for W

ork

Are

as a

nd T

asks

Ju

ly 2

007

thro

ugh

Dec

embe

r 201

0

20

07

2008

20

09

2010

St

art D

ate

July

200

7 3Q

074Q

071Q

082Q

083Q

084Q

081Q

092Q

093Q

094Q

091Q

102Q

103Q

104Q

10

Wor

k A

rea

A: P

eer E

xcha

nge

CO

MPL

ETED

1.

Dev

elop

them

e(s)

, ide

ntify

team

2. L

ead

plan

ning

mee

tings

3. D

evel

op p

re-e

xcha

nge

com

mun

icat

ions

pla

n

4. A

rran

ge fa

cilit

ies,

acc

omm

odat

ions

5. S

erve

as

faci

litat

ors

6. D

evel

op p

ost-e

xcha

nge

com

mun

icat

ions

pla

n

Wor

k A

rea

B: C

omm

unic

atio

ns

1. D

esig

n to

ols

to ra

ise

awar

enes

s of

O

RN

BP

2. D

esig

n to

ols

to b

ring

MD

OT

new

kn

owle

dge

3. W

rite

cont

ent

4. F

acili

tate

pub

licat

ion

and

dist

ribut

ion

5. D

eliv

er p

rese

ntat

ions

at M

DO

T

Wor

k A

rea

C: R

esea

rch

Adm

in. M

anua

l C

OM

PLET

ED1.

Rev

iew

dra

ft m

anua

l

2. R

ecom

men

d us

es o

f man

ual

Wor

k A

rea

D: O

RB

P St

rate

gic

Plan

ning

1. C

oord

inat

e w

ith M

DO

T pl

an

2. Id

entif

y na

tiona

l bes

t pra

ctic

es

3. L

ead

stra

tegi

c pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss

4. D

raft,

revi

se a

nd fi

naliz

e st

rate

gic

plan

5. D

evel

op o

utre

ach

activ

ities

6. A

ssis

t with

SO

AT

deve

lopm

ent

Michigan Department of Transportation C2a


EXAM

PLEEELLLLLELE4Q

09

EEQ10 LELLEELE

PLE

PPPLLEE

PLE

MMPPPLLEE

MPLE

MMMPPPLLEE

MPLE

MMMPPPLLE

MPL

AMMMMPPPLL

AAAMA

AM

PLAAMMMM

PPPLAM

PXAXAAMAAMAMMMMP

MP

MP

MPP

XAMP

XXAAAMMMMPP

T ne

w

new

XAXAAMAAMAMMMMMM XAM

XXAAAMMMM

XAXAAMAAMAMMMM

EXAM XXAAAMMM

publ

icat

ion

and

dist

ribut

ion

pu

blic

atio

n an

d di

strib

utio

n XAXAAMAAMAMMM

EXAM XXAAAMM

sent

atio

ns a

t MD

OT

sent

atio

ns a

t MD

OT

EXAXXAAA EXEX

sear

ch A

dmin

. M EXEXAX

anua

l an

ual

XX EXXXs

of m

anua

l s

of m

anuXXXEXXXEXE

rate

gic

Plan

ning EXXT plan T plan EE

C2a Michigan Department of Transportation

Wor

kA

rea

BW

ork

Are

a D

Wor

kA

rea

EW

ork

Are

a F

Prin

cipa

lC

onsu

ltant

21%

7560

5075

260

$0

Con

sulti

ng,

Writ

ing,

Pro

ject

M

anag

emen

t8%

025

2550

100

$0

Writ

ing

&

rese

arch

48%

300

100

100

100

600

$0

Edi

ting

10%

805

400

125

$0

Pub

licat

ion

and

Web

Des

ign,

G

raph

ics

10%

5020

500

120

$0

Adm

inis

trativ

esu

ppor

t3%

2510

100

45$0

Labo

r Sub

tota

ls53

022

027

522

512

50$0

$0.0

0 T

rave

l**Pr

intin

g, c

opie

s, o

fc. S

uppl

ies*

*$0

$0

**Tr

avel

, prin

ting,

sup

plie

s bi

lled

at c

ost.

Orig

inal

Cos

t

"Dat

e"

Prop

osal

for P

roje

ct M

anag

emen

t Ser

vice

s

Prep

ared

for M

ichi

gan

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Prep

ared

by

"Nam

e"Ef

fort

by

Task

s (H

ours

and

Cos

ts)

Am

endm

ent f

or A

dditi

onal

$10

0,00

0

* See

Lab

or a

nd O

verh

ead

Rat

es

Tota

lH

ours

Hou

rly R

ate

Incl

udin

gO

verh

ead *

Am

endm

ent

Cos

tPr

inci

pal S

taff

Mem

bers

Rol

e in

Pro

ject

Tim

e (%

) O

ver

Con

trac

tPe

riod

CTC

Ass

ocia

tes

LLC

M

DO

T C

omm

unic

atio

ns P

ropo

sal


EXAM

PLEELE

7526

0$0

75

260

$0

025

2550

100

$0

025

2550

100

$0

Writ

ing

&

ritin

g &

re

sear

chse

arch

48%

300

100

100

100

600

300

100

100

100

Edi

ting

ing

10%

805

10%

805

Pub

licat

ion

and

Pub

licat

ion

and

Web

Des

ign,

W

eb D

esig

n,

Gra

phic

sG

raph

ic1

ghe

adhe

ad*

en Co LE PLE

AMPL

XAM

EXA

EXXAAM

PLLEE

MMPE

"name"MDOT Proposal for Technical Communication ServicesLabor and Overhead RatesApril 6, 2007

Classification

PayRate

OverheadRate*

Subtotal Fixed Fee

Total Fixed HourlyBillingRate

(rate/fee)Principal $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Senior Associate $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Researchers/Writers $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Editor $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Graphic Designer** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00Administrative Associate $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

*Includes employee taxes and fringe benefits**Subcontractor overhead rate = 5%



EXAMPLE

0.000.00 $0.0$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.000.00 $0.00$0.00

0000 $0.000 $0.00$0.0$0.00$0.00 $0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.00.00 $0.00$ $0.00$0.00

PLLEEEEEELELELEPLE

Subcontract Checklist and Examples

The following statements must be included in subcontract agreements:

MDOT/Prime contract number and authorization number (if applicable). Prime consultant’s name. Sub-consultant’s name. Description of work to be performed by sub-consultants, as stated in the scope of services. Job number(s), control section(s), and structure number(s), if applicable. A derivation of cost must be included in the subcontract. One of the following statements (using recommended or similar contract language) specifying

the basis of payment, maximum contract amount, and fixed fee amount (if applicable) must be written into the subcontract:

(1)Actual Cost & Total Dollar Amount: compensation for the services must be on the basis of actual cost and must not exceed $____, as set forth in Exhibit ____.

(2)Actual Cost Plus Fixed Fee: compensation for the services must be on the basis of actual cost plus a fixed fee and must not exceed $________, which amount includes a fixed fee of $______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.

(3)Lump Sum: Compensation for the services must be on a lump sum basis in the amount of $______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.

(4)Milestone: Compensation for the services must be on a milestone basis in the amount of $______, payable upon completion of defined milestones, as set forth in Exhibit ____.

(5)Fixed Hourly Rate – Compensation for the services must be on the basis of a fixed hourly rate plus actual direct expenses and must not exceed $______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.

(6)Unit Price: Compensation for the services must be on the basis of a set unit price and must not exceed $ ______, as set forth in Exhibit ______.

A statement must be included in the subcontract that the subcontract will be governed by the laws of the State as set forth in the prime agreement.

A statement must be included that all terms and conditions included in the prime agreement are incorporated in the subcontract.

A statement must be included stating that in the event of a conflict between the terms and conditions of the subcontract and those of the prime agreement, the terms and conditions of the prime agreement will prevail.

(Optional) Subcontract effective and expiration dates. If these dates are not provided in the subcontract, the prime agreement’s effective and expiration dates will be used.

The subcontract must be submitted to the department for approval prior to execution by the prime consultant and subcontractor. Once department approval is obtained, the subcontract will be mailed to the prime consultant for execution. An original signed copy of the subcontract must be returned to MDOT for the contract file.

NOTE: Subcontracts for less than $25,000 do not require MDOT approval. Sub-contracts must be approved by MDOT prior to sub work commencing on a project or invoicing for sub work.

All sub-contract revisions, including deletions and additions to contract language or budget information, must be reviewed and approved by MDOT.



MDOT 5303 (01/08) Page 1

OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES RESEARCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION FORM

FY YEAR

COMPLETED BY SUBMITTING AGENCY PROJECT TITLE

CRITICAL ISSUE CODE

MDOT PROJECT CATEGORY (See below)

PROJECT MANAGER

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE

SCOPE

PRODUCTS/DELIVERABLES

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

SUBMITTING AGENCY AGENCY NAME

CONTACT NAME

TELEPHONE #

FAX #

EMAIL ADDRESS

BUDGET INFORMATION TOTAL BUDGET (Breakdown by FY)

FY1

FY2

FY3

FY4

INDIRECT COST RATE

CRITICAL ISSUE CODES

0 - ADMINISTRATION 1 - CONGESTION: Increasingly congested facilities across all modes 2 - EMERGENCIES: Vulnerability to terrorist strikes and natural disasters 3 - ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT: Extraordinary challenges 4 - EQUITY: Burdens on the disadvantaged 5 - FINANCE: Inadequate revenue 6 - HUMAN & INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: Inadequate investment in innovation 7 - INFRASTRUCTURE: Enormous, aging capital stock to maintain 8 - INSTITUTIONS: 20th century institution mismatched to 21st century missions 9 - SAFETY: Lost leadership in road safety

MDOT PROJECT CATEGORIES

1 - Bridges & Structures 2 - Asphalt Pavements 3 - Concrete Pavements 4 - Traffic & Safety



MDOT 5303 (01/08) Page 2 5 - ITS & VII Congestion Management 6 - Environment 7 - Miscellaneous





E


5305 (05/08)

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & BEST PRACTICES MDOT RESEARCH PROJECT REPORT FORM

FISCAL YEARS 2008-2009 PROJECT TITLE

FUNDING SOURCE: SPR, Part II ( %) FHWA ( %) MFUNDS ( %) NCHRP ( %) OTHER ( %)

PROJECT MANAGER CONTRACT/AUTHORIZATION # PROJECT START DATE SPR NUMBER COMPLETION DATE (Original) ORBP NUMBER COMPLETION DATE (Revised) RESEARCH AGENCY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

FY 2008 QUARTER 1st (Oct 1 – Dec 31) 2nd (Jan 1 – Mar 31) 3rd (Apr 1 – Jun 30) 4th (July 1 – Sept 30)

BUDGET STATUS Total Budget FY 2009 Estimated Budget

TOTAL COST (Original)* TOTAL (Revised)**

EXPENDED FUNDS TO DATE*** SALARIES FY 2008 Budget EQUIPMENT (Expendable)

FY FUNDS (Original)**** EQUIPMENT (Non-expendable) (Revised)***** TRAVEL

FY EXPENDITURE OTHER % PERCENT COMPLETE (By Budget) PERCENT COMPLETE (By Work)

PURPOSE AND SCOPE

FISCAL YEAR 2007 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2008 ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE

FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

JUSTIFICATION(S) FOR REVISION(S) (List the approval date for the revision(s))

SUMMARY OF THE IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION (Required the last year of the project)

*The original authorized total budget amount of the project **The authorized total budget amount as revised, if applicable *** The project life to date expenditure ****The current fiscal year’s original budget amount *****The revised fiscal year budget amount, if applicable




MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES

QUARTERLY REPORT EVALUATION FORM

Project Manager:

Do you approve of the attached quarterly report form: Yes No

If no, please explain why:

Must be returned to ORBP within 10 working days


MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES

UNIVERSITY CONTRACT INVOICE APPROVAL FORM

Please review the attached invoice and approve or disapprove.

RETURN TO ANNETTE NEALEY (E020).

Project Manager: R. Till Invoice #:

Date Invoice Received:

Date Invoice Sent to PM:

Title of Project:

University/Consultant: Michigan State University

Contract #: 06-0411 Authorization #:

Project #:

Notes: Invoice is for the period of .

Project Manager’s Signature of Approval:

Date:

University Research Administrator’s Signature of Approval:

Date:





EX

Michigan Department of Transportation C9b


C9b Michigan Department of Transportation


Michigan Department of Transportation C9b


E

C9b Michigan Department of Transportation


EXAMPLE

Michigan Department of Transportation C9c


C9c Michigan Department of Transportation


E

Michigan Department of Transportation C9c


C9c Michigan Department of Transportation


E


5306 (03/08)

OFFICE OF RESEARCH & BEST PRACTICES STATEWIDE PLANNING & RESEARCH, PART II

RESEARCH PROJECT CHANGE REQUEST FORM

PROJECT TITLE PROJECT MANAGER

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

RESEARCH AGENCY

RESEARCH MANAGER

CONTRACT/AUTHORIZATION #

SPR NUMBER

ORBP NUMBER

APPROVED TOTAL COST

PROJECT START DATE

APPROVED COMPLETION DATE

CHANGE REQUEST(S)

CHANGE IN STAFF ORIGINAL STAFF PERSON

POSITION TITLE

EFFECTIVE DATE OF CHANGE

NEW STAFF PERSON REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

CHANGE IN SCOPE OF WORK REQUESTED CHANGE REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

CHANGE IN COST COST INCREASE/DECREASE

NEW COST

REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

CHANGE IN COMPLETION DATE NEW COMPLETION DATE REQUESTED

REASON/JUSTIFICATION FOR CHANGE

PROJECT MANAGER SIGNATURE DATE

ENGINEER OF RESEARCH AND BEST PRACTICES SIGNATURE DATE

FHWA APPROVAL NEEDED? NO YES, If yes, complete the following

DATE FHWA APPROVAL REQUEST WAS SENT

DATE FHWA APPROVAL WAS RECEIVED

CC: Project File




APPENDIX DAPPENDIX D

Implementation andTechnology Transfer

MD

OT

Offi

ce o

f Res

earc

han

d B

est P

ract

ices

Ado

ptio

n Pr

oces

sD

evel

oped

and

revi

sed

by O

RB

P Te

am,O

ctob

er 2

007

EN

TER

Impl

emen

tatio

n/R

esea

rch

Man

ager

Dev

elop

deta

iled

pilo

t pla

n

Subm

it pl

an to

RAC

for r

evie

wan

d de

term

inat

ion

Is it

feas

ible

at th

is ti

me?

OR

BP

Com

plet

esC

lose

out

Will

we

cond

uct p

ilot?

Res

earc

hM

anag

erco

nduc

ts p

ilot

stud

y

Will

we

impl

emen

t at a

larg

er s

cale

?

OR

BP C

ompl

etes

Clo

se o

ut

Is fu

rther

eval

uatio

nne

eded

?

Do

we

gofu

rther

with

impl

emen

tatio

n?

Rep

ort t

o R

ECth

ru O

RB

P

Ref

er b

ack

toap

prop

riate

leve

lfo

r fur

ther

stu

dy/

eval

uatio

n

Rep

ort t

o R

EC

Sub

mit

to R

EC

thru

OR

BPA

gree

toad

opt?

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

EXI

T

Sub

mit

plan

and

dete

rmin

atio

n to

R

EC th

ru O

RBP

Subm

it pl

an a

ndde

term

inat

ion

toO

RB

P

Rep

ort R

AC

deci

sion

to

REC

Rep

ort t

o O

RB

P

Impl

emen

tatio

nM

anag

er c

reat

espl

an to

ens

ure

adop

tion

Impa

ct M

eetin

gw

ith s

take

hold

ers

Dis

tribu

tion

ofap

prov

ed a

dopt

ion

plan

Ado

ptio

n

D1

APPENDIX D: Implementation and Technology Transfer

D1 Michigan Department of Transportation

Research Spotlight

D2

ORBP Newsletter

D3

Office ofResearch & Best Practices

Inside This Issue:

Michigan Department of Transportation • January 2008

Team BuildingNew name reflects global

reach of research and best

practices at MDOT.

Team building exercise helps

refine the structure and

operation of ORBP.

Mission and vision statements

articulate the purpose and

direction of the office.

Peer ExchangeFocused effort yields valuable

insights into administration of

Michigan’s Transportation

research cycle.

Michigan’s transportation research

community is healthy and well-

respected; retaining staff and

communicating with stake-

holders will keep it strong.

ResultsORBP team unveils process for

implementing research results.

Peer exchange report, updated

Research Manual, and new

Web site will help maximize the

potential of the ORBP.

Team BuildingIn his book Path of Least Resistance for Man-

agers (1999), author Robert Fritz introduces the notion of a structural tension that exists in every organization. He describes this tension as the difference between an organization’s cur-rent reality and a vision of what is possible for the organization in the future. “Tension creates a state of nonequilibrium,” Fritz writes. He goes on to explain that the structure of an organiza-tion naturally attempts to restore equilibrium. In other words, structural tension causes move-ment between an organization’s current reality and a vision; either the vision devolves until it resembles the current reality or the current re-ality evolves to become more like the vision. Structure is the key to making a current reality evolve toward a vision.

Casting Vision, Refining StructureIn early 2005, MDOT’s leadership created

a vision for an offi ce that would orchestrate and coordinate all of MDOT’s research ef-forts, and monitor both transportation research and operational practices nationwide to make sure valuable innovations and best practices in other places would not go unnoticed. In pur-suit of this vision, MDOT’s Offi ce of Research and National Best Practices (ORNBP) was es-tablished on September 26, 2005. The purpose of the new offi ce was to lead the department’s research efforts and to collect and dissemi-nate transportation best practices throughout MDOT, within Michigan and across the coun-try. In late 2007, “National” was dropped from the name. The new name, Offi ce of Research and Best Practices (ORBP), expands the scope and extends the vision for the offi ce. “The name

Continuous Improvement Team building and peer exchange efforts provide a clear vision and a refined structure for the transportation research cycle in Michigan

Peer Exchange Business leader Andrew Carnegie once

said, “The range of our collective vision is far greater when individual insights become one.” It is perhaps with this in mind that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established the peer exchange program with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi -cacy act of 1991. The program requires that each state department of transportation (DOT) agree to a peer exchange of its Research, De-velopment, and Technology Transfer (RD&T) management process to be eligible for FHWA planning and research funds.

see “Team Building” on page 2

see “Peer Exchange” on page 2

change will better position us to exchange best practices and innovations globally, not just na-tionally,” explained offi ce administrator Calvin Roberts. “It will also enable us to more easily share Michigan’s extraordinary transportation research talent and expertise with the global transportation community.”

Since 2006, Roberts and his team have been working to align research investments with the Michigan Transportation Plan, which presents goals, objectives, strategies, and policy recom-mendations to set the direction for decisions and investments on the state transportation system through the year 2030. “Our team was assem-bled to make the most of every research opportu-nity within the department,” explained Roberts. “We’ve realized some success, but the diversity of the groups we serve has made it diffi cult to develop a cohesive strategy. I felt we were miss-ing key structural elements that would enable us

MDOT Office of Research and Best Practices Page 2

“Our mission and vision grew out of our strength and po-sition as a team,” Roberts explained. “We are located in the center of a highly integrated network of dynamic partnerships among transportation professionals.”

Here’s the Plan Strategic planning was the fi nal phase of the team building pro-

cess. “A strategic plan takes into account the internal dynamics of an organization and provides the structure necessary to transform a vision into a new reality,” Becker explained. A detailed analy-sis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) was the fi rst step in the strategic planning process. After the SWOT analysis, the team identifi ed things they could do to capitalize on their strengths in order to protect against weakness-es, seize opportunities, and avoid threats.

The team then articulated specifi c initiatives that would help them accomplish the mission of the ORBP while realizing their shared vision. In addition to techniques for refi ning operations internal to the team, they also identifi ed strategies and tools for nurturing channels of communication between the team and their customers. As an example of an internal tool, the team has made a commitment to start every meeting with an activity that is de-signed to stimulate “out-of-the-box” thinking.

“Innovation is a common thread running through the long-range plan for the department, and it’s one of our core values,” Roberts explained. “These activities will help maintain a culture of innovation on the team.”

External tools include a department-wide research database and an annual research conference. The database will ensure that research conducted in each region and transportation service cen-ter is shared across the entire state. “The research database will maximize the utility of research investments and prevent dupli-cation of effort,” Roberts explained. “It will also promote multi-modal research by providing a holistic view of research efforts.”

An annual conference will help maintain channels of commu-nication within the transportation community. Interestingly, the inherent diversity of this community, which was one of the main reasons Roberts initiated the team building effort, turned out to be one of the core strengths of the team. “Our network of part-nerships among transportation professionals provides us access to a wealth of valuable information,” Roberts said. “The refi ned structure of our team and the new tools we’re developing will help us and our customers make the most of every opportunity.”

to do more.” With this in mind, Roberts arranged with MDOT’s Performance Excellence Division in July 2007 to initiate a team-building and strategic planning effort within the offi ce.

Customers Provide Clarity Mark Becker, MDOT performance consultant, guided the ORBP

through a series of exercises to help refi ne structure and operations. The effort began with a process mapping exercise. Through it, the team identifi ed discrete steps involved in administering transporta-tion research. They then listed customers, stakeholders, products and services, and quality characteristics associated with each step. When complete, the process map provided the ORBP team with a visual overview of their sphere of infl uence. “Identifying who must be satisfi ed, what they need, and how to serve them provides great clarity for the rest of the process,” Becker explained.

ORBP customers include executives, managers, and staff members of federal and state government agencies, colleges and universities, and private companies. “We serve the transportation research community by identifying relevant research needs, ad-ministering meaningful research projects, and then implementing valuable research results,” Roberts explained. “Serving such a diverse group is challenging. Clear goals, good communication and strong relationships are keys to doing so successfully,”

Mission and Vision With their focus directed through the process map and fi rmly

grounded on their customers, the team then wrote vision and mis-sion statements, and identifi ed common values among all team members. “A team’s mission has to do with the specifi c prod-ucts and services delivered to customers,” Becker explained. “A team’s vision articulates how the individual members of the team see themselves working together to accomplish the mission. The mission is external; the vision is internal. Values determine how the vision is pursued and the mission is accomplished.”

The mission of the ORBP includes four focus areas: Coordinate and manage research programs for MDOT; Monitor learning and innovation in development and operation of integrated transportation systems; Promote implementation of learning and innovation throughout MDOT; Encourage research that supports integrated multi-modal transportation and MDOT’s strategic goals.

The ORBP’s vision is to be a recognized leader in coordinat-ing applied research and implementing results. To do so, the offi ce will:

Identify cutting edge research topics; Coordinate development of research projects;Implement research results.

1.2.

3.

4.

1.2.3.

Team Building (continued)

The peer exchange program is a means for state DOTs to im-prove research programs through customer input, peer counsel, and identifi cation of best practices. After the fi rst round of peer exchanges were held, the National Cooperative Highway Research

Peer Exchange (continued)

January 2008Page 3

Figure 1. Peer Exchange Panel.

Program (NCHRP) issued a report titled Peer Exchange: a Value-added Program Management Tool (2001). The report described the process for conducting an exchange conference, and it sum-marized the results of the fi rst round of conferences. The program received wide acclaim from states that participated. Since then, several rounds of peer exchange conferences have been held with continued high levels of success and support.

Focusing the Efforts The ORBP sponsored a peer exchange of MDOT’s research

program on December 3–6, 2007. In addition to four members from the ORBP team, the peer exchange panel (see Figure 1) in-cluded a representative from Pennsylvania State University, two representatives from the FHWA, and representatives from DOTs in Iowa, Louisiana, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington State. Leni Oman from Washington State served as chair of the panel. CTC & Associates, a technical communications fi rm from Madison, WI, that specializes in information design for public agencies and civil engineering fi rms, assisted the ORBP in facilitating the exchange.

The ORBP team assembled the panel based on expertise and experience in the following fi ve focus areas:

Developing a research program Identifying research needs Partnering with universities Managing research projects Measuring and reporting performance

The focus areas address current needs within the MDOT research program. “We chose members whose programs followed a path of development similar to ours,” Roberts explained. “We were encour-aged to realize the great position we’re in and we gained tremen-dous insights into making adjustments to refi ne our program.”

1.2.3.4.5.

Research a High Priority The structural integrity of MDOT’s research program, as identi-

fi ed by the panel, can be attributed to the deep interest in research among technical staff throughout the department and among universities, consultants, and industry professionals across the state. Michigan is home to a vibrant transportation research com-munity and MDOT has a reputation for credible research that is regularly applied in other states. With six internationally known universities in the state, including two University Transporta-tion Centers (UTCs) and an effective Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP), MDOT has access to a wide range of valuable research and technology transfer facilities, services, and capabili-ties. In addition, the FHWA division offi ce in Michigan is very supportive of MDOT’s research program; the program regularly capitalizes on federal funding opportunities.

The panel also identifi ed cultural strengths of the ORBP. Spe-cifi cally, support of research by the highest levels of MDOT lead-ership, and commitment among the core ORBP staff to align the program with the direction of the department as a whole is a strong foundation for continued success. The ORBP’s emphasis on pursu-ing research topics that cover all areas of transportation research, not just materials and construction, is evidence of this alignment.

Retention, Communication and RelationshipsAreas where the ORBP team could face challenges in the fu-

ture include maintaining technical expertise in-house; collect-ing, tracking and communicating research results; and nurtur-ing the relationships that are necessary to continue the success and expansion of the program.

Back row, from left: Tim Croze, MDOT; Mark Morvant, Louisiana DOT; Mark Dunn, Iowa DOT; Dr. Sudhakar Kulkarni, MDOT; Marcia Kenney, Recently Retired from FHWA. Front row, from left: Blaine Leonard, Utah DOT; Dave Huft, South Dakota DOT; John Mason, Pennsylvania Transportation Institute; Calvin Roberts, MDOT; Leni Oman, Washington DOT; Andre Clover, MDOT; Angela Nelson, MDOT.

MDOT Office of Research and Best Practices Page 4

This publication is intended to disseminate technical information to MDOT personnel and is published by the Offi ce of Research and Best Practices. 5000 copies of this document were printed at a cost of $0.21 per copy for a total of $1050.00. It is printed in accordance with Executive Directive 2007-17.

��

© 2008 Michigan Technological University. To obtain permission to reprint text or graphics from this publication, or if you have suggestions or ques-tions, contact Calvin Roberts, Administrator, MDOT Offi ce of Research and Best Practices; 517-241-4667, FAX 517-355-2785.Produced by:

Michigan’s Local Technical Assistance Program John Ryynanen, Editor

ReferencesFritz, R. 1999, The Path of Least Resistence for Managers. San

Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Harder, B.T., 2001, Peer Exchange: A Value-added Program

Management Tool. National Cooperative Highway Research Pro-gram, Project No. 20-7/Task 125, March 2001.

Figure 2. Overview of the Research Adoption Process.

Team Building + Peer Exchange = ResultsBased on results of the team building effort and advice from

the peer exchange, the ORBP team established a detailed plan for implementing research results (see Figure 2). This plan, referred to as the adoption process, will help principal investigators, proj-ect managers, and research managers develop implementation plans during the origination phase of a research project. “This piece of the transportation research cycle makes adoption of re-sults a part of normal department operations, which will maxi-mize the return on our research investments,” Roberts said.

Next Steps To fi nalize this exciting period of self-examination and plan-

ning for the ORBP, and to take steps toward pursuing the full po-tential of Michigan’s research program, the team will complete three immediate projects. The fi rst will be to publish a report that summarizes the peer exchange effort. The report will include specifi c observations and suggestions from the panel about how to achieve success in each focus area.

The second and third projects both address the need for good communication within the transportation research community. A research Web site is in development through the ORBP. The

Web site is currently available to the ORBP team; plans are in place to make it available outside of MDOT. An update of the department’s Research Administration Manual is scheduled to be released in February 2008. The manual was last updated in 2003, and does not refl ect the new strategy for administering research in the state. “The new research manual will provide comprehen-sive guidance for all groups and individuals at all phases of the research cycle,” explained Roberts.

EXIT

ENTER

ORBP CompletesClose out

Submit plan anddetermination toREC thru ORBP

Will weimplement at alarger scale?

Will weconduct pilot?

Submit plan anddetermination to

ORBP

Yes

Is it feasibleat this time? Yes

No No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Submit plan toRAC for review

and determination

Implementation/reseach

manager developdetailed pilot plan

Report RACdecision to

REC

Researchmanagerconductspilot study

Is furtherevaluationneeded?

Refer back toappropriate level for further study/

evaluation

Report to ORBP Report to REC

Do we gofurther with

implementation?

Implementationmanager createsplan to ensure

adoption

Submit to RECthru ORBP Yes

NoNo

Agree toadopt?

Report to RECthru ORBP

ORBP completesclose out

Impact meetingwith stakeholders

Distributionof approved

adoption plan

Adoption

No

mdot organization and strategic framework...c. j. kjolhede student assistant jason marr student...

Documents