ACRP Design Competition

Submissions

A submission portal will be provided in 2025
All submissions must be made by 5:00pm EDT on May 9, 2025 

Notice of Intent

Please submit your Notice of Intent to Matt Griffin

Appendixes

Appendix D (pdf)

*Note: This form should be included as Appendix D in the submitted PDF of the design package. The original with signatures must be sent along with the required print copy of the design

Appendix E (pdf)

2024-2025 Evaluation Criteria for University Design Competition for Addressing Airport Needs.

The Competition Evaluators will use the following in judging submissions. The total number of available points is 130. Evaluators may choose to provide a score in half-point increments.

1. Introductory Material - 5 points
   • Does the Executive Summary accurately encapsulate the design? (2 points)
   • Is the Table of Contents present and does it follow the structure in the Competition Guidelines? (3 points)
2. Problem Statement and Background - 10 points
   • Is the Design Challenge clearly stated? (3 points)
   • Does the section of the design submission demonstrate that the individual or team has a clear understanding of the issues surrounding the design challenge, including current problems and issues as well as state of the art approaches? (7 points)
3. Literature Review - 11 points
   • An effective summary of literature review is provided. (7 points)
   • The literature review includes relevant ACRP studies and reports or notes if no relevant ACRP studies found. (4 points)
4. Problem Solving Approach - 46 points
   • How sound is the team's approach? Are solid engineering/scientific methodologies employed? How effective is the technical analysis? (10 points)
   • Is there evidence of thorough design process? (5 points)
   • Is the design supported by appropriate drawings, mockups, computer codes, charts, tables or other data as appropriate? (5 points)
   • The degree to which the design shows evidence of understanding of appropriate regulatory and certification issues. (4 points)
   • How well are the student's/team's conclusions supported? (5 points)
   • Is the work presented an appropriate level of effort for the design participants? (Individual student versus team; undergraduate or graduate or mixed.) For example, one would expect a higher level of knowledge and design from an all graduate student team versus an all undergraduate team; one would also expect a higher level of effort for a team versus an individual because the team has multiple contributors and can collectively devote more time than an individual. Award 3 points if the level is deemed as appropriate. Award more points for an effort that exceeds what you would deem typical or appropriate for the number and level of student participants. (5 points)

   Evidence of effective interaction with airport operators and industry experts in the design process. Note: per the guidelines, students must connect with both airport operators and industry experts.

   • Is there evidence of effective interaction with an airport operator and impact on the design process/result? (6 points)
   • Is there evidence of effective interaction with one or more industry experts with a resulting impact on the design process? (6 points)
5. Practicality and Feasibility of the Proposed Design - 20 points
   • How well does the proposed design meet identified national needs for the area being addressed? (5 points)
   • Is a solid cost-benefit analysis provided? Does the proposed solution offer increased affordability and utility? (5 points)
   • What is the potential real-world impact of the proposed solution, including commercial potential? (5 points)
   • Is there a description of the processes that would need to be undertaken to bring the design to the product/implementation state? (5 points)
6. Safety Risk Assessment - 8 points
   • A safety risk assessment of the proposed design considers inherent risks and describes how these risks should be addressed to ensure safe operations. (4 points)
   • Appropriate FAA documents, including Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Airport Operations (FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-37) and FAA Safety Management System Manual, are understood and referenced in the assessment. (4 points)
7. Innovation - 14 points
   • Does the design offer fresh thinking or new ways of approaching the problem considering that students are not in the field and possessing expertise or specific working knowledge?
   • Does the design reflect creativity and imagination on the student's or team's part? (14 points)
8. Overall quality of the design package - 16 points
   • Is the design well written? (5 points)
   • Does the design effectively present the design solution? (3 points)
   • Are all required appendices present and complete? (4 points)
   • Is a solid evaluation of the educational experience offered by both the student(s) and faculty advisor(s)? (4 points)