Specifications include, but are not limited to: 1. Propose guidance to (a) identify investment trends and document examples of implicit disinvestment; (b) assess factors driving such trends and their implications; (c) offer right-sizing options to manage the anticipated change in ways that account for potential wider economic and societal impacts, considering resiliency and sustainability; and (d) offer methods for communicating potential tradeoffs. 2. Demonstrate how agencies can alter trends, demand, and levels of funding with effective policy and investment decision making. 3. Identify existing effective practices as well as gaps in current procedures used by practitioners as they apply a right-sizing approach to projects, broader asset investments, and overall agency funding priorities. 4. Provide practical methods and business processes for determining whether investment and policy strategies across programs, asset class, or geographic area are consistent with performance outcomes and functional needs; and develop tools, guides, and suggested policies for practitioners to implement those processes. 5. Describe effective and applicable practice(s) for developing and implementing a right-sizing program, including but not limited to the following: (a) understanding and articulating the rationale for planning, programming, and funding decisions; (b) making the most efficient use of asset management planning; (c) recognizing potential disinvestment options and implementable strategies; (d) anticipating, adapting, mitigating, and communicating the long-term consequences of a change in funding level for system users; and (e) using analytical models and technology solutions available to address this issue. 6. Define and quantify, where possible, the potential benefits of applying the procedures and method(s) developed by this study for stakeholders, including the communities that stand to benefit from infrastructure investment strategies, and describe effective communication tools and techniques.
