Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

49 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS the state DOTs and LPAs, resulting in the promotion of good practices for project delivery. • Several state DOTs have established programs that enhance the flexibility in their funding requirements by using state aid in lieu of federal funding, fund swaps, and related programs. Sixty-seven percent of the DOTs reported that less than 10% of federal funding to local agencies stems from congressionally directed funding. • Almost all DOTs reported that they have LPA manu- als governing the delivery of federal-aid projects, and most of these manuals are available online. • More than half of the DOTs reported that more than 100 local agencies are participating in federal-aid projects in their state. The rationale for LPA eligibil- ity was based mostly on the federal-aid program type, local match availability, certification status by the state DOT, appropriate and available LPA staff size, and project scope size or complexity. • Ongoing training programs for LPAs, regardless of the existence of DOT-sponsored certification pro- grams, are important in their understanding the com- plexities of the federal-aid program and in learning the skills needed to improve the planning, program- ming, designing, and procuring of federally funded projects. The vast majority of respondents indicated that training on federal regulations and the entire LPA program process was a key aspect of the training. • Most DOTs do not have formal performance measures for determining eligibility for federal-aid funding or for evaluating project planning, programming, design, and construction. However, many DOTs reported that they informally use the results of both state and federal audits and project reviews to educate LPAs on how to improve their performance, and employ various tools to aid and monitor project execution and delivery. • The development and implementation of comprehen- sive central database systems, some web-based, shared by the DOTs and LPAs, can improve project manage- ment. Several DOTs have developed project manage- ment and project delivery tracking systems, which identify all projects and monitor key milestones from initial funding through construction. Two areas iden- tified by DOTs to minimize scope increases on LPA projects are early collaboration with stakeholders to finalize the project scope and a firm funding commit- ment from sponsors before consideration. The responses provided by Local Public Agency (LPA) program coordinators in the state transportation agencies (DOTs) and 41 local agencies provided valuable insight into what practices are used to organize, implement, and man- age the LPA program. Details on many agency performance measures were provided. Information obtained in the survey responses, as well as interview sessions with 11 DOTs, was used to acquire a more precise idea of the impacts and effec- tive practices of LPA certification. Based on the work carried out in this synthesis, the following general conclusions can be made: • The majority of LPAs surveyed reported that the length of, and/or meeting the requirements of, the environmental process [NEPA, Section 4(f), obtain- ing permits, etc.] is the major hurdle in receiving fed- eral funds. The majority of DOTs rated TE activity projects as having the most risk of not being com- pleted within budget and as requiring the most time to complete. • More than half of the LPAs responding are aware of regional strategies or policies that have been devel- oped by their DOT, metropolitan planning organiza- tion (MPO), or regional planning organization (RPO) to assist in successfully obtaining federal funds. • Several federal reports, publications, and programs providing guidance on the federal-aid program are now available and were reported to provide useful informa- tion. These include the National LPA Peer Exchange program; U.S. DOT Office of Inspector General’s Oversight of Federal-aid and Recovery Act Projects Administered by LPA Needs Strengthening; Lessons Learned from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Improved FHWA Oversight Can Enhance State’s Use of Federal-aid Funds; FHWA’s A Guide to Federal- aid Programs and Projects; FHWA’s Environmental Review Toolkit; FHWA’s Real Estate Acquisition Guide for Local Public Agencies; FHWA’s Contract Administration Core Curriculum Participant’s Manual and Reference Guide; and the soon-to-be-launched website on federal-aid essentials for LPAs. [start • Findings from the literature review showed that col- laborations among FHWA and key national orga- nizations such as AASHTO, National Association of County Engineers, and American Public Works Association are improving communications between

50 • Twenty-two of 41 LPAs reflected that agencies have benefited from programmatic agreements, in that they establish a process for consultation, review, and compliance with one or more federal laws. Seventy- two percent (72%) of DOTs reported that the use of programmatic agreements was reported to reduce the amount of time it takes to execute LPA projects. • Categorical exclusions have reduced the environmen- tal review period, primarily through the determination that certain projects do not require an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement. • The most commonly used performance measures reported by LPAs to indicate successful project deliv- ery include completion on time and within budget. The LPAs’ survey data noted that a DOT’s use or preap- proval of consultants was an effective practice. Based on the work carried out in this synthesis, the fol- lowing conclusions can be made about the administration of an LPA certification program: • The majority (87%) of the DOTs with an LPA certi- fication program reported that the certification pro- cess had helped both the DOTs and LPAs comply with federal-aid requirements. Approximately 60% of DOTs surveyed indicated that the certification process had helped participating LPAs achieve more of the performance metrics established for project delivery. According to DOT survey data, the most visible ben- efits from the certification of LPAs occur during the construction contracting, construction inspection, and procurement phases. Not all DOTs with certification programs provide full LPA certification, but in many cases they limit the level of certification to certain project phases. In addition, a few states do not have formal certification programs, but do use a similar pro- gram for state aid that parallels those used for federally funded projects. • DOTs without certification programs cited limited resources (50%), limited demand from LPAs (43%), and limited funds (36%) as reasons for not implement- ing certification programs. • Of the 46 DOTs and the 41 local agencies that provided information to this study, only 13 states and 13 LPAs indicated that federal regulation should be established to require states to administer an LPA certification program. • More than half of the LPAs reported that they have improved their ability to deliver federally funded proj- ects more easily and quickly as a result of their state’s DOT LPA certification program. • The consensus from local agencies was that being certified allows them to be responsible for federally funded projects, rather than having them managed by the DOT and contracted to a consultant. The work in this synthesis suggests the following infor- mation gaps and future activities: • Only half of the LPAs reported that their MPO or RPO has been actively engaged in helping to streamline the federal-aid project development process. This finding indicates that there could be a larger role for planning organizations to play in furthering the success of feder- ally funded LPA projects. • A number of LPAs reported that having been given the responsibility for executing federally funded projects through the certification process actually accelerated project delivery. Thus, future research could explore the evidence of whether LPAs may be better suited to monitor and execute their own federally funded proj- ects. Research could also study whether allowing this flexibility results in a quantifiable reduction in admin- istrative burden to the state DOT. • Although the LPA survey reported that half of the LPAs had benefited from the use of programmatic agreements among federal, state, and environmental or resource agencies, many LPAs made the point that these agreements are not often applied effectively to local projects. One consideration for future activities would be to identify how programmatic agreements can be better developed and applied to benefit the performance of locally administered transportation projects. • Continued review and analysis of the effectiveness of performance measures being used by state DOTs is suggested for continuation. For example, monitoring the performance measures established by Oregon DOT and other DOTs could result in a targeted report on good practices being implemented, which could then be shared with all agencies. There appears to be no one template for success- fully executing federal-aid projects. Each state DOT has employed various approaches or strategies to aid LPAs in planning, programming, funding, designing, procur- ing, and constructing projects. One value of this synthesis will be to give state transportation agencies and LPAs the opportunity to consider new approaches and adapt them to their existing programs.