Project Management

2000/01 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

I. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR CAPITAL SUPPORT

A. Background

In December 1995, in response to supplemental report language in the 1995 Budget Act, the Department submitted its report to the Legislature on Capital Support Performance Measures. That report proposed twelve performance measures for evaluating all capital outlay support functions. The proposed measures included specific measurements to evaluate the Department's cost effectiveness and timeliness in completing work, and to provide a consistent basis for year-to-year comparison. The report to the Legislature also recommended the development of a Quality Performance Measure to evaluate scope and quality of the final products, and to rate customer satisfaction.

In the Department's three-tiered scheme of measures (departmental, program, and operational), these twelve performance measures are program measures for the statewide Capital Outlay Support (COS) Program. These measures, along with other program measures, serve as performance indicators for the departmental measures. The relationship of capital outlay support program measures to departmental measures will be described later in this report.

The purpose of this report is to summarize, at the program level, the status of the capital outlay support performance measures, report data for these measures for the past five years through FY 2000/01, where available, and recommend target goals, where possible.

B. Context of Capital Support in the Department

Performance Measure #1 of the Report to the Legislature proposed "pie" charts showing PY and dollar expenditures for the Department's programs, the elements of the Highways program, and the parts of capital support. This is not a performance measure as such, but rather it sets the context for the other measures. For the purpose of this summary report, a few of these charts are shown to set the context.

In FY 2000/01, total Caltrans expenditures for the five core programs were $6.16 billion, of which $5.34 billion or 87% were Highways Program expenditures. The dominance of the Highways Program is shown in the following chart:

Caltrans Project Management from 2000 to 2001 by Activity and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category	FY 2000/01 Dollars	FY 2000/01 Percent
Aeronautics	$7	0.12%
Highways	$5,338	86.71%
Mass Transportation	$415	6.74%
Transportation Planning	$143	2.33%
Administration	$253	4.11%
TOTAL	$6,157	100%

Of the $5.34 billion in Highways Program expenditures, capital outlay support represents $1.02 billion and capital outlay (excluding minor maintenance projects) $2.12 billion . The remaining $2.20 billion were for the other six Highways Program elements included in Figure 2.

2000/01 Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category	Dollars	Percent Expenditure
Maintenance	$807,402,900	15%
Operations	$156,106,327	3%
Legal Services	$80,983,886	2%
Planning & Research	$69,045,778	1%
Local Assistance	$1,019,453,305	19%
State/Local Partnership	$65,700,140	1%
Capital Support	$1,021,737,033	19%
Capital Outlay	$2,117,771,346	40%
Total	$5,338,200,715	100%

The percentage breakdown of the $1.02 billion of capital support is shown below:

2000/01 Capital Support Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category	Percent Expenditure
Locally Funded Projects	4%
Overhead	10%
Owner Operator	4%
State Program Projects	82%

C. Relationship of Capital Support to Capital Outlay

Perhaps the most sensitive of all the capital support measures is the ratio of capital support to capital outlay. This is Performance Measure #2 in the Report to the Legislature. This relationship for each year from FY 1988/89 to 2000/01 is shown in the next page. The chart and table show a three-way breakdown of capital support, and the overall relationship to capital outlay dollars. The data for both capital support and capital outlay exclude expenditures on locally funded projects. Capital support also excludes owner-operator services.

Target: This measure is used to analyze trends and, therefore, there is no specific goal associated with this measure.

It is important to note that the capital support and capital outlay expenditures represent different sets of projects at different times. Capital support effort for Preliminary Engineering and, to a lesser degree Design, is expended on projects that will be under construction in some future fiscal year. Similarly, capital outlay is expended for projects that incurred Preliminary Engineering and Design support expenditures in past fiscal years. Over time, however, the trend can be analyzed to provide valuable management information. The chart on the next page depicts this trend.

Fiscal Year

1988/89 through 2000/01 Capital Support Expenditures as a Percentage of Capital Expenditures
Capital Support Category	FY 88/89	FY 89/90	FY 90/91	FY 91/92	FY 92/93	FY 93/94	FY 94/95	FY 95/96	FY 96/97	FY 97/98	FY 98/99	FY 99/00	FY 00/01
Construction	14%	12%	12%	14%	15%	15%	15%	12%	12%	16%	15%	15%	16%
Design & Right of Way	20%	20%	19%	21%	24%	17%	19%	19%	16%	17%	20%	22%	22%
Preliminary / Environmental	12%	10%	11%	9%	8%	4%	4%	3%	2%	4%	8%	7%	8%
TOTAL	46%	42%	42%	43%	46%	36%	38%	34%	30%	37%	43%	44%	46%