Performance Report 2000/01

• Part I, Sections A - C
• Part I, Sections D - H
• Parts II and III

• Chronology 2000
• Chronology 2001

• Comments

Project Management

2000/01 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

D.  Quality Measure

Performance Measure #3 was proposed as a Quality Measure, to rate the quality of the final product at acceptance. While measuring quality can be subjective, complete performance measurements must include measures for quality along with those for time and cost management. Towards this end, a multi-functional team was formed in August 1999 to develop a standardized process and a rating system for a project evaluation and customer satisfaction survey. Based on the team's recommendations, a web-enabled tool "Scope and Quality Evaluation Tool (SQET)" was developed in FY 2000/01. This tool will be used to determine program level performance measures for product quality and customer satisfaction based on project level data. The SQET tool is currently undergoing a twelve-month trial test involving all four Districts in the Central Region. It is anticipated that upon the completion of the trial test in June 2002, this tool will be implemented statewide in all 12 Districts in July 2002.

E.  Time Growth Measures

Performance Measures 4 and 5 indicate the Department's success in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. PM #4 measures the number of programmed projects that are ready to list; while PM #5 measures the dollar value. Graphs for these two measures for the fiscal years 1996/97 through 2000/01 are shown below:

Targets: The above data indicate that the Department has had a higher percentage of programmed dollars delivered than projects. More dollars are deliverable than are programmed because as certain projects experience unanticipated delays, they are replaced by the early delivery of other projects. Therefore, slightly different goals should apply. The data suggest that 90% project delivery is possible and 100% or more dollar delivery is possible. Therefore, the Division of Project Management recommends a goal of >90% for PM #4 (number of projects) and a goal of >100% for PM #5 (dollar value of projects). The values of PM #4 and PM #5 for the FY 2000/01 are 95% and 109% respectively.

Performance Measure #6 measures contract time during construction, excluding weather days, as a percentage of the original allotted days at time of award. Achieved performance values for this measure during the period 1996/97 through 2000/01 are shown in the chart below:

Target: While a goal of not greater than 100% might be the ideal state, as seen in the above chart, actual experience would indicate that this is not realistic. A target goal of not greater than 110% is recommended. However, as part of continuous improvement, the Division of Construction is reevaluating PM #6 to establish a new target based on performance levels achieved in the last five years.

F.  Capital Cost Growth Measures

Performance Measures 7, 8 and 9 address capital cost growth during project development and construction. Performance Measure 7 measures the Department's success in delivering projects within their programmed amount by expressing the award cost (contractor's bid amount) of programmed projects as a percentage of the amount estimated in the programming documents for those projects. The 2000/01 FY is the third year for which data for PM #7 has been available. For the 2000/01 FY the value of PM #7 is 88.9% compared with 81.6% and 80.1% respectively during the 1998/99 and 1999/00 FY.

Target: A range of 85% - 100% is recommended for PM #7. However, given the results of the 1998/99, 1999/00 and 2000/01 fiscal years, an assessment of the appropriate target will be made at some point in the future when more data are available to establish a possible trend.

Performance Measures 8 and 9 measure capital cost growth during construction. PM #8 measures the proposed final estimate (PFE) for projects completed in a fiscal year as a percentage of award allotment value (construction contract budget authority) of those projects. PM #9 measures the final estimate (FE) for projects finalized in a fiscal year as a percentage of the PFE of those projects. Values of PM #8 and PM #9 for the FY 1996/97 through 2000/01 are shown in the following charts:

The values of PM #8 and PM#9 for the FY 2000/01 are 97% and 102% respectively.

Targets: Based on achieved performance values for the fiscal years 1992/93 through 2000/01, a goal of not greater than 100% is recommended for PM #8, and not greater than 103% for PM #9. The primary factor contributing to the higher goal for PM #9 is the cost of claims and arbitration awards, which are not predictable.

G.  Capital Delivery Measure

Performance Measure #10 was proposed to measure the dollar value of state program Construction and Right of Way capital encumbered in the current fiscal year, as a percentage of funds available. It was intended to be a measure of using available funding. PM #5 has been supplied to the California Transportation Commission (CTC) as a delivery measure. Supplying PM #10 along with PM #5 would be confusing. Therefore, this measure will not be developed.

H.  Support Cost Measures

Performance Measures 11 and 12 measure total support cost for programmed projects during project development and construction, respectively. PM #11 measures Environmental, Design, and Right of Way work (Phases 0, 1 & 2) for projects awarded in the fiscal year, as a percentage of the total Project Development support cost estimated in the programming documents for those projects. The value of PM # 11 in FY 2000/01 is 78.7%; and in fiscal year 1999/00 it was 83.1%.

Performance Measure #12 measures Construction support work (Phase 3) for projects with PFE in the fiscal year, as a percentage of the total Construction support cost estimated in the programming documents for those projects. The value of PM # 12 in FY 2000/01 is 86.8%, and 81.3% in FY 1999/00.