California Department of Transportation

Project Management

2001/02 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

II.  SUMMARY OF CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

PM # Description Target 2000/01 Achievement
1
Capital Support in Context
None
Info Only
2
Support / Capital
Trend
46%
3
Quality
TBD
Under Development
4
Project Delivery(#)
> 90%
91%
5
Project Delivery (Programmed $)
>100%
119%
6
Days Worked / Days Allotted
<112%
121%
7
Award $ / Programmed $
85%-100%
89%
8
PFE $ / Award $
<100%
96%
9
PE $ / PFE $
<103%
104%
10
Capital Delivery
 
Eliminated
11
Act PjD Supp $ / Prog PjD Supp $
<100%
82%
12
Act PjD Supp $ / Prog PjD Supp $
<100%
87%

III.  RELATIONSHIP OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In 1995, during the process of developing performance measures, it was decided that program measures would supply indicators to the departmental measures. The capital outlay support program measures provided five indicators for the departmental performance measure "Project Delivery". Two of these indicators are supplied directly by capital support performance measures PM #3 and PM #5; one is a new measure; one is a multiplicative composite of PM #7, PM #8 and PM #9; and one is a weighted average of PM #11 and PM #12. The following are the five indicators for the departmental performance measure "Project Delivery" and their relationships to capital outlay support measures as defined in 1995.

Departmental Performance Measure-Project Delivery

Corporate Indicator Capital Support Measure
Quality
COS PM#3--Rate Final Product
(TO BE DEVELOPED)
Time Growth
New Measure
   No. of projects completed   
No. of projects scheduled for completion
Capital Cost Growth
PM#7 X PM#8 X PM#9
Or:
( $Awd / $Prog ) X ( $PFE / $Awd ) X ( $FE / $PFE ) =
( $FE / $Prog )
Capital Delivery
COS PM#5
   $ Value of projects delivered   
$ Value of projects programmed
Support Cost
Weight average of PM#11 and PM#12
Or:
   (Act Proj Dev Supp + Const Supp Costs)   
(Progr Proj Dev Supp + Const Supp Costs)


Besides the above indicators, data used in the development of capital support measures PM #1 and PM #2 were intended to supply performance indicators for Resource Management. Achieved performance levels for the indicators for which data are available are presented in the following pages.

A.  Quality Indicator

As stated previously, a web-enabled electronic tool necessary for the implementation of quality performance measurement is expected to be implemented statewide during the 2003/04 FY.

B.  Time Growth Indicator

This indicator measures delivery performance rate of projects scheduled for construction completion (construct contract acceptance, or CCA) in the fiscal year as a percentage of the total number of projects scheduled for construction completion in the fiscal year. In FY 1998/99 and 1999/00, achieved performance rates were based on the overall number of planned plus other (future fiscal year advanced and unplanned) CCA milestones delivered in the fiscal year versus CCA baseline plan. This approach was modified in FY 2000/01 to include advanced and unplanned CCA deliveries in both the overall delivery as well as in the fiscal year baseline plan. Therefore, the values for FY 1998/99 and 1999/00 were adjusted downward from 58.3% to 47.9%, and from and 81.1% to 68.3%, respectively to provide consistency across all reported fiscal years. The following are the values for this performance measurement for the past four fiscal years 1998/99 through 2001/02 that data have been available.

FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
47.9% 68.3% 81.6% 87.1%

The values for the four years clearly indicate a significant improvement in the delivery rates of projects scheduled for construction completion in each consecutive year. To a large extent, these results can be attributed to better planning procedures as well as efficient project delivery processes in all 12 Caltrans' Districts. This trend along with other ongoing efforts will enable the Department to meet the target goal of 90% for this performance indicator.

C.  Capital Cost Growth Indicator

The capital cost growth indicator is a composite index that approximates final estimates to original programmed amounts, and is determined by multiplying PMs 7, 8 and 9. It measures the Department's overall success in planning and delivering projects within budget over the entire project life cycle. Achieved performance for project delivery within budget in FY 1998/99 through 2001/02 are shown below:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
83.5% 82.0% 87.9% 91.0%

It is important to emphasize that the above values are indexes only since, in each fiscal year, they are determined using different sets of projects for each component measure (PMs 7, 8 and 9). However, over time, this indicator can become an effective comparative measure of overall accuracy in estimating, programming and budgeting. A target goal of 85%-100%, the same as that for PM #7, is recommended for this indicator.

D.  Capital Delivery Indicator

As discussed previously, Performance Measure #5 is reported to the CTC as the measure of capital delivery. It measures the dollar value of programmed projects that are ready to list (RTL) versus the amount for projects planned for delivery (RTL) in the fiscal year. Or, put in other terms, it is an indicator of the Department's performance in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. Below are the percentage results for the fiscal years from 1997/98 through 2001/02:

FY 97/98 FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
117% 117% 104% 109% 119%

A goal of equal to or greater than 100% is recommended for this performance indicator.

E.  Support Cost Indicator

This indicator is a weighted average of Performance Measures 11 and 12 obtained by combining total support costs of Environmental, Design, Right of Way and Construction. It is an indicator of the Department’s overall success in keeping total support expenditures within project support budgets. Support cost performance levels for the 1998/99 through 2000/01 fiscal years are:

FY 98/99 FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02
77.6% 82.4% 79.1% 91.0%

Similar to the Capital Cost Growth Indicator, it should be emphasized that two different sets of projects are involved in the two component measures (PMs #11 and 12). This indicator can also be an effective comparative measure over time as well as a measurement for continuous improvement.

A range of 80% - 100% is recommended for the Support Cost Indicator.

Previous Page