California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1995 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

2.  Major Projects

Quality of Final Product

Time and cost are easily measured numerical factors, but quality is difficult to measure. This is because all measures of quality have a degree of subjectivity. Nevertheless, we must attempt to measure quality. If the measures emphasize only time and cost, then quality may suffer. Without a measure of quality, the combined measures will not engender positive behavior. To this end, the Department proposes to rate the final product at acceptance.

iii. This rating will require contributions from all parties that have an interest in the final product. These include the Regional Planning Agency, the Program Manager that initiated the project, the Maintenance Program Manager and the Operations Program Manager. The evaluation will include a comparison between the product and the statement of deficiencies given in the original scoping document. It will also evaluate the time and cost growth from the scoping document to completion, the maintainability of the product and the operational effectiveness of the product.

System Needs: The rating system necessary for this performance measure will require extensive development. The measure is valuable and necessary in order to establish if the project development process is focused throughout on satisfying the originally identified need.

Time Growth

a.  During Project Development

iv. Number of projects that were programmed for the current fiscal year that were, in fact, ready to list in this year or earlier (See footnote 5), (See footnote 6). Expressed as a percentage of the total number of projects programmed for the year.

This measures the Department's success in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule

System Needs: This data is available. It is included in the Department's annual report to the California Transportation Commission.

v.Programmed dollar value of projects that were programmed for the current fiscal year that were, in fact, ready to list in this year or earlier. Expressed as a percentage of the total dollar value of projects programmed for the year.

This measures the Department's success in completing the design of programmed projects within or ahead of schedule. It is similar to the previous measure except that it uses the dollar value of projects rather than their number. Both factors are important. Higher value projects generally provide a greater benefit to the public. It is therefore appropriate to measure the dollar volume. There are exceptions, however. Some low cost projects provide benefits that are far greater than their cost might imply. Every State Highway improvement provides some benefit and has a public constituency. It is therefore also appropriate to count the number of projects.

System Needs: This data is available. It is included in the Department's annual report to the California Transportation Commission.

b.  During Construction

vi. Actual time (See footnote 7) for contract completion, excluding weather days. Expressed as a percentage of the original allotted days at time of Award.

System needs: There is information on contract time currently collected in the PISA system, however, there is a need to review and revise the time charging practices and definitions, so that accurate information may be used for reporting performance measures.

Capital Cost Growth

a.  During Project Development

vii.Total award cost of programmed projects that were awarded in a particular year. Expressed as a percentage of the amount programmed for those projects.

This measures the Department's success in delivering projects within their programmed amount.

System Needs: Requires a system that will:

Track project splits and combines.

Re-assign programmed construction capital to the descendant projects after splits and combines.

b.  During Construction

viii.Proposed Final Estimate (PFE) (See footnote 8) for projects completed in a particular year. Expressed as a percentage of the Award allotment value of those projects.

The PFE is a reasonable value of the cost of the contract as built (not including any claims). The Award allotment value includes the value of the contract items as bid by the contractor, supplemental work, contingencies, and State Furnished Materials.

This measures whether the project is constructed within budget.

System needs: All the information is available in the PISA system.

ix. Final Estimate for projects finalized in a particular year.

Expressed as a percentage of the Proposed Final Estimate of those projects. The difference between the value of the PFE and the final estimate is usually the cost of claims. Because claims are often complicated and the resolution time is often lengthy, this portion of the contract administration has been separated from the contract work period.

System needs: All the information is available in the PISA system.

Capital Delivery

x.Dollar value of state program construction and right of way capital encumbered in the current fiscal year. Expressed as a percentage of the funds available.

This measures the Department's success in delivering capital improvements equal in value to the expected funds.

System Needs: Data is available from TRAMS.

Support Cost

a.  Project Development and Right-of-Way (Phases 0, 1 & 2)

xi. Total support cost for programmed projects awarded in the fiscal year. Counted from July 1, 1996 to date of award. Expressed as a percentage of the total project development support dollar estimates for these projects listed in the programming documents. These estimates include work under Phases 0, 1 and 2.

The total of all the project support budgets is less than what PYPSCAN would have calculated. Some individual projects may, however, have project support budgets greater than their PYPSCAN estimates. This recognizes that PYPSCAN is a statistical tool and that any statistical sample will have some events above the average.

By completing work within the support budgets, the Department will ensure that future PYPSCAN staffing formulas will reflect lower support costs than past formulas. This is in keeping with the goal of continuous improvement.

System Needs: Requires a system that will

Track project splits and combines.

Re-assign project support budgets to the descendant projects after splits and combines.

Re-assign accumulated support costs to the descendant projects.

b.  Construction (Phase 3)

xii. Total construction support cost for programmed projects with Proposed Final Estimate (PFE) in the fiscal year, counted from contract award to PFE, and expressed as a percentage of the total construction support estimates for these projects listed in the programming documents.

System Needs: Identical to 'Project Development and Right-of-Way (Phases 0, 1 & 2)'

Previous Page