California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1997/98 Performance Report

CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES

D.  Quality Measure

Performance Measure #3 was proposed as a quality measure, to rate the final product at acceptance. While measuring quality will introduce subjectivity, complete measurement must include quality along with time and cost. This will entail development of a customer or stakeholder survey and a rating system. The September 1996 Peer Review Team recommended a standardized process for capturing customer satisfaction. We contracted with, and received assistance from the Survey Research Center at California State University, Chico, in using focus groups to develop and test an instrument to measure customer satisfaction. The process is under way to appoint a Project Manager to finalize development of an instrument, and to establish the necessary procedures to begin measuring quality in the 1998/99 fiscal year.

E.  Time Growth Measures

Performance Measures 4 and 5 measure the Departmentís 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; PM #5 measures the dollar value. Graphs for these two measures for recent years are shown here:

Line chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1998 by activity and percent expenditure

1997/98 Capital Support Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 FY 1997/98
PM#4
89%
89%
70%
96% 93% 89%
PM#5
105%
110%
73%
118% 111% 117%

The performance measures for FY 1994/95 are notably lower than the other years shown. The principal reason for this was that there was not sufficient funding available for the STIP, SHOPP and TSM as programmed. Recognition of this led to the adoption of the eighteen month 1995 Allocation Plan extending from January 1995 to June 1996. Other factors contributing to the FY 1994/95 variation were the CTC revising the reporting methodology to segregate programmed projects from emergency and seismic retrofit projects, and the need to deliver emergency storm damage projects caused by the January and March 1995 storms. However, 1994/95 delivery utilized all available funding and $56 million of projects were placed on the shelf.

Targets: The above data indicates that the Department has had a higher percentage programmed dollars delivered than projects. More dollars are deliverable than are programmed because as certain projects are delayed, they are replaced by the early delivery of other projects. Therefore, slightly different goals should apply. The data suggest that in more normal years,not skewed by seismic or unusual numbers of emergency projects, 90% project delivery is possible and 100% or more dollar delivery is possible. Therefore, the Project Management Program recommends an aggressive goal of at 92% for PM #4 and a goal of at least 100% for PM #5.

Performance Measure #6 measures contract time during construction, excluding weather days, as a percentage of original allotted days at time of award. Recent performance for this measure is shown below:

Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1998 by activity and percent expenditure

1997/98 Capital Support Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 FY 1997/98
Days Allotted
68100
59700
59700
62000 86717 87003
Days Worked
78300
69600
70700
69100 100853 105213
PM#6
115%
117%
118%
111% 116% 121%

Target: While a goal of not greater than 100% might be the ideal state, actual experience would indicate that this is not realistic. A goal of not greater than 110% with continuous improvement is recommended.

F.  Capital Cost Growth Measures

Performance Measures 7, 8 and 9 address capital cost growth during project development and construction. PM #7 measures the Departmentís success in delivering projects within their programmed amount by expressing the award cost of programmed projects as a percentage of the amount programmed for those projects.

Currently, available data is not reliable or accurate to track this measure historically. To correct this requires resolving the project identifier issue. Existing databases have been enhanced, and new databases and processes are under development which will provide the ability to maintain a continuing project inventory and track project costs across splits and combines. Systems and processes will be in place for reporting this measure in the 1998/99 fiscal year.

Performance Measures 8 and 9 measure capital cost growth during construction. PM #8 measures the proposed final estimate (PFE) for projects completed in a particular year as a percentage of award allotment value of those projects. PM #9 measures the final estimate for projects finalized in a particular year as a percentage of the PFE of those projects. Displays of PM #8 and PM #9 for recent fiscal years are shown here:


Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1998 by activity and percent expenditure

1997/98 Capital Support Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 FY 1997/98
Award Allotment
$1,297
$1,014
$1,094
$1,207 $1,087 $1,446
PFE
$1,282
$1,039
$1,097
$1,221 $1,093 $1,583
PM#8
98.9%
102.5%
100.3%
101.2% 100.6% 109.5%

Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1998 by activity and percent expenditure
1997/98 Capital Support Expenditures by Activity Category and Percent Expenditure
Activity Category FY 1992/93 FY 1993/94 FY 1994/95 FY 1995/96 FY 1996/97 FY 1997/98
PFE
$1,039
$1,030
$1,101
$1,003 $954 $1,159
FE
$1,073
$1,047
$1,176
$1,030 $980 $1,371
PM#9
103.3%
101.7%
106.9%
102.6% 102.8% 118.3%

Targets: Based on the above performance, a goal of not greater than 100% is recommended for PM #8, and a goal of not greater than 103% is recommended 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 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 Project Development 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. PM #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. There are no baseline data for these performance measures since there has been no system to track project splits and combines. Systems and processes will be in place for reporting these measures in the 1998/99 fiscal year.

Previous Page/Next Page