California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1998/99 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. The Department contracted with, and received assistance from the Survey Research Center at California State University, Chico, in using focus groups to develop and test a tool to measure customer satisfaction. A Project Manager was appointed in March 1999, and a multi-functional team was established in August 1999 to finalize development of the tool, and to establish the necessary business rules/procedures to begin measuring quality. The tool, business rules, and the electronic tool necessary for implementation are expected to be in place in the 1999/00 Fiscal Year.

E.  Time Growth Measures

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

Line chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1998 to 1999 by activity and percent expenditure

1998/99 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 FY 1998/99
PM#4
89%
89%
70%
96% 93% 89% 91%
PM#5
105%
110%
73%
118% 111% 117% 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 revision of 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 delivered as "shelf" to await funding.

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 a goal of >90% for PM #4 and a goal of >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 on the next page:

Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1999 by activity and percent expenditure

1998/99 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 FY 1998/99
Days Allotted
68100
59700
59700
62000 86717 87003 75801
Days Worked
78300
69600
70700
69100 100853 105213 92517
PM#6
115%
117%
118%
111% 116% 121% 122%

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.

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 programmed for those projects. For the 1998/99 fiscal year, PM #7 was 81.6%. The 1998/99 FY is the first year for which PM #7 could be measured.

Target: A range of 85% - 100% is recommended. However, given this first year's results, an assessment of the appropriate target will be made at some point in the future.

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 (construction contract budget authority) 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 on the next page:

Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1999 by activity and percent expenditure

1998/99 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 FY 1998/99
Award Allotment
$1,297
$1,014
$1,094
$1,207 $1,087 $1,446 $1,538
PFE
$1,282
$1,039
$1,097
$1,221 $1,093 $1,583 $1,551
PM#8
98.9%
102.5%
100.3%
101.2% 100.6% 109.5% 100.9%

Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 1999 by activity and percent expenditure

1998/99 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 FY 1998/99
PFE
$1,039
$1,030
$1,101
$1,003 $954 $1,159 $1,462
FE
$1,073
$1,047
$1,176
$1,030 $980 $1,371 $1,483
PM#9
103.3%
101.7%
106.9%
102.6% 102.8% 118.3% 101.4%

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. For the 1998/99 FY, PM # 11 is 71.4%. 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. For the 1998/99 FY, PM # 12 is 101.1%.

Previous Page/Next Page