California Department of Transportation

Project Management

1999/00 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 standardized process and a rating system for a project evaluation and customer satisfaction survey. Towards this end, a multi-functional team was established in August 1999 to develop the framework of a suitable performance measurement tool and to establish the necessary business rules/procedures to evaluate scope and quality of capital outlay projects, and rate customer satisfaction. The team recommended development of a web-based "Scope and Quality Evaluation Tool (SQET)" that would be used to determine program level performance measures based on project level data. This tool is currently undergoing testing and refinement, and will be piloted on a district wide basis in the FY 2000/01. It is expected to be implemented statewide in the FY 2001/02.

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 the fiscal years 1992/93 through 1999/00 are shown below:

Line chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 2000 by activity and percent expenditure

1999/00 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 FY 1999/00
PM#4
89%
89%
70%
96% 93% 89% 91% 95%
PM#5
105%
110%
73%
118% 111% 117% 117% 104%

The performance measures for FY 1994/95 are notably lower than for 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 indicate 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 the original allotted days at time of award. Achieved performance values for this measure during the period 1992/93 through 1999/00 are shown in the chart below:


Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1999 to 2000 by activity and percent expenditure

1999/00 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 FY 1999/00
Days Allotted
68100
59700
59700
62000 86717 87003 75801 98635
Days Worked
78300
69600
70700
69100 100853 105213 92517 120952
PM#6
115%
117%
118%
111% 116% 121% 122% 123%

Target: While a goal of not greater than 100% might be the ideal state, actual experience would indicate that this is not realistic. A target goal of not greater than 112% 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 Departmentís success in delivering projects within their programmed amount by expressing the award cost (contractorís bid amount) of programmed projects as a percentage of the amount estimated in the 1998 programming documents for those projects. The 1999/00 FY is the second year for which data for PM #7 has been available. For the 1999/00 FY the value of PM #7 is 80.1% compared with 81.6% obtained during the 1998/99 FY.

Target: A range of 85% - 100% is recommended for PM #7. However, given the results of the 1998/99 and 1999/00 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.


Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 2000 by activity and percent expenditure

1999/00 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 FY 1999/00
Award Allotment
$1,297
$1,014
$1,094
$1,207 $1,087 $1,446 $1,538 $1,866
PFE
$1,282
$1,039
$1,097
$1,221 $1,093 $1,583 $1,551 $1,855
PM#8
98.9%
102.5%
100.3%
101.2% 100.6% 109.5% 100.9% 99.4%

The values of PM #8 and PM#9 for the 1999/00 FY are 99.4% and 103.0% respectively.

Targets: Based on achieved performance values for the fiscal years 1992/93 through 1999/00, 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.

Column chart of Caltrans Project Management from 1992 to 2000 by activity and percent expenditure
1999/00 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 FY 1999/00
PFE
$1,039
$1,030
$1,101
$1,003 $954 $1,159 $1,462 $2,234
FE
$1,073
$1,047
$1,176
$1,030 $980 $1,371 $1,483 $2,301
PM#9
103.3%
101.7%
106.9%
102.6% 102.8% 118.3% 101.4% 103.0%

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 1998 programming documents for those projects. For the 1999/00 FY, PM # 11 is 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 1998 programming documents for those projects. For the 1999/00 FY, PM # 12 is 81.3%.

Previous Page/Next Page