Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 applicants. This synthesis will aid state LPA offices, LPAs, and other stakeholders in exploring the use of current prac- tices and in developing performance measures to monitor effectiveness in the delivery of federal-aid programs. STUDY APPROACH Many federally funded transportation programs provide funds for projects that are administered by state agencies and local governments. The use of federal funds may result in the need for a disproportionate amount of resources to implement the projects. However, a review of the literature, survey of all state DOTs, survey of DOT-identified LPAs, and focus interviews revealed current practices and perfor- mance measures used to develop and effectively deliver fed- erally funded LPA projects around the country. Additionally, the current practices and performance measures for DOT certification or qualification of LPAs were captured as part of the study approach. A comprehensive literature review of federal, state, local, and national practice was conducted to establish background information on the range and impact of practices that have been used for federal-aid project delivery by local agencies. Information related to guidance materials and training avail- able at all levels of government is presented, along with unique approaches to LPA projects reported by individual agencies. In every state, the LPA program involves a vast number of staff from municipal, state, and federal governments, non- profit organizations, and state resource agencies. As a result, a survey was developed and distributed to the local govern- ment coordinator in every DOT to establish a baseline of the program in each state. It explored the relationships between the DOT and FHWA, the local agencies and the DOT, the local agencies and state resource agencies, and the like, which facilitate the efficient delivery of federal-aid projects. A 92% response rate was achieved and helped establish the state of the practice regarding federally funded transporta- tion projects awarded to LPAs. The survey consisted of 64 questions, 10 of which were nested in the main survey to concentrate specifically on states that execute an LPA cer- tification or qualification program. The complete DOT sur- vey is presented in Appendix A. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 10 DOTs to obtain more details on various CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND This chapter introduces background information on docu- mented practices and corresponding performance measures included in published literature or other resources. The review was intended to identify the importance of the fol- lowing items: time savings as a result of minimizing federal environmental review and/or total time to completion for LPA projects, qualitative and quantitative measures of suc- cess for all project phases, LPA certification programs, and total funding obligations and/or obligations to LPAs, as well as any identified reductions in financial burdens to the DOTs and LPAs as a result of LPA programs. The most recent highway bill [Safe, Accountable, Flex- ible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)] expanded existing categories of funding, and LPAs have been able to apply for federal funds to use on local transportation projects. In addition, SAFE- TEA-LU assigned state transportation or resource agencies the responsibility for awarding and administering locally funded federal-aid projects. SYNTHESIS OBJECTIVE Effective delivery of federally funded transportation projects by LPAs has been cited as a serious concern by Congress, FHWA, state DOTs, LPA program applicants, and transpor- tation interest groups (Oversight of Federal-aid and Recov- ery Act Projects Administered by Local Public Agencies Needs Strengthening 2011). The recent NCHRP Synthesis 414 focused on identifying the challenges to, as well as prac- tices and tools for, effective delivery of small scale federal aid projects in only a small number of states (McCarthy et al. 2011). Study findings indicated that several items, many of which were related to projects granted to LPAs, challenge the federal aid project development and delivery process. For this reason, the NCHRP Synthesis Topic 43 04 built upon the scope of NCHRP Synthesis 414 by including practices and performance measures used by all DOTs as they relate to the LPA program. This synthesis gathered information on the current practices and performance measures used to develop and deliver federally funded LPA projects. Special emphasis is placed on documenting the experiences of DOTs that have implemented an LPA certification program for federal-aid

6 evaluation techniques for reviewing LPA program and LPA projects, and project management tools and practices for implementing performance measures and an LPA certifica- tion program. These chapters are followed by a list of acronyms, refer- ences, a bibliography, and four appendices. Appendix A is the printed version of the DOT survey, including the nested questionnaire related to DOTs with an LPA certification program and the list of respondents. Appendix B presents the printed version of the LPA survey, sent to LPAs referred by responses in the DOT survey. Appendix C includes links to resources identified by states, LPAs, or other resources found in the literature review. Appendix D provides samples of documents that exhibit practices or performance mea- sures for federally funded LPA transportation projects. Definitions Some key terms that pertain to the synthesis scope are defined. Additional terms may be defined within the context of their relevant sections. A list of acronyms is also included for terms used in the report. Categorical Exclusion (CE)—A determination that an action (proposal or project) has no significant impacts and an Environmental Impact Statement (or Environmental Assess- ment for that matter) is not required. Certification Program (LPA certification)—A process whereby a state transportation agency (STA) certifies an LPA’s ability to administer and/or manage a portion(s) of the project development and implementation process. These portions include the planning, environment, design, right- of-way (ROW), and construction phases of a project. To be certified, the LPA must demonstrate its qualifications and abilities in the phase(s) in which it desires certification. The STA evaluates LPA qualifications through an audit or similar review process. Evaluation criteria often include knowledge of federal and state requirements, processes and procedures (i.e., consultant selection, environmental assessments, cost estimates, contract bidding and award, financial systems and controls, etc.), past performance, adequacy of staffing, and a demonstrated knowledge and capability to oversee and manage projects associated with the project phase in question. Typically, an agreement is executed between the STA and LPA once the LPA passes the evaluation process and demonstrates its ability to provide matching funds for project(s) in question. Federal-aid projects—Any projects that use federal-aid highway program funds, both on and off the federal-aid system, on and off the National Highway System (NHS), and on and off highway right-of-way (ROW); includes all phases of project delivery (planning through project close- out and reimbursement). practices and performance measures reported as part of the survey responses. One result of the DOT survey was the identification of LPAs that have exemplary practices. These LPAs were invited to participate in a separate survey that gathered information on project delivery practices, performance measures, and the LPA perspective regarding DOT certification programs. The survey consisted of 50 questions, 20 of which were nested in the main survey and applied only to local agencies in a state that administers an LPA certification program. Appendix B presents detailed LPA survey data and a list of respondents. Due to the nature of the LPA sample selection and response rate, the LPA survey may not be representative of all LPAs. Organization of Report This synthesis report is organized into five chapters. Chap- ter one introduces the synthesis objectives, background information including the current legislative status, and the study approach. The report structure is summarized with brief explanations of each chapter’s content and includes key terms that are integrated throughout the report. In addition, a discussion of the applicability of various laws and regu- lations to specific federal-aid programs is presented. This is followed by a literature summary chronicling methods of state support for the LPA program found from the survey and results of federal and other agency reviews. Chapter two provides an overview of the various practices, strategies, and tools that DOTs currently use to develop and deliver federally funded LPA projects. This information will help to define common practices or organizational approaches to ensuring that federally funded LPA projects are delivered efficiently. It is based on the literature review findings and insight provided through the DOT survey. Findings are orga- nized by project management and organizational structure, project development, and performance measures. Chapter three presents information specific to DOTs that have already implemented an LPA certification or qualifica- tion program. It reports practices used by DOTs that admin- ister a certification program for LPAs that receive federal funding for transportation projects. The contents of this chap- ter resulted from the nested questions in the DOT survey. Chapter four provides detailed findings on LPA prac- tices used to improve delivery of federally funded projects through both performance metrics and organizational prac- tices. It includes information from the LPA survey responses, interviews with some of the exemplary LPAs, and to a lesser extent, the literature review. Chapter five presents conclusions and a summary of key findings, including the state of the practice for using per- formance measures to guide federally funded LPA projects,

7 Local public agency—Any organization or instrumen- tality that is directly or indirectly affiliated with a govern- ment body under federal, state, or local jurisdiction. Such entities will have administrative and/or functional respon- sibilities, including the authority to finance, build, operate, or maintain public infrastructure facilities. Such entities are most often associated with county, municipal, town, or township jurisdictions and their related public works authorities, but the term LPA covers a broader context, to include quasi-governmental entities such as port authorities, water districts, public utilities, and other agency represen- tatives associated with all levels of government, including tribal sovereignties. In this report, LPAs are further defined by size as follows: Small LPA—rural counties or municipalities with less than 5,000 population, Medium LPA—medium cities and counties with less than 50,000 population, and Large LPA—large cities and counties with more than 50,000 population. Metropolitan planning organization (MPO)—Per fed- eral transportation legislation [23 USC 134(b) and 49 USC 5303(c)], a metropolitan planning organization is the des- ignated local decision-making body that is responsible for carrying out the metropolitan transportation planning pro- cess. An MPO must be designated for each urban area with a population of more than 50,000. Performance measurement—The use of statistical evidence to determine progress toward specific defined organizational objectives. This includes both evidence of actual fact, such as measurement of pavement surface smoothness, and measurement of customer perception, such as would be accomplished through a customer satis- faction survey. Procurement phase—The procurement of consultant ser- vices or the advertisement, bidding, or awarding of a trans- portation project. Programmatic agreement—A document that spells out the terms of a formal, legally binding agreement between two agencies such as a state DOT and another state and/or federal agency. It also establishes a process for consultation, review, and compliance with one or more federal laws. Joint project agreements are also commonly used between local and state agencies. Regional planning organization (RPO)—An organiza- tion that performs planning for multijurisdictional areas. MPOs, regional councils, economic development associa- tions, and rural transportation associations are examples of RPOs. These organizations are also sometimes referred to as regional transportation planning agencies (RTPAs). Responsible Charge—The Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 635.105—Supervising Agency) provides that the state DOT is responsible for construction of federal-aid proj- ects, whether it or an LPA performs the work. The regula- tion states that the STA and LPA must provide a full-time employee to be in “responsible charge” of the project. The most common application of the responsible charge require- ment in the LPA program deals with general engineering consultants (GECs). A local agency can use a GEC for engi- neering purposes, but cannot employ a GEC for responsible charge of project administration; project selection process, bid, or award; or signature authority on final project inspec- tion or acceptance. State transportation improvement program (STIP)—A staged, multiyear, statewide, intermodal program of transpor- tation projects, consistent with the statewide transportation plan and planning processes as well as metropolitan plans, transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and processes. Transportation improvement program (TIP): A docu- ment prepared by an MPO that lists projects to be funded with either FHWA or FTA funds for a 4-year period. LITERATURE SUMMARY The following section introduces approaches currently used by various state transportation agencies for assessing perfor- mance metrics or effective practices for local public agency delivery of federal-aid projects, as reported in published lit- erature or online sources. National Activities Previous NCHRP Synthesis Topic 41-02 A number of findings resulting from the previous synthesis documented in NCHRP Synthesis Report 414 (McCarthy et al. 2011) were related to the current synthesis. In NCHRP Synthesis 414, a survey of 10 focus states was conducted to identify public agency practices regarding small-scale fed- eral-aid project delivery and to explore methods for meet- ing federal requirements in a more streamlined fashion. The findings were focused on techniques used to administer small-scale projects more efficiently and cost-effectively. Table 1 summarizes the main findings related to streamlin- ing delivery of any small-scale federal-aid LPA project. Federal Highway Administration In March 2010, FHWA established a National LPA Peer Exchange. The purpose of the exchange is to increase

8 interagency communication between FHWA Division LPA coordinators, improve quality, promote consistency, and reinforce regulatory requirements for an effective project delivery process for locally administered projects. Meet- ings are held every quarter online to present information on timely LPA issues and topics. The exchange is overseen by a steering committee that has subcommittees groups formed by volunteer leads and FHWA division LPA coordinators. Steering committees work on topics that are of collective interest to identify more specific information related to LPA projects. One of most recent subcommittee initiatives was to develop an overview of LPA certification/qualification- based programs throughout the country, resulting in a sur- vey initiated in June 2011 that gathered information from 39 FHWA division offices. Approximately one-third of the FHWA divisions responded that their state DOT counter- parts have certification programs for LPAs. FHWA found that of the 25 states that do not have the LPA certification/ qualification program, only 10 had expressed an interest in developing such a program. In most cases, each state had DOT procedures in place to oversee the management of fed- eral-aid projects. FHWA divisions responded that only 26% of states are developing or using program- and/or project- specific action plans as a management tool. Other informa- tion reported by FHWA included the following: • In some states, innovative approaches regarding the management of consultants (Wisconsin), requirement of hiring municipal project managers to oversee the federal-aid projects (Vermont), requirement of cer- tified technicians for materials testing (Maryland), requirement of “Request to Administer” forms sub- mitted for federal-aid projects (Virginia), and a focus on LPA Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) packages, final vouchers, and contract administration (California) are applied in lieu of an LPA certification/ qualification program; • The shift to tracking and managing the delivery of LPA projects using online resources was reported to save time and effort in overall project management; and, • Some states used DOT project managers assigned in responsible charge of the LPA projects (Utah and Vermont) rather than deploying a full LPA certifica- tion/qualification program. In July 2011, the U.S.DOT OIG published the Federal Highway Administration’s Oversight of Federal-aid and Recovery Act Projects Administered by Local Public Agen- TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF STREAMLINING EXAMPLES REPORTED IN NCHRP SYNTHESIS 414 Category Streamlining Examples Provided By Ten Focus State DOTs Practice Reported Impacts of Practices Reported Certification • Certification process for delegating more responsibilities to local level • Large certified agencies administer projects on behalf of smaller agencies • Reduces recurrent administrative burden on DOT • Greater access of funds to smaller agencies Fiscal Planning • Stepwise approach for meeting federal approvals during project selection • Ensure local funding match available before project selection • Increases chances for securing federal funding on smaller projects • Conformed funding match results in fewer project delays and lower cost Interagency Agreements • Programmatic agreements between federal, state, or local agencies • Programmatic categorical exclusions for small projects with minimal infrastructure or environmental impacts • Reduces financial burden to local agencies • Minimizes federal environmental review • Reduces total time to completion for small projects Administrative Programming • Series of federal-aid projects tied together in any phase of project delivery • Projects combined as part of STIP during planning • Reduces administrative burden on DOT • Accelerates delivery of projects • Reduces staff time and overall project costs Training • As-needed or recurring training sessions on federal regulations or federal-aid project implementation • Addresses specific concerns during project implementation to keep projects on schedule and on budget Specifications • Local agency in-house materials specifications permitted off-system • DOT-developed specifications for local agencies • Time savings and reduced project costs • Local agencies can use specifications directly without lengthy specification-approval status Organizational Checklists • Provisions of projects tracking checklists or checklists of federal requirements for any type of small-scale project • Reduced project delivery delays • Increased local agency focus on schedule timing and federal requirements Communication • Early and frequent meetings with project sponsors • Periodic status meetings to keep project sponsor engaged throughout project development • Projects sponsors more focused on developing projects more efficiently • Reduces time to complete of local agency projects [Source: (McCarthy et al. 2011)]

9 cies Needs Strengthening (MH-2011-146) report, which summarized federal-aid project audit results from Califor- nia, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas. A total of 59 LPA federally funded projects were reviewed, and approximately 88% were found to have at least one instance of noncompli- ance with federal requirements. Other items identified were a lack of resources to perform LPA state oversight, inad- equate contract administration and quality assurance pro- cedures executed by LPAs, and inappropriate processing of contract changes. Although not specifically targeted for LPA federal-aid funded projects, the OIG audit report Lessons Learned from ARRA: Improved FHWA Oversight Can Enhance State’s Use of Federal-Aid Funds provided some insight on improved evaluation in contract bidding. Suggested recommenda- tions identified need to develop and implement effective performance measures and metrics to assess and trend DOT contract award practices, share best practices among state DOTs, and establish standard FHWA division office require- ments for performing and documenting oversight of state contracting activities. While recognizing the unique nature of each highway project, flexibilities in the highway design process and related design guidelines were introduced in “Flexibility in Highway Design” (2012). The document provides guidelines for flexible approaches to designing roadway elements such as horizontal and vertical curve alignments. The guidelines were established to support and sustain important commu- nity interests without compromising safety. Local Government Association Activities The National Association of County Engineers (NACE) and American Public Works Association (APWA) have been working with FHWA and AASHTO to promote the FHWA Every Day Counts (EDC) initiatives among their members and to promote improvements to the federal-aid process by organizing and participating in regional “Peer Exchange for Project Delivery” workshops (“Accelerating the Project Delivery Process APWA Recommendations” 2011; “Acceler- ating the Project Delivery Process: Eliminating Bureaucratic Red Tape and Making Every Dollar Count” 2011). These workshops were a follow-on to the EDC initiative and support the goal of expediting project delivery. Key barriers identified were (1) inconsistent interpretation of federal regulations; (2) inadequate communication among agencies, stakeholders, and staff; (3) lack of training and resources for local agen- cies; and (4) imbalance between level of project risk and level of oversight. Key findings included interagency partnerships, communication that is formed early and occurs often, and local and state agencies being more proactive in requesting federal and state assistance. Other findings included devel- oping a common federal project tracking tool, conducting concurrent rather than sequential project review, providing outreach and education to locals, prescoping and early project development, and improving consistency across jurisdictions. Several next steps were identified: • Develop local certification programs (NACE/AASHTO/ APWA/FHWA joint working group); • Assist states in conducting their own forums; • Utilize the Local Technical Assistance Program (LTAP) centers and MPOs; • Expand FHWA’s efforts to help DOTs and LPAs; and • Expand FHWA’s EDC Initiative. The document from NACE and APWA to Congress also references considerations for project streamlining, includ- ing (1) exempt from federal regulations projects with federal funding levels of less than 25% or $5 million, whichever is greater; (2) only project phases that receive federal fund- ing should be subjected to federal regulations; (3) proj- ects should become federalized upon notice of the award of federal funding and not apply federal regulations to all previous work phases; and (4) expand use of programmatic agreements for categorical exclusions to include projects constructed within existing ROW and the majority of main- tenance projects. In April 2012, the NACE and APWA executive direc- tors, in a letter to the FHWA administrator, highlighted two recommendations for the next generation of EDC initia- tives regarding project delivery [Brian C. Roberts (Execu- tive Director, NACE) and Peter King (Executive Director, APWA), personal communication, addressed to FHWA, Apr. 25 2012]. One is to establish a formal process to ensure communications among local, state, and FHWA stakehold- ers. One suggestion was for a meeting to be held on a quar- terly basis, followed by a report back to FHWA headquarters, to further enhance communications. The second recommen- dation refers to a list of studies or reports that provide best practices for project delivery of local federal-aid projects, which NACE and APWA recommend be included in future EDC initiatives. State Activities The websites for each state DOT office dealing with local roads were reviewed to capture what kinds and depth of information are easily accessible to potential local agency or nonprofit organization project sponsors. Table 2 presents the information posted on each of the state DOT websites related to the LPA program. Literature Related to Local Public Agency Program A comprehensive search was conducted of literature related to effective delivery of federally funded transportation proj- ects by state DOTs and LPAs. Various practices used by DOTs and LPAs and performance measures used for over-

10 TABLE 2 INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON LPA PROGRAM, AS SUMMARIZED FROM EACH STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY (DOT) WEBSITE State Training Manuals Documents Workshops Web-based Training Manuals Online Forms Project Applications AL AK AZ X X X X X AR CA X X X X X CO X X X X CT X X X X DE X X DC FL X X X X X GA X X X HI ID X X X X IL X X X X IN X X X X IA X X X X X KS X X X KY X X X LA X ME X X X X MD MA X X X MI X X MN X X X MS X X X X X MO X X X X MT X X X X X NE X X X X X NV X X NH X X X NJ X X X NM X X X NY X X X NC X X ND X X X X OH X X X X X OK X OR X X X X PA X X X RI SC X X X X SD X TN X X X X TX X X X X UT X X VT X X X VA X X X X WA X X X X X WV WI X X WY

11 sight were identified. The information from the literature review is organized in relation to the three major project delivery phases: project planning and programming; project development; and project management. The recurring items reported in the literature related to facilitating LPA project delivery included the following: • Development and implementation of a web-based cen- tral database system, shared by the DOT and LPAs, for transparent and comprehensive project management; • Recognition of the importance of providing training to LPAs; • Clear assignment of roles and responsibilities of each LPA project team member; • Flexibility with expediting the environmental clear- ance phase based on the scope and nature of the LPA project; and • Flexibility in funding requirements (i.e., state aid in lieu of federal funding, fund swap, or related programs). Project Planning and Programming Key issues in this phase are to ensure proper funding alloca- tion, project consistency with the STIP and/or TIP wherever applicable, and appropriate completion of necessary agree- ment documents. In many states, a web-based system is applied to address these issues and to enhance on-time and on-budget delivery for federal-aid projects. Pennsylvania DOT requires local projects to be entered into the web-based Engineering and Construction Management System (ECMS) to conduct business related to design and construction of transportation projects and to ensure that all state and fed- eral procedures are followed to prevent any potential fund- ing issues. The municipality or local agency must complete an online registration and execute a paper agreement to fully become an ECMS business partner (“Strike-Off Letter 434- 11-0” 2011). Missouri DOT also recognized the importance of a web-based systematic program for project management during the LPA program meeting in November 2010 (“LPA Strategic Vision Team: Team Recommendations” 2011). The noted benefits of a web-based tool included a transparent proj- ect development process, enhanced communication between agencies, better document management, and more success- ful audits. Florida DOT has developed and implemented the Local Agency Program Information Tool (LAPIT), an Inter- net-based application system that established collaborative oversight and monitoring of LPA projects, in order to stream- line the overall LPA project process [“Local Agency Informa- tion Program Tool (LAPIT)” 2012]. Many DOTs (72%) conduct regularly scheduled and/or demand-based LPA training programs, with topics ranging from funding allocation to required federal authorization. As an example, the Indiana DOT Surface Transportation Funding is characterized into four major groups per area population, ranging from Group I, including urbanized areas with populations higher than 200,000, to Group IV, which covers all cities, towns, and counties with populations under 5,000 (“LPA Certification Training” 2012). Project selec- tion responsibilities are divided between Indiana DOT and the MPO, with Indiana DOT retaining responsible charge of bridges where there will be highway safety improvements. Both agencies are responsible for local Transportation Enhancement (TE) projects. The authorization of FHWA Financial Management Information System is also empha- sized for proper project programming. The Virginia DOT (VDOT) allocation of transportation funds between different highway systems and localities is based on the Code of Virginia Section 33.1-23.1, included in the Locally Administrated Projects Manual [Locally Admin- istered Projects (LAP) Manual 2012]. The funding allo- cation is divided into five categories: (1) maintenance; (2) administrative and general expenses; (3) off-the-top alloca- tion that includes unpaved roads; (4) interstate funding; and (5) system allocation that consists primarily of VDOT’s nine construction districts, urban systems (cities and towns), and secondary systems (counties). Project Development This project phase includes activities related to preliminary engineering, environmental clearance, final design, ROW, grade crossing, utilities, and construction. There are two major aspects to review under this phase: technique in proj- ect delivery acceleration, and performance metrics used in LPA federal-aid projects. Common practices to accelerate project delivery across various agencies include shortening the environmental review process; sharing project documents, schedules, and records through Internet-based database systems; improving project team communication by holding monthly meetings or conference calls; continuous training efforts; and early identification of any potential project delivery elements. For example, a strategic team formed by Missouri DOT to address LPA program issues recommended the importance of an LPA certification and training program in the project delivery phase (“LPA Strategic Vision Team: Team Recom- mendations” 2011). Moreover, Missouri DOT presented a draft version of a comprehensive and detailed PS&E check- list for enhanced LPA project delivery. This checklist is pro- vided in Appendix D. APWA provides a concise summary of factors that delay project delivery and recommendations to address such issues in “Accelerating the Project Delivery Process: Eliminating Bureaucratic Red Tape and Making Every Dollar Count” (2011). The environmental review and permitting process is identified as the most significant factor in delaying transpor- tation project implementation. It was recommended that sim- plification of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

12 legislative language and applicable federal regulations would provide clearer guidance for LPAs. In addition, the document recommended an increase in authority for states and U.S.DOT to use programmatic approaches for environmental compli- ance. Other items suggested include exemption from federal law and regulations based on the granted federal fund amount and project size, flexibility in responsible charge assignment, and setting permit review or permit issuing time limits for federal permitting agencies. It was also suggested that the mechanism for direct granting of federal funds to local agen- cies (e.g., U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop- ment’s Community Development Block Grant program) be considered for accelerating LPA project delivery. The 2011 Joint AASHTO Right of Way and Utilities and Design Subcommittee Meetings (“LPA Monitoring and Per- formance Measurement” 2011) emphasized the importance of training project staff for efficient project delivery. This recommendation came as part of FHWA’s LPA ROW acqui- sition activity review, which reported that many LPAs lack the knowledge or skills that are critical for compliance with the Uniform Act and 49 CFR Part 24. Project Management In the literature, elements of the project management stage include clear assignment of party responsibilities, project invoicing, and project stewardship and oversight. Terms such as Responsible Charge Engineer, Employee of Responsible Charge, Local Project Sponsor (Pennsylvania DOT), and Local Project Manager (VDOT) are used to describe the LPA representative during the project processes. Typical respon- sibilities include project administration, project design and construction process management, and coordination between agencies. The DOT staffer is commonly referred to as Project Coordinator or Project Manager and plays an oversight role to ensure compliance with all state and federal regulations and requirements. As noted in Table 2, more than 76% of DOTs (39 states) have a formal LPA manual that details each party’s roles and responsibilities. Missouri DOT developed a draft comprehensive table that outlines responsibilities among LPAs, central office staff, and DOT district staff (“LPA Strategic Team Vision: Team Recommendations” 2011). The certification and over- sight responsibilities have been summarized in the federal- aid project agreement in the most recent 2012 to 2016 STIP (“Certification and federal-Aid Project Oversight” 2011). Like many other DOTs, Colorado DOT requires that a fed- eral funding project team prepare a checklist with roles and responsibilities once an LPA project is approved (Local Agency Manual 2006). Figure 1 is an example of project team’s roles and responsibilities published by Indiana DOT LTAP. FIGURE 1 Roles and responsibilities of project team. [Source: (“LPA Certification Training” 2012).]

13 VDOT implemented a score-based risk and oversight method of project management. The method is designed to help VDOT project coordinators identify elements that could affect the level of risk to an LPA project, as well as to deter- mine VDOT’s expected level of oversight. Elements reported to affect project delivery included funding level, experience level of the LPA, VDOT project category, and project main- tenance. In the method, each element is assigned relative weights of importance. A weighted sum of values for each project element is used to determine the risk factor. This risk factor will be used to identify whether VDOT should apply a low or high level of oversight on the particular LPA project [LAP Manual 2012]. Figure 2 presents an example of how the VDOT process works to determine the weighted risk factor and level of oversight. Full details on VDOT’s approach to LPA project development are included in Appendix D. Missouri DOT’s LPA agency tiered certification system is based on the project participants’ federal-aid project experi- ence level at each project phase. Missouri DOT reported that this approach can help to increase the levels of certification of LPAs, intended to decrease in the amount of oversight provided by the DOT and FHWA (“LPA Strategic Vision Team: Team Recommendations” 2011). FIGURE 2 Virginia DOT LPA Risk Factor and Level of Oversight Assignment. [Source: (Locally Administered Project (LAP) Manual 2012)]