National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies

« Previous: CHAPTER TWO Practices and Performance Measures Used by Departments of Transportation
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"CHAPTER THREE Certification of Local Public Agencies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22592.
×
Page 41

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.

35 CHAPTER THREE CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCIES INTRODUCTION This chapter presents information on the certification of LPAs by state DOTs. The content of this chapter is based primarily on the DOT survey results and focus interviews with five DOTs. The chapter is divided into sections cov- ering preliminary application to LPA certification program through periodic recertification of LPAs. Details on the LPA certification program content, structure, and continuation process from interviews with the DOTs are presented. Fifteen states indicated that their DOTs administer an LPA certification or qualification process for federally funded projects. In these states, the number of certified LPAs ranged from fewer than 15 to more than 90 agen- cies. In addition, a few states indicated that they are in the process of implementing an LPA certification program in the near future. Of the remaining states, only 14% are definitively considering implementing an LPA certifica- tion process. The DOT central office will be responsible for implementing a new LPA certification process, with some coordination with DOT district offices. Table 10 summarizes the entities certified and areas of certification reported by a number of DOTs. Kentucky, Minnesota, and Missouri indicated that they are not pursuing certification programs. However, upon review of their policies and pro- cedures, it appears that each of these states uses a specific certification program for state aid, a practice that parallels the states that have formal certification programs for feder- ally funded projects. DOTs were asked whether federal regulations should be established to require certification program for LPAs. Approxi- mately 62% of the respondents indicated that it should not be required. The primary reason cited was the need for additional staff and training, as well as another program to undertake with TABLE 10 SUMMARY OF ASPECTS OF STATE LPA CERTIFIED ENTITIES AND AREAS OF CERTIFICATION State Entity Certified Areas of Certification Certifying Local Public Agencies Certifying Consultants1 Certifying Individuals1 Design ROW1 NEPA Study Lead1,2 Project Adver- tisement, Bid/ Award, Consul- tant Selection Construction Administration (EEO1, DBE1, Materials Quality Assurance, etc.) Construction, Procurement, Inspection3 Florida X X X X X Georgia X X X X X X X Kansas X X X X X Maine X X X X X X X Mississippi X X X X X X X Nebraska X X X X X X X X X New Hampshire X X X X X X X Ohio X X X X X X (in devel- opment for consultants) Oregon X X X X X X South Carolina X X X X X X Texas X Washington X X X X X X X Wisconsin X X X X X X X Wyoming X X X X X X X 1 State DOTs cannot delegate certain functions per the FHWA stewardship agreement (e.g., civil rights, ROW Certification, Finance, NEPA closeout). 2 Defined as providing the environmental studies and obtaining local permits, not final NEPA clearance. 3 Does not include final inspection approval.

36 no additional resources forthcoming. Most DOTs were satis- fied with their current LPA programs, and instead focused on a concerted effort to improve the efficiency of their current pro- grams. However, one DOT responded that federal regulation should require certification programs for LPAs and that a mini- mum project amount of $500,000 should be established. Iowa DOT has no LPA certification program, but it is considering certification of individuals performing construction inspection. About a dozen DOTs have implemented or are consider- ing some related aspects of a certification program. Table 11 presents a sample of these approaches. In some states, such as Delaware and Oklahoma, it is not necessary to have a certification process because the DOT administers infra- structure federal funding programs on behalf of the LPAs. Other DOTs will perform a prequalification review of LPAs, but not a full certification process. Figure 12 presents several reasons why DOTs have not implemented an LPA certification process. The main reason is the limited workforce at the DOT, local agencies, or both. General Requirements of a Local Public Agency Certification Program The survey solicited DOTs with an LPA certification pro- gram to provide information on some general requirements of the process. Administration Most DOTs (87%) with an LPA certification program for- mally review and update the process periodically. For 11 of the 15 DOTs, the average time to certify an LPA from start to completion is less than 3 months. However, the certifica- tion process can take more than a year in a couple of states. The frequency with which the certification is reviewed var- ies from review with every new project application to up to every 5 years. In New Mexico, the frequency with which an LPA’s certification is reviewed is based on its incorporation as a political subdivision of the state. TABLE 11 APPROACHES CONSIDERED AS PART OF LPA CERTIFICATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION State Variation or Consideration for LPA Certification Program Iowa Require individuals performing construction inspection on LPA projects to be certified. Michigan A few LPAs are certified in the construction administra- tion process. Currently do not have a certification pro- cess for the design phase of project delivery. Montana Suballocate Transportation Enhancement (TE) program funding to local and tribal governments for developing TE projects at the local level. Currently working on a certification process to allow local governments to administer selected federally funded (non-TE) projects. Pennsylvania Local Project Delivery Task Force created to find ways to improve the development and delivery of local projects. Considering a tiered qualification system that would allow for reduced reviews for consultants with successful previous Pennsylvania DOT project experience. Virginia Certification process that grants very experienced municipalities the ability to streamline VDOT oversight. The nature of the certification process varies by state. In Ohio, the LPA certification program has two levels. The first level includes assignment of full administration capabilities of all project work types, given a satisfactory performance on FIGURE 12 Reasons provided for not implementing an LPA certification process.

37 past projects and no change in stated qualifications. The sec- ond level grants limited administration capabilities assigned on a project-by-project basis, depending on the work type. An LPA may have to undergo recertification for several reasons, primarily as a result of the LPA’s past performance history or a staff change at the LPA. Figure 13 presents a range of survey responses. Florida The Florida DOT LPA Manual provides local agency cer- tification requirements. One of the major requirements for being certified in Florida is that each project must be run by a qualified and experienced person who is either on staff as a public employee or is a consultant designated as the LPA’s engineer. The LPA must demonstrate sufficient expertise and capability to perform and supervise the design, environ- mental, PS&E, and construction administration phases of the project. The LPA engineering force needs to be capable of performing the design, PS&E, and construction adminis- tration phases of the project, or it may enter into consultant agreements for this work. In addition, the LPA must designate an official with approving authority for all project approvals delegated by Florida DOT. The official, which could be an LPA executive or policy body, must formally approve each project step for which it is the approving authority. Examples of the LPA Administrative Checklist and a Certification and Qualification Agreement are included in Appendix D. After receiving the above information, the Florida DOT District LPA administrator will interview LPA staff to determine whether it is capable of administering a federal- aid project. The administrator will use a District Task Team approach to evaluate the local agency’s qualifications. The District Task Team consists of Florida DOT staff with exper- tise in the area(s) in which LPA certification is requested. The team will be present at the LPA interview and will con- sider past performance, current staffing, overall capability, and knowledge of FHWA and state requirements to deter- mine the feasibility of certifying the LPA. If any informa- tion is missing from the application or additional details are needed, the LPA is given the opportunity to submit the docu- mentation to the administrator in a timely manner. Florida DOT will review the LPA certification every 3 years if the LPA is classified as inactive status. Certifica- tion is also reviewed with every new project if the LPA is classified as having a project-specific certification. The LPA must receive a Recertification of Qualification after 3 years of inactivity or at the administrator’s discretion. Failure to receive recertification and/or unsatisfactory performance by the LPA will result in decertification. Oregon Oregon has a certification program whereby the Oregon DOT certification program manager and relevant Oregon DOT subject matter experts interview local agency staff to communicate expectations, procedures, and responsibili- ties. Once the manager and Oregon DOT staff are satisfied that a local agency has sufficient staff and resources to pur- sue certification, Oregon DOT and the local agency execute a Master Certification Agreement (see Appendix D). The FIGURE 13 Types of events that prompt recertification of an LPA.

38 agreement establishes the roles, responsibilities, and expec- tations for federal-aid project delivery. The local agencies then manage two to four test projects to which Oregon DOT staff applies in-depth oversight and partnership with each local agency. During the test phase, local agencies man- age the federal-aid project with their approved processes and are held accountable for compliance with their com- mitments in the agreement and the interview forms. The Oregon DOT regional local agency liaison is the key staff person responsible for the success of a local agency project. In the certification program, the ’liaison’s role is increased, to include training the local agency on federal regulations, reviewing local agency deliverables and product, working on certification program documents and guidance, and help- ing the local agency develop internal processes to comply with federal regulations and best practices. The liaison is also the communication liaison for Oregon DOT technical staff, regional staff, federal partners, and the local agency staff whenever Oregon DOT review or approval is needed for a project to continue. Local agencies can pursue certification in any or all of the following four areas of project delivery: (1) consultant selection; (2) design; (3) advertising, bid, and award; and (4) construction contract administration. Continued certifi- cation is pursuant to positive findings from formal biannual project reviews. Oregon DOT reviews local agency policy and process changes, staff reductions, and project delivery performance to determine whether a local agency may con- tinue to operate as a fully certified agency. Currently, 13 local agencies are involved in the certifica- tion program. Historically, local agencies have requested to become certified in only a couple of the possible areas. The current trend, however, is for local agencies to pursue certi- fication in all areas. Those few early certified agencies that only pursued certification in some areas are now re-entering the program to complete the other areas. Once a local agency reaches full certification status, Oregon DOT plays more of an oversight and review role. The local agency takes respon- sibility for contracting, procurement, design, and construc- tion contractor management. To revoke an agency’s status for unsatisfactory work, Oregon DOT must comply with its notice and documentation procedures. These procedures require Oregon DOT to inform the local agency of deficien- cies and give it time for cure. Oregon DOT staff is committed to working with local agencies to take corrective action. If the local agency fails to take corrective action, the certifica- tion program manager can revoke the certification status or require that all projects return to Oregon DOT management. A local agency can regain its certified status after the prob- lems have been resolved. Certified local agencies have experienced improved proj- ect delivery timelines and budget control as a result of cer- tification. Large cities and counties that receive consistent federal funding have the most success in the certification pro- gram and in developing and executing federal-aid projects. Training All but one of the DOTs require that LPAs attend training on the certification program and become familiar with related policies and regulations. Ohio DOT does not mandate a training component for an LPA to become certified. Florida DOT requires that LPAs take an online training at the time of certification. There is no formal recertification training, though new employees at certified local agencies are asked to take the online training. For the most part, training is made available to LPAs upon request or through annual training sessions. In 75% of the states that have an LPA certification program, the training is conducted by DOT central office staff, with some support of the local technical assistance program on specific technical items. However, there are some unique situations, such as in Georgia, where the Office of Program Control delivers LPA training, and in Tennessee, where the local program development office heads training efforts. In New Mexico, MPOs/RPOs are also involved in delivering train- ing to LPAs, and Wisconsin DOT has engaged consultants to assist in training. Maine DOT produced a Guide to Local Project Administration (2011) that is part of the basis of the annual certification course. In South Carolina, the LPA administration office provides training, and South Carolina DOT coordinates closely with FHWA–South Carolina Division by offering other training courses through the National Highway Institute. Effectiveness of a Local Public Agency Certification Program This section presents practices and performance measures that DOTs reported were useful in determining the effective- ness of their LPA certification programs. The survey asked DOTs how they measure the effectiveness of an LPA certi- fication program and what type of performance measures are instituted as part of the certification process. In 87% of the DOTs with an LPA certification program, there was con- sensus that the process has helped both the DOTs and LPAs comply with federal-aid requirements. Florida and Nebraska reported that certification did not necessarily help specifi- cally with regard to compliance with federal regulations. In Kansas, the certification process has only recently been implemented and the DOT has not yet had a chance to evalu- ate its effectiveness. Ohio reported that compliance is very difficult to determine; however, the prequalified (certified) LPAs, which administer federal projects more frequently, are the most successful.

39 Performance Measures Relative to Certification Sixty percent of DOTs stated that the certification process has helped participating LPAs achieve more of the project delivery performance metrics set by DOTs. One DOT noted that an increase in quality during inspections is a result of the certification process. A second DOT noted that prequali- fied LPAs that administer federal projects more frequently are the most successful at achieving performance metrics. DOTs were also asked to identify specific project develop- ment phases in which LPA certification has improved proj- ect delivery. Figure 14 shows the range of responses, and that the most impact is found in the latter stages of project development: design phase and utilities; procurement; and construction contracting and inspection. The specific phases in which elements of LPA certification can be improved or streamlined were ranked by DOTs throughout the entire pro- cess from the environmental phase (47%) and ROW acquisi- tion (47%), to procurement (67%), and construction (73%). Maine Maine DOT reported that LPA certification has improved project delivery in the ROW acquisition, procurement, and construction oversight phases. However, to help reduce the risk of projects not being completed in accordance with the performance measures, Maine DOT has identified a strategy for better management of the certification program. Maine DOT will handle the ROW process for smaller agencies and will assign a specific DOT project manager for each LPA project to provide one point of contact. A Maine DOT con- struction manager will assist the project manager in provid- ing oversight on LPAs during the construction phase, similar to how FHWA provides oversight to the state. A Maine DOT contract specialist works with the project manager to assist in review of LPA procurement of consultant documents. Bringing in various specialists at key points of project deliv- ery has helped reduce the risk of performance measures not being met. Half of the DOTs with a certification process have estab- lished performance measures to evaluate the success of the LPA certification program. Table 12 shows examples of these performance measures, primarily including evaluation by process reviews and milestone development and tracking. FIGURE 14 Improved performance by project phase as a result of LPA certification process. TABLE 12 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES INSTITUTED FOR LPA CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS State Performance Measure for LPA Certification Program Maine Delivery targets for LPA projects: a certain percentage successfully advertised within 30 days of their scheduled milestone dates. LPAs identify problems and plan solu- tions before delays occur. New Hampshire No instances of noncompliance with program require- ments by LPA. Ohio Internal LPA Project Evaluation form completed at the end of each LPA project to determine how the LPA per- formed in each area of project development. Consists of one-page web-based form that allows each discipline in the Ohio DOT district [environment, ROW, construction, equal employment opportunity (EEO), etc.] to comment on the LPA’s performance. The form is marked as satis- factory; satisfactory with comments; or not satisfactory, which affects certification for future projects. South Carolina Number of eligible reimbursement requests for work asso- ciated with various project phases. Includes examples such as design when procurement is involved and the number of concurrence of construction awards that are issued without requiring rebid. Tennessee Organization of LPA projects in phases and obligating funds for one phase at a time. Milestones are then used to determine the transition from one phase to the next. Washington Track and report the condition of local bridges and city arte- rial pavement conditions as part of the LPA project delivery.

40 As an example, Maine DOT has a goal of 85% on-time deliv- ery, which is within 30 days of the delivery schedule dates set. Historically, LPAs in Maine were achieving a 50% on- time delivery rate. After the inception of Maine DOT’s LPA certification program and related efforts by the Multimodal Program Office, the rate has increased to 60% on-time deliv- ery for LPA projects. Maine DOT reported that the increase was due in large part to the certification program’s impact on increasing LPA project schedule reliability. A number of DOTs hold LPAs accountable when perfor- mance measures are not met. Figure 15 illustrates the ways DOTs execute accountability, with the most common being a loss of project funding. Kansas As an example, Kansas DOT is planning to use a progres- sive discipline approach that includes bringing deficiencies to the attention of the LPA and providing assistance and training to address those deficiencies. Ultimately, in the case of repeated issues, Kansas DOT could suspend an LPA’s cer- tification until steps are taken to ensure that proper proce- dures will be followed. Another aspect of LPA certification program effective- ness was to ask DOTs what performance measures could be used for oversight. Many of the performance measures men- tioned by DOTs relate to fiscal goals (e.g., expenditure of 95% of appropriated funds; project delivery costs less than 27.5% of construction costs) and scheduling milestones. Table 13 shows some of more unusual performance mea- sures provided by DOTs. Maine Maine DOT indicated that experiential evidence has shown that the certification process has helped LPAs achieve more of the DOT performance measures. Some items planned for the forthcoming draft policy on performance-based measures may include the number of instances of nonparticipation by FHWA on LPA projects and the number of LPAs with Notices to Proceed that do not take action on a project within 30 days of delivery schedule date. The certification agreement between Maine DOT and LPAs commits the LPA to monthly com- munication, regardless of activity level, which is done to help manage when key checkpoints are imminent. Maine DOT is currently finalizing a policy to hold LPAs more accountable for insufficient progress in delivering LPA projects. Examples of Local Public Agencies Certification Program Practices Used by Departments of Transportation A number of DOT interviews were conducted to obtain details on practices or tools that are part of the LPA certifi- cation process. Examples of these tools are presented in the following sections. Nebraska Nebraska DOR has had a program in place for 4 years and currently has no limitations on which LPAs can request or FIGURE 15 Methods used by DOTs to hold LPAs accountable for not meeting performance metrics.

41 receive qualification. Of 93 counties, 32 cities, and other organizations (schools, natural resource districts, and small cities), 90 are qualified. Nebraska DOR reserves the right to let all projects to minimize financial risk by handing the project financing and payments to contractors. In addition, local match dollars are collected in advance or on an advance payment schedule. Requalification is necessary in the case of changes to LPA staff, inability to provide local match dol- lars, poor performance on past projects, and unwillingness to use eminent domain. TABLE 13 EXAMPLES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES REPORTED AS MOST EFFECTIVE FOR OVERSIGHT OF LPA CERTIFICATION PROGRAM State Performance Measure for LPA Certification Program Kansas Measure whether federal/state regulations are being met and whether projects are being developed and constructed within time and budget constraints Maine 1. High percentage of LPA projects that have been successfully delivered while maintaining federally funded participation 2. High percentage of LPA projects delivered within 30 days of their schedule milestone dates Nebraska 1. Exhausting the full amount of spending authority annually 2. Duration of NEPA clearances and duration of professional services procurement phase 3. No loss of federal funds due to noncompliance 4. Environmental commitments met 5. Time required to close out a project New Hampshire No instances of noncompliance with program requirements by LPA Ohio Delivering projects in accordance with developed milestone dates for each area of project development and construction Oregon 1. Routinely held successful reviews of LPA performance 2. Routine updates on policy and regulatory guidance and regular training South Carolina 1. Number of concurrences for procurement of design or construction activities 2. Number of eligible reimbursement requests from LPAs 3. Number of PS&E that are received without returning for major revisions or resubmittals Tennessee 1. Good communication between LPA and DOT 2. Clear instructions on LPA project requirements and strict reimbursement requirements Wyoming Clear acceptance of work documentation Oregon Oregon has a certification process whereby the DOT Trans- portation Development Division interviews a local agency to outline expectations. Oregon DOT then applies in-depth oversight on four aggressive trial projects as training to han- dle the advanced responsibilities of a certified agency. The areas in which local agencies can become certified are con- sultant selection; design; advertising, bid, and award; and construction contract administration. Continued certification is formally reviewed every 2 years or in the case of changes or reductions in LPA staff and performance history on past projects. Certification for local agencies varies. Some agencies are certified in several areas, while others request only partial certification. Once an agency is certified, the contracting and review pro- cesses are handed over to the LPA. To revoke an agency’s status for unsatisfactory work, an LPA would be informed of any deficiencies; it can regain certified status after these problems have been resolved. Oregon DOT cited improved project delivery as a result of the certification process, which has been witnessed in the design/utilities, procure- ment, and construction contracting/inspection phases. It also responded that large agencies have had the most suc- cess in developing and executing federal-aid projects. Oregon DOT has established two performance measures: (1) number of satisfactory reviews (audits) of LPAs, and (2) annual review and update of the local agency guidelines manual. Oregon DOT stated that the certification program has helped participating LPAs achieve the performance met- rics (design, procurement, and construction management phases) set by Oregon DOT for project delivery. Routine successful reviews of LPAs, regular training, and policy and regulatory updates on guidance are key performance mea- sures for a healthy LPA program. Washington WSDOT reported that 107 local agencies are designated as Certified Acceptance Agencies (39 counties, 63 cities, four port authorities, and Washington state parks). The basis for eligibil- ity is appropriate and available LPA staff, along with a demon- stration of satisfactory execution of federally funded projects through an “in training status.” Of the 107 local agencies, 104 have achieved LPA certification. In Washington, LPA certifi- cation assigns local agencies the full responsibility for project design and construction. Although noncertified jurisdictions can receive federal funds, their limited responsibilities in proj- ect execution are defined in agreements with WSDOT.

Next: CHAPTER FOUR Practices and Performance Metrics Used by Local Agencies »
Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 442: Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects explores what performance measures, delivery practices, strategies, and tools are currently used in relation to federally-funded local public agency (LPA) highway project development and delivery, and how they are used to measure success in project administration.

Appendix D to NCHRP Synthesis 422, which provides samples of documents that exhibit practices or performance measures for federally funded LPA transportation projects, is not included in the print or PDF version of the report. Appendix D is available online.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!