Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment (2021)

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.

100 A P P E N D I X B Aggregated Survey Results List of state DOTs responding to the survey (n = 40) Alaska Illinois Nebraska Rhode Island Arkansas Indiana Nevada South Carolina California Iowa New Hampshire South Dakota Colorado Kansas New Jersey Tennessee Connecticut Louisiana North Carolina Texas Delaware Maine North Dakota Utah Florida Michigan Ohio Vermont Georgia Minnesota Oklahoma Washington Hawaii Mississippi Oregon Wisconsin Idaho Montana Pennsylvania Wyoming Figure B1 displays the results to the question “Does your Agency have a formal process that is used to close out highway projects?” A total of 40 state DOTs responded to this question. Figure B1. State DOTs using a formal process for project closeout (n = 40). 95% 5% Yes No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aggregated Survey Results 101   Figure B2 displays the results to the question “On average, at what percent complete of construction of a highway project does your agency begin planning for closeout?” All 40 state DOTs responded to this question. Figure B2. State DOT percentages of construction complete when they begin planning for closeout (n = 40). Figure B3 provides the results to the question “Which of the following project agencies and stakeholders are typically involved in the project closeout process?” The values shown on the bars are the total count of the responses for each category of stakeholder. All 40 state DOTs responding to the survey answered this question. Figure B3. Stakeholders involved with state DOT project closeout (n = 40). 15% 15% 0% 8% 5% 58% Prior to construction beginning 0-20% complete 21-40% complete 41-60% complete 61-80% complete 81-100% complete 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 9 9 10 11 17 17 27 28 33 40 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Manufacturer Fabricator Vendor Supplier Subcontractor Program Manager Construction Manager General Contractor FHWA State DOT

102 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Also, for the question, “Which of the following project agencies and stakeholders are typically involved in the project closeout process?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B1. Eleven state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. Table B1. Specific responses from DOTs on the stakeholders involved in project closeout. DOT Stakeholders involved in project closeout Alaska State Department of Labor with Certified Payroll California Local agencies Connecticut State Office of Policy and Management, Office of the State Comptroller, State Dept. of Energy and Environmental Policy, State Department of Labor, Municipalities Florida Contractor’s surety Hawaii Right-of-way, utility companies, design engineer Michigan Auditor Minnesota Inspectors, Construction Office Managers, Project Engineers, Resident Engineers, Central Construction Office, and Central Office Finance Nebraska Construction and Controller divisions New Hampshire Bureau of Construction – Audit Section New Jersey Resident engineer Washington Departments of Labor and Industry, Revenue, and Employment Security Figure B4 includes the compiled responses for the question “What documents are required by your Agency for highway construction closeout?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. All 40 state DOTs that responded answered this question.

Aggregated Survey Results 103   Figure B4. Documents required for project closeout (n = 40). In addition, for the question “What documents are required by your Agency for highway construction closeout?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B2. Eleven state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. Table B2. Specific responses from DOTs on the documentation requirements for project closeout. DOT Documents required for project closeout Alaska Stormwater permits notice of termination, certified payroll, warranties, CAD as-builts Connecticut Time extensions, SBE and DBE reports, construction report, post-construction reviews, office of construction final review Florida Surety acknowledgment of Final Acceptance; Operations/Maintenance Manuals as applicable Indiana Final payment estimate Louisiana Field books, certifications of work 9 15 25 27 27 30 32 34 36 37 37 38 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Right of way maps Operations and maintenance manuals Certifications of Compliance Financial information for final payment As-built drawings Punchlist report Certificate of substantial completion/acceptance Material test reports Material certifications Final payment application Final inspection report Approved and Completed Change Orders

104 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Minnesota OCR Clearance, Over/Underrun Report, Finalization of related cost sharing agreements, Labor compliance clearance, MN IC134 and Warranty Information Mississippi Full maintenance release and acceptance New Hampshire ROW certificates, NEPA documentation, public interest finding (PIF) New Jersey Internal contract controls and procedures Texas Texas DOT accounting closeout records from PeopleSoft accounting system Vermont When applicable: Treasurer's Documentation, Town Billing Agreements, General Correspondence, Over-Expended Memos, FHWA Agreements, Utility Completion and Acceptance Next, Figure B5 illustrates the responses to the question “What technologies does your agency use for project closeout that help streamline the process?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. A total of 40 state DOTs responded to this question. Figure B5. Technologies used for project closeout (n = 40). In addition, for the question “What technologies does your agency use for project closeout that help streamline the process” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B3. Eight state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. 1 3 4 4 17 21 26 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Building Information Modeling Radio frequency identification Real time kinematic devices Unmanned aircraft vehicles AASHTOWare products e-Construction Internal PM/Closeout application

Aggregated Survey Results 105   Table B3. Specific responses from state DOTs on the technologies used for project closeout. DOT Technologies used for project closeout Connecticut Compass, Site Manager, Bluebeam, and ProjectWise Indiana Site Manager and INDOT custom application for project closeout Louisiana Internal Program named LAGov Minnesota Financial databases to create required federal forms Nebraska Web-based Project Finance system New Hampshire Bluebeam and iPD Pennsylvania ECMS Wyoming Internal DOT Financial system - PeopleSoft Next, Figure B6 illustrates the responses to the question “How is e-Construction used for project closeout at your Agency?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. A total of 21 state DOTs responded to this question. Figure B6. Different uses for e-Construction in project closeout (n = 21). In addition, for the question “How is e-Construction used for project closeout at your Agency?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B4. The Minnesota DOT was the only state DOT that provided a specific response to this question. 14 17 21 12 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% Electronic Signatures Electronic review of closeout documents Electronic document sharing All of these

106 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Table B4. Specific responses from DOTs on different ways e-construction is used for project closeout. DOT Different ways e-Construction is used for project closeout Minnesota E-tickets and Intelligent Compaction Next, Table B5 compares a DOT’s goal of average number of days to close out a project to the actual, that is, the average number of days to close out a project. Thirty-eight state DOTs provided their goal and actual project closeout duration information. Table B5. Average number of days to close out a project – Goal vs. Actual DOT Average number of days to close out a project Goal Actual Alaska 365 300 Arkansas 270 497 California 90 270 Colorado 365 362 Connecticut 1,460 N/A Florida 275 186 Georgia 180 295 Hawaii 545 1,931 Idaho 365 539 Illinois 90 Above 180 Indiana 180 150 Iowa 90 176 Kansas 90 120 Louisiana 90 90 Maine For final payment to contractor - 1 year Payment to Contractor is within a year by 80% Michigan 1,095 1,095 Minnesota 548 1,643 Mississippi 45 Varies Montana 90 85 Nebraska 20 months 14 months Nevada 365 800 New Hampshire 720 309 New Jersey 4-8 months 8-16 months North Dakota 5 months Varies hugely Ohio 180 180 Oklahoma 60 75 Oregon 120 285 Pennsylvania 365 293

Aggregated Survey Results 107   Rhode Island 2 years below 2 years South Carolina 270 290 South Dakota 200 210 Texas 150 180 Utah 120 90 Vermont 380 1,095 Washington 90 240 Wisconsin 1,275 1,275 Wyoming 365 315 N/A = not available. Figure B7 illustrates the responses to the question “How was the goal for the number of days to close out a project set at your Agency?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. A total of 40 state DOTs that responded to the survey answered this question. Figure B7. Basis for goal for number of days to project closeout is set by state DOTs (n = 40). In addition, for the question “How was the goal for the number of days to close out a project set at your Agency?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B6. Ten state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. Table B6. Specific responses from state DOTs based on the goal for the number of days to project closeout set. DOT Basis for goal for number of days to project closeout is set Alaska FHWA program review Connecticut FHWA negotiation 3 7 13 19 22 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Not Sure Research Policy/Legislation Internal Analysis Experience

108 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Georgia Georgia DOT examined the workflow from semi-final payment through final payment, inclusive of contractor releases while implementing a process improvement regarding materials certification and internal financial audits. Kansas Procedures developed by Kansas DOT Minnesota FHWA’s performance goals Nebraska Factors for charging interest Nevada We just completed a process review from substantial completion to final voucher North Dakota Close out before the next construction season begins Rhode Island Agreements with the local FHWA Division Office Texas State Auditor’s Office (Pre-2014) Figure B8 illustrates the responses to the question “Which delivery methods does your Agency use for delivering highway projects?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. Forty state DOTs that responded to the survey answered this question. Figure B8. Project delivery methods used for highway projects (n = 40). In addition, for the question “Which delivery methods does your Agency use for delivering highway projects?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B7. Four state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. 40 30 2 19 11 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% DBB DB Prog. DB CMGC P3 ATC

Aggregated Survey Results 109   Table B7. Specific responses from state DOTs on project delivery methods used for highway projects. DOT Project delivery methods used for highway projects Florida Pushbutton (Alternative Contracts) Kansas Let projects managed by Kansas DOT Minnesota Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Montana Job order contracting (JOC) Next, Figure B9 illustrates the responses to the question “Which of the following Factors has your Agency experienced that led to successfully closing out highway construction projects?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. All 40 state DOTs that responded answered this question. Figure B9. Factors state DOTs experienced that led to successful closeout of highway construction projects (n = 40). In addition, for the question “Which of the following Factors has your Agency experienced that led to successfully closing out highway construction projects?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B8. Three state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. 3 9 9 17 17 23 24 31 32 32 34 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Using consultants Awarding Contractors with DOT experience Using contractual incentives Using e-Construction and other technologies Using performance measures No claims / litigation occurring Clear project closeout contract terms Cooperation between DOT and FHWA DOT training of staff for project closeout Experienced DOT project closeout staff available Cooperation between DOT and Contractor

110 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Table B8. Specific responses on factors state DOTs experienced that led to successful closeout of highway construction projects. DOT Factors for successful closeout of highway construction projects California Partnering with local agencies and assisting them with the closeout process Minnesota Correct documentation on contract changes, disincentives for contractor for not providing closeout documentation required New Hampshire Awarding projects to pre-qualified contractors and low bidders Figure B10 illustrates the responses to the question “Which of the following Barriers has your Agency realized in closing out highway construction projects?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. All 40 state DOTs that responded answered this question. Figure B10. Barriers in closing out highway construction projects (n = 40). 1 4 4 5 8 10 12 13 14 15 18 19 19 29 30 32 32 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Limited cooperation between DOT and FHWA Did not establish project closeout milestones Insufficient as-built drawings Migrating paper documents to electronic files Missing inspection reports Changes in contractor project personnel Limited cooperation between DOT and contractor Delayed billing from third-party vendors External stakeholders delaying the closeout process Punchlist taking too long to complete Missing certifications Limited DOT staff with project closeout experience Missing material testing reports/results Limited DOT staff availability Changes in DOT project personnel Claims/litigation between DOT and contractor Difficulty receiving required closeout documents

Aggregated Survey Results 111   In addition, for the question “Which of the following Barriers has your Agency realized in closing out highway construction projects?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B9. Three state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. Table B9. Specific responses on barriers in closing out highway construction projects. DOT Barriers in closing out highway construction projects Alaska Certified Payroll Connecticut Large backlog of vendor audits, incomplete/inaccurate submission of documents, balancing of finance documents on multiple project contracts at the same time Kansas Legal actions Figure B11 illustrates the responses to the question “What are the impacts of delays in project closeout realized by your Agency?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. All 40 state DOTs that responded answered this question. Figure B11. Impact of delays in project closeouts (n = 40). In addition, for the question “What are the impacts of delays in project closeout realized by your Agency?” DOTs were able to provide specific responses, which are listed in Table B10. Ten state DOTs provided specific responses to this question. 4 4 5 9 11 14 17 19 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Results in claims/litigation Lack of proper archiving of documents Traveling public thinks highway projects are never finished Financial burden placed on the general contractor Reduces number of projects DOT can complete annually Negatively impacts the DOT-Contractor relationship Additional costs to the DOT Difficulty allocating DOT resources to subsequent projects

112 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Table B10. Specific responses on impacts of delay in project closeouts. DOT Impacts of delay in project closeouts Colorado Out of compliance with statutes and FHWA agreements Connecticut Loss of federal funding Michigan Reporting requirements of FHWA to internal and external stakeholders Minnesota Increase in inactive projects Montana Failure to meet performance measures New Hampshire Timely de-obligation of unneeded funds for use on other projects Ohio Federal funds to use on other projects, negative impact to local agencies to either release or require additional funding at closeout Pennsylvania Reallocation of unused federal funds for state Texas Potential impact to FHWA inactive list of projects Next, Figure B12 illustrates the responses to the question “How many years of experience do you have in closing out highway projects for your Agency?” The values shown on the bars in the chart are the total count of responses. Figure B12. Experience of participants in closing out highway projects (n = 40). Next, Table B11 lists the responses to the question “What are lessons learned that you can think of that are related to project closeout duration for highway construction projects at your Agency?” The following 20 state DOT responses have been used throughout chapters 3, 4, and 5. 9 9 6 4 5 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years 21-25 years More than 25 years

Aggregated Survey Results 113   Idaho Focusing on closeout process from start is important to have a successful closeout. Indiana Having an electronic based process is key in creating efficiency in project closeout. Kansas Having a procedure in place and milestones that trigger an action that progresses the closeout process forward is helpful. Louisiana Keep up with documentation as project goes on. Maine Measuring and tracking is important for the closeout process to be smooth. Michigan Communication with FHWA is important as the end date approaches. Minnesota Closeout should not be considered winter work for construction staff; it takes coordination with other specialty offices and possibly other agencies; it has to be considered a priority. Nevada Nevada DOT learned that lack of communication between divisions was a bummer. It is important to have a standard procedure that each division can follow to closeout agreements. Closeout process should be assigned as a responsibility to one particular person or team within the organization. New Hampshire Developing and following an adopted agency SOP from project development to project close, which organizes all required project documentation; NH found this to be important for all key areas to weigh in on completion and payment of expenses, especially the Bureaus of ROW, Environment, and Utilities. This communication assures that the project closeout is not done too early and that all expenditures have been paid and accounted for, which was problematic for the DOT when it had already by final voucher requested FHWA project closeout approval. New Jersey Electronic forms would expedite communication and processing. North Dakota Project closeout is generally more efficient and quicker when the project manager works on it throughout the duration of the construction project. Pennsylvania Conduct Field Audits as job progresses. Final Audit should be a Random Audit process. Rhode Island Convene the Closeout Committee and the periodic meetings to assist in bringing projects to closure. Including every section of the department that touches projects in order to get updated statuses on all projects that have end dates scheduled within the next year has helped RI DOT in successfully closing projects. Utah Beginning the process as early as possible; during design is optimal. Wyoming Communication between stakeholders - getting those involved to provide information in a timely manner. Table B12 lists the responses to the question “Do you have any other information or final thoughts that you would like to share with the synthesis team regarding project closeout at your Agency?” The following 12 state DOTs provided additional information, which is used in Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5. Connecticut Implementing LEAN in project closeout process will be very helpful. Florida Communication between the parties is a key factor in a timely and successful closeout. Table B11. Lessons learned related to project closeouts by DOTs. DOT Lessons Learned Alaska Subcontractors and certified payroll are reasons for project closeout delay. California Timely project closeout has to be emphasized. Every project needs to be closed in a timely manner. Otherwise, federal funds that could be used to deliver other projects could be lost. Colorado Having required paperwork through the project is key for timely closure.

114 Practices for Closing Out Highway Projects from Substantial Completion to Final Payment Table B12. Other information provided on project closeouts by state DOTs. DOT Information California In general, the benefits of timely project closeout need to be spelled out and emphasized to create a sense of responsibility and urgency. Project delivery team needs to treat closeout as an integral part of the process, and performance measures need to be established. Otherwise, project closeout may end up being one of the low-priority actions. Connecticut Municipally administered projects present a whole host of problems stemming from many municipalities’ unfamiliarity with the construction process, high municipal turnover, and inadequate oversight by Connecticut DOT. e-Construction is still a work in progress. Repository for second party agreements is poorly maintained by Connecticut DOT, leading to unforeseen audit requirements and thus a delay in the closeout process. Florida Upon acknowledgement of final acceptance, the project financial closeout process begins. Once final acceptance has been received, the project status is changed to Ready Final Voucher status by the Office of Comptroller for final accounting entries and any necessary adjustments. Once completed, the project is submitted to close in FHWA’s Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS). The overall goal of the closeout process from the time of final acceptance until the project is closed in FMIS is 14 months (420 days). Actual results are generally consistent with this goal. Indiana Moving toward e-Construction and a more electronic system-based process for final construction record closeout will be vital in helping Indiana DOT efficiently closeout the increasing number of construction projects. Kansas Kansas DOT processes are very specific Kansas DOT systems. Kansas DOT works very closely with our FHWA partners to close projects in a timely manner and less than 1-2% inactive projects. Minnesota The closeout of a state-funded-only project uses a shorter timeframe than that of a federally funded project. The Office of Finance does not need to close that project with FHWA. New Hampshire The state continues to develop electronically data sharing (EDS) programs that automate the project audit and reconciliation processes to make project closures timelier and more accurate, eliminating nuisance errors. Once a construction project is complete, the NH Bureau of Construction engineering audit section audits all project material use and expense data to finalize the actual project cost; this adds an additional 120 days to the project closeout process. Also, by state of NH RSA, the contractor is given 60 days to accept of appeal the state’s final pay; this, too, adds time to closeout. Ohio Ohio DOT experienced a backlog in project closeouts a few years ago. With the support of Senior Leadership, a project closeout team was created and worked to improve the process incorporating the construction phase and all other phases that were required to be documented as complete in full circle application. Ohio DOT project closeout process is now an electronic workflow application that is completed by various personnel at the district level and then sent to Finance for the financial close with FHWA. Rhode Island The Department implemented ORACLE Government Financials as its new financial management system in 2006. The department carried forward over 1,200 open FAPs. The department currently has 350 open FAPs in the state. Five years ago, there were many inactive projects and over 85 inactive projects with no federal funds remaining. Currently, there are no zero-dollar inactive projects, as well as none with funds in them, as it is a priority to address such projects. South Dakota Setting and following policies for FIRE Inactive and Project End Dates is also a large part of clean project closeout at South Dakota DOT. Utah Full financial closeout (project not construction) relies on Utility agreements being closed, ROW agreements being closed, and another contract closure (as well as final voucher from FHWA). Vermont Vermont DOT is in the process of implementing continuous improvement efforts.

Aggregated Survey Results 115   Figure B13 illustrates the state DOTs that have specific documents, reports, checklists, or guidance related to project closeout of highway projects. All 40 state DOTs responded to this question, and half provided specific project documents related to closeout for this project. Figure B13. State DOTs with documents for project closeout. Finally, Figure B14 shows the responses from DOTs that were willing to participate in the case examples for this project. Of the 33 state DOTs stating further participation, 13 states were contacted, and eight were used for the case examples. Figure B14. State DOT responses for participating in follow-up case examples. 6 2 32 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Not Sure No Yes 33 7 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Yes No