Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

1. Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Carolyn Morehouse, PE; Statewide Preconstruction Engineer’s Meeting January 30, 2013

2. ADOT&PF/FHWA Stewardship & Oversight Agreement, Sept 2009 updated Dec 2012 “…outlines a risk-based approach for FHWA and DOT&PF to manage the public funds and to ensure the Federal Aid Highway Program (FAHP) is delivered in accordance with federal laws and regulations.” From Introduction Page 3

3. Stewardship Agreement….Risk Based Approach 1. Strategic Planning Process, 2. Strategic Stewardship and Oversight (SSO), 3. Performance Measures/Indicators, and 4. Quality Improvement Process* From ADOT&PF/FHWA Stewardship and Oversight Agreement, Sept 2009 Introduction Page 6

4. Stewardship Updates • Minor revisions signed Dec 21 2012 • Added language for Local Administered Projects • Added language for Major Projects • MAP-21 influencers on future Agreements

5. MAP-21 Performance-Based Management • Will establish national performance goals for Federal highway programs: • Safety • Infrastructure condition (pavement & bridges) • Congestion reduction • System reliability • Freight movement and economic vitality • Environmental sustainability • Reduced project delivery delays

6. Quality Improvement Section Started September 4, 2012 Engineer Assistant I, II, III Flex (in process) As December 11, 2012 TAM, Performance Management and Risk Management joins Quality Improvement Section. Involved in FHWA program analysis and Program Reviews.

7. DOT Quality Improvement Performance Management Quality Improvement Asset Management Risk Management

8. Risk Management What are our risks? Ten Open Ended Questions 57 staff interviewed September through November 2012 Directors helped formulate list of interviewees These are opinions and people’s perceptions Let’s look at the results

9. What are our “Strengths”?

10. DOT&PF Strengths 67% Staff Producing Quality Projects 10% Consistent Process via Standards 7% No Comment 7% Information Technology (When Used) 5% M&O 2% TAM 1% each Compliance and Projects

11. What are our “Weaknesses”?

12. DOT&PF Weaknesses 34% HR Development 18% Technical Guidance & Standards 16% Poor scheduling & changing priorities 9% Lack of Transparency/Customer Service 9% Lack of Technology 7% Lack of Long Range Plan 7% Inconsistency

13. What are our Efficiencies?

14. DOT&PF “Efficiencies” 22% No comment 18% Staff 18% New Technology 13% New Policies 9% Current Processes

15. DOT&PF “Efficiencies” (cont.) 6% 6004 5% M&O 5% Decision to fund only 4% State funded projects

16. What are our “Inefficiencies”

17. DOT&PF “Inefficiencies” • 20% Environmental Process & Scope Creep • 18% Not using technology • 14% Missing Technical Guidance • 9% In fighting-Not accepting decisions • 9% no comment • 7% Poor data • 7% Lack of Delegation

18. More DOT&PF “Inefficiencies” • 5% Changing priorities and Managers • 5% Review Process • 4% Lack of Programmatic Agreements • 2% No training Program

19. Communications

20. Communications 29% Generally Good 18% More face to face/relationship building. 16% “No comment” 14% Email is overused 11% “Telephone” game 7% Not getting all information 5% Poor communication with Stakeholders

21. Stumbling Blocks • Generally repeat of weaknesses or inefficiencies • Environmental processes for Section 106/COA/4f • Micromanagement • HQ direct contact to communities • Design delayed for environmental document • Permitting • Not knowing how much funding is available

22. Risks???

23. Risks 27% Staffing needs training; Retirement, Recruitment and Retention 13% Schedules 12% Non par or Non compliance 11% Funding and Engineering happen separately.

24. More Risks? 9% Changing scope 7% Lack of guidance 7% No overall transportation plan or data plan causes problems in project delivery 7% M&O funding not adequate. 7% No comment

25. Next Steps • Data to support risks • Create a top 10 risk list • Next Steps • Create a “To do” list divided with HR/Technology • Create a HR Group • Create a Technology Group –use TAM’s? • D&ES milestones

26. What are FHWA strengths?

27. FHWA Strengths • 47% had “no comment” some because they do not work directly with FHWA • 38% felt that some FHWA AK Division staff were their strengths. Namely Kris Riesenberg, John Lohrey and Pete Forsling. All staff is professional.

28. More FHWA Strengths • Funding – 5% • Provides a constant source of funds for Alaska • Delegations to State – 4% • Regulations have not changed, stable process • Resource Center – 2% • Provides Technical Expertise • TAM – 2% • Oversight – 2%

29. What are FHWA’s “Weaknesses”?

30. FHWA’s “Weaknesses” • 32% had “no comment” because they do not work directly with FHWA. • 25% felt FHWA’s AK Division Environmental staff was their weakness. • Over conservative-beyond regulations • No backup. When out or on other priorities No Class of Actions, Section 106, 4f, Construction Changes etc.. • No elevation process • Makes 6004 projects (simpleCEs) heavily documented

31. What are FHWA “Efficiencies” Most people had no comment A couple stated funding authorizations or approvals during construction

32. FHWA “Inefficiencies” 78% had no comment 11% Environmental Process-Why is FTA and Western Federal Environmental Process less stringent? 7% No Environmental Staff Backup 2% No Urgency –except for funding-good 2% Staff not familiar with projects – no travel

33. What are FHWA’s Inefficiencies • 16% Inexperienced Staff • Guidance incorrect; Area Engineer’s can’t make environmental decisions. Technically not proficient • 12% Not Partners • No Trust; Unable to travel to projects; More oversight-less engagement; Be more like FAA. • 10% Process Driven – • No common sense; Env regulations same for FTA and Western Federal but the env documents are much simpler and quicker for those agencies. • 5% Lack of Focus- Initiatives and staff overload

34. Met with FHWA • Working with FHWA to create efficiencies • Area Engineers make environmental decisions • COA, 106, Approvals etc. • COA training SER move to other regions • Schedules-Expected Dates and PMP Milestones • Elevation Process

36. FHWA AK Vision In Five Years: • MAP 21 is fully implemented and the transportation performance provisions have translated into an investment plan. • The MAP 21 transportation performance management rulemaking process shared expectations for the future of transportation performance management in Alaska. • Performance measures/targets incorporated into long-range planning and short-term programming processes. • Alaska DOT’s project selection processes reflect a data driven approach, and the States performance targets are real and achievable.

37. Some words from FHWA Sandra Garcia-Aline, Deputy Administrator

38. DOT Quality Improvement Performance Management Quality Improvement Asset Management Risk Management

39. Why TAM? • Accountability & Effective use of Federal Funds • Relationship funding and Performance (management) • More sustainable transportation solutions From AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide Jan 2011

40. Why Now? Asset and Performance Management is being driven toward us from Federal overseers The public is demanding better decisions for their money so…. Congress insists FHWA implement

41. How do we want it to work? • What are our important assets. Set Performance Targets • What gets measured gets done • Reevaluate Performance • Identify the projects that give the most performance (most bang for the buck) • Performance levels are established and we deliver them

42. TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT- OVERALL STRUCTURE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP STEERING COMMITTEE TAM DEVELOPMENT TEAM DATA INTEGRATION COMMUNICATIONS/ MARKETING PLANNING & PROGRAMMING TECHNICAL TEAMS Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Respect

43. Alaska DOT&PF Transportation Asset Management (TAM) Five Core Questions: WHAT ARE MY ASSETS? Important ones? • What is the current state of my assets? • What are my required level of service and performance delivery? • Which assets are critical to sustained performance delivery? • What are my best investment strategies for operations, maintenance, replacements, and improvement? • What is my best long-term funding strategy? AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation (January 2011)

44. TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT- LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP STEERING COMMITTEE TAM DEVELOPMENT TEAM DATA INTEGRATION COMMUNICATIONS/ MARKETING PLANNING & PROGRAMMING TECHNICAL TEAMS Integrity ∙ Excellence ∙ Respect

45. Improvement Process TRANSPORTATION ASSET MANAGEMENT (TAM)

46. TAM – Policy Goals & Objectives Policies & Procedures (kick off to March 2014 Long Range Transportation Plan(LRTP)- Update RFP POLICY GOALS & OBJECTIVES Self-Assessment (In process) Research (ongoing) Gap Analysis (In process)

47. Policy Goals & Objectives • TAM Development Team • TAM Synthesis & Work Plan Contract with Paul D. Thompson • Task 1 draft outline complete • Task 2 Draft Workplan due Feb 28, 2013 • Task 3 Support TAM Kickoff meeting March 6-8, 2013 • Task 4 Final Workplan due May 31, 2013 • Gap Analysis (P&Ps outdated or needed)

48. MMS (Maintenance Management System) MRS (Management Reporting System) TAM – Data Collection GIS (Geographic Information System) PETS (Performance Electronic Tracking System) INTEGRATED DATA SYSTEMS E-Parcels/E-Permits EMS (Equipment Management System) FMIS (Federal Management Information Systems) Site Manager PMS (Pavement Management System) BMS (Bridge Management System)

49. Data Collection • Data Integration Group • Pending Cambridge Systematics Contract • Reviewed by the Data Integration Group • Contract Objectives for TAMIS • Document & Analyze Research/Requirements • Assess Existing Practices & Data Systems • Conduct Gap Analysis

50. TAM – Planning & Programming Alternatives Analysis Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) PLANNING & PROGRAMMING Research Project Prioritization