Item Number Fix Maintain Development Priority Management Support 2038 3 Development 2224 3 Development 2232 3 Development 2236 3 Development 2238 3 Development 2239 3 Development 2240 3 Development 2241 3 Development 2252 3 Development 2254 3 Development 2258 2 development 2265 2 Development 2272 3 Development 2273 3 Development 2275 3 Development 2284 3 Development 2299 3 Development 2302 2 Development 2313 2 development 2319 3 Development 2326 2 development 2330 2 development 2332 3 maintenance 2348 3 Management 2354 3 development 2369 2 WIKI 2385 2 development 2388 2 development 2393 3 development 2394 2 development 2396 2 PMT 2400 2 maintain 2402 3 development 2404 2 Management 2405 2 development 2406 2 WIKI 2408 2 Maintain 2409 3 Maintain 2410 2 Development 2411 2 Development 2412 2 Fix 2413 2 Fix 2414 2 Fix 2415 2 Fix 2416 2 Fix 2418 3 Support 2419 1 Fix 2420 3 Development 2421 3 Development 2422 1 Development 2423 1 Fix 2424 1 Fix 2425 1 Fix 2426 1 Fix 2429 1 Fix 2430 1 Fix 2431 3 Investigate 2432 3 Investigate 2433 x Support 59 Number of Active Issues Status Summary 1 PMT 16 Consider 5 Done 1 Needs Testing 16 Pending 11 Task Order 1 Watch 3 Working 54 TOTAL Updated 10-20-10 Priority 3 6% 1 Priority 23 45% 2 Priority 25 49% 3 51 TOTAL 2 WIKI Issues for the PACT Management Team Item # priority type 2396 2 PMT 2417 2 PMT PMT 2427 2 PMT 2428 2 PMT 2434 2 PMT 2435 2 Comments, issues, etc. Per Federal Stewardship Agreement CT does IQA outside State R/W Perhaps there are articles that need to be reposive to Federal funds on the project. This issue will be discussed until the DOD and FHWA determine what is IQA? do not need on IQA only agreements Do not show this article when LA is the IA for all components. Please do not show auditing articles on IQA agreements when no federal funds are involved Please do not show this article on IQA only since LA is Sponsor, IA and Sole funding partner Please do not show this agreement on IQA only agreements Please do not show this article for IQA only agreements and the LA is implementing the environmental commitments. Where does it say who is implementing the environmental commitments other than the Permits? Please do no show this article for IQA only agreement modify C.b.31 and 38 by not showing 2nd sentence if LA is Sole FP and IA. delineate what activites are considered IQA, and those that are not IQA but CT will not be billing for Also give a list of activities that need to be performed but are not on the WBS, ie environmental permit compliance in Construction. Regarding the Article # 67: "PARTNERS will implement changes to the construction contract through contract change orders (CCOs). PARTNERS will review and concur on all CCOs over $50,000. All CCOs affecting public safety or the preservation of property, all design and specification changes, and all major changes as defined in the CALTRANS Construction Manual will be approved by CALTRANS in advance of the CCO work to be performed." VTA did not like the wording " approved". I discussed it with Rick Gifford this morning, and Rick agreed to change the word from "approved" to "concurred". If you have questions regarding this issue, please check it with Rick. Thank you very much. I have reviewed the Construction manual regarding this matter and all CCO's that affect public safety, the preservation of property, change design specifications, or cause a "major" change require that Caltrans Division of Construction "Authorize" the change and if the project involves federal funds that the FHWA engineer also ok these cco's. GFG Please delete the following articles when Caltrans is the implementing agency for construction activities: S.g.2, S.i.13, S.i.17, S.i.15, S.i.16, S.i.18, S.a.15, C.b.4, C.i.10 Revisit the description of type of agencies Header - add local agency agreement number if wanted Remove the term "Resident Engineer" from co-ops Development of Amendment template Do the PARTNERS doing work need a title? EFIS - revisions/protections needed for the initial invoice request. It needs to recognize what is actually avaiable for invoicing and not be able to exceed that amount. Article for Structural Rep should be added Construction Scope Does PACT need a definition for PROJECT LIMITS? EFIS - add ARRA TE funds D-11 specific definition of IQA Test NEPA articles for interaction with Scope Summary and specificity PARTNER database updates: - Format Partner aka to ALL CAPS - table of Partners is titled wrong "abreviation" column lists "name" instead of "abreviation". proposal to remove articles S.h.4, S.h.10, and S.h.11 when Local Agency is doing all RW work/CALTRANS is doing RW IQA only Explain why there is no signature block on PACT agreements The funding summary should give you a choice of others in the match funds for Federal. The following article (C.x.7): After PARTNERS agree that all WORK is complete, COUNTY will submit a final accounting for all OBLIGATIONS COSTs. Based on the final accounting, PARTNERS will refund or invoice as necessary in order to satisfy the financial commitments of this agreement. When we have multiple Proeject Components, this article does not sufficiently say if completion of Work for the Project Component or for the entire project (Agreement)...the issue becomes amplified when dealing with savings... Recommend either specifying "completion of Work for agreement" or "completion of Work for each Project Component"... Add TMA interview and ability to PACT. Upgrade to HotDocs Server 10 Consider the following at the next PMT Meeting: Eliminate the total funding amounts shown in Responsibilities and say instead...PARTNERS agree to define the funding commitments for this agreement in the FUNDING SUMMARY. I have noticed that the last two pages (SCOPE SUMMARY and FUNDING SUMMARY) of the PACT version 10.1 still named as "PACT Version 9.1" in the bottom of the page. Develop IQA template and rules...particularly no Funding Summary and no billing articles; Add to Project Management Directive that PM is responsible for keeping track of latest Funding Summary; We need to modify the Scope Summary for the PA&ED component, so that when ever NEPA is NOT part of the Agreement, the following automatically select "N/A". (I would like to point out that all the NEPA Delegation activities currently, and appropriately cite N/A...but we need to expand that list to include the following activities): 220.127.116.11 2.180.10.05.40 2.180.10.05.45 2.180.10.05.50 2.180.10.05.55 2.180.10.05.60 2.180.10.05.65 When you bill for actual costs, why does the following question come up? "Fifteen (15) working days prior to the construction contract bid advertisement date CALTRANS will invoice SANBAG for an initial deposit of:_____ (This deposit represents two (2) months' estimated support costs)." PACT contact database not displaying properly PACT contact database should be linked to Funding Summary signature person. PACT 10.1E must allow update option for existing files S.i.15 remove "CALTRANS as an additional obligee…." There is a discrepancy between the Language Library and the rtl file that PACT uses. Article (S.a.33) in the Language Library referres to "documents" while the rtl file referres to "records" at one location and then uses the term "documents" at the other locations. Please make the rtl consistant with the Language Library...i.e. use the term "document" There is ANOTHER discrepancy with Article (S.a.33) between the Language Library and the rtl file that PACT uses. Language Library correctly states "If a PARTNER...", while the rtl file incorrectly states "If any PARTNER...", please update the rtl file to match the Language Library. (C.b.43) the Language Library was never updated properly to show that the "intercept" article (second paragraph) has been removed. The rtl file is correct. Make the Language Library the same for this article. Currently PACT has a table that lists all permits that are required for the project. However, if there are no permits, there is no alternative...PACT simply puts an empty table in the Coop. Instead, if there are no permits, the PACT needs to remove the table and replace it with an article that reads PARTNERS agree that there are no permits, agreements and/or approvals necessary for PROJECT. Likewise, the article (no assigned nomenclature) that reads "The cost of coordinating, obtaining, complying with, implementing adn if necessary renewing and amending resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals is an OBLICATION cost" needs to be removed also. create an article identifyer...perhaps (C.f.1) for the cost article that reads: "The cost of coordinating, obtaining, complying with, implementing adn if necessary renewing and amending resource agency permits, agreements, and/or approvals is an OBLICATION cost". I did an agreement in PACT this week and rec'd the article below, rather than the article described in the 9/26 PACT alert. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to PARTNERS, their contractors, consultants and agents at no cost. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits at no cost. Which version is correct? In my attempt to produce a Caltrans oversight only, 100% Measure I funded PAED,PSE, R/W coop, the scope summary automatically checked the wrong boxes, which could not be undone, and some boxes that needed to be checked, could not be checked. PACT also required unnecssary billing information. District Manager Role can not change ownership/edit rights for district cooperative agreements PACT Menu, File > Exit PACT, should be Log Out on main toolbar PACT File Management should allow import and export of answer files User can not change status of files placed "on hold" as the selection checkbox is disabled. Selection of checkbox should be allowed so that Edit > File Status actions can be applied to "hold" files. Also View > my locked files - this view does not seem to change the current listing of files for users. PACT_Suggestion: I have confirmed that selecting the Capital Funding button in the Project Development Information page is necessary for the SFM language to be pulled into the Billing Articles...we will need to develop some type of message in the PACT interview so that if SFM is selected (which is done in the Construciton interview) and the Capital Funding box has not been selected, PACT instructs the user to go back and select that box. PACT_Suggestion: ALSO, there is a conflict in the language...when the Locals are AAA and it is selected that Caltrans is paying for the SFM, the following language is pulled: 84. CALTRANS will make SFM available at a CALTRANS-designated location after TESTER requests SFM and pays CALTRANS’ invoice for estimated SFM costs. (S.i.18) This language is correct when locals are AAA and are paying for SFM, but is not correct when they are AAA and we are paying for SFM...we need two separate articles, one when the locals are paying (as stated above) and one when Caltran is paying..so that it reads something like this: 84. CALTRANS will make SFM available at a CALTRANS-designated location after TESTER requests SFM and CALTRANS’ receives the SFM from the suppliers. PACT_Suggestion: Funding Summary crashes when Partner Funding Dialog information is incomplete . PACT_Suggestion: HQ office of R/W Local Programs requests that WBS activity 225.35 be added to the scope summary. PACT_Suggestion: I am doing agreements under the 10.1 PACT version but the scope summary and funding summary read 9.1. Please fix it so it won't confuse the people who review the coops. PACT_Suggestion: Standard "Recital" articles are as follows: (Traditional Agmts) The terms of this Agreement shall supersede any inconsistent terms of any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or agreement relating to WORK. (PACT Agmts) This agreement is separate from and does not modify or replace any other cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding between PARTNERS regarding PROJECT.(R.7) Suggestion >>> Revise standard PACT language to account for any inconsistencies with prior Agreements or MOU's? At the beginning of each agreement we refer our self as the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) but when it comes to the definition we reefer Caltrans as The California Department of Transportation only and we do not mention State like we do at the beginning of each agreement. PACT_Suggestion: L.1.41 is not hidden after the articles. of Active Issues T Management Team Topic Consider the following at the next PMT Meeting: Eliminate the total funding amounts shown in Responsibilities and say instead...PARTNERS agree to define the funding commitments for this agreement in the FUNDING SUMMARY. Standard "Recital" articles are as follows: (Traditional Agmts) The terms of this Agreement shall supersede any inconsistent terms of any prior Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or agreement relating to WORK. (PACT Agmts) This agreement is separate from and does not modify or replace any other cooperative agreement or memorandum of understanding between PARTNERS regarding PROJECT.(R.7) Suggestion >>> Revise standard PACT language to account for any inconsistencies with prior Agreements or MOU's? PACT_Suggestion: Consitantly use figures/words for numbers. Proposal - always use numbers for ease and consistancy. PACT_Suggestion: Some of the websites in the agreement are in blue while otheres are not. Is there a reason for the inconsistency? Suggested Article to be included in all agreements with JPA(s) In the event [LOCAL AGENCY] fail to meet all OBLIGATIONS identified against their name in the cooperative agreement, its constituent member agencies will jointly and severally assume [LOCAL AGENCY]’s OBLIGATIONS, rights and responsibilities and shall complete all of the remaining OBLIGATIONS, unless [LOCAL AGENCY] joint powers agreement has assigned such duties and responsibilities to one or more constituent members, in which case those constituent members shall succeed to the [LOCAL AGENCY]’s OBLIGATIONS, rights and responsibilities under the agreement. Per Gary G. - We no longer require that base line agreements be attached to Coops. PARTNERS acknowledge that they are responsible to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 8879.20 et al. (Proposition 1 legislation); the governor’s Executive Order 2007-S-02-07; the California Transportation Commission (CTC) program guidelines for the applicable program (CMIA, 99, etc.); and PROJECT scope, cost, schedule, and benefit baseline data agreement (BASELINE AGREEMENT). BASELINE AGREEMENT is attached and made a part of this agreement. PROJECT bond funds as identified in this agreement will not exceed funding stated in BASELINE AGREEMENT. Changes to PROJECT funding commitments will require an amendment to BASELINE AGREEMENT and this cooperative agreement. Assigned Date Action Date Status to Assigned Result resolved Watch Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) Task Order Mark 9/1/2009 Task Order 18 (in part) checking with D-4 on nature of this request. pending Mark 5/11/2009 6-21-10 Task Order Mark 4/20/2009 Task order 26 Consider Mark 9/1/2009 investigate Consider Mark 9/1/2009 Consider Mark 5/21/2009 Task Order 30 Task Order Martin 6/25/2009 Martin working on template Consider Mark 2/25/2010 investigate Consider Mark 2/24/2010 need check process consider Mark 3/3/2010 dig up old article and put it back in consider Mark 3/24/2010 investigate Consider Mark 5/3/2010 add to fund type list Consider Gary 5/4/2010 investigate for global change Consider Gary 5/4/2010 investigate working HotDocs 5/11/2010 revise pending Mark 5/11/2010 investigate with RW consider Mark 6/21/2010 investigate check ability to add funds in the FUNDING Needs Testing Mark 8/12/2010 PARTNER info dialog investigate the need/practice of balancing consider Mark 8/17/2010 the books at the end of the a component or at the end of the agreement period. Work with HQ Planning/IGR to develop a consider TBD 8/18/2010 template for a Traffic Mitigation Agreement template. consider HotDocs 8/18/2010 Software upgrade with MicroSoft Silverlight PMT Gary 8/25/2010 Take to October 2010 PMT meeting pending HotDocs 8/25/2010 check and fix if necessary this includes many issues currently on this Consider TBD list working Gary 8/25/2010 revise PM directive working HotDocs 9/21/2010 modify the Scope Summary consider Mark 9/21/2010 Provide explaination on WIKI pending HotDocs 9/27/2010 fix pending HotDocs 9/27/2010 connect pending HotDocs 9/6/2010 develop user choice pending Mark 9/14/2010 investigate Fixed on training server. Pending 10.1E Done Carl 10/18/2010 10/21/2010 rollout Fixed on training server. Pending 10.1E Done Carl 10/18/2010 10/21/2010 rollout Check with Gary. Can't find in language Pending Carl 10/18/2010 library. Fixed on training server. Pending 10.1E Done Carl 10/18/2010 10/26/2010 rollout Pending Carl 10/18/2010 Clause is C.b.25. Pending 10.1E rollout 10/28/2010 Done Carl 10/20/2010 Confirmed w/ M.Robinson 10/21/2010 Done HotDocs 11/11/2010 Bug Fix assigned to HotDocs Pending Carl 11/18/2010 Pending Discussion with HotDocs Pending Carl 11/18/2010 Pending Discussion with HotDocs Pending HotDocs 11/11/2010 Assigned to HotDocs for Implementation Verify intended behavior with M. Robinson Pending Carl 11/22/2010 then Discuss/Assign to HotDocs. 10.1E Template modified on training server. Pending Carl 12/3/2010 Need to modify 10.1 template on production server and then copy to training server. Pending Carl 12/3/2010 Pending HotDocs Pending Pending Carl 10/14/2010 225.35 is not in the current WBS Pending Carl 10/14/2010 Need to Investigate Discuss w/ G. Gutierrez. Should we make this optional? Choose whether coop Pending Carl Supercedes or does not modify previous agreements. Pending Carl 12/6/2010 Discuss w/ G. Gutierrez. Can't Replicate Error. Possibly an issue with Done Carl 12/6/2010 users MS Word app or the problem is now corrected? 54 Assignment Summary 11 Carl 10 HotDocs 33 other PMT gary 8/25/2010 Take to October 2010 PMT meeting Pending Carl 10/28/2010 Check w/ Gary G. Pending Carl 11/10/2010 Carl 11/10/2010 Language is from M. Dandy. Per GG this language needs to be vetted through the Self Help Counties Coalition - which should take a couple months. Pending PMT 12/8/2010 Pending Gary G. 12/10/2010 Date Date Article Initiator Resolution Source document Dialog Received Code Needed C.x.6 07-4811 S.a.40 07-4811 S.a.31 07-4811 S.a.1 07-4811 C.b.31 07-4811 C.b.38 07-4811 C.x.6 C.b.1, 07-4843 C.b.38 07-4843 04-2241 S.i.2 4/15/2009 Martin email 4/15/09 various N/A 5/11/2009 Mark N/A R.11.b Partner 5/11/2009 Mark OCTA agreement new partner?? 5/11/2009 Mark N/A D.8, S.i.13 construction 6/25/2009 Martin PACT 10.0 examples template N/A 2/24/2010 MFeenstra RCTC ?? email 2-24-10 TBD SCOPE SUMMARY various 2/24/2010 d-8 next version B&P B&P 3/3/2010 PACT users 7/1/10 Construction 3/24/2010 District co-op 5/3/2010 Gary next version email FUNING PARTNER 5/4/2010 d-11 next version none yet 5/4/2010 Gary none yet various Gary's notes 4/23/2010 Gary n/a Partner information 4/23/10 S.h.4 Gary's notes 4/23/2010 Gary TBD S.h.10 SCOPE SUMMARY 4/23/10 S.h.11 6/1/2010 Elaine Haydu, D-4 8/12/2010 District 8 next version suggestion form fund type Funding Partner info 8/16/2010 Gary next version suggestion form c.x.7 n/a 8/18/2010 Gary TBD suggestion form various various 8/18/2010 Mark 10/1/10 N/A n/a N/A Funding 8/25/2010 Gary/Martin TBD suggestion form various Partner/summary 8/23/2010 D4 next version suggestion form n/a n/a 8/25/2010 districts TBD suggestion form n/a n/a 8/25/2010 districts next version suggestion form n/a n/a Scope 9/21/2010 Gary TBD suggestion form SCOPE SUMMARY summary 9/21/2010 District 8 TBD suggestion form B&P B&P 8/23/2010 Mark TBD n/a n/a partner information 8/23/2010 Mark next version n/a new Partner information 9/6/2010 Mark next version n/a n/a n/a district 8 9/14/2010 1484, next version email 9/14/10 S.i.15 n/a 1485 10/18/2010 Gary G. next version suggestion form S.a.33 n/a 10/18/2010 Gary G. next version suggestion form S.a.33 n/a 10/18/2010 Gary G. next version suggestion form C.b.43 n/a 10/18/2010 Gary G. next version suggestion form 10/18/2010 Gary G. next version suggestion form 10/20/2010 Trichelle Suntrapak 10/18/2010 Judy Dusenberry asap suggestion form n/a Scope Summary 11/18/2010 Carl Anderson 11/18/2010 Carl Anderson 11/11/2010 Carl Anderson 11/18/10 View > My Locked 11/22/2010 Luz Hermosillo suggestion form Files 12/3/2010 G. Gutierrez 12/3/2010 G. Gutierrez 12/1/2010 Judy Dusenberry asap 10/14/2010 Paul Pham 10/14/2010 Luz Hermosillo Robert Lynski 12/6/2010 Luz Hermosillo 12/1/2010 Luz Hermosillo Funding 8/25/2010 Gary/Martin TBD suggestion form various Partner/summary 10/19/2010 Bob Lynski Judy Dusenberry Judy Dusenberry 12/7/2010 Meera Dandy email 12/7/2010 12/10/2010 Luz Hermosillo Functional unit Completed on Completed on Completed on Field/Topic that owns the Production Training Server WIKI issue Server 12/18/2008 constrction Scope and Const Cost Intro ?? Legal ?? Intro OCA construction construction OCA SCOPE ?? OCA ?? SUMMARY B&P Accounting Construction Construction OCA/Legal OCA OCA/Design ENV OCA RW investigate n/a OCA/Accounting Billing and Accounting and payment OCA template Planning -IGR n/a OCA funding Accounting Partner format OCA n/a various n/a OCA OCA/DEA OCA Accounting n/a OCA n/a OCA n/a OCA Construction Const, Legal Pending 10.1E OCA yes yes upgrade Pending 10.1E OCA yes ? upgrade Pending 10.1E OCA upgrade R/W 200.xx OCA no no no OCA no no no funding Accounting Partner Notes Should incude other VTA specific articles. Waiting on District to provide specific articles. Mark will pull up some examples and confirm. 5-3-10 D-4 called 7-1-10 to say they were looking into the issue. This is a summary of a number of issues. Started 3/10 per request from ENV HM. 7/26/10, need to consider using RTPA and MPO in the description. Some local agencies would like their own agreement number printed on the agreement. D-8/RCTC suggested that a different language be used to reflect the reality of how work is actually done on projects. Growing need for amendment template Marlin has asked if this is necessary to better destinguish from Implementing agency. example is the $300,000 limit on intial deposits. I believe there is already an article avaiable. We need to find it and re-implement it again. Wait until this brought up again by someone. this will be done as part of the fine tuning for EFIS. We will use Accounting's fund codes. Gary will provide additional information from discussion with D-11 Gary has concerns. He will provide more specific information. 5-5-10. 8/3/10, Issue given to HotDocs for correction or to provide ability for OCA to manage. 9/30/10. final version provided to RW for consideration. I believe that PACT already allows the entry of a fund type, but it might not apply to the matching funds. I can also add funds a District or Partner would like to see in the draw down list. Involves some restructuring of the program code. 8/17/10 sent Gary a proposed resolution. Per Terri Pencovic: We are very excited to have an opportunity to work with Mark to update our process for creating statewide consistency in accepting Fair Share Funds and Capital Deferment Obligations from the development community. Our intention is to use the PACT to draft future Traffic Mitigation Agreements with both public and private, and even tribal, parties. Upgrade will involve brining the SCOPE SUMMARY and the FUNDING SUMMARY into the interview and many other improvements. This issue came up in the conversations with the districts about PACT 10.1 EFIS This issue came up in the conversations with the districts about PACT 10.1 EFIS Gary reports that this is vetted with DEA already. 9/30/10. PACT WBS already has a Special Action code for CHECK NEPA PARTY. It is currently not assigned to any WBS element. Checked with HotDocs to see if it could be used for CALTRANS or N/A. The way it is written is how Caltrans bills our local partner when we are doing work...because we bill in advance...so it is an estimate. However, after everything is said and done, we will reimburse our local partners any funds we charged them but didn't actually expend (in other words, we ultimately bill according to actual costs). By law, Caltrans is not allowed to go into debt, therefore we ask for a deposit prior to doing work and then bill according to estimated expenditures. But the locals bill us after the actual expenses have occurred...so the language is less precise when the Locals are billing Caltrans. Legal added this specific language in the 3/2010 PACT update. Legal is reviewing request to remove. Per the PACT Alert:Article C.b.41 has been removed from use per directions from HQ Traffic Operations, Office of Encroachment Permits. CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to [Party A / LOCAL AGENCIES] at no cost. CALTRANS will charge contractors, consultants, and agents the standard encroachment permit fees. (C.b.41) The only article that will show in PACT now is: CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits at no cost. BUT the Language Library and Templates include the language "CALTRANS will provide encroachment permits to PARTNERS, their contractors, consultants and agents, at no cost. (C.b.40)".
Pages to are hidden for
"PACT Issue Log"Please download to view full document