Get documents about "Vers 4 AASHTO SCOQ
Document Sample
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO - SCOQ National Survey
2006
Page 1 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Table of Contents
1. Acknowledgements 3
2. Executive Summary 3
3. Overview 4
4. Results – Common Themes and Trends 5
5. Recommendations and Future Actions 7
Appendix
A. National State DOT Survey 8
B. Survey Responses with State Contacts
1. Project Cost 9
2. Project Plan Quality 21
C. FHWA Survey Responses 36
D. DOT Document Links 45
E. SCOQ Team Contacts 46
Page 2 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Acknowledgements
Thanks to AASHTO for recommending to the SCOQ the idea of promoting this report. Likewise, a sincere
appreciation goes out to all of the DOT’s and FHWA’s that responded to the survey. And lastly, a thank you to
Joyce Taylor, Maine DOT, for taking the lead and acting as our primary POC for receiving the survey material.
Executive Summary
The Project Delivery Subcommittee of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality (SCOQ) conducted a
survey in 2006 to investigate the best practices for Project Cost and Plan Quality nationwide. Twenty four
surveys were received with twenty providing information on Project Cost and seventeen on Project Plan
Package Quality. Provided below is a brief overview of the intent of the survey, overview of the responses
provided, and recommended follow up activities.
The idea of the survey was initiated in 2005 at the AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality (SCOQ) meeting
in Phoenix, AZ. During one of the workshops an idea was mentioned to encourage input from all SCOQ sub
committees for areas that were a concern. The committee developed focus areas and prioritized the items for
follow up action. All sub committees offered input and individuals voted on ideas. The top 2 priorities
generated from this were 1, Construction Cost Increases (Project Cost), and 2, Project Plan (Package) Quality.
Based on this input the SCOQ Project Delivery Sub-Committee developed a survey on these two areas.
For Project Cost, the survey focused on initiatives for pre construction, construction, cost estimates, and
managing cost increases. For Project Plan Quality, the survey focused on QA/QC, project package components,
In House or Consultant projects, and if the initiative was in progress or complete.
After a review of each of the responses provided, 4 key areas seemed to dominate the responses; estimates,
scope creep, constructability, and reference guides. Another highpoint was the reference to Minnesota DOT as a
case study.
The survey acted as an initial approach to determine the ―State of the State‖ for Construction Cost Increases
(Project Cost) and Project Plan (Package) Quality. The following actions are encouraged as follow up activities
based on input received from the initial survey:
1. Revise initial survey based on responses. Clarification of the questions would assist with targeting key
components of the items.
2. Follow up with a telephone survey to expand on key issues from specific responders.
3. Incorporate examples by use of case studies.
Page 3 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Overview
Background
The issue of managing costs and quality on transportation projects has been ongoing. In 1997 the General
Accounting Office (GAO) produced a report titled ―Managing the Costs of Large-Dollar Highway Projects‖.
The report focused on examining cost growth on large-dollar highway projects and looked into 3 specific areas,
(1)determine if large-dollar highway projects experience cost growth, (2) identify how FHWA approves large-
dollar highway projects and agrees to the cost and (3) identify how FHWA ensures that project costs are
controlled and that federal funds are efficiently used. The report found several positive practices that states had
initiated to focus more specifically on containing project costs. These practices included improving the quality
of initial cost estimates, establishing cost performance goals and strategies, and using external review boards to
approve cost increases. Although it disseminates information to state departments of transportation on a wide
variety of technical and research topics, GAO found that FHWA does not evaluate and disseminate among all
the states information on their best cost management practices. Being more proactive in this regard could
provide states with strategies that could contain project costs and promote more cost-effective project
management. (GAO/RCED-97-47 Managing the Costs of Highway Projects , 1997, p 8).
Another report published by the Transportation Research Board in 2005 titled ―Managing Capital Costs of
Major Federally Funded Public Transportation Projects‖ followed up on the issue of managing project costs.
The goal of this research project was to identify and suggest techniques and strategies to better estimate,
manage, and contain the capital costs and schedules of major transit projects over $100 million. (TRB Report,
TCRP Project G-07 — Managing Capital Costs of Major Federally Funded Public Transportation
2005, p 9). Conclusions generated from the report included recommendations for ―Strategies, Tools and
Techniques‖. The following suggestions were included as recommendations: Use Reasonable Starting
Assumptions, Improve Estimation Quality, Increase Estimation Transparency, Optimize Project Parameters,
Apply a Broad Range of Project Management Controls, Create an Effective Organization, Select the
Appropriate Delivery Method, Recognize the Tradeoffs in Contracting, Communicating Uncertainties and
Limitations in Estimates, More Effective Public Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement. Further explanation on
each of these recommendations is included in the TRB report.
Each report brings to light the intent of the SCOQ survey. The GAO report mentioned the need to be more
proactive in disseminating among all the states information on their best management practices while the TRB
report revisited the topic to capture research on managing capital costs and promote recommendations.
Purpose of Study
Construction costs are continuing to escalate and state agencies are becoming proactive in developing initiatives
to get a better handle on meeting the publics need for a stable work program. In order to meet this need various
initiatives have been implemented throughout the country. As a core component to collect and disseminate such
Page 4 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
information, AASHTO approached SCOQ to address two key areas; project cost and quality. The SCOQ then
developed a survey that focused on the estimate and management of project cost and the quality of the project
plan package.
1. Objectives
The primary objective of the survey was to gain best practices from state DOT and FHWA and produce
a report to share best practices with all parties.
2. Survey Approach
The SCOQ developed a survey (see Appendix A) and sent the survey to all state DOT’s and the FHWA.
Input gained from both survey’s were gathered and consolidated in a spreadsheet (see Appendix B).
Results – Common Themes and Trends
DOT Survey
General
24 responses were received and included 20 responses for Managing Project Cost and 17 responses for
Quality of the Project Plan Package. The common themes for managing project cost included references
to developing estimates and managing project scope creep. Each DOT from New Hampshire, Nevada,
North Dakota, and Virginia included references in the survey on scope. Common themes for Quality of
the Project Plan Package include Constructability and plan errors and omissions. Below are a few
excerpts on these themes from the survey.
a. Managing Project Cost
Developing Estimates
Delaware DOT is in the process of switching from a traditional system of reviewing old project bids in
order to develop project estimates to start using Trns*port.
Managing Project Scope Creep
New Hampshire DOT uses historic process for estimate and keeps an eye on project creep caused by
trying to fix everything ―while we are in the area‖. During construction a running tally of balances and
excesses is kept.
Page 5 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Nevada DOT started a reporting document to gain approval for all scope and cost increases.
North Dakota DOT’s initiative involves developing a process for controlling scope creep during project
development by better defining and locking into an agreed upon improvement type.
Virginia DOT initiative for cost management control during construction phase has been accomplished
through a new Construction Directive which specifically states how the project budget is established and
sets procedures that must be followed if project budgets are exceeded.
b. Quality of the Project Plan Package
Constructability
Alabama DOT will be involving contractors to a greater extent for review of plans during early stages of
development in order to receive input on constructability of a project.
Maine DOT Highway Program has been reorganized to include a Production Support and Construction
Support Group to check all plans at different project milestones to evaluate constructability.
Errors and Omissions
Indiana DOT is improving plan quality and reducing cost overruns by charging Consultant designers for
errors and omissions.
Maine DOT Highway Program has been reorganized to include a Production Support and Construction
Support Group to check all plans at different project milestones to eliminate plan errors.
Virginal DOT implemented a new program to reduce the potential risk of errors and omissions.
Wisconsin DOT initiated constructability and bidability review process by encouraging public and
private group recommendations.
Page 6 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
FHWA Survey
General
28 FHWA responses were received. 14 replied ―Yes‖ to whether they initiated or completed activities
relating to developing better cost estimates or managing cost estimates (in the last three years). 14
replied ―No‖ to the same item.
Of the 14 that replied ―Yes‖ there were 7 that initiated the development of better cost estimates and 1
that completed this item. There were 5 responses that indicated that they initiated managing cost
estimates (in the last three years) and 3 that completed this item.
The common theme and trend based on this input was that the work in the area is early in its
development by a showing of not many FHWA’s completing this item.
Recommendations/Future Actions
The survey acted as an initial approach to determine the ―State of the State‖ for Construction Cost Increases
(Project Cost) and Project Plan (Package) Quality. A follow up site visit should be encouraged to expand on key
issues referred to in the survey. Along with a site visit the following actions are encouraged as follow up
activities based on input received from the initial survey:
1. Revise initial survey based on responses. Clarification of the questions would assist with targeting key
components of the items.
2. Follow up with a telephone survey to expand on key issues from specific responders.
3. Incorporate examples by use of case studies.
Page 7 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix A : National State DOT Survey
The Project Delivery Subcommittee of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality has been tasked with two focus
areas to investigate best practices nationwide. The two areas deal with
1.) Project Cost - estimating and management of project cost during the pre-construction phase of projects and
project cost management during post-award construction; and
2.) Project Plan Package Quality- quality control and review practices during project development
Once we have the results, a domestic scanning tour will be proposed to visit the states with the most promising initiatives.
We want to find out if your state (or committee if TRB or AASHTO) has any new initiatives or recent initiatives in either
of in these areas.
Are you the right person to address this issue for your state? If yes, please provide the following information, if not
please provide the name of the person who could best respond, and forward this request to that person. Your prompt
response will be greatly appreciated. Please respond by June 16 th at the email address listed below.
A. Please provide a brief description of the initiative your state has taken:
Please indicate your response by the letter provided.
B. Project Cost:
a. Was the initiative for pre-construction (P) or construction (C)? ________________
b. Was the initiative to develop better cost estimates (E) or to better manage cost increases (M)?
________________
C. Project Plan Quality:
a. Was the initiative for Quality Control (C) or Quality
Assurance (A)? ________________
b. Did the initiative review only plans (O) or the complete package including plans, specifications
and estimates (P)? ____________
c. Did the initiative cover In-House (I), Consultant (C)
or both (B)? _________________
D. Is the initiative in progress (I) or complete (C)? ___________________
Completed by: ______________________ email address: ________________________
If you have more than one initiative, please provide the information above and a brief description of each.
Please forward your response to Joyce Taylor at joyce.taylor@maine.gov.
Thank you.
Page 8 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Arkansas
During the past 3 years the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Dept. has held an
annual Constructability Workshop. The workshop has been a half-day open
Brief Description and discussion meeting with Highway Department personnel, Contracting Industry
Comments personnel and Material suppliers. The purpose of the workshop has been to discuss
design issues that could result in changes or modifications to the plans in order to
make the construction process better, more efficient and more economical.
Project Cost Initiatives Pre-Construction to better manage cost increases
Initiatives in Progress or In Progress.
Complete
Survey Completed By phil.mcconnell.arkansashighways.com
State California
1. The California Department of Transportation, Division of Construction produces
the Management Performance Report each quarter for District managers for their use
Brief Description and
Comments
at local staff meetings to discuss their overall cost, time, and claims status.
2. The California Department of Transportation (Division of Design and Division of
Engineering Services) is performing a review of Cost Estimating Tools and Practices.
1. Construction to better manage cost increases.
Project Cost Initiatives
2. Pre-construction to do better cost estimates.
Initiatives in Progress or 1. In Progress. .
Complete 2. In Progress.
Elizabeth_Dooher@dot.ca.gov
Survey Completed By
rtritt@dot.ca.gov
Page 9 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Delaware
To improve our project costing DelDOT is in the process of switching from a
traditional system of reviewing old project bids in order to develop project estimates
to start using Trns*port. The Trns*port database has been loaded with a substantial
Brief Description and
Comments
amount of historic bid data and is being tested to see how closely it can help our
designers develop estimates. So far it is doing a better job then our engineers on a
consistent basis.
The initiative was for pre-construction and the problem that the old system will no
Project Cost Initiatives
longer be supported by our IT section. It was used for better cost estimates.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress.
Survey Completed By Dennis.Oshea@state.de.us
Page 10 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Florida
The FDOT recently had summit to address construction cost increases. The results of
the summit can be seen in the attached report titled ―Commitments Made Are
Commitments Kept.‖ This report contains a brief summary of the long and short term
strategies, followed by a number of presentations made at the summit. The summit
addressed the following:
Project Cost:
Refine Project Scoping Process => (P) / (E) & (M)
Refine Awards Criteria => (C) / (M)
Increase Contingencies => (C) / (M)
Increase Program Construction Inflation Rates => (P) / (M)
Reduce night work => (P) / (M)
Brief Description and Manage Risk Associated with Materials Availability => (P) / (M)
Comments Alternative Contracting – Base Bid with Options to delete work => (C) / (M)
Additional Construction Materials Indexes => (P) / (E)
Modify bonding and prequalification requirements to increase available
contractors => (P) / (M)
Divide large contracts into multiple smaller contracts to increase competition
=> (P) / (M)
Borrow Pits provided by DOT => (P) / (M)
Develop Leading Indicators for Optimum Contract Letting Opportunities => (P) /
(M)
Project Cost Initiatives See Brief Description column.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By ken.leuderalbert@dot.state.fl.us
Page 11 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Indiana
Improving plan quality & reducing cost overruns by charging Consultant designers
Brief Description and
Comments
for errors and omissions.
Project Cost Initiatives Construction initiative to better manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By MRMILLER@indot.IN.gov
State Louisiana
In 2005, the DOTD did a process review titled ―Plan Quality Assurance‖. QA/QC
checklists, 30-60-90% submittal checklists, a QA/QC manual, a Documentation
Manual for Project Delivery, constructability/biddability reviews, post construction
reviews, are a few of the measures being implemented.
Brief Description and The newly created Project Management Unit also has a Value
Comments Engineering/Estimating position as well. The estimating position will be staffed so
as to assists the project delivery staff with this endeavor. We have a procedure to
gain approval for all scope and budget increases from the Chief Engineer as well as
updating estimates at all major milestones. In addition a dashboard system has been
developed to track estimating efficiency progress and a project delivery tracking
system for on time delivery of design and construction projects.
Preconstruction and Construction to develop better cost estimates and to better
Project Cost Initiatives
manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By GerrieAPenn@dotd.la.gov
Page 12 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Maine
MaineDOT recently held a Paving Summit with internal stakeholders to evaluate
bidding practices, the relationship between contractor risk and cost, the value of
pavement alternatives in comparison to life cycle costs and pavement mix design in
relationship to cost.
Brief Description and
Comments
The Highway Program has been reorganized to include a Production Support and
Construction Support Group to check all plans at different project milestones to
eliminate plan errors, to evaluate constructability and to look for opportunities to cut
costs.
The initiative is for Pre-construction activities to develop better cost estimates and to
Project Cost Initiatives
better manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By joyce.taylor@maine.gov
State Maryland
Maryland State Highway Administration is utilizing design-build on 10-15% of our
construction program. One of the benefits we have seen is reduced percentage of
change orders resulting in a final construction cost closer to the original bid.
Brief Description and
Comments
Developed cost estimating manual to provide consistent direction on how to develop
cost estimates at all stages. This manual is updated yearly based on past bid history
data and noticeable trends in bid prices.
The design build initiative is for construction to better manage costs.
Project Cost Initiatives
The cost estimating initiative is for pre-construction to develop better cost estimates
Initiatives in Progress or In progress for design build.
Complete Complete for cost estimate.
ncalvert@sha.state.md.us
Survey Completed By
lchoplin@sha.state.md.us
Page 13 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Massachusetts
Brief Description and
Comments Not provided.
Pre-Construction and Construction to develop better cost estimates and to better
Project Cost Initiatives
manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or In progress for design build.
Complete
Survey Completed By JOHN.BLUNDO@MHD.STATE.MA.US
State Minnesota
The objective of this project is to develop a ―How To Procedures Manual for
Highway Project Cost Estimating and Cost Management‖ formatted to give designers
a practical starting point necessary for successful cost estimating and cost
management.
The procedures manual will provide guidance and recommended practices including
Brief Description and customized strategies, methods and tools to fit specific community and policy
Comments approaches.
The primary audience will be project managers and designers managing
transportation programs or developing construction plans. The efforts will culminate
in a document which is linked to the NCHRP 8-49 Guidebook. This effort has just
started (June 2006) and is likely to last for a year.
Project Cost Initiatives Pre-Construction to develop better cost estimates and to better manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or In progress.
Complete
Greg Coughlin Phone:
651/582-1305
Survey Completed By
Tim Swanson Phone:
651/296-0847
Page 14 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Nevada
The Design Division recently developed a Scheduling/Estimating section. The
estimating portion was just staffed so no major enhancements have been made. We
Brief Description and have started a reporting document to gain approval for all scope and cost increases as
Comments well as updating estimates at all major milestones. In addition the form will be used
to update all federal aid projects on or around July 1 of each year to help track federal
funds as we approach the end of the federal fiscal year.
Preconstruction and Construction to develop better cost estimates and to better
Project Cost Initiatives
manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or In progress.
Complete
Survey Completed By fcsiga@dot.state.nv.us
State New Hampshire
1.) Use historic prices for engineer’s estimate and keep an eye on ―project creep‖
caused by trying to fix everything ―while we are in the area‖. During construction a
Brief Description and running tally of balances and excesses is kept.
Comments 2.) Plans are reviewed by a checker and by construction prior to advertising.
Meetings are held at the critical points in the project development process with
project development bureaus to discuss the project from each bureau’s perspective.
Project Cost Initiatives Pre-Construction to better manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete Complete.
Survey Completed By jmoore@dot.state.nh.us
Page 15 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State New York
1.) NYSDOT plans to begin using Trns*Port CES for Preliminary cost estimating.
http://dot.state.ny.us/trns-port/ces.html
2.) NYSDOT is in the early stage of implementing the use of Trns*Port SiteManager
Brief Description and for construction management. http://dot.state.ny.us/trns-port/sitemgr.html
Comments 3.) NYSDOT has a PS&E Quality Award process to identify and recognize the
people responsible for quality contract bid documents. The system includes
performance standards for two categories of projects, accounting for project
complexity, and reflecting current policy. See attachment for additional details.
1.) The initiative is for pre-construction to develop better cost estimates.
Project Cost Initiatives 2.) The initiative is for construction to better manage cost increases.
3.) The initiative is for pre-construction to develop better cost estimates.
1.) In Progress.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete
2.) In Progress.
3.) Complete
Survey Completed By dkent@dot.state.ny.us
State North Dakota
The initiative involves developing a process for controlling scope creep during
project development by better defining and locking into an agreed upon improvement
Brief Description and
Comments
type. It also involves early identification of miscellaneous improvements. Annual
studies of cost variance will then be made to determine progress toward the better
matching of STIP estimates with final estimates.
Project Cost Initiatives Pre-Construction to develop better cost estimates.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress.
Survey Completed By thorner@nd.gov
Page 16 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Oregon
For engineering design cost control, ODOT has developed estimates of the hours
required to complete all project development activities included in project schedules.
For example, completing a Type, Size and Location for a bridge design may require
150 hours of designer effort, 50 hours of drafter effort and 10 hours of checker effort.
By applying these estimates to a fully loaded labor rate for the specific job
classification (e.g. $45/hour for a designer), the cost of a specific activity can be
Brief Description and
Comments
estimated. When applied to all activities in the project work breakdown structure, a
time-staged budget to bring a project to bid can be estimated.
For construction cost control ODOT has initiated a variety of commodity cost
escalation factors (fuel oil, asphalt, steel). We have also implemented a department
supplied material sources program (aggregate). Both initiatives appear to be having a
positive effect.
Pre-construction and construction initiative to develop better cost estimates and to
Project Cost Initiatives
better manage costs.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress.
Bob Callaway at email:
Survey Completed By
James.r.callaway@odot.state.or.us
State South Carolina
Performance Evaluation of Plans for both SCDOT and Consultant Designed Plans
after Completion of Construction‖ - Copy of initial report attached.
Brief Description and
Comments
A copy of a follow-up ―pilot study‖ is also attached entitled ―Report of the Pilot
Project to Conduct Performance Evaluations of Construction Plans‖
Project Cost Initiatives The initiative was for construction to better manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete Complete.
Survey Completed By walshjv@scdot.org
Page 17 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Virginia
VDOT’s initiative for estimating in the pre-construction phase includes the
implementation of a state wide conceptual cost estimating system. Use of the system
is mandatory. Estimates in the system must be reviewed and updated every 90 days.
Staff has been dedicated to the training and maintenance of the conceptual cost
estimating system.
Brief Description and
Comments
VDOT’s initiative for cost management control during the construction phase has
been accomplished through a new Construction Directive (CD) entitled ―Work
Orders, Force Accounts, Overruns, Contract Expenditures ― which specifically states
how the project budget is established and sets procedures that must be followed if
project budgets are exceeded. In connection with this CD a revised ―Construction
Expenditure Report‖ has been developed to assist Field Managers to track and project
cost over runs
The project cost initiative was for preconstruction and construction to develop better
Project Cost Initiatives
cost estimates and to manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or Project Cost Pre-construction initiative is complete.
Complete Construction initiative is in progress.
Project Cost:
Survey Completed By
Richard.Kiefer@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Page 18 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Washington
1.) WSDOT Cost Estimate Validation Process (CEVP), see the FHWA publication at
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/riskassess/risk_hcm06_01.htm#1). The CEVP
assesses all risks and assigns a likelihood of the risk occurring and a magnitude of effect
if it were to occur. This process takes place over a several day workshop where a team
also discusses and validates the base cost estimate for the project. All data from the
workshop are then run through a Monte Carlo simulation. The result is a range of
possible costs and completion dates, which can then be explained in a simple manner to
constituents. CEVP has proven very valuable in informing the public and other
stakeholders of the costs and risks inherent in WSDOT’s large projects. Many of our
projects do this workshop yearly, and it is a tremendous tool to focus the project staff on
cost and risk management. Finally, the media have congratulated us for open, honest
estimating. More information on CEVP and related work are at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/RiskAssessment/. A sample CEVP
report sheet is enclosed with this survey.
2.) WSDOT has also developed an online Project Management Guide, which focuses on
project management principles as endorsed by the Project Management Institute (PMI).
The guide allows project managers to follow a step by step process through each stage
Brief Description and
of a project, from planning through construction, and to see and download actual
Comments
examples of good project management techniques and tools. The guide can be viewed
and used at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/OnLine_Guide/Phase_Guides/Pre-
Construction/Pre-Construction_files/slide0001.htm
3.) WSDOT and consultants groups have jointly developed a ―Deliverables Expectation
Matrix‖ that answers the questions ―How does a consultant know what is expected?‖
and ―How does the client measure consultant progress?‖ Both WSDOT and consultants
were eager to better define the items of work called for in consulting engineer
agreements. Better definition would mean better contract negotiations, better
measurement of progress, fewer disputes and misunderstandings over what was
expected. The group developed this matrix, that calls out specific deliverables for each
stage of the highway design process, and which is now being implemented as a tool for
contract negotiations and progress measurement. The matrix is attached, and is
available online at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/OnLine_Guide/Delivery_Expectation_
Matrix/DE_Matrix.pdf
CEVP is for pre-construction; Online Guide is for both, Matrix is for pre-
Project Cost Initiatives construction. CEVP focuses on better cost estimates; the Online Guide and
matrix serve both better cost estimates and better manage cost increases.
Initiatives in Progress or All three are in use, implemented, and subject to continual improvement.
Complete
Survey Completed By Rick Smith email address: smithrick@wsdot.wa.gov
Page 19 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 1. Project Cost
State Wisconsin
1) Change Management Process on the Marquette Interchange Major Project
A process has been set up to (after contract execution and prior to or during
construction) have a high level group look at all potential or real large
contract cost changes and make decisions on a strategy that will lead to a net
minimal cost increase to the contract. These decisions might involve such
things as reducing the scope in another area, providing a less expensive
alternative to the change proposed, seeking exceptions to policy, etc.
Brief Description and 2) Improving Cost Estimated Procedures For Engineering Estimates during the
Comments final design process.
3) WisDOT is having a group study the tools the state currently use for creating
the engineering estimates and also assess the overall process individual
regions use to develop these estimates. The group will make
recommendations for process improvements in this area. The group is also
looking at the Construction Index WisDOT currently has and will attempt to
enhance the applicability of the index for use in our engineering estimating
process.
For project cost the first initiative is for Construction to better manage cost increases.
Project Cost Initiatives For project cost the second initiative is for pre-construction to develop better cost
estimates.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete
Survey Completed By donald.miller@state.wi.us
Page 20 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Alabama
In order to provide better quality plans, Alabama will be involving contractors
to a greater extent for review of plans during early stages of development in
order to receive input on constructability of a project. We have contracted
Brief
Description and Comments with Auburn University to prepare a plans preparation guide that will be used
by in-house and consultant personnel preparing construction plans. These are
the only new initiatives in the focus areas. We continue to use our policy as
stated in the Guidelines for Operations Manual for cost estimating.
Project Plan Quality
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete
Survey Completed By baldwinr@dot.state.al.us
State Arkansas
During the past 3 years the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Dept. has
held an annual Constructability Workshop. The workshop has been a half-day
open discussion meeting with Highway Department personnel, Contracting
Brief Description and
Comments
Industry personnel and Material suppliers. The purpose of the workshop has
been to discuss design issues that could result in changes or modifications to
the plans in order to make the construction process better, more efficient and
more economical.
QC initiative to review plans and specifications. Covered in-house and
Project Plan Quality
consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By phil.mcconnell.arkansashighways.com
Page 21 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State California
The California Department of Transportation, Division of Design is
developing Design Quality Management guidance to help measure quality
Brief Description and
Comments performance. This includes development of performance measures to
determine quality throughout the life of the project from initiation to Plans,
Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E).
Initiative is for quality assurance to review the plans, specifications and
Project Plan Quality
estimates for in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By rtritt@dot.ca.gov
State Delaware
In an effort to improve project plan package quality, DelDOT reorganized a
few years ago to create a program where project teams are established at the
Brief Description and beginning of project identification. By doing this, reviewers are identified
Comments representing Construction and all of the support sections and this team stays
with the project until it is finished construction. Part of this is a review
process that takes place at each stage of the development.
The initiative was for quality assurance for review of plans, specifications and
Project Plan Quality
estimates on both in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By Dennis.Oshea@state.de.us
Page 22 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Florida
FDOT has mapped its design processes and controls and monitors the %
projects let verse projects planned as a Statewide measure of project
Brief Description and
Comments
delivery. Because the FDOT is decentralized each district maintains its
own quality control / quality assurance plan for plans package.
Representative samples are attached.
The initiative was for quality assurance for review of plans, specifications and
Project Plan Quality
estimates on both in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By ken.leuderalbert@dot.state.fl.us
State Indiana
Brief Description and Improving plan quality & reducing cost overruns by charging Consultant
Comments designers for errors and omissions.
Project Plan Quality QA initiative to review plans on consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By MRMILLER@indot.IN.gov
Page 23 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Iowa
In 1996, representatives of the Iowa Council of Engineering Companies, the
Iowa Department of Transportation, and Federal Highway Administration
began a formal partnering effort. The goal of the effort was continuous
improvement in design consulting program, processes and procedures in
Iowa. One of the recommendations from this partnering council was to create
a quality control (QC), quality assurance (QA) process to help improve the
quality of the plans. This is a 5 step process that involves the following:
1) Quality Control checklist submitted by the designer at plan turn in.
Brief Description and
Comments 2) Quality Assurance checklist completed by the Resident Construction
Engineer (RCE) when the project is completed.
3) Rating completed by the RCE. Rating is based on the 5 C’s (complete,
consistent, constructible, clear, and correct) and is based on a scale of
0-50.
4) The designer is sent the rating and comments (both negative and
positive).
5) Annual meeting with designers, consultants, construction inspection
staff, and contractors.
This initiative is for Quality Control and Quality Assurance.
Project Plan Quality For now, the initiative includes only the plans.
The initiative covers both In-House and Consultant plans.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By mitchell.dillavou@dot.iowa.gov
Page 24 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Louisiana
In 2005, the DOTD did a process review titled ―Plan Quality Assurance‖.
QA/QC checklists, 30-60-90% submittal checklists, a QA/QC manual, a
Documentation Manual for Project Delivery, constructability/biddability
reviews, post construction reviews, are a few of the measures being
implemented.
Brief Description and The newly created Project Management Unit also has a Value
Comments Engineering/Estimating position as well. The estimating position will be
staffed so as to assists the project delivery staff with this endeavor. We have a
procedure to gain approval for all scope and budget increases from the Chief
Engineer as well as updating estimates at all major milestones. In addition a
dashboard system has been developed to track estimating efficiency progress
and a project delivery tracking system for on time delivery of design and
construction projects.
QA and QC and other initiatives to review plans, specifications and estimates.
Project Plan Quality
Covered in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By GerrieAPenn@dotd.la.gov
State Maine
The Highway Program has been reorganized to include a Production Support
Brief Description and and Construction Support Group to check all plans at different project
Comments milestones to eliminate plan errors, to evaluate constructability and to look for
opportunities to cut costs.
The initiative is for both QA and QC and involves review of plans,
Project Plan Quality
specifications and estimates for in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By joyce.taylor@maine.gov
Page 25 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Michigan
Due to an influx of new engineers in recent years, developed a Design Basic
Training Program for new and recent hires to try to accelerate their orientation
Brief Description and
Comments
and education in the Department’s way of doing things. Present curriculum
consists of 20 classes that deal with procedures/processes as well as
engineering disciplines (guardrail, 3R/4R design, design exceptions, etc.)
QA and QC initiative to review plans, specifications and estimates for in-
Project Plan Quality
house and occasional consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By FelsingL@michigan.gov
Page 26 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Minnesota
Mn/DOT has been committed to quality control/assurance for construction
plans for many years and has implemented organizational, procedural, and
targets/measures to ensure plan quality.
Organizational: The Mn/DOT Design Support unit within the Pre-Letting
section reviews construction plans for quality control purposes. This unit
reviews and recommends approval of construction plans to ensure compliance
with accepted engineering standards, specifications, quality, bid-ability,
Federal and State rules, regulations, statutes, policies and guidelines.
The unit employs plan quality ratings to ensure plans are sufficient so that
contractor bids are based on clear and concise plan elements with no
Brief Description and ambiguity or contradictions. For each plan submitted for the bid letting
Comments process, Mn/DOT evaluates several elements against established criteria and
assigns a composite rating. Mn/DOT tracks this information and uses it to
assess performance against a departmental target. Mn/DOT, through the
Construction management process, rates plans for constructability. Mn/DOT
is in the process of integrating these two measurement systems to achieve
efficiency and clarity in the plan quality process.
Mn/DOT, under its own current best practices program, is exploring
procedures to ensure plan quality for consultant plans developed for Mn/DOT
projects. Measures considered are formal stage reviews as well as quality
assurance requirements in contracts. A formal, departmental procedure is still
under consideration at this time.
a. Central Office – quality control
Districts –quality assurance
Project Plan Quality
b.Qualiy control extents to all three elements – plans, specifications and
estimates. The plan is the only element that is rated.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Greg Coughlin Phone:
651/582-1305
Survey Completed By
Tim Swanson Phone:
651/296-0847
Page 27 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Montana
Brief Description and
Comments Not provided
QA initiative to review plans, specifications and estimates for in-house and
Project Plan Quality
consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By lfrazier@mt.gov
State Nevada
In 2003, the Design Division did a process review titled ―QA/QC in the
Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimates.‖ Although the
recommendations were not revolutionary, they were a step in the right
Brief Description and
Comments
direction about formalizing some of the inconsistencies that existed. QA/QC
checklists, 30-60-90% submittal definitions, QA/QC chapter in our Design
Development Manual, constructability reviews, post construction reviews,
were a few of the measures implemented.
QA and QC initiative to review plans specifications and estimates. Covered
Project Plan Quality
in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By fcsiga@dot.state.nv.us
Page 28 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State New Hampshire
1.) Use historic prices for engineer’s estimate and keep an eye on ―project
creep‖ caused by trying to fix everything ―while we are in the area‖. During
construction a running tally of balances and excesses is kept.
Brief Description and
Comments 2.) Plans are reviewed by a checker and by construction prior to advertising.
Meetings are held at the critical points in the project development process
with project development bureaus to discuss the project from each bureau’s
perspective.
The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans for both in-house and
Project Plan Quality
consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete Complete.
Survey Completed By jmoore@dot.state.nh.us
State New York
1.) NYSDOT is about to begin a contract document bidability survey.
Sample survey form is attached.
2.) NYSDOT has a PS&E Quality Award process to identify and recognize
Brief Description and
Comments
the people responsible for quality contract bid documents. The system
includes performance standards for two categories of projects, accounting for
project complexity, and reflecting current policy. See attachment for
additional details.
1.) The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans, specifications and
estimates for in-house and consultant projects.
Project Plan Quality
2.) The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans, specifications and
estimates for in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or 1.) In Progress.
Complete 2.) Complete
Survey Completed By dkent@dot.state.ny.us
Page 29 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State North Dakota
The initiative involves developing a process for controlling scope creep during
project development by better defining and locking into an agreed upon
Brief Description and improvement type. It also involves early identification of miscellaneous
Comments improvements. Annual studies of cost variance will then be made to
determine progress toward the better matching of STIP estimates with final
estimates.
Project Plan Quality The initiative includes reviewing estimates on in-house projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress.
Survey Completed By thorner@nd.gov
Page 30 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Oregon
Project Plan Package Quality: ODOT is in the process of implementing a new design
QA program. For the last 18 months, we have been doing only full project design
reviews but are now broadening our program as follows: Fundamentals of Design QA
Program Develop QA program in four areas:
a. Full Project Design Reviews
1 Data Mining
2 Discipline specific design reviews ―Provider‖ QC conformance Audits
Learn from past reviews and integrate recommendations from TKW audit:
1 Provide training and standards for reviewers,
2 Complete reviews sooner – preferably before advertisement,
3 Begin QA reviews earlier, preferably no later than Advance Plan stage,
4 Target constructive feedback over score
b. Data Mining
· Potential information sources:
1 QC Programs & Documentation
2 PS&E package rejection causes
3 PD-02 Letters
Brief Description and 4 Addenda
Comments 5 Contractor feedback
6 Construction Contract Change Orders
7 PM Narrative Reports
c. Discipline Specific Design Reviews
· Use results from data mining to find subject areas, disciplines, processes, etc.
that are error prone,
1 Do focused audits at Providers sites,
2 Review a small group of in-process as well as completed projects,
3 Provide summary of findings and recommendations to Provider, TLT and
PDLT.
· QC Conformance Audits
· Use results from data mining to find subject areas that cause a disproportionate
number of post design costs,
1 Audit QC of providers having the most apparent PS&E quality problems,
2 Review QC plans to assess ―best in class Providers‖ and share with other
groups,
3 Report audit results considering both what is being done well and opportunities
for improvement.
The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans, specifications and estimates for
Project Plan Quality
in-house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress.
Bob Callaway at email:
Survey Completed By James.r.callaway@odot.state.or.us
Page 31 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State South Carolina
Performance Evaluation of Plans for both SCDOT
and Consultant Designed Plans after Completion of Construction‖ - Copy of
Brief Description and
Comments initial report attached.
A copy of a follow-up ―pilot study‖ is also attached entitled ―Report of the
Pilot Project to Conduct Performance Evaluations of Construction Plans‖
The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans, specifications and
Project Plan Quality
estimates for in house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete Complete.
Survey Completed By walshjv@scdot.org
Page 32 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Virginia
PLAN QUALITY
In July 2004, VDOT’s Location and Design Division implemented a new program
that focused solely on improving the overall quality of roadway plans statewide. The
new program was called Quality Management, Assurance and Compliance Program
(QMAC).
QMAC is responsible for developing and implementing a statewide Quality
Assurance program in a manner that will:
Act as an asset for districts, consultants and Central Office design staff to
improve VDOT plan quality.
Reduce the potential risk of errors and omissions.
Develop a process to reduce plan design-related work orders and claims.
QMAC Program functions include the following:
Brief Description and Establishing and implementing a statewide Quality Assurance Program.
Comments Overall coordination and direction of quality assurance within the Location
& Design Division.
Establishment of the QMAC Database.
Assessing the scope, status, implementation and effectiveness of the plan
development program.
Providing quarterly QMAC reports to the State Location and Design
Engineer based upon information collected via reviews, interviews and the
QMAC Database.
Preparing, coordinating, distributing and maintaining QMAC policies,
procedures, standards, and guidelines consistent with VDOT policy.
Organizing and conducting quality control reviews of plans and establishing
the responsibilities related to the conduct of such reviews.
Providing support to the State Location and Design Engineer in the
evaluation and recommendation of information directly related to QMAC
reviews. (Ex. quality of VDOT/consultant performance and productivity.)
The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans for in house and
Project Plan Quality
consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress
Survey Completed By BA.Thrasher@VDOT.Virginia.gov
Page 33 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Washington
1.) WSDOT has also developed an online Project Management Guide, which focuses on
project management principles as endorsed by the Project Management Institute (PMI).
The guide allows project managers to follow a step by step process through each stage
of a project, from planning through construction, and to see and download actual
examples of good project management techniques and tools. The guide can be viewed
and used at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/OnLine_Guide/Phase_Guides/Pre-
Construction/Pre-Construction_files/slide0001.htm
2.) WSDOT and consultants groups have jointly developed a ―Deliverables Expectation
Brief Description and Matrix‖ that answers the questions ―How does a consultant know what is expected?‖
Comments and ―How does the client measure consultant progress?‖ Both WSDOT and consultants
were eager to better define the items of work called for in consulting engineer
agreements. Better definition would mean better contract negotiations, better
measurement of progress, fewer disputes and misunderstandings over what was
expected. The group developed this matrix, that calls out specific deliverables for each
stage of the highway design process, and which is now being implemented as a tool for
contract negotiations and progress measurement. The matrix is attached, and is
available online at
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/ProjectMgmt/OnLine_Guide/Delivery_Expectation_
Matrix/DE_Matrix.pdf
Online Guide for Quality Control for complete package for In House and
Project Plan Quality Consultant projects. Matrix for Quality Control for complete package for In
House and Consultant
Initiatives in Progress or All three are in use, implemented, and subject to continual improvement.
Complete
Survey Completed By Rick Smith email address: smithrick@wsdot.wa.gov
Page 34 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix B: Survey Responses with State Contacts, 2. Project Plan Quality
State Wisconsin
1. Constructability and Biddablity reviews :
WisDOT is having a group consisting of DOT representatives, contractor
representatives, FHWA representatives and consultant representatives
complete the following:
Brief Description and Review the state of the industry with respect to constructability and
Comments biddability reviews.
Review WisDOT’s and the consultant’s current practices with respect
to constructability and biddability reviews.
Develop ideas on how enhance our current practice.
Make recommendations of proposed changes.
The initiative is for quality assurance to review plans, specifications and
Project Plan Quality
estimates for in house and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete Complete.
Survey Completed By donald.miller@state.wi.us
State Wyoming
1. We have now built inflation in to our STIP. We are now preparing detailed
cost estimates at the various plan stages of development and are tracking more
closely the big ticket bid items. We are reviewing our standards for the
Brief Description and various R’s in hopes of scaling back the cost of our projects. We have also
Comments been hit with serious inflation in the last few years.
2. We have stepped up our project plan reviews both within the design teams
and by our final plans checker.
QC initiative to review plans specifications and estimates. Covered in-house
Project Plan Quality
and consultant projects.
Initiatives in Progress or
Complete In Progress.
Survey Completed By Paul.Bercich@dot.state.wy.us
Page 35 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
Utility Relocation and
Agreement Process Review
Alabama Yes focused on improving the
consultant fee & estimating
processes.
We are most interested in
Arizona No
the scanning tour.
A review was completed
with recommendations to
Connecticut
improve project cost
Yes
estimating and project cost
management relating to
construction cost over runs
Dist. of Col. No
Underway, FDOT’s
comptroller office has an
Florida No extensive effort underway
to better capture true project
cost.
Page 36 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
(1) STIP/TIP estimates –
Focused on reducing lump
sum amounts, minimizing
un-programmed amounts,
and reducing modifications;
(2) ROW Cost Estimating –
In planning stage, focus on
reinforcing the requirement
Georgia Yes to update ROW estimates
with Construction
estimates; (3) Construction
Change Orders –
Implemented a tracking
system for value and CCO’s
on full oversight projects to
help monitor cost growth
during construction.
Idaho No
Focused on discrepancies
between authorized
amounts and award
Illinois Yes
amounts relating due to the
District/Central processing
of cost estimates.
Page 37 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
(1) As part of our support of
INDOT, a T2 application is
being submitted for data
gathering trip that includes
best practices in these areas
as well as innovative
No (However, a PS&E
contracting e.g. design-
Indiana
review is planned for this
build & bid analysis, (2)
year that will touch upon
INDOT is deploying a
this area)
Highway Economics
Requirement System State
Version for post award cost
management & planning for
a systematic process for
pre-award cost mgmt.
Planning to conduct a
Maine No process review on project
development costs
All major project ($500M
or more) cost estimates are
reviewed annually (i.e.,
Inter-County Connector,
Woodrow Wilson Bridge).
Maryland
Cost Estimate Evaluations
Yes
include the basis,
assumptions and process,
development of quantities
& costs, technical
disciplines, and allowances
along with contingencies.
Page 38 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
A review focused on the
development of the
preliminary project cost
estimates to final project
Massachusetts Yes cost estimates –several
recommendations are being
considered by MHD to
improve the their estimating
processes.
(1) A cost estimation effort
was conducted for high cost
projects – a risk mgmt
technique developed
variable cost estimates
along with inflation factors
Minnesota
(2) a financial workshop
Yes
will be conducted to
develop alternate funding
scenarios, & (3) MnDOT
conducted a cost estimating
workshop to discuss this
issue and define the
problem in MN.
However, Montana DOT is
Montana No proceeding with a research
study on this subject matter.
Page 39 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
Tracking CCO and total
project costs – comparing
New Mexico
bid award and total project
Yes
costs, average bid costs, bid
tabs, escalating costs, &
lump sum bid pricing.
Currently monitors the
New York No accuracy of NYSDOT’s
engineer estimates.
August 2005, A Review of
NDDOT’s Project Cost and
North Dakota Yes Schedule Tracking to allow
timely reviews that focus on
budget and schedule
However, OhDOT has
developed an impressive
Ohio No system to track a project’s
scope, schedule, and budget
throughout its life.
We are interested any
Oklahoma No emerging best practices
from this survey, if any.
Will be most interested in
Oregon No the results of the scanning
tour.
Pennsylvania No
Page 40 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
Focus - target
improvements in STIP,
estimating, project cost
estimating, and project cost
mgmt –efforts are underway
South Carolina Yes
with SCDOT to implement
changes to betted develop
upfront estimates to deliver
projects on-time and on-
budget.
However, The Division &
State DOT measures the
percentage of contract
award over/under the
South Dakota
engineer’s estimate, the
No
final construction costs, the
STIP amount, the number
of addendums & change
orders with the intent of
improving cost estimates.
Texas No
March 2006, Joint
UDOT/FHWA review on
the engineer’s estimate
process – i.e., estimates
Utah Yes (In Draft Report Stage) before project authorization,
accuracy of estimates in
relation bids and final
construction, & trends that
could impact accuracy.
Page 41 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
(See the Office of
Infrastructure’s item 1
Vermont Yes
related to the joint
FHWA/VTrans review)
Page 42 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
(1) The Division presented
to WisDOT the principles
of Cost Estimating
Validation Procedures
(CEVP) utilized by
Washington State DOT. As
a result, WisDOT initiated a
steering committee to lead
the effort in redesigning its
Wisconsin Yes cost estimating procedures.
(2) A survey and analysis
was performed on major
project cost estimating that
lead to the creation of the
steering committee for
developing systematic
improvements in high
project cost estimating from
concept to completion.
Page 43 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix C
FHWA Survey Responses
Initiated or Completed
Activities Relating to
Comments or Brief
FHWA Office Responses
Developing Better Cost
Description Related to
Estimates or Managing
these Activities
Cost Estimates (in the last
3 years)
(1) September 2004, Joint
FHWA/VTrans (Vermont)
review focused on the cost
estimating practices to help
improve, develop, &
identify more consistent
cost estimate and quality
control processes; (2) the
AASHTO Technical
Committee on Cost
Estimating is in the process
of preparing procedures for
cost estimating; (3) NCHRP
HQ’s Office of Infrastructure Yes Project 8-49 – Procedures
for Cost Estimation and
Management for Highway
Projects During Planning,
Programming, and
Preconstruction final report
is due July 31; (3)
Washington DOT’s CEVP
& CRA processes appear to
be promising initiatives;
and (4) FHWA’s Resource
Center will review Puerto
Rico’s cost estimating
processes in May.
Page 44 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix D
DOT Document Links
Note: These documents will be posted on the Florida Department of Transportation,
Project Management Office Website. Once the documents have been added to the site a
link will be added to this report.
The following reference documents were provided as part of this survey:
1. Florida Department of Transportation
a. ―Commitments Made are Commitments Kept‖, A summit to address
delivering improvements to Transportation infrastructure, Final Report ,
February 2006
b. District 1,
c. District 3,
d. District 4,
e. District 7,
f. Turnpike Enterprise, Office of Design, Quality Assurance & Business
Practices Plan.
2. Iowa Department of Transportation
a. Instructions to use the QC Road Plan Quality Checklist
3. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
a. Survey Response
4. South Carolina Department of Transportation
a. Construction Evaluation
b. Evaluation of Construction Plans
5. Washington Department of Transportation
a. 2005 CEVP One Pagers
b. Deliverables Expectation Matrix
Page 45 of 46
Managing Project Cost and Quality
AASHTO SCOQ National Survey
2006
Appendix E
SCOQ Team Contacts
Name Organization Title/Dept./ Phone Email
Other
Leuderalbert, Ken Florida DOT Manager, (850) Ken.Leuderalbert@dot.state.fl.us
Chair Project 414-4792
Management
Bednar, Denise B. FHWA – (708) denise.bednar@fhwa.dot.gov
Resource 283-3503
Center
Choplin, Lisa Maryland State Assistant to the (410) lchoplin@sha.state.md.us
Highway Director, Office 545-8824
Administration of Highway
Development,
& Innovative
Contracting
Program
Manager
Dillavou, Mitch Iowa DOT Director – (515) mitchell.dillavou@dot.iowa.gov
Engineering 239-1128
Bureau
Edgington, Ruedy Nevada DOT Assistant (775) redgington@dot.state.nv.us
Director 888-7440
Ellis, Ralph, Ph.D. Univ. of FL. Associate (352) relli@ce.ufl.edu
Professor, 392-9537
Dept. of Civil & Ext. 1485
Coastal
Engineering
Graf, Mike FHWA – OPCD OPCD – Team (202) Michael.Graf@fhwa.dot.gov
Leader 366-9393
Hoffman, Barry PENNDOT- District (717) bahoffman@state.pa.us
Engineering Executive 772-0778
District 8-0
Lunetta, James V. FHWA – OPCD Program (202) Jim.Lunetta@fhwa.dot.gov
Manager 366-3542
Miles, Jeff R. Idaho DOT (208) Jeff.Miles@itd.Idaho.gov
344-8439
O’Shea, Dennis Delaware DOT Assistant (302) Dennis.OShea@state.de.us
Director, 760-2288
Design
Smith, Rick Washington Director, (360) smithrick@wsdot.wa.gov
State DOT Innovative 705-7150
Project Delivery
(IPD)
Stehr, Dick Minnesota DOT Director, (651) richard.stehr@dot.state.mn.us
Engineering 296-3156
Services
Division
Taylor, Joyce Noel Maine DOT (207) Joyce.Taylor@maine.gov
624-3350
Page 46 of 46
