Manuals and Publications - Construction Strategies - SB370
SB 370 REPORT
REVIEW OF COST AND TIME SAVINGS ON
HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
As Required by Senate Bill 370, 75th Texas Legislature
Texas Transportation Commission
Texas Department of Transportation
November 19, 1998
PREFACE
SB 370 passed during the 75th Legislative Session requires the Texas
Department of Transportation to conduct a review of certain rules and laws.
The intent of the amendment was to look at ways of building and maintaining
highways faster and at reduced expense.
Specifically, the statutory language is as follows:
Transportation Code, Section 223.012. CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.
(a) The department shall
(3) conduct a review to determine whether commission rules or state law
should be changed to realize significant cost and time savings on state
highway construction and maintenance projects.
(b) Not later than December 1, 1998, the department shall file a report with
the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the house of
representatives containing:
(1) the results of the review conducted under Subsection (a)(3); and
(2) recommendations on legislation the commission determines is necessary to
realize significant cost and time savings on state highway construction and
maintenance.
The departments Executive Director responded to this directive by forming a
working group consisting of:
·Gary K. Trietsch, P.E., Houston District Engineer;
·Robert L. Wilson, P.E., Design Division Director; and
·Thomas R. Bohuslav, P.E., Construction Division Director.
The group was charged with ensuring that the department completed the task
of reviewing Texas Transportation Commission rules and state law. They
worked in conjunction with the Commission, and the departments
Administration, Legislative Affairs Office and Office of General Counsel to
identify, develop, and refine the issues which are discussed in this
report.
The department viewed this report as an opportunity to discuss recent
internal initiatives, as well as provide thoughtful options to the
Legislature which may have a positive influence on the agencys future
operations. It was noted that recommendations resulting from this effort
must be pursuable at the state legislative level. While a strict reading of
the reports requirements could be seen as limiting its scope to addressing
recommendations that would have effect once a construction or maintenance
project begins, the department also addressed project development issues in
line with what it believes to be legislative intent.
This report is divided into two sections. First, there is a discussion about
rules and process changes which surfaced during the required review that
either have been or will be made at the option of the Commission. This
section also highlights initiatives the department has previously undertaken
in an effort to speed up project development. Second, there is an analysis
of statutory changes that could be enacted by the Texas Legislature. As
directed by statute (Transportation Code, Section 223.012), this report will
be filed with the Office of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker
of the House of Representatives.
I. FINDINGS
OF THE REVIEW: RULE AND PROCESS CHANGES
The departments analysis found that the following administrative changes
will have a positive effect on the departments ability to construct
highways faster and at reduced expense. As noted, some have already been
implemented and some are in the process of implementation.
A. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
1. A+B bidding and incentive/disincentive provisions.
In contrast to traditional bidding procedures which require acceptance of
only the lowest responsive bid, "A+B" bidding involves time, with its
associated cost, in the low bid determination. Under this method, each bid
submitted consists of two components. The cost or "A" component is the
traditional bid for the contract items and is the dollar amount of all
work to be performed under the contract. The time or "B" component is a bid
of the total number of calendar days estimated by the contractor to complete
the project.
In A+B bidding, the bid for award consideration is based on a combination of
the bid for the contract items and the associated cost of the time needed to
complete the work based upon the following formula: (A) + [(B) x (daily road
user cost + estimated contract administration liquidated damage rate)]. This
formula is used only for award determination; contract payments are based
solely upon the "A" component. If awarded, the days for project completion
included in a contractors proposal become a part of the contract entered
into by the contractor and department. Advantages of A+B bidding include:
Consideration is provided for the time component of a construction contract.
Favors contractor with most available resources to complete the project.
Encourages contractors to seek ways to compress the construction schedule. The potential for early project completion is therefore enhanced.
As required by Transportation Code, Section
223.012(a)(1), a disincentive provision that assesses road user (travel
delay) costs can be incorporated into the contract to discourage the
contractor from overrunning the time "bid" for the project. In addition, an
incentive provision could be included to reward the contractor if the work
is completed earlier than the time bid.
A+B bidding and road-user cost liquidated damages are not applicable to all
projects. In some cases, calculation of travel delays do not generate values
justifying the use of higher road user costs. In addition, A+B projects are
more limited in application. When the benefits for early completion are
outweighed by the cost of construction, higher
road-user costs are not considered beneficial to the public. Also, before a
project can be considered for A+B bidding, all right of way must first be
acquired, and utilities adjusted or relocated. This is so that a contractor
cant later claim that the department caused an inability to meet the
contracted time frame.
Currently the department is working to train employees in all districts
about how to calculate road user costs. Additionally, contractual
language is being developed that can be utilized in construction contracts
at the Commissions discretion. Once this language is approved by the
department, it will be available to be implemented state-wide.
Status: A+B bidding has been used by TxDOT on a limited, trial-run basis.
Results from the trial have been encouraging. The department has implemented
policies and strategies for the greater use of incentive/disincentive on
projects.
2. Use of intermediate milestones.
The A+B bidding and incentive/disincentive contracting strategies referred
to previously were discussed as being applied to a project as a whole. They
may also be applied to projects on a phase-by-phase basis or to only a
critical portion of a project. The contractual approach is to establish a
completion milestone to the phase or portion of the project which is deemed
most important. The allowable time to complete the work tied to the
milestone is established by the department or by the contractor if A+B
bidding is used. If the contractor fails to complete the intermediate
milestone work, then the travel delay, or road user costs associated with
the work, are assessed on a day-by-day basis. An incentive may also be
included to credit the contractor for early completion.
Intermediate milestones provide flexibility to address the specific areas of
projects that will have the most impact on the public. For instance, a
contract may provide for the reconstruction of a five-mile section of
roadway, a half-mile of which is through an urban area. An intermediate
milestone could be established in the contract to provide for the
accelerated completion of the urban section only. Other examples of where
TxDOT has used intermediate milestones include: Work areas affecting malls,
specific intersections, portions of a project to provide access to a
university, and portions of a project to extend a toll road. In the last
example, the daily value of the incentive/disincentive was based on an
estimate of the daily tolls that would be received.
The same concerns cited in the previous section regarding outstanding
right-of-way acquisitions and utility relocation are also applicable to
intermediate milestones.
Status: Intermediate milestones have been used by TxDOT successfully in the
past, and continue to be used. Department staff statewide is being made more
aware of the tool and how to utilize it in contracts.
B. MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS
1. Districts process contract execution when bonding requirements
exist. Three districts (San Antonio, Brownwood and Bryan) have been used as
"pilots" for studying the impact of handling the execution of locally let
maintenance contracts including verifying that bond requirements have been
met. The results of these pilot studies have indicated that this task can
successfully be transferred to the districts from Austin headquarters.
Allowing the districts to perform this task decreases the time between
letting and contract award by approximately two weeks.
While support in the department exists for making this change, it should be
noted that:
1) Districts must have proper training for handling these duties.
2) They must have adequate personnel. This is of special concern since
districts authority to let contracts locally has increased from contracts
below $100,000 to contracts below $300,000. This means more locally let
contracts.
Status: This transfer of responsibility will be optional at first for the
districts. Headquarters can continue handling some or all of this work until
districts have adequate training and personnel.
2. Proposed debarment process for maintenance contractors.
Currently, performance bonds are only required on contracts of $100,000 or
more. Therefore, on many contracts (those less than $100,000) if the
contractor is declared in default, the districts must perform the work or
proceed to re-let. This not only takes time, it also costs the department
money. If a maintenance contractor defaults on a contract (bonded or not),
the department may have them debarred. This prohibits the contractor from
bidding on state work for one year.
While it is not in the departments interest to have undesirable contractors
bid on projects, debarment can be very damaging for the contractor. However,
at present, TxDOT only has the option to debar a maintenance contractor for
one year maximum, or risk having the contractor be low bidder on other
projects and again perform undesirably.
Since the departments primary objective is to have work performed, it may
be advisable to have another option in dealing with "problem" contractors
and to standardize the justification for debarment. The department is
currently in the process of reviewing its debarring procedures and plans on
addressing necessary changes with the Texas Transportation Commission.
Status: Department staff is currently drafting a proposal for the
Commissions consideration that would allow the department to reduce a
maintenance contractors bidding capacity by fifty percent before seeking a
debarment. Also, the department could debar a contractor for a longer period
in cases of repeated default.
C. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1. Professional services procurement for preliminary engineering.
The department has rules in place that incorporate the two-step,
qualifications-based selection process for professional service providers of
architectural, engineering or surveying services as required by the
Professional Services Procurement Act. The evolution of these rules and
department procedures has been highly interactive with the industry. In
September 1997, the department established minimum qualifications that have
been incorporated in a database that
tracks firms precertified in many different categories of expertise
typically used by the department. The database is utilized to determine
qualified professional services for advertised department work. The purpose
of this precertification process is to minimize routine data that was
previously required to be submitted by firms each time they submitted a
proposal. This not only costs the firms time and money but also requires
large amounts of departmental time to review the proposals. The
current rules and procedures are again under review by TxDOT and industry.
Proposals are planned for calendar year 1998 to further modify the
process--with a two to four month selection time as the goal. Currently,
eight to ten months are typically necessary to complete the selection
process. Changes will be presented to the Transportation Commission in the
coming months and a proposal will be open for public comment before formal
adoption. The department is committed to a qualifications-based selection
process and negotiating a fair and reasonable price. The department is also
committed to a process that is open. The department currently does business
with over four hundred different firms as either prime or sub-providers of
professional services.
Status: Current rules and procedures are under review by TxDOT staff and
industry. Proposals are currently being initiated to speed up the consultant
selection process.
2. Administrative settlement in right of way acquisition.
Administrative settlement is a recently instituted policy that allows for
one-time negotiation with a land owner when the department is seeking to
purchase property. It replaced a previous procedure which only provided for
eminent domain proceedings if the land holder refused the departments one
and only purchase offer. Under an administrative settlement, if the land
owner believes that his/her property is more valuable than what the
department has offered, the owner may submit a documented counter-offer to
the department. In turn, the department may accept that purchase price. If
the department does not believe that the proposed purchase price is
appropriate, then it must opt for eminent domain.
Since implemented in November 1, 1996 and through July 9, 1998, a total of
571 requests for administrative settlement were received. Of those received,
319 have been granted which otherwise would have gone to condemnation under
former procedures. In Fiscal Year 1996 the condemnation rate statewide was
25 percent. In FY 1997 it was reduced to 15 percent. In FY 1998 it was
further reduced to 13.5 percent.
A single parcel on a project that goes through the eminent domain process
could take from six weeks to three months longer to acquire than if the sale
was negotiated. Over the life of a project, the number of parcels requiring
eminent domain could significantly delay the construction of a facility. The
administrative settlement procedure is a proven way to reduce acquisition
time. Any procedure that decreases acquisition time results in significant
savings of time and money over the life of a project. The administrative
settlement procedure has proven to be a successful tool in significantly
reducing the number of parcels which must be acquired through the judicial
process.
Status: Implemented.
II. FINDINGS OF
THE REVIEW: STATUTORY CHANGES
The departments analysis found that the following statutory changes
would have a positive effect on the departments ability to construct
highways faster and at reduced expense.
A.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS/PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
1. Commission authority to determine projects for design-build.
The design-build concept involves awarding a highway improvement project to
a company which is responsible for both the design and subsequent
construction phase of the project. Design-build authority would allow the
department to let one design-build contract that includes both engineering
services and construction. Then, once sufficient design work is done, the
contractor could begin construction while the design is being finished.
TxDOT would need close oversight of all phases to ensure that public health,
safety and welfare are protected.
There are currently two laws that prohibit this process from being
considered on public works projects in Texas. The Professional Services
Procurement Act requires a two-step, qualifications-based, selection and
price negotiation process. Also, TxDOT is required to accept the lowest
responsible bid for construction work. These laws were put into place to
protect the public and assure competitive bidding on construction to
maximize the use of public funds. The option to design-build in one contract
requires enabling legislation for an exception to these laws to be used at
the discretion of the Texas Transportation Commission. The evaluation of the
design-build option should consider cost, as well as quality factors, time
of completion, and "best value."
Because design-build can be used to shorten final stage project development
time, the Commission might use it in emergency situations, such as when a
bridge is out, and replacement in the shortest time possible is critical to
the public. Design-build allows construction to begin before project
design is totally complete. Another circumstance where design-build could be
advantageous is when the design-build team becomes the operator/lessor of
the facility. If the
design-build team must also operate the facility for ten to twenty years,
and live with and correct any mistakes made during design or construction,
then a short-term profit motive would be forced to accommodate longer-term
quality issues.
The Commission could also consider design-build if a special project were
authorized with special or unanticipated funding. An example of
unanticipated funding is the current interstate construction in Salt Lake
City brought about because Utahs legislature passed a special construction
package in conjunction with the scheduled 2000 Winter
Olympics. This resulted in a very special unanticipated project with a
definite time frame that would not allow sufficient time for the
conventional design-bid-construct process.
The department urges caution with design-build because this option could
allow the development of contractual relationships between a designer and
builder that might not promote the best design, proper construction
processes or best materials utilized. Since this process may cost more in
order to accomplish either design or construction in a
compressed time frame, this increase will have to be under close control by
TxDOT as the owner of the facility. TxDOT will also need to retain close
control of design-build projects in order to ensure that inferior materials
are not used in the project merely to shorten time or increase profits for
design-build contractors. The department is qualified to oversee and manage
such projects effectively because of its strengths in the design,
engineering and construction oversight facets of our business.
Two federal laws inhibit use of federal funds in design-build. First, the
Brooks Act requires qualifications-based selection of professional services.
Second, construction is required to be awarded on a low-bid, competitive
basis. There is a possible exception to these laws, if approved by the
Federal Highway Administration according to criteria not yet determined. An
exception is possible if state law allows for use of design-build, and if it
is an Intelligent Transportation System project over $5 million or any other
project over $50 million. These exceptions do not take effect until calendar
year 2001. An additional exception allows for use of design-build on an
emergency basis.
Possible statutory change: Allow the Texas Transportation Commission to use
the design-build option at its discretion.
2. Quality and Value Issues in Professional Services Procurement.
Currently the department, and all public entities, are required to follow
the qualifications-based selection procedures of the Professional Services
Procurement Act. As part of this process, price is not a factor and is
prohibited under law. Instead, a firm, or provider, is selected and then the
price is negotiated with that firm to perform whatever professional
architectural, engineering or surveying services may be required. This
process is not only lengthy, but may not always provide the most
cost-effective price to the taxpayers. Price comparisons and any references
to value are prohibited by state law. At current contracting rates,
approximately $1,380,000,000 will be spent over then next ten years without
getting a second price.
The department suggests that there could be a possibility of savings of both
time and money if the Professional Services Procurement Act were amended for
TxDOT. The department supports qualifications-based selection as
appropriate, but feels that value should be incorporated. Once a short-list
of providers has been determined which are each qualified to do the work,
then it should be statutorily permissible for the agency to get priced
proposals from all of those short-listed providers. Price could then be a
consideration in determining which provider would be the best value for the
state.
However, it should not be a requirement to simply accept the lowest bid. The
agency should be able to consider cost as a factor along with all other
factors to deliver a high quality product in the shortest time and at the
best available price. Amending the Professional Services Procurement
Act for a TxDOT exception could accomplish that goal.
It should be noted that this could only be done where state funds pay the
professional service cost. No federal funds could be used since this would
conflict with federal statute. Currently and historically most design costs
are state funded to maximize federal funds for construction and maintenance.
However, if the procedure were changed at the state level
and found to be effective, then similar changes in federal legislation might
result.
Possible statutory change: Allow TxDOT to consider value in selection of
professional services once a list of qualified firms has been selected.
B. CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING
1. Electronic funds transfer.
Electronic bidding allows contractors to submit their bids for contract work
electronically to TxDOT. Its establishment will eliminate the need for
contractors to either mail or deliver their bids. A major benefit of
electronic bidding is that the contractors use of the system can reduce
errors. In automating their bids, contractors will impose a computerized
self-check before transmittal, thereby ensuring that certain information is
present and that mathematical calculations are correct. By eliminating these
errors, electronic bidding will reduce the number of bids that are
disqualified and ensure that TxDOT is able to consider as many responsive
bids as possible. A possible hindrance to successful initiation of an
electronic bidding system is related to the requirement that bidders submit
a guaranty check along with their bid. A cashiers check is required, which
TxDOT returns within 72 hours to the losing bidders. The winning bidders
check is held as a guaranty for up to 30 days until the contract is
executed. While the electronic process will replicate the current manual bid
process, TxDOT needs statutory authorization to receive a bid guaranty
electronically, release an electronically transmitted guaranty, and take
possession of the guaranty when necessary.
Possible statutory change: Allow TxDOT to electronically verify, release and
accept a bid guaranty. This authority should allow TxDOT to receive and
disburse funds when necessary by electronic means, and then transfer those
funds to the state treasury in the case of contractor default.
2. Child support enforcement requirements.
The current statutory requirement that all bids submitted by a bidder must
include the name and Social Security number (SSN) of all owners of 25
percent or more of the business on the bid document itself, has resulted in
a total of 112 bids being considered non-responsive through August 1998, and
thereby rejected for non-compliance. The purpose of this statute is to
assist in the states child care collection efforts. TxDOT believes that the
collection of the SSN of all bidders can be better collected through other
TxDOT documents rather than on the bid itself. Highway improvement contracts
are awarded on a low-bid basis and rejecting potential bids has resulted in
decreased competition. The
potential result of reduced competition is an increased cost to the state
for contracted services.
Possible statutory change: Legislation could allow TxDOT to collect the
required information (SSN of certain business owners) on either the pre-bid
qualification form, which is also required of all bidders, or in another
expedient and efficient manner. If any information relevant to owners of 25
percent or more of the business were to change, the bidder should be
required by statute to update the Social Security numbers already on file.
C. MAINTENANCE CONTRACTING
1. Performance bond requirement.
A governmental entity that enters into a public works contract with a prime
contractor must require the contractor, before beginning the work, to
execute with the governmental entity a performance bond if the contract is
in excess of $100,000. The performance bond is solely for the
protection of the state or governmental entity awarding the contract. The
performance bond must be in the amount of the contract and conditioned on
the faithful performance of the work in accordance with specifications and
contract documents. However, TxDOT is not authorized to require a
performance bond for contracts under $100,000.
Under the recent direction of the Texas Legislature, TxDOT has increased the
amount of maintenance work contracted out to over 50 percent. Many of these
maintenance projects are typically $100,000 or less, which in turn has
increased the number of projects that have no performance bond. When a
contractor defaults on a project under $100,000, the work must be
re-advertised for bid or performed by state employees. Most maintenance work
must be performed in a timely manner. If the work is not performed, unsafe
conditions may exist or develop.
Reducing the number of defaults on maintenance contracts is a high
department priority. Of the 2,300 maintenance contracts that were awarded
during fiscal years 1996 and 1997, eighty percent were unbonded. The default
rate in fiscal year 1996 was 1.8 percent, but it increased to 4.3% in 1997,
an increase of over 240 percent. When no bonds are posted or retainage
withheld, contractors can walk away from a contract, thereby leaving the
state without financial recourse.
While the ability to require performance bonds will add to a contractors
cost, it will also protect the department in cases where a contractor
defaults. Currently, when there is a default on contracts with no
performance bond attached, the department must either finish the work with
state forces, execute an emergency contract or re-let another routine
maintenance contract. In each instance, it costs TxDOT time and money.
According to information supplied by several surety companies, the cost of a
performance bond is $9.40 for each $1,000 of a contract. Therefore a
contract of $80,000 would require a performance bond costing $752. It is
TxDOTs expectation that this cost will be passed on to TxDOT by a
contractor as an added overhead cost. However, from
TxDOTs perspective, absorbing this $752 is worthwhile to insure the timely
completion of the contract in the event of a default. The department does
not believe that this proposal would have a significant impact on
maintenance contractors.
Possible statutory change: Require performance bonds on contracts of $25,000
instead of the current $100,000.
2. Award of contract to second bidder.
TxDOT is currently required to award maintenance contracts only to the
lowest bidder. However, when a low bidder indicates after letting but prior
to award of a contract that it has no intention of performing the contract,
the department is still required by statute to award the contract to that
contractor anyway. In these cases, the department must let the
default take place, then relet the contract. This could be solved by
allowing the Commission to award the contract to the second bidder without
ever awarding it to the first low bidder. However, this option must be left
to the discretion of the Commission because such a scenario could invite
collusion between the first bidder and the second bidder.
Possible statutory change: Allow the Commission to award a maintenance
contract to the second low bidder under rules
determined by the Commission.
D. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION
1. Right of entry.
TxDOT acquires rights of way for transportation projects. However, when
conducting property appraisals, surveying, or acquiring property for a
transportation project, the department lacks authority to enter private
property unless expressly authorized. In order to provide TxDOT with the
best possible information about potential parcels, including
environmental issues, TxDOT needs, but lacks the statutory authority, to
have right of entry of private property for environmental surveys. Right of
entry would provide TxDOT with key information on the potential for
contamination, the presence of wetlands, historic and prehistoric resources,
and other sensitive resources, prior to acquisition. Without
right of entry, TxDOT must make project decisions on alignments without
having all necessary information.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires that significant
federal actions receive the balanced consideration of social, economic and
environmental impacts, and that NEPA documents fully disclose these impacts.
TxDOT has accomplished the full disclosure of environmental impacts with one
exception without right of entry,
TxDOT cannot fully disclose the particular impacts and issues of a
particular parcel. In order to survey potential rights of way, written
concurrence from property owners is needed. Often, owners will not allow
these surveys to take place, requiring TxDOT to wait until after acquisition
to discover the environmental status of a parcel.
Without right of entry, TxDOT cannot complete the environmental analysis of
a project until right-of-way acquisition is complete. Prior to acquisition,
TxDOT coordinates projects with state and federal resource agencies to
determine permit and mitigation needs. This often creates a duplication of
effort, because TxDOT must go back to the resource
agencies following right-of-way acquisition. In addition, the department
ends up paying more for environmental commitments by not knowing the full
extent of environmental impacts on a given parcel.
An example of the departments lacking right of entry costing the state
significant expense includes a site purchased in 1992 for the expansion of
U.S. Highway 59 in Houston. The site was used as a bulk distribution
location for gasoline and also as a gasoline service station. While only a
portion of the tract was needed for highway purposes, the department was
denied the ability by the property owner to test for contamination.
Unfortunately, after acquisition, the tract was found to be extremely
contaminated. Clean-up of the site cost the state $3.1 million dollars, on
top of the "full-value" property acquisition cost of $1 million.
One example of the departments lacking right of entry directly leading to a
significant delay is a State Highway 35 project in Houston. Multiple
property owners refused the department entry for necessary wetland and
archaeological studies. The refusals caused a twelve to eighteen month delay
in the project.
Possible statutory change: Provide TxDOT right of entry under certain
conditions to private property for conducting property appraisals,
surveying, or acquiring property.
2. Timely Relocation of Utilities
The timely adjustment or accommodation of utility facilities is absolutely
essential to the efficient and cost-effective delivery of transportation
projects. Utilities possess statutory authority to occupy public rights of
way including state highway rights of way. When highway improvements are
made, utility facilities are required to adjust utilities to clear the
project in compliance with the criteria contained in the TxDOT Utility
Accommodation Policy. However, the department has no means to ensure that
utilities are relocated in a timely manner. Many times TxDOT must either
delay the letting of a contract or, if possible, require the contractor to
work around utilities until they are moved. In fact, in
fiscal year 1998, eight projects were pulled from the letting schedule
because utilities were not yet relocated to allow construction. Whether the
delay is pre-letting or post-letting, these delays can considerably lengthen
the time until construction is completed and cause significant expense due
to the delays.
Once a project has been let, construction delays caused by utilities can
translate directly into claims filed against the department by contractors
which have incurred additional overhead and direct costs as a result of the
delay. For instance, in 1995 the department settled a claim filed by a
contractor stemming from utility delays by compensating the contractor $3.6
million for increased costs due to utility relocation delay on a project in
Travis County. Also in 1995, TxDOT settled a claim by compensating the
contractor over $600,000 for delays due to utility relocation on a project
in Montgomery County.
It should also be noted that various utility companies may be working within
highway right of way for up to a year prior to the time that an actual
construction project goes to bid. In these cases, the general public may not
distinguish between the utility and road contractors. And thus it appears
that the construction lasts even longer. For all intent, it does. That is
why it is critical for the utility companies to finish their work in a
timely manner.
Possible statutory changes: Although the department presently has no
specific recommended statutory changes to current law to address this issue,
the agency would like the Legislature to be cognizant of problems
surrounding the timeliness of utility relocations. There are basically two
approaches one could take to address this issueproviding an incentive for
completing the work or penalties for inadequate performance. From the
Commission's perspective, it is not prudent to
pay a utility an incentive to do something that the law requires them to do
anyway. Utilities which are late in being relocated result in lengthening
the project development and construction process, and increasing project
costs. The department encourages the Legislature to explore initiatives
which would have a positive effect on the relocation of
utilities adjacent to highway improvement projects
III. CONCLUSION
The department appreciates the challenge to improve operations that the
Legislature posed by mandating this report. As issues were examined and
considered for possible conclusion, it became clear that the scope of issues
could not be addressed without brief discussion of two significant matters
that the body of this report does not address, funding and federal
environmental issues.
One of the most significant issues that the department faces in completing
projects in a timely manner is the inability of highway funding to match
inflation and increased demand for transportation. For instance, over the
past five years, highway construction costs have increased an average of
five percent per year. During the four-year span of the departments Unified
Transportation Program (UTP) planning document, a five percent loss of
spending power per year
equates to twenty percent erosion. With a recent letting schedule of $2
billion per year, there is a $400,000,000 loss of purchasing power by the
end of the four-year period. With an expected surge in transportation
spending nationwide, the department expects the issue of inflation to impact
even more heavily in the next several years.
A good example of the long term erosion of the departments financial
ability due to inflation is a project in Houston. In 1967, a five-mile,
ten-lane stretch of Interstate Highway 10 inside the 610 Loop was
constructed at a cost of $3.5 million. TxDOT is now in the process of
rehabilitating the original ten lanes. The low bid was $44.6 million--an
increase of 12.7 times the original cost of construction. In that same
thirty year time period, TxDOTs budget increased six times.
The Commission requests that diversion of funds from Fund 6 be eliminated.
The traveling public has shown tremendous support for using fuel taxes on
transportation infrastructure. In 1988, an overwhelming 86.9 percent of
voters supported a constitutional amendment to dedicate federal highway
reimbursements for that purpose. In 1991, the Legislature increased the
motor fuels tax. However, a significant amount of those funds have since
been diverted for non-highway purposes. No single issue effects the speed of
maintenance and construction projects more than funding.
TxDOT strives to be environmentally sensitive, but a brief mention of the
impact of environmental protection laws should help bring perspective to a
report on construction cost and timeliness. Environmental protection laws
have added complexity to highway planning and construction. In 1963,
planning to build a new highway required surveying the land,
acquiring it and then construction. There are now 41 federal and state
statutes that must be followed before construction begins. On major projects
likely to cause significant impacts, the federally required Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) typically takes three to five years to prepare and
process, adding to a projects development period and increasing cost. An
EIS is only required in a very limited number of projects, but these tend to
have a high public profile.
An environmental assessment, also a federal requirement, is required on
approximately 30 percent of TxDOT construction projects. Projects for which
environmental assessments are required are among the most complex
construction projects. The assessment typically takes from six to twelve
months. With both the EIS and environmental assessments, additional time is
required when remediation is necessary.
The legislative recommendations contained in this report are in response to
the statutory requirement that the department review rules and statutes to
determine appropriate changes that would enhance the departments ability to
construct projects less expensively or in a shorter time period. While not
always mutually exclusive goals, some of the recommendations above could
accomplish either increased speed or reduced cost at the expense of the
other. For example, A+B bidding and design-build projects tend to increase
the speed at which projects are completed, but can also tend to increase
project cost. Recommendations such as right of entry, requiring performance
bonds for maintenance contractors, and enhanced electronic funds transfer
for electronic bidding would greatly assist the departments efforts toward
both increased speed and reduced cost.