ALC-Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee

So what we're gonna take things out of order just a little bit today we're going to start with the report from the Arkansas department transportation on the progress of each how a construction project insects in excess of ten million and that allow us to kind of get through that and then we will break for just a little bit so center hindering can head out side and then and then after after the blue angels bass will get started again and pick up with the report from got house I but with that like so we'll start with item see which is the quarter report from are not. If you could just go ahead recognize yourself for the a committee and being make any opening comments you'd like. Good morning it's good to be here this morning to present to you our quarterly report on highway construction projects equal to or greater than ten million dollars it's my understanding each of you have a report that was sent to you earlier and so at this time I have a copy of the report and I'll answer any questions that you might have tried to if I cannot take your questions and get back with you later. And I'm sorry I forgot and I'm Laurie tutor and the director of the Arkansas department of transportation haven't quite made made too much yet but felt like two years so welcome to the committee thank you alright members the you have the the report to kind of go through this point we take any questions. A senator Chesterfield. I don't one saving. Losses. There we go and the thirty crossing project is of course we've we've had we have a contract with the design builder. And Right now we hope to have and. Utilities finish sometime this summer anti turned are possibly in for the fall however we do have a lawsuit out standing and they're waiting on a re evaluate your re evaluation of our and nepa or national environmental protection ACT. Documentation for that project so we should have that done pretty soon we have to report to the court by June first about that reevaluation. In so everything's moving forward but that still may blocked project the lawsuits who were that's pending but we're still moving forward as far as far as we can go before we turn dark thank you and thank you Mr chair. March center Johnson I'm trying to get the there we go you're recognized for a question over here far left of yet Laurie. I've got the four twelve west that they've been working on it's been delayed twice I know whether at men. Very good have you got any possible date for that completion of that. Hey yes Sir I see impair impaired ruled you notice west goes out where the western side of the pair gold pass okay this. A right now this project and looking at this yes there's been a lot of delays on that project for different reasons right away utilities some things that came up once it was led to contract and right now we're looking at late twenty twenty for that to be complete and looking at my notes that still the track we hope to be on we're still hoping for it to be completed by that date by late this year. I'll go back to the office in verify that for sure and let you know if that's not correct okay thank you lord thank you. All right to have any other questions. Senator rice you're recognized for a question thank you of. With the. Current lack of traveling. Like a fuel sales like I guess taxes on fuel down I'll give you got a short synopsis of. what you're doing on planning. in this economy here what what impact that has yes and we're watching it very carefully we're not ready to or willing to stop contracts at this time because they're still we still don't have enough data to make sure that's a good decision when this when the partial shutdown first happened here in Arkansas as she could well imagine traffic dropped significantly and we did some traffic counts in it look like anywhere between twenty five and fifty percent reduction of travel on our interstates. So with that we started trying to figure out what will that mean to motor fuel tax because it's directly tied to consumption issue you all are aware of. So we started trying to to to do some projections to determine what is going to be the drop in our enemies but since then we've gotten some numbers in from the F. and A and things don't look quite as bad as we originally thought they were going to look and we're just going to take a wait and see approach to see what the next month brings because there's a lag and we don't want to start saying you know being chicken little and start you know. Projecting things were not completely sure of what they're going to look like and so at this point we're doing cash forecasts with worst case scenario. Medium case scenario in this case scenario and we're standing ready to pull projects back if we think that we're not gonna be able to pay form in the future because of reduced revenues. But right now we're just we're going to wait to see what the numbers look like because already traffic is starting to pick back up if you. At least that's what I and I've got some knee traffic projections based on what they are just recently based on what they were six weeks ago so I haven't gotten to look at that yet but there the traffic did bottom out but I think it's going back up so we may just see a blip on the screen as far as reductions in in our revenues the large truck traffic was it off that much not not. They can't they can't moving it was it was gasoline or you know regular passenger vehicles that really stop traveling for a little while okay thank you appreciate it you're welcome. All right see twenty seven I think that Senator hill. here lord. I'm doing good what is our status on the speed limit getting the speed limit increased okay we're working on that study it's over in the operations branch I asked about it not too long ago in and we're supposed I'm supposed to be getting a draft in the near future to review and just look at so we're working hard on that and they're determining what routes can be increased to what routes it's probably not a good idea for safety reasons based on design criteria and things like that okay total. What what kind of time frame you think you're looking at on that. And I really can't tell you can I get back with you on that yes no problem okay okay thank you. Speaker shepherd I think you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman of one question I note on several projects that are in Meyer in south central Arkansas that with the certain contractor there's a note that due to having for active projects in district seven the contractors not been able to effectively keep up with their work will load and I guess my question would be what if anything does the department do in response to that with regard to these projects and then also with regard to any repercussions with regard to the future projects that. That contractor may be interested in. That's very good question. At this contractors struggling that they're they're still making progress but very slow progress. And. At this point in time the way the department handles those things is as long as they're making progress we do not default them we have to we have two options we can either default them and have their bonding company take over the project or we can allow them to continue working courage in them to get through they have liquidated damages there and they're having to pay every day they're out there on the project in the past there completion date so they're they're in liquidated damages and they're being we don't call it a penalty but they're being charged for going over the amount of time they they did. What you repeat the question. I think you've answered that I I guess the second part was this is are there any repercussions as far as future bids that they may submit is that does that count against them in the future and then the follow up to that would be are they in fact paying liquidated damage at this point and actually making payment I guess one concern I would have is a port you for allowing them to five time and and one of those is the Washita river bridge which was set to be completed in two thousand seventeen and I know that we've had hot water but you know now we're into twenty twenty I guess I have some concern if they're not making payment and if we're working with them are we gonna get to the end of the project and then find out that. That they're not able to make any payment and it we may be no better off than if we had taken a different route well the way we take out liquidated damages is whenever they submit a payment submitted invoice to be repaid we take it out then I mean we don't pay them we take that off the top before they're meant given a payment so that shouldn't be a concern that that definitely makes me feel better to know that if we are working with them we're also making sure that we're getting the benefit of of the contractual obligations correct thank you. In our last question for blue angel cinder eads. Hello I director are you I'm good how are you I I have a question about the bill of Bellavista bypass kind if you could give us an update of where that stands if are we on time or we you know if you have a potential completion date more that's for that particular projects that okay hold on just let me find it real quick and. Okay there's several projects as you know A going on at the same time to complete the by pass it to the Missouri line. The highway seventy one B. interchange that the beginner changes goes for my forty nine to the bill is to by pass it's expected complete by mid twenty twenty one so sometime in the middle of next year. The Okay as okay then we have. Which are on the whole different area of the report that's easy right. So anyway then we have and of the rest of the the bill is to five pass one one segment is supposed to be done by the additional lanes of late this year. As the county road thirty four to Missouri state line which is the last segment that will meet Missouri at the line it should be done like this year. And my understanding is if I'm wrong I'll let you know that everything will be completed at the same time the Missouri completes their segment so that it all can be opened up together the you know the the interchange the X. the additional lanes the last segment up to the Missouri line and then Missouri's final portion which is not very long and they have to let that to contract. So hopefully will be having a big ribbon cutting up there within the next year or so and no okay thank you thank you Mr all right with that we're going to recess just for just a few minutes and then come back in after the flowers completed. Thank you. Okay thank you. Thank. If this is barred I'm I'm here. I'll be home you I'll be on you unless I get called on by. HM. M. can year. It's under it just a heads up there was a little bit hard for us this year questions from the committee members and also responses from director tutor so that we there might be some instances in which we at for potentially a repeat of the question at the camp. It'll be hard pressed to understand. Yes I certainly. That microphone works well the only time that there have the other one there to connected. Eight it may have been some soft spoken there's so many things that can go wrong if I've changed one of these styles that it's you know. the I I did call that out to. To add with any big necessarily change those of the stand that. You know hearing through that particular microphone it is pretty clear he had no. Make their way the production studio quality is that correct thank you. Learn to work. We sure do appreciate this. Absolutely well thank you do with my center the ability to virtually. All right I think with the we are finished with the questions of the are not at this point so we're going to do is move on to item be which is the current state assessment that's been performed by got house And I guess at this point if you all I guess I guess you identify yourself seal and then you're you're welcome to proceed at members just real quick the way that I'd like to do this if at all possible to allow them to go ahead and go through the report to be riding your questions down as they go I realize that that'll that'll create a pretty good backlog probably by the time we're finished but allow them to get through everything and in some of your questions may in fact be answered as we proceed through the report so but with that I'm gonna turn it over to the got house and you guys are welcome proceed. Thank you air and members of the. Very interesting way to go about this delivery and report this afternoon but we really do want to thank you and appreciate you allowing as you go through the report chilling with you this afternoon thank you for your patience with us as we all work the technology issues that are going to be at the end and with that I'm I'm Erin Hutchins I am director of our state local government act that. A good afternoon my name started Oakley I am a manager at a local practice also got house. The next five. All right so we won't labor that the dentist you much just really quickly I just want to walk you through what you think back about the day we're gonna talk a bit about our background and block that or assessment actually I'm the doctor thank you might hear me okay and the all the things. So far things on well. Great then secondly will review are finding that we have boiled down and then you take away and then finally obviously we're gonna have thank you in a I'm with you. Never mind an executive summary perfect and I just want to walk you again through a bit of the background here as you'll recall back in September we began from work That would have. Secured by you all and the B. L. are you complete an assessment of the department of transportation we delivered back erring eight investment report you nine B. O. R. on March thirteenth of twenty twenty and and I believe you all have received the full and complete report that again as the all right send for the purposes expediting the conversation and really covering the craft of the of the key finding. The report included twenty three findings across he he okay area and it paid again we we have that they'll those down and you and you take away is that we will review with you today. I'm an approach perspective you'll recall that in September we met with you to review our proposal of the focus areas and FOR our report that would address all your planning that the identification and prioritization of construction project. You're meant. Expenditure. Information technology organizational structure or and government for example and people capability. after we have that discussion with you and we settled on what the of this area would be we went we thought about the deer the groundwork and now with our guide and independently so the purpose of our engagement with our dot we connected he or interview across or state and with eighty people we we met with a lot of great folks that are not thank you that team or making them available we work across different branches divisions the action and then also met with the Federal Highway Administration and garner commit utility or and then from an analysis perspective we received and reviewed more than a thousand document that we analyze and and again you the about the finding of for us as we evaluated the eight are not and that is how we got you that you find twenty three key finding and that and you take away that we're going to review with you today he take away the really going to be in that foundational tractor or our teachers make recommendations report which is are not liveable the. And. Provided twenty three eight thank very detail and take away is that as we go through thinking about the next phase of the project and as we think about recommendation on it can clearly what that it makes sense you boil the is down at that and think about how to actually move are not or were you a more active and absent organization and so we we hold everything back into the and you take away or again the purpose area and organizational structure portfolio planning procurement expenditure icy and people capability the where I go through the one on one by one with you you know over the next few minutes we local labor that wanted to help you understand how we got where we are. Okay with that being said that the doctor again I'm gonna speak to each of each of the key take aways across that the focus areas and then handed off to hear and for just one of them but diving right in as it relates organizational structure we essentially had one of the key take away from this particular focus area and that's really related to executive performance reporting or performance reporting at the executive level and and currently what we found is that doesn't emphasize operational effectiveness and given that the department's unique governance structure it's or limits the performance reporting directly to the legislature and so what we found just you know underneath that was that the the department is still creating many of its operational performance keep performance indicators they're still developing target up for almost all of their KPIs or key performance indicators and again given the the limits on the governance structure there's not really that much reporting of that performance outside of the transportation commission and also the Federal Highway Administration. And so as a result of all that it really limits the ability of the department you're truly identify cost efficiencies across the you know across the entire agency and it also limits public accountability for for their performance. And so it you know as we're taking a look under the hood you know we identified that the department does have forty one performance indicators but only eighteen of them are focused on operational effectiveness and and frankly twelve are still under development there still developing them or their so identifying targets when we translate that over to their strategic plan you know those goals are tied to or those in performance indicators are tied to the strategic plan but there there doesn't appear to be and in an operational plan that helps them drive implementation of that strategic plans and then ultimately will drive performance as measured against those KPIs. When we take a look at leading practice that then and we gonna take a look out in the in the market place you know our preliminary research indicates that you know there is a precedent for state level DOT's to actually report to their legislators legislatures their respective legislatures either during out you know budgeting period or or outside of that budgeting period to be able to report their performance and then from an operational effectiveness standpoint you know that there is obviously a lot you know a level of of evidence to suggest that you know focusing on your operational effectiveness measures is actually going to yield improve performance and we we saw that with the Virginia department of transportation that is seen an increase in the delivery or early delivery of their construction activities through improved performance performance reporting and then ultimately you know being able to adapt their underlying business rules as a result of reflection upon that data and to try and you know push the performance will be better and that's you know demonstrated in that chart to the bottom right. I did forget to mention one thing before I move on to portfolio planning which is the next focus area but at the top in the top right hand corner of the report or of this presentation we did tag the specific page numbers of the actual a finding that relate to each of you can take away so if you're if you're following along with the actual current state report itself you can take a look at those page numbers fifty and fifty one to track the specific you findings that we had that are related to this take away. Alright moving on in portfolio planning there were two key take aways that we want to discuss with you all today one of them is related to performance reporting and it's really related to customer engagement and community and and stakeholder engagement in communication and then the second one is related to maintenance project and budget planning. Recording with the with the first one we found through our review that are dot has limited currently has limited proactive communication of of project changes construction project changes and does not you know what actively or comprehensively track and manage a customer enquiries. And you know we have seen against work eliminator research that Several state specifically federal state the O. T. that establish some really high standards for stakeholder and public engagement we're gonna spotlight one in in just a few minutes but you know without without sort of rising to those those high standards of the potential impact there are that there are you know low customer awareness and satisfaction in public trust will low we're not so of projects and and particular changes but that potentially lower satisfaction and trust with the department while at the same time you know internally within the department I'm not having a comprehensive system to be able to track and manage inquiry for the department you know we heard actually increases the diversion of staff time to attend to these enquiries as opposed to deliver on you know on these project activities and and both are important but at the at the matter of finding that that right balance and being able may be able to optimize the department's ability to manage or or actually attend to those increase. And where we're not trying to suggest that the department doesn't already have methods through which to communicate project changes in status to the general public or keep stakeholders or even respond to inquiry that you know are directed to where the department you know they obviously have their website where they are they are publishing to a certain extent you know information about project changes thank you have I drive Arkansas for example to be able to communicate you know traffic impacts from construction projects for example and and a basic you know information about construction projects however at the same time there's still no consolidated tool to track and manage those increase and then ultimately close the loop on those increase to make sure that you know customers are satisfied with the response that they are receiving. you know again when we take a look out in the marketplace we take a look at other G. O. G.'s Maryland DOT has a fairly comprehensive customer service strategy and it includes the asphalt for where they present their transportation plan that they go all around the state's presented response that specific questions about that they operate a consolidated customer call center and that helps them optimize those operations and drive down you know that the costs associated with attending to. You know attending to customer increase and then they do provide customer service training to their staff members and at the same time they're trapped they're tracking overall customer satisfaction overtime and they've been doing it for a number of years and and what we see here is it than twenty sixteen their customer satisfaction is actually grown for about seventy six percent close to about eighty eight percent. We still doing okay on sound and visual. Everything's good. Okay great. Thank your. The second finding or keep take away sorry within the portfolio finding was that we found that maintenance projects and budgets are based on historically allocated financial resources and conducted activities and and you know from what we see this is fairly typical in the public sector and that you know budget they're based on you know what you've done in in the prior year and and you know we mentioned way back in every which seems like years ago at this point that the department budget the budget about a hundred ninety million dollars uh per year specifically in fiscal year twenty in staff you know compensation costs and operations material up for maintenance activities. But when you take a look historically you know those budgets have remained relatively flat over time when we were looking at you know the district maintenance budgets over time over the last few years we saw that you know the annual increase very calm about point two percent per year to about one point nine percent per year and and when we ask your in our interviews we have you know department staff members about how you know those those budgets were were were created you know we found that it was largely driven by their historical maintenance budget as opposed to levels of service and and when I'm talking about levels of service I'm really talking about thinking through all of the features on you know the the roadway system you know be they spend thing and guide rails pot holes cracks I shoulders you know drop off screen it is so on and so forth being able to measure the condition of those of those different features and then being able to drive dollars to words where the you know there's or the greatest need and without that level of of service eight framework around you know maintenance planning and and maintenance budgeting it becomes really difficult to to understand whether the budget than the projects the truly are addressing you know meet in the. You essentially have to rely at some level on some level of anecdotal evidence and and and what you're seeing you know from prior years and and if it if it if it's difficult to understand you know what the condition is and and how much money you have to invest what projects you need to execute on to hit a certain level of of service as relates to all of these features that it's really hard to take a step back and say okay with this school of dollars with that hundred ninety million dollars this is the best way for us to directed that funding so that we can ensure that are all of our guard rails are at you know this level of condition and all of our dishes are at this level of condition and so on and so forth. Again taking a look at take a look at the the transportation sector you know a number of the cheese use a level of service based approach to maintenance planning and budgeting Wisconsin DOT is is one of that that done that for for quite some time and what you see you know in the bottom right hand corner is actually an in internal maintenance or management report related to their maintenance activities that identifies how well the department has actually delivered on addressing a you know a number of features that they need to maintain and and and they do that over you know they've done that over a period of time and they continue to do that to help them plan out there maintenance activities in the project and then ultimately optimized those expenditures and make sure at the same time I that the general public and and and the you know the apartments customers and stakeholders are truly you know receiving the service that that they're expecting. Moving on to procurement we have three key take aways in this particular focus area to are centered around construction activities and then one is centered around procurement outside of construction. So the the the first you take away that that we found here that construction procurement does not consider prior contractor performance you know what we understand and the records that review is that the construction procurements are primarily focused on price schedule and ability to meet our standards specifications and and does not consider you know prior contractor performance there is one exception to that from what we understand is that it you know any vendor that it and liquidated damages is prevented from bidding on any new projects I think until the exit you know that liquidated damages states. And without that contractor performance management and assessment system it there is the potential that there's increased workload because of poor cooperation and potentially quality issues with with the construction that but being executed by the contractor so that increases the workload on department staff and and then there's also some time spent processing bid up from contractors that the truly are are poor quality and and may not be appropriate for actual execution of Of projects for the state and on behalf of the department. And at some level there's a potential for use construction quality because the way the system is set up right now. You know delivery to minimum standards that that they actually incentivize them like a minimum standard that it that that that dander to identified in the you know standard specs twenty fourteen standards that specs book and and you know what we've actually seen at and we'll talk a little bit more and Leding practices review but we stand from a federal highway administration study that you know contractors actually report that not having a performance management system in place actually provides an unfair advantage to marginal contractors as at that without a quality assessment you're essentially bidding on price and not necessarily on quality. And so what we're not necessarily suggesting is that you talk about the evidence that the department doesn't have any pre qualification system and it does and it and it does have a bonding protocol in place as well but that generally approximates project completion and doesn't necessarily screen for for quality and so you know there is no formal protocol that prevents or quality contractors from bidding on projects and let you know and then there and liquidated damages but you don't necessarily have to be a poor quality contractor the and liquidated damages but if you're liquidated and prevent. several moving out the leading practices several deal T. have implemented you know performance management frameworks for their construction contractors in and we're just spotlighting as an example you Mexico piloted this in twenty fourteen up for their construction contractors and and in that time they've seen an impact in doing that in terms of quality been a quality because of the cars contractors to accrue performance and that's demonstrated by a reduction in this disincentives that have been charge to contractors over that time. Our second key take away here and. Other procurement of focus area is that alternative contracting and project delivery method that the department is it is currently using I can be strengthened a little bit more to help them manage construction our quality and cost and you know what I'm talking about alter alternate contracting methods and and project delivery method you know probably the most notable one out of that is you know design build that the department is using for the thirty crossing project but that you know there are others such as lane rental disincentives in a close the bidding which is essentially you know where you're betting not only up price but also one time and and schedule and it has you know influence contractor behavior however at the same time the department does not have a rigorous or formal protocol around evaluating the effectiveness of those different contracting and project delivery method and so as a result if you don't have that that formal method to evaluate the the applicants the of those methods you may not be optimizing your construction cost and quality maybe you're matching. You know the the wrong contracting method with a specific project and as a result of that mismatch you know maybe you're not getting you know the biggest bang for your Buck and and this is significant because you know at least from from the data that we saw and and and our understanding and interpretation of it from you know twenty fourteen to twenty nineteen other department levied about twenty million dollars disincentives an item deductions and also what about forty four million dollars in incentives. Help Michigan it is one of a handful of state that does have a comprehensive set of guidelines to advise on an approved specific all alternative contracting and project delivery method and and that's exemplified in that chart in the bottom right hand corner that's just a snapshot of one part of their of their policy guidance on this and and and they use that you know to guide you know which specific alternative contractor method project delivery method they're going to use for a particular project but you know Minnesota's actually gone one step further and and conducted a study on the on the efficacy of the use of the of the strategies and they found you know lease preliminarily that their their projects with a the you know contracting methods that you know they yielded a higher bid amount you know initially but when it came to the you know the final contract amount they're very similar to those that they you know for which they didn't use this method and then ultimately they found that it resulted in lower costs for the department because the duration of the project was actually shorter and so their staff had to spend less time and resources monitoring those construction activities. Finally in this in the procurement focus area when we took a look outside of the construction domain I we found that that the department lacks formal systems to identify and implement some procurement and efficiencies and so you know what we found and and we mentioned that a little bit when we were you know in little rock in front of the subcommittee in February but what we found when we took a look at you know small order purchases those that are below twenty thousand dollars and though the competitive bid procurements that are between twenty thousand seventy five thousand dollars that although they are being monitored for you know compliance with procurement get you know policies of the department and you know applicable regulations that they aren't necessarily being monitored to identify you know specific efficiencies and at the same time the you know the divisions and district offices within the department maintains some significant purchasing authority and discretion. And and this is as we mentioned again and and permit is a significant because the department again from the date of that that yeah you know we saw on and from our interpretation that the department is spending approximately twenty four point four million dollars per year on the small order purchases and about twelve point seven million on these competitive bid purchases and without conducting and you know Sir that efficiency review are or what's known as a spend analysis you know within sort of the you know procurement domain that there are potential cost savings that might not be recognized and and that potentially is also further compounded by the fact that you know the the divisions and district offices have signature pretty to direct you know they're procurement and and and while that might be a good thing to the extent that the department may surface some you know you know department wide efficiencies being able to standardize that across across all the district offices and and divisions might be a little bit challenging. Now. All that being said with the implementation of the oracle ERP system that you know the the department as well on its way to to implementing this presents a real opportunity because there should be some level of functionality within that system to be able to conduct a A spend analysis to be able to identify what those cost savings are and Wisconsin it DOT is one example that using it state from what we understand using it state yeah procurement business intelligence tool to help them you know push as much of their their you know purchasing from state approved contract and directly drive down the cost. Moving on to the expenditures focus area there are a couple key take aways that we want to focus on here one is related to the department's portfolio and project management and then the other one is is a little bit more narrowly focused on just the preconstruction and project development activities. And your first finding here is that you know our dot has you know lacks a formalized project and portfolio management of practice and so the standards and and as a result it limits the department's ability to optimize their project and maintenance activities specifically other relates to resources and spend and and and before I dive into that that I think it's worth mentioning in describing you know portfolio management class project management because not normally how people think about you know project execution but essentially portfolio management allows an organization to aggregate a number of projects with common objectives and that allows you know that organization to essentially ensure that their identifying the right resources for the project they're deploying them up actively across project. That timing of those projects is managed and then ultimately the broader objectives of all of those of all of those projects are being met and frankly that portfolio center portfolio objectives is is also being Matt and so you know although we recognize that you know construction projects generally completed on time and on budget the department doesn't have the standards that of portfolio management or project management tools across the the department there are there are number of home grown tools and and and tool that might have been developed in pockets and and at the same time there there doesn't appear to be a formalized resource planning process across the entire department again it happens then pocket so for for example with construction monitoring and the resident engineer resource allocation and and also with some of the maintenance crews but those are different not standardized and then it does it appear that there's some home grown practices within the preconstruction project development area. By my and the thirty five year I think that he sent the think about in terms of a portfolio is really you think about all of the investment the agency is making like any other investment strategy you really think about it as being goal oriented and ask them but the fact target that you're trying to achieve and do you think about how you let your report that is what she does call. Thank you. And and and you know this is important you know just strictly looking at the at the construction site of the house the department you know the budget about forty million dollars for its preconstruction project development planning design and construction monitoring activities. and and and you know as we got already that discussed already you know that that doesn't take into consideration the amount that in the best on its maintenance activities which is you know proximity hundred ninety million dollars so there's there's a significant obvious investment on that side. But as I mentioned before some of the resources that they use the link budget and resources are are are home grown. They don't exist. And so the the the key potential impact here is that without understanding what are your without truly of being able to develop A your portfolio of you and and and and have affected project management protocols in place it it becomes very difficult to definitively optimize your resources and you know especially you know push them in the places that they need to go and also be able to dedicate your budget affected lead to a two year project and at the same time it also becomes pretty difficult to be able to communicate that stakeholders progress again your construction projects or your maintenance activities because there's no product news no protocol necessarily in place are affected revision one to be able to identify you know the status of a particular project and so it's automatically you know potentially populate at your dashboard as opposed to someone picking up the phone and making a phone call. Again when we we take a look you know out in the in the in the DOT space a number of DO she's actually publish and make available there project management frameworks and standards and guides and template a North Carolina being one of them and so these are some template and brain works that potentially the you know the department could potentially leverage as opposed to building it from from the ground up if you know the choose to to move in this direction and and just wanna spotlight Wisconsin the G. in the sense that they sort of merge their you know project design and project management activities in such a way that they're going to start to be moving and in the direction of when they're planning out their projects they're all in designing sorry they're they're construction project they're gonna start to build in schedule they're going to start to build in a budget and resource requirements all the way through and they've they've started to do that and and from what we've seen and and some of the research they have you know realized some cost savings and avoidance opportunities of up to about twenty five percent of the projects in which they have it they implemented this process. The second you take away in in the expenditures focus area is you know as I mentioned before focused more on those preconstruction and and construction project development in that in that particular phase. And although the department is executing on to she approaches practical design and value engineering to help them you know captures some stating in the project development phase they haven't fully exhausted the potential of those two approaches and I'm gonna pause for just a second the to illuminate you know practical design and value engineering up you know practical design is an approach that involves you know when you're when you're scoping in your design your projects from what we understand when you when you're actually conducting those activities you clearly want to stay within your core purpose and need but you start to take a look at potentially eliminating some non essential design elements. and and so you you kind of straight up a little bit from you know the the federal federal highway administration you know required guidelines and and you know the department can speak waivers for this but U. S. you know eliminate those not essential design elements for example potentially updating some highway features that are in the general vicinity of the particular project but not necessarily very specific to the project you know objectives purpose and need. And so that the department you know has adopted that particular approach but again they haven't they don't have any formal procedures around that they don't necessarily capture the savings associated with that to the extent that they have they've identified that they think that so they haven't necessarily fully exhausted the potential of that particular approach. The second approach is is value and is value engineering and that's where you have an independent body either you know internal to the department or external department sometimes you can hire some consultants to conduct a value engineering review and that's where that the independent body during the design phase is ensuring that the project not only meet the objectives but it also doing it at the lowest are I'd value to the department and the taxpayer and also within the shortest period of time and and the Federal Highway Administration does require value engineering reviews on specific project under certain threshold I think it's there at forty million dollars for for bridge projects and then you know any project over fifty million dollars of value engineering review needs to be conducted but there's nothing preventing the department from lowering though threshold and conducting it you know give more I value engineer reviews are our value in getting reviews on lower cost projects and and right now that the department from what we saw on the date averages about two point two value engineering studies per year and and realize savings of about three hundred seventy seven thousand dollars but when we take a look again across the transportation sector the average is about three point three studies with the average savings of about twenty two million dollars so they again there is there is the opportunity to to you know can deter basically leverage that value engineering process to secure some more savings and and potentially implement that earlier in the find profits from what we understand the value engineering reviews that the department happened a little bit later in the process to make the difficult for the department to implement some of these changes. The other the other area in which they could potentially you know it you know consider more opportunities to yield some project development saving is by taking a look at and formally analyzed thing some of the change orders that have essentially due to and and you know based on the data they provided us caused by specific plan missions in errors and so you know what we saw on the date and based on our interpretation is that the the department has averaged about three point one million dollars in change orders that they have provided to contractors as a result of land mission and errors and to the extent that the department could potentially formalize that feedback loop back to you know the designed branch. They could potentially understand how to reduce some of those change order amount there due to those planners and emissions and and and you know potentially reduce the cost of these projects. We've got to forty take aways left and we're going to transition to I. T. and I'm gonna turn it over to air. Okay so that on found in that job okay right. We're good. The fun to make their attack and all right so with respect to information technology within are not we definitely have seen them take those that you make them enterprise purchases of IT act that so for example under with talking about their implementation of people top earner part three first planning Aleutian however I I keep planning act or not isn't nearly and your I thank and you're right okay so for example I do decision making doesn't have a government structure that that actually includes the I. T. team at and your eighteen as well as the business. and frankly the decision making and purchasing is actually fairly distributed and different divisions within the agency can make purchases of I eat without the without really the review and the sample of court I. T.. there's also a lack of of what we would all of their catalog and so when you think about information technology and the service catalog it's really your way of saying I have the capability to do the things so you might say that you're gonna standardized an operating them the with a we're just going to be Microsoft stock or we are just going to be a limit they IT environment And and you can expect a you turn over a server or database you you within a certain amount I'm not really the ninety service catalog and then finally there's a lack of project management standard throughout AT there there definitely working on training on tools that the court those those are technologies so I finder and as we were going through the review process we know that they are working toward urgent thing and I see with management tool that will help them adapt list of service catalog or at least or the service catalog and help them with object management implementation the office they'll need the proper those behind those those will actually make them active and so when you think about the impact of not having that sort of business focus Allen and and a lack of confidence in procedure around what you can support what you can delivering with yes expectation might be you you a few things right one of them from an impact perspective is that your your consumer your ID consumer the other divisions the staff within the agency and we talk about the and the number recording out you and after recording improvement that we talked about it in any other you finding there are some I he infrastructure than the simple solution but we need to be implemented to make those things happen so it's really important to make sure that the customers are engaged internal customers that are not are engaged in that Senate making process understand what it ACT and and deliver and report on it appropriately and then there's also course the rent cost over runs over quality and consideration so without a. The standard catalog of service and making be making the decision to support a wide variety of technologies can be really and and you if if you were not going to standardize on eight that the bank technology that means that you have to have hardware to support one group of technology and hardware or another group of technology and you usually need ask for each of those as well and bill coming up with the service had a lot of that is okay on the under yeah you you a place of managing your quality and improving your rep. And we look forward to be evident within our dot on around that governance and decision making in particular that second bullet there in middle and they had a review by an act and part of that review indicated that there was I'm an unclear decision making. And we know that we can yes because there were and and thank the of the significant IT spending in two thousand nineteen really didn't have the involvement of IT in that decision making at the more of a thank god we're gonna we're gonna spend their the technology up in the engineering group hope you're okay with that and and I will say you know that there's a crop that to get you that the point and I have worked in public sector ID for twenty years and have seen that kind of activity and brought that remote the of my career so I got is doing something to it then move in the right direction on the things they're definitely room for growth in ending up the government offices and platform if the court that the decision making and so you know from a leading practice the respect and we're trying to get you helping them understand some of the industry the underground acknowledge the and so standing up eight governance model that include business leaders really and frankly turned around and great customer service outcome for those entities IC leader overwhelmingly say that when they turn on and I with management platform that has how to log in and that they're review thing off and then part of going through the standardizing or and if you are talk where inventory now office where you start to think about do we have one piece of software that doing the same we have several pieces of software that are doing the same thing across the agency and we're paying not only for the software but the hardware and the personnel manager you can see their fate okay hard costs as well as risk costs that they can be associated with turning on the leading practices and then we pointed to the. Amend information read first this year and that they have acted as a reporter for are not they have a A very rigorous project management process that that number is what the different kinds of varieties of IT project though and as well as a quality assurance profit that include the and in doing or the business consumer within the agency are as a way of getting through that process and and ACT not in particular is an agency and that that affect the back and in that process so I got can leverage some of those experiences the turn on some of the leading actor is and their environment. Alright thank you and and I'm going to close this out to talk about the one key take away that we wanted to service and identify from the people capability standpoint and that was specific to the department you make capital program and its ability to mitigate current and future you know talent retention and recruitment challenges and and so you know actually taking a look at the the evidence here first you know that the turnover rate has increased from approximately six percent in twenty sixteen to nine percent and twenty nineteen you know about twenty six percent of the staff or within ten years of standard retirement age so pretty significant get a percentage of the of the department staff is going to be eligible for retirement pretty quickly and and only about half of of the staff members you know based on on the last survey from our understanding believe that you know they can advance their career at the department and so you know the evidence you know super trait that there is there's some real significant out retention and and then ultimately some some recruitment challenges on the other side and without you know some critical human you know capital programming items such as career pathways that are defined and clearly communicated to staff members so that they can understand how they can advance in their careers at the department. And also then being able to align training to those career pathways and a specific families job families with an apartment and and that's not to say the training is and isn't available the department has made a significant out of training available to staff members that being able to organize the in a in a meaningful way that helps staff members develop along the specific trajectory as targeted to certain families and then at the same time you know ensuring that the compensation is is somewhat you know market competitive means that the department you know faith is you know an increasing turnover rate it's it's limited in its ability to recruit top talent and because of that there is going is going to be the real risk of of loss of institutional knowledge and and not only is that you have the gift impact on the ability the department actually execute on its core functions but it also decreases the capacity of the department to identify some operational efficiencies and maybe avoid cost because maybe they don't have to to to go out and secure some consultants because they have that subject matter expertise in the department and and the you know the the the the the leading practices here and that suggests that this is a significant significant risk in that than that you know according to the society you know even resources management which is that you know an industry of forty year career advancement development is in the top most effective retention strategy for millions let me open folks and and and generation ACT and so the department might be missing a key opportunity here and then the transportation when we look at the transportation consortium south central states which I believe Arkansas there are dot is a member of that that particular consortium they were part of this study that you know there are reporting that the the cost associated with turnover and then selecting and training and you staff member sometimes can exceed the the actual annual competent. Shin or that particular you know position in that role so the the cost there are significant in there you know born internally by the department. Now we we bring that he take away up sort of in the in the pre coded world that we would essentially included a lot of our current data analysis you know at the end of February early March and and so that you know now that the labor market place that is a whole lot different I mean I think right now we you know currently nationally repeat thing about thirty six million people who are unemployed the oil and gas industry which is a competitor or the department of transportation FOR staff that that industry seems to be collapsing and so you know the department faces that you know it's a different market place and and so I'd I'd. Potentially believe or yeah could project or fork out that their turnover rate will probably reduce they'll have last challenged in recruiting individuals to work for the FOR the department given you know the current economic climate that we reside in but you know we still wanted to include this year at the at the key take away because you know as the economy potentially improves over time if these human capital programming items such as the career pathways and and a lying training and potential you know changes to the compensation structure if those are addressed of the department might find itself in in a very similar position even in three or four years from now if the economy potentially recovers because even if the turnover rate you know yeah pauses or decreases for a brief period of time because of the economy there's also the you know the challenge of the issue about twenty six percent staff I'll be eligible to retire very quickly. And so with with that I think we've reached the end of of at least the key take away that we wanted to share and are happy then the answer any questions that you might have all right thank you for the presentation and taking the time to go through that just one quick note to members here here's what I'm going to do and we've got a couple people so far that have lined up for questions what I what I don't want to do is jump all the way through the report you know back and forth in the last page the first page and around so if you turn to page six of the presentation that we have here that's where that we have the summary of the key take aways so what I'm gonna do I'm gonna clear the board and then I'm gonna ask for questions in relation to organizational structure once we exhaust those questions we'll move to portfolio planning you know been and so on so forth to we get to a people capabilities that make sense to everyone and I just kind of keeps everybody from and to jump around we can keep things on a similar note when Raskin questions in that sort of thing so with that again I'm gonna clear all court all the request. And then we'll get into question so you know the first would be on organizational structure I do we have any questions from the committee and in relation to items on that. Senator English I think I don't know no all right Sir Johnson you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair and I will be brief up first I want to thank the the people in god has I think this is a an excellent presentation and frankly easy to understand My question has to do organizationally Arkansas is at least somewhat unique you may be absolutely unique in that through the mac black will amendment we created a quote unquote independent highway commission to administer highways and having read the amendment multiple times and and seen what our dot is now I I I have questions of whether or not you your organization studied the order how the functions of our dot vis a vis the constitutional mandates within their department versus and I'm on this column assume the powers third some of them may have been actually specifically delegated of by the General Assembly by statute and others may have been just kind of assumed and and not saying that's bad I'm just saying that there's work to be done and somebody stepped up to do it but they may break up lines of accountability because of that I was just curious if that had was taken and any consideration by your far. We did do a comparison of that organizational structure to other departments of transportation across the country are dot is unique but not absolutely unique and the actor in which it operates And I'm sorry I'm looking through my. My actual current record you know and I actually kind of right out that this act around that all right and maybe thunder you have them in front of you Yes we did actually do that review and we can talk a little bit more about that. Yes we we take a look and and Aaron is correct that yes the department is unique in the in in its current current governance structure in the fact that is that is independent and and we site that in in the report and FOR set off a guide to have it done on street in both a little bit difficult to kind of take a look at the same time but I think our our key finding here was that sort of regardless of what that that governance structure look like and and independents versus not specifically as it relates to an and our focus was on performance the is that there are structures in place to be able to understand the performance of the department we able to evaluate the performance of the department be able to report on it and then ultimately hold the department accountable for performance you know regardless of of the governance structure that that does exist and so given that that was that was the case and there wasn't any necessarily sort of the culturally apparent exactly obstacles or even truly a parent leading practice trends that you know independence that that indicated that truly independent department of transportation's yielded better performance in these particular areas versus those you know that had some sort of you know very direct legislated accountability to the legislature or even to the governor's office for example that you know that that those performed you know worse or better that they're just frankly wasn't a preponderance of of research that indicate that one governance structure will yield improved outcomes over another and so we we decided to focus more on how the department currently reports out on its performance how it's being account you know being held accountable not only to the legislature but I can also publicly and then service and by. I think than some potential areas in which there there's opportunity to and had that regardless of the governance structure okay thank you very much thank you Mr. I do we have any other questions on organizational structure. Cold fingers or I can make this work all right center Johnson you're recognized for a question. Thank you chair my question on organizational structure. In the next section you don't deal with the customer but what about the the contractors I don't see that in here. From missing it. How the relate. Was contractors of satisfaction. Or that interaction between the contractor and are not. Under the organizational structure would that be where that should be. Yes thank you we didn't we didn't means vehicle is the in our definition of customer to mean constituent really meant that the includes they're above all customers of the agency and or or thank older of the agency so you know customers from it I mean are not perspective would include the joint well as and elected officials in a community that they're working with and the contractors utilities I think that there. Okay at the that's kinda one side of it but the ones that are are contracted to do the services would that be under the organizational structure are where would that be happy their feet back with the with are not. Interaction you know. Out of. Thank you and it will and they will that we talk about customer in engagement interaction reporting and communications and we are focused on the broad background of that of that engagement and reporting and communication and if a if again on intended vehicle is the eight Pacific they call their group. All right and and we. Thank you I'm I'm I guess I'm in the wrong section in. Maybe I'm not under standing that the question and and maybe there's another way to phrase that I think this Jonathan I think may be of what you're talking about Senate Johnson is the interaction between contractors and the department and what's that's like and I I really think part of that that kind of falls into a lot of different places whither B. expenditures and portfolio planning and procurement many hits in a lot of different places that direct interaction between a contractor in are not set you I thank you see pieces of that. Scattered through the report though it may not specifically. No bring up if there's a conflict or whatever between those two entities but you know that that's reference can repeatedly through. Thank you yeah you know I think as we talk about the portfolio planning and your partner with talking about some of the construction tools in making those kinds of things available that that incorporation of the contractors into those school and that proper of being transparent you will both the are not act in the contractors is is certainly part of what then you know an invasion of the things I Leding fact that the round project and portfolio management tool. All right with any other questions on organizational structure I will move on to the portfolio planning to have any questions in relation to portfolio plant now do we have Senator Hester is he still on or did he come on. I'm not sure where he's going to be here. I'm here I'm here okay we'll just but as we get to the sections senator for you have a question just let us know. All right any questions on portfolio planning. All right seeing none will move to procurement. All right not seeing any questions in relation to the procurement section. I move to expenditures. Senator you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman I'm not sure if it's appropriate here where it's appropriate but in looking at this report. There's a lot of ideas their system software there's procurement software there's changing organizational structure is it appropriate to ask the consultant to give us nothing short of an estimate of what that type of software might cost because I love to have all of this I think most people would but I'd also like to know what I'm what I'm seeing and I don't know if that's appropriate now wait to the and so that's that's what's an overriding factor to me the is what are we talking about here because the states they for referenced. I've got friends in those states and we talk about this type stuff on national boards is on a phone call this morning with the first three states to show of Nevada Wisconsin center and they're all struggling with their finances and I don't go spending money I think we're pretty balanced budget and I wanna make sure what we do spend as appropriate so in Amin for where we are today at I should maybe provide a little bit better creek clarification so this is a you know we're going down a road there are multiple stops and we are just at the findings part of this imminent and you know please understand all the information that was gathered was you know they did their bit very best to thoroughly that that information and there's no doubt in my mind that you know are not going to have you know some places that they disagree that maybe they've either started something that got house wasn't aware of or they're in the middle of something as far as changes in its ruling in and got house did reference that multiple times yeah I guess I'm not not that critical of all of the suggestions I mean I think they're good business practice most of what I'm hearing I guess I don't know a software would take to do well in in so the if the and so today were on findings and then our next meeting will actually get to recommendations and then we'll start Dicks discussing these you know various takeaways and then possible solutions for those and then we'll have a better understanding of you know with those Popple possible solutions what's the cost with the required manpower and that sort of thing in in and I think all of this probably no one in this room is naive enough to think that we wouldn't have to have coordination with the highway department in a lot of these things are items that would have to be taken on by the highway department that that wouldn't require or would even be able to be accomplished through legislation so yeah there's going to be a partnership as we move forward and in a part of that consideration obviously will be cost part of that will be making sure that we hit bench marks that you know I think are clearly. The outline through here that you know if those benchmarks are hit then there are cost savings that can be generated a because of that and we'll get to all that we're start that I guess I should say in the next meeting today's is gonna go going through the data that they compiled putting it together in making a presentation of you know areas that they see that could be focused on forms for improvement. All right so with that I'm gonna move on if you have any questions on expenditures. Area all right then if none I'll move on to information technology. Many questions on information technology. All right seeing none that will move to people capabilities. Many questions here center Johnson you're recognized for. Area. It seems like this is on the engineering side is that correct. Are you referring to the key take away well I think late this talk about been able to retain and recruit are you talking about the administrative side of of are not are you talking about across the board. This is this is soccer it is across the board it is not only on the maintenance side of the house and specifically you know without the maintenance crews that that are on the ground and they're spread your graphically across the state it is in some instances with some of the construction monitoring staff the resident engineers but then it also at the same time it because it is within central office staff and specifically within you know the planning and design ranks as well so it is it is the crop the department but you know within specific within specific pockets. Is it greater is it what what which which side is greater the retention is it on the professional side or or the labor side. I don't have that data right up the top of my head but we can we can find that out and make sure to circle back and provide that. Thank you. In just for clarification you know most of the data that was compiled for the people capabilities I would say most of it a good portion of that was actually information that was taking front Kate taken from an internal review done by art art is that is that right amount wording that right. Survey contact came from our doctor with respect to satisfaction of employees those sorts of things that is a survey that was conducted by are not with a third with a third party some of the the finding with respect to people capability is also where the ballot going through document requests that we and with with are not. Thank you for that and the retention data was based on and retention analysis was based on data that was provided by the. Thank you do have any other questions I know Senator Hester has a couple so whatever we need to do to to to make him live. I think I'm ready. on on on this particular section do we know if the highway commission I had this report when they replaced or I director Bennett with director tutor. You can't the survey of how how dissatisfied the employees were with the leadership team. The if the employee survey within it and as you know the nineteen January right under our very very. I think it was a little bit later than that I can find out the exact date well I guess the initial concern is in director to maybe the very best during the state after in the in the country I I don't have a basis for that but the concern is that it clearly employees do not value the leadership team think they're doing a good job was that do you think mostly directed at Bennett or the leadership team as a whole and if it's the whole leadership team I certainly hope director tutor has a real plan to a change the culture but it do you know that you feel like that was directed at director Bennett or the whole leadership team. We didn't have a a the step back and ponder you can you can do nothing in here if I'm not wrong but we didn't have a specific definition of leadership team from that day so there was and the perspective of leadership and supervise their we your media at supervisor but not necessarily that they in in the in between. Daughter did just yeah just a slight slight shift on that just a little bit that there what there were some survey questions that were specific I think to the executive leadership team and in being able to effectively communicate decisions and also understanding so the call the concerns of quote unquote the rank and file a department members and and those ratings were a little bit a little bit better than the rating for or the director but but there there were still some there's still some challenges there we do because to amend the current state real or and I can pull that up on the screen and it just a second so that you all could you that data so give me just one second to be able to pull that up. I'll say we're waiting you know again record your may be the very best in the country but that how we commission had this information it's been all about ten minutes in their search for the new director it just it just is they concerning. So if I thank you all can see my screen right now. And as we take a look at at this particular report here and the data points out they did specifically asked about trust in the executive leadership team there is some additional questions there but this is the one that that we want to call out specifically in a report to the kind of encapsulated sentiment around the executive leadership team and so you know there was that truck there in terms of you know the bill of the majority A bill over fifty six percent to trust the executive leadership team you know less that there's less trust and and a level of inspiration from the prior department director and again this is just survey results that that we are reporting but sort of trust and faith in management direct manager and supervisor it is higher than that for you know either the district engineer division had or the executive leadership team. In a member so just for clarification or looking at here you know we what we went through the an abbreviated review and then there's actually if you look at exhibit B. it's going to go into some greater detail if you want to have that and if I'm looking everything right that's part of what's being referenced here part of what senator Hester is somewhat that that be is what y'all actually received an email earlier or I guess was last Friday that right last Friday any when what we went through today was it was more of a an abbreviated presentation all right Senator Hester you have other questions. No one good. Senator rice you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair of the house. Was there any comparison of any questioning done. About. A comparison between R. dot. In state government. Competences competency. Follow through. Confidence any type assessments done. We were talking about to. Questioning performance. So as I just wanna make sure I understood the question. Are you asking and it was just a little bit hard to hear so that that's why I'm clarifying the relation I can really stating I can restate again was there any questioning our comparison done. In the. Overview of our dot. What what maybe employees contractors or others what they're. Mind set was. The improvements that could be made or needed to be made deficiencies or whatever with are not compared to. Say state government as a whole. We so we did that and an air filter to jump in we did not specifically conduct a comparison of the staff members are contractors sentiment around how to improve the department when compared to other state employees and their their attitudes around about improvement the state government just in general it is. There wasn't necessarily any specific data that you know allowed us to read the make that particular comparison because we we have to understand what they're vacate already that of just you know state employees outside of the department of transportation and then would need to probably survey and at that the sentiment of department staff members at the same time and that that would be at a considerable undertaking and even if the survey thank that that we would still have to understand whether we could make it true apples to apples comparison and and it's just not clear that that that was the case I mean I think even you know conducting a survey of the department given just how house spread out the the department staff are brought the entire state and just the sheer number you know really let us in the direction of of relying on already created and administered survey data and it it is just not clear that that existed on the state side and whether we can make that apples to apples comparison and just it didn't appear that it would be a fair comparison. And I think the court. Of the matter really in bad apples to apples comparison because of course everybody ET you can see how that's on the the obligations and responsibilities and After budget the better I with which they works in and so it would be very difficult for us to try to at that some sort of equity between between agencies with very different operating objected I will say however that we did look at the way that other agencies in Arkansas operate you know with like for with respect that procurement law by example and the way that the agency is other agencies can be on that and the way that are not in fact though isn't isn't part of a vacuum in terms of our comparison the way that other agencies operate but in terms of at employee satisfaction engagement and confidence in the agent the it's difficult it's not a. Solid analysis and comparison there that we would feel comfortable representing you and and I appreciate your answer because I think it sets the the table for Other discussion we're going to have down the road Mr find you shortly A say this or that I welcome the review that I do the review is easy to follow here and the assessments person's criticism for are not in in for the the legislative review an advisory the seller I think it's it's meant to and I think it will result in in making better are not for the taxpayer's. What I was asking. Yeah and how far is the. Something that we'd I don't want to say and we don't want to see is some of the inefficiencies. And waste millions of dollars for computer system that doesn't work a lack of communications because of silos in in in efficiencies and and other things that just happens bureaucracy I don't want to see them May make some of those things and and as we go through this again to make things better in courage changes where they need to be wants to be mindful of deficiencies bureaucracies and government as a whole and There is not apples to apples Sometimes it can be used. I thank communication would be good I'll throw this out this is something for the highway department I would like you to address whenever you're allowed to address it is the thing to and again with the new director have found her to be a what I describe as a problem solver DO seen it in the mind set on a on a number of occasions how would how would ask you to bring to us what improvements can be made in communications with contractors as we've had that discussion here recently in in. Preconstruction in three construction communication of. To keep from getting to A got you stage were thanks just come up I would welcome that and and also as you incorporate all of these things in here that either forget or don't forget in other states and all A bill like the director is open minded to that so I just wish chair and and committee I just put that out parts to be mindful of restrictions and the fact that There's a lot of things done right we hope this will result in improvements thank you. Thank you senator Hester thank you have another question. Did thank you in the portfolio planning it five. You know we do not have as as a as a our god for bill of project management software I read that correctly it also understand the yes on fourteen states were the only one that does not have that. There there are. Work pool for project management within are not I think what we're trying to indicate in fine or you can jump in here is that. There's not and and your price tool for project management or both construction and maintenance activities and that is open to the contractors as well so if you look at I think management. Again on a portfolio scale across all of the project that visibility is and uniforms and in a single tracking tool that allows for the measurement of those activities and progress of those activities there are under I think that and home grown rules that the agency is using you delegate project management and father you can collaborative at the. Of yes there are there are some home grown tools and the department is also considering some new tools that will help facilitate some of that project management so that current from our understanding the department and and they may already have procure this other looking to bring on and you maintenance management system and also in IT service management system that will have project management capabilities but to Aaron's point there isn't a standard project management framework or enterprise wide tool to manage projects across the organization and again from our understanding right now from a a project development and also from a construction standpoint there there does not appear to be a standard set of project management tools that that government can help other departments or track and manage not only you know scheduled budgets activities resources yeah but some of you have and be then be able to serve at that information to be to be able to efficiently report on the status of those activities. And I think that that answer question well it did but I think the important part maybe what I'm trying to get there is a like if you have a uniform software system ground that everyone's trained on and maybe I read it we're not we're not training or people in what we have but like you have got one district manager I like that of the other ones when it's all the same software you can see how things we'll see if the northeast is doing the same as the north west on performance based. so a uniform software system would seem to be very reasonable. Thank you. Yeah and if I could just that one a one thing to that is not only a uniform system software application potentially but also a uniform set of standards that that support at. All right thank senator we have Nick was senator are Representative Davis. Thank you Mr chairman I'm not sure if this is the sort of a procurement IT question but It seems that the in a few places in the findings you suggest that a lot actions are taken without regard to an overall strategic objective. and then severally here were talking I. T. and lack of standardized project management. How does that affect our ability to assess sehr contractor's performance relative to another man if if we're not if we don't have standardized process is it is it possible that we or. You know not evaluating projects equally and different you know parts of the state depending on what not regional engineer been meeting over them or managing a particular project. All right so. But we we did want to focus a bit on contractor quality or and and and certainly one of the objectives there there is there there are practices obviously in place for a contractor management in terms of copy and dollar but not necessarily with respect to quality and and Farrer something here to that part of the way that they do quality management of persons with respect you thinking through those on factors that are paying liquidated damages but otherwise aren't really At holding the on tractor quality accountable other than meeting the effective nine standards so there isn't really within the project management framework a a quality metric fifty five others and management against the standard and I'm and and kat so part of it is providing a rule that would allow them management manage that in the act from a grandparent the perspective across the agency but also to think about it in terms of the process and procedure around how to actually evaluate quality in developing standard around out there is really at that and if you face thing here on are you want to add anything. So. No I I thank you I thank you address that and this leaves a little bit and the recommendations but you know again there are ample state they're already doing you know have a standard contractor performance management system in place and the Federal Highway Administration offer some guidance around how you can structure that as well so there are tools that the bailable to the department to help implement the system the eight you know contractor performance management system but currently there does not appear to be a formalized system or tracking beyond just actually ensure that the contractor is delivering the project you know on time and and within budget. And then to incentivize you know better performance against the or provided incentives so that you know again they are meeting the budget and and schedule requirements. So just a quick if you don't mind just a yes or no committee my impression is it appears that we're managing projects very much based on a time and cost analysis not necessarily not as much quality that may correct is that accurate statement. Not that yeah. Now you know. Okay I'll get at the not necessarily I mean there are the the standard specifications are documented a fairly comprehensive document that helps provide you know the day that that also guardrails to ensure that projects are delivered with a you know a minimally accepted level of quality so I thought that it would I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that that that quality isn't part of the monitoring prop that the I think the peace that we were trying to to be able to service and I hope this addresses your question is that in terms of then surely upsetting eight the contractor's ability to deliver not only quality above and beyond you know the standard specifications but also deliver projects on time and on budget and do that consistently it is it necessarily being evaluated and then ultimately be considered when new projects are let the bid and and so from that standpoint you know you have more of a level playing field the contractors who you know have delivered through a minimally you know acceptable that of standards to the department but they eventually have the same advantage as a contractor that has potentially far exceeded those standards and at you know I again that might have to play an just a little bit of a role but frankly from a formal standpoint so you know contracted the delivered you know against those minimally accepted standard verses one that is marketed essentially on a level playing field from a from a bidding standpoint. Okay thank you understand thank you. Alright thank you members I'm not seeing any other questions again want to say thank you for the presentation today you know our goal was to have an unbiased look at our dot in and review taken an assessment made in a and I've I really do feel like you guys have delivered a report that does that in a very easily understandable format And so with that members were we are now you we went to the findings today this complaint time to discuss those I'm I'm quite confident we'll have discussions amongst ourselves on those findings and then the next meeting will be June seventeenth and at that point hopefully it at a minimum the for the Friday before we should have the recommendations from got house for review and that's what we'll be discussing also keep in mind that these recommendations no that's not the finish line that that's really where we as a committee start our work we we will take those recommendations see what's feasible you know see how that how to make that work is that legislation is a partnership with are not is it something that are not would like to take on on their own you know we we will take those recommendations and see really just kind of how to move forward and what works for our state as far as the recommendations and that's not to say that there will be and that there will not be recommendations outside of this I I anticipate that there will be recommendations outside the report back got house but with that with. Without seeing any other questions represent Davis you have a. Not represent Davis you're recognized thank you Mr just moved for you know we've got we up I really appreciate the summary that was very well done but we've got quite a bit more detailed information here in exhibit being I'm just wonder moved and FOR between now the next meeting the proper way you know if review this more detailed information we have additional questions should we just in that the staff or how should we handle and there's probably more information here. Yeah it in as far as additional questions you have about the findings just touch base with the staff will get those two got house if we can and and FOR them OR is staff not able to answer them and then we'll we'll get that back to the members and what we'll try to do is compile a list of those questions so that we have that you know presented to the members prior to the next meeting that way everybody's got on the same playing field as far as one have information okay very good thank. Have any other questions by committee members about how we're going to proceed. All right with that we went thank you guys very much again for coming on today and appreciate the time. We your flexibility to allow virtual meeting. Thank you I thank you all you'll stay safe alright thank you bye bye but. Members with that seeing no other business no other questions we are adjourned thank you for your time.