ALC-Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee

Members it's one thirty for back and go ahead and take their seats for going to go ahead get started. The chair sees a quorum. At the first item up and we've we've talked about this a couple times and is a presentation that we're gonna have on the oversight authority the legislative body and really what that's going to play into is the creation I think of what will be an oversight committee on how these items in this report are implemented just to be able to keep tabs on what's happening in that sort of thing and so we do have a presentation by the bureau on that and so much turnover to miss Porter first OR Taurus Porter first at but if we could what I would like to do is look you know this this pay attention takes notes make sure we fully understand A comments that she's making today in regards with limitations are and then it next meeting what I would like to do is be able to have a discussion to start the framework of that in the end the following meeting then is will actually hopefully be able to take a vote on some draft recommendations for the reports were little ways off this is a big piece of of what I think we're task with as far as recommendations and it'll take some time to work through but it's and then I think we all need to be engaged in and with that I'll turn it over. Good afternoon. Fourth quarter legislative attorney for the bureau of legislative research. And as discussed in the last meeting today I'll be giving a presentation over the legislative later oversight authority of the General Assembly specifically the authority to create a committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations that were agreed upon by the Arkansas department of transportation. However as a bureau employer I cannot speak for against any course of action at the subcommittee chooses to take based on information contained in this presentation. Last four I gave a presentation on the constitutional and statutory powers and duties of the state highway commission and the General Assembly under amendment forty two given the topic of today's presentation I'd like to briefly review those powers and duties. Amendment forty two also known as the math level amendment creates a state highway commission. For the purpose of administering the Arkansas department of transportation and the powers and duties given to the commission for that purpose come from the General Assembly. The commission has been referred to as it independent constitutional agency and as a result there are misconceptions regarding its power and the power of the General Assembly over the committee of the commission excuse me however the underlying language imposed by law means that the powers and duties given to the commission for the administration of the department come from the General Assembly. Can you hear me better. Okay thank you. That doesn't that are okay. The constitutional powers and duties granted to the state highway commission under amendment forty two are those necessary to carry out the laws relating to the department the commission may also in place officers and employees appoint a director of highways highways. And provide provided the director's duties changes to these powers and duties would require a constitutional amendment. Under amendment forty to the General Assembly has the power to grant or with all the powers and duties of the commission the department and the director of highways this approach this assertion is also create it's also Order by case law in frigid Arkansas Supreme Court held that a separation of powers violation did not occur when the General Assembly abolished the transportation safety agency and the transportation regulatory part and transfer their duties to the commission and the department stating that the General Assembly has the power to control the agency bites abilities great powers and authorities or to withdraw the. The art the General Assembly may also delegated powers and duties of the state highway commission as noted in parking where the court found that the delegation of power to the commission to determine the salary or wages are by and an individual employee is necessary for the orderly and efficient operation of the department. The General Assembly has set up the powers and duties the commission under statute twenty seven sixty five one oh seven and these powers and duties include the construction maintenance of the state highway system and the leading of contracts for that purpose compliance with federal aid programs creation of budget request expenditure programs and the administration of special programs run by the department. I'd like to see with again that the General Assembly may Adam and remove these powers and duties. The General Assembly has granted the department restriction over over very smoke mode of transportation and those laws governing those mode of transportation can be found throughout the Arkansas code. Again the General Assembly may add a mentor movies powers and duties. With the powers and duties of the commission and the General Assembly in mind on now discuss whether the generals General Assembly can create an oversight committee to oversee the implementation of the recommendations presented to the subcommittee. In the Arkansas Supreme Court recognized that the General Assembly has an important oversight role regarding the functions of state government and effective way to investigate the performance of state agencies have been by the creation of an oversight group created to focus on a specific subject or entity. The following are examples of oversight committees created by the General Assembly in recent years. At six oh five a two thousand nine. Created the lottery and the Arkansas lottery commission legislative oversight committee. That committee was created to monitor the implementation and operation of the lottery. At twelve fifty eight of two thousand fifteen repeals the committee and transfers its duties to the to the Legislative Council legislative counsel then created the lottery oversight subcommittee. And that's subcommittees referred all matters pertaining to expenditures of lottery proceeds propose lottery rules proposed contract the twenty five thousand dollars or more reports pertaining to the lottery lottery scholarships and any and all related lottery matters. At fifteen hundred of two thousand thirteen. Created the Arkansas health insurance marketplace and the Arkansas health insurance marketplace legislative oversight committee the committee was created to monitor the creation of the Arkansas health insurance marketplace identical acts four and five of the first extraordinary session of two thousand seventeen transferred oversight of the committee to Legislative Council. Legislative Council created the Arkansas health insurance marketplace oversight subcommittee and not subcommittees referred all matters pertaining to reports relating to the Arkansas health insurance marketplace and any and all related insurance and market place matters. That's subcommittee report its recommendations to the Legislative Council. When discussing the lottery oversight subcommittee earlier it was stated that the subcommittee member me may review and approve propose lottery roles. The authority to review and approve the proposed rules comes from amendment ninety two which allows the General Assembly to provide for the approval. Approval of rules by legislative committee before the rules go into effect. Statute ten three three oh nine defines the term state agency in order to implement amendment ninety two the statute intentionally intentionally excludes the state highway commission and the Arkansas department of transportation but the General Assembly may. Amend that definition to include. As you can see the General Assembly has created oversight committees to overseas a specific subject or entity and the General Assembly assembly may do so in this case as well however any specific duties granted to a committee created to oversee the implementation of the recommendations agreed to by the department will have to be looked at on a case by case basis. Thank you. Thank you Russians yeah just want one quick question and so most of the the committees or the oversight committees that would look at or just limited to legislator I guess membership is it is it possible for us to formulate an oversight committee that is that that includes at the stake odors so for instance you have general general General Assembly members the you know some contractor steaks you know consumer representation highway department representation that sort of thing make sure that we're when we're discussing these we've got a good representation of of what's going on now turn it back over. Matthew Miller with legislative research as Diane said I think in the end it would come down to comparing the duties that you're wanting to the membership if you were going to do something a substantive is rule approval or something like that having non members on their would look differently than if it was just a recommendation function you know contract review may be something that you'd rather have all legislators so it made it made depends if it's more just number a lot high arching review that might not present. Concerns. I thank you center Chesterfield you're recognized for a question thank you we have a transportation committee. Then it have oversight over that would. And I so I think out and that's where I was really going with my what what my question I just had was yes we do have some oversight in place right now whether it be through this committee or transportation committee and I'm not looking to dilute those sound like we should delete those in any way however what we're looking at is we got a report that we're going to generate out of this body that hopefully is going to be approved by the legislature in some form and there needs to be a working group that's going to help these items get implemented and get out I don't want to drive it I wanted to be a full discussion and I would assume that that that group is going to have to have interest from the you know very stakeholders again that that's contractors to are actually drivers and consumers on the road to the highway department to legislative involvement that way we've got a a core group and we don't get going down one road that only benefits one into tier one stakeholder but one that actually you know when we're coming up with the solutions implementation is helpful to all parties involved but I guess I'm confused you have a highway commission. You have a transportation committee I once chaired which has brought powers. How much more do we need. Well I think what this what we're talking about right now it's just in regards to the report and somehow this report is going to be implemented and if it's only by the oversight of this committee then that that is fine and that maybe the direction that we choose I do think it's important to have a discussion of of what that should look like and who follows up on implementation who's involved in implementation I mean I would argue and we probably saw it play out a little bit in some the discussion that we had last week you know just because there's recommendations doesn't mean that there's a full understanding of what's being requested or what the ultimate direction should be by all the parties involved we had a good discussion back and forth with the how would director about a call centers in in those sorts of things last week because really that's not what we're looking for but that's how she was interpreting it and so in a way to me this is what is the vehicle look to continue the conversation to make sure that our final report if adopted it is implemented to the best interest of all parties involved not just for the highway department and not just for the legislature and not just for contractor not just for the consumer but for everyone involved well my great concern is micromanaging. At the end of the day they are the ones we're going to have to implement and we get to a point sometimes in the legislative process for micromanaging begins to take place we've got this committee we've got a transportation committee you've got a highway commission. And. When we form this this subcommittee. It was not stated that it was to determine how all. Everything was to be implemented was to make those recommendations as we make them but there have to be constraints as as it relates to money to staff all of that so I guess I'm I'm I'm concerned now that this committee. Not be come. The manager of the highway department and with that I'll I'll just be quiet thank you well and again that's again goes back to what I think my original point was I don't want this committee to be the manager of the highway department I believe that there needs to be by and from all interested parties is how we move forward and so making sure that the highway department has their seat at the table as far as implementation and also making sure for instance on the personnel issues that you were looking at you know our last meeting that you have a seat at that table to make sure that those two things are in unison or as close to Eunice's and they can be I'm not sure that that's necessarily micromanaging as much as it is again making sure that the outcome that were geared towards in trying to get to is actually achieved and that we're not talking past each other in the conversation of these recommendations because we've already seen that happen a couple times even in this meeting and just a brief conversations that we've had with the how the department I think they would also agreed been very helpful on that's what direction we were looking to go in and we want to be able to continue that conversation there's nothing mandating that any type of oversight committee be established in that may not be part of our final report again I do think it's part of the discussion we should be having this reason we you know staff actually came up with the the limitation so what that should look like so they were having a good solid conversation on moved for. We have any other questions. All right seeing none that's going to take is to The update from the previous meeting so item city. Twit two recommendations from the previous meeting at first recommendation was to publish construction and maintenance status and we have any discussion or questions on that recommendation. All right seeing none senator Reid's. There we go you're recognized thank you Mr chair I make a motion that we had recommendations three and four to the draft report. Thank you senator members it's been a motion to add a recognition three to draft report any discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye all those opposed. All right it's been added to the draft report and recommendation for manage all customer increased resolution three questions or discussion on the recommendation. All right seeing none Centereach you're recognized. I recommend we had the recommendation number four to the draft report as well you've been a recommendation to add there's been a motion at recommendation for to the draft report any questions comments discussion seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye all those opposed. All right motion is passed and that's gonna move this into the additional recommendations by got house today are we all ready to go. There. Ninety. Hey Harry off. Great good afternoon thank you thank members I'm Erin how can I am director with the local government when I house. Under. Hi I'm sorry go Blake manager with state local government I would guide house as well. All right you guys are recognized to present recommendation seven and then will allow or not to come up and make some comments regards that recommendation will move on recommendation eight. Thank you. Thanks again as many members for having an present to you virtually our recommendations relating to Mr or are not our recommendations are okay on portfolio planning and also on that and construction design and other than a walk you through each of those our recommendations. Thank your. And so before we get to the first our recommendation and we wanted to like with our previous presentations wunderground ourselves first and some of the key findings that led two both of those recommendations we can start with recommendation seven and then we'll come back to recommendation eight but as it relates to the recommendation seven which is to implement a project and portfolio planning frameworks thank you finding that you know really led to this particular recommendation there are five of them with that project development construction and maintenance functions you know present you know by themselves you know some unique resource management challenges. But also when we take a look at them individually from the construction project development side that some of that some of those about project development properties may be enhanced through formalized project management tools we get into some of the evidence and in just a second if we take a look at construction monitoring we also believe that you know existing project management told the ones that they're using but some other ones that they could implement may have some broader applications for construction staff so not only in terms of you know what govern the activities that the construction monitoring staff actually you know conduct out in the field but also within our offices and so some existing project management tools might might aid that those activities in other finding here that change orders are not formally reviewed currently at least the at the time of the review and when we say that we're we're talking specifically around analyzing them for trans related to change orders for specific contractors and to help evaluate performance potentially looking for consistency around how change orders are up you know not only your potentially a surface but also approved and then taking a look at if there's any trends associate with change orders for any pay quantity items. And then lastly in think we talk about this quite a few times that you know scheduling and evaluation of maintenance activities you know again maybe approved through the use of not only project management tools but also portfolio management tools and and we've heard I think quite a few times that the department is in the process of acquiring a system to help not only with the portfolio planning there but also the project management. So some of the supporting evidence as they relate to the findings and we'll talk about this as we get into the recommendation to the department of budget approximately forty million dollars per year for some of those project development activities and also for construction monitoring. But you know mechanisms to to match you know their portfolio of projects in that are identified in the step with budget than resources out to the extent that those eggs that are are home grown and in some cases are nonexistent so to give you an example you know taking the project and then translating that into the resources and staff being used to actually conduct out of the roadway design activities maybe some of the right of way activities those systems are are all grown as well as the system then or actually actively monitoring the activities of and the performance of folks there actually conducting those those activities. also there aren't any target costs associated with a you know executing some of those preconstruction and construction monitoring or any maintenance activities those target because don't necessarily exist so you know potentially without that if it gets really hard and to to identify potential efficiencies that without that that target existing and and the idea of being at to the extent that a project management and portfolio management system exits then you could potentially identify target cost in those areas and then think about potentially how you can optimize those. So that's an overview of some of the key findings and supporting evidence four recommendations seven we can talk about that that recommendation on and we'll come back a little bit later to some of the key findings and supporting evidence for recommendation eight. This little. Zoom window or rap so are recommendation seven as I mentioned before the bout implementing project and portfolio planning framework so as I mentioned you know the the systems that that exist right now are you know very and maturity so the the level to which they're they're they're translating their let the project into actual resource and budget requirements and then actively you know the system that they use to actively manage those activities you know very in maturity between preconstruction construction and maintenance and and enhancing those that may allow the department to more effectively budget plan execute and then ultimately communicate on those construction activities and maintenance projects as well. And and we believe you know from a directional standpoint that having a more mature project management framework may allow the department to realize around you know approximately three point eight million dollars and and annual saving specifically within the preconstruction and construction phases of a project and and you know we provide a little bit more detail around how we you know estimated that serve a directional saving the amount in the appendix of this presentation also on the recommendation report but at a high level you know that the way we we kind of you know arrived at this directional number was by taking a look at the budget allocated to these these preconstruction activities and these construction monitoring activity that the approximately thirty eight watch forty million dollars and then taking a look at some of the leading practices related to potential savings by implementing a more mature project management framework and identified that there is you know of you know potential again direction all sort of at the men saving that about ten percent and so applying that ten percent to the actual budget for those activities may yield an approximate savings of about three point eight billion. That being said there are some some considerations here with implementing the types of portfolio and and project planning framers wanted it in a required part and wide effort to really unified the the different initiatives and assets that they currently have as it relates to portfolio planning and project management so with and you know preconstruction they have their their own systems within construction monitoring they have their own systems maintenance they have their own system then and frankly within the administrative branch there's another set of systems for managing projects and to the extent that there needs to be some consistency and and and also leveraging of resources that already exist it's gonna require department wide effort. there's also a consideration that you know implementing a project management office or a portfolio project management bring work will will lead to some over hat and or at least be perceived as leading to some overhead and and there is you know some potential overhead there but ultimately in the long term by implementing such a system and and being disciplined about actually utilizing it well you will lead to some long term benefits. And and and and I you know you know finally as with any you know significant initiative there might be some some change management that's required and potentially it's a new idea applications may be required as well but but that really is dependent on the findings from one of the next steps in the implementation roadmap which we'll talk about in a little bit more detail and so that that implementation roadmap the very high level is really you know centered around for a major steps one you know cataloging any existing or in flight portfolio in project management capabilities and identifying you know where the department is right now where once to be you know in the future as a as a target state so as an example of a one of those capabilities the maintenance management system that the department is looking to procure right now it is one of those in flight capabilities. That's about identifying potential gaps so for example there you know at the relate to preconstruction resource findings of taking projects on the step and then translating them into needs from a resource and budget standpoint might be a gap that that they would want to explore and potentially close establishing that project management office and and government. would be a third step and then ultimately phasing deployment over time developing tools and training staff. And and establishing you know these project management and and portfolio planning. Practice it is then you know isn't necessarily a a new activity and back when we took a look at those comparison group state you know six of them actually utilize project management brain works or S. or provide some sort of project management training. Seven of them implemented performance based maintenance management system you know and then of the of actually you know beyond the six comparison DOT's I know Caltrans offers probably the most mature project management bring work and in the bottom right and bottom right corner of this particular slide you'll see a snapshot or a screen shot of there you know overview of their project management framework and and this framework helps them contain their project development preconstruction cost. And and tech stocks you know actually has a portfolio management system as well where they identify the right portfolio project at the right time and make sure out you know resources are allocated appropriately given all the competing priorities that you know that department basis and and frankly any department transportation faces and executing on its. Objects and so you know I think one of the the key pieces here in terms of the leading practices that that many of these many of these frameworks already that and a lot of the sporting infrastructure behind those frameworks also already exist and could potentially be leveraged by the department to the extent that they see value in using that they're developing you know potentially developing their own remark and and to give an example of that you know Virginia and North Carolina for example have sample template on their website there publicly available they make them available to the staff within those departments and they're both broken down even choose or the that you know the the the very you know sort of baseline instead of activities for you know any one of the you know subset of activities and you know preconstruction and designed to provide these ready made template that people can kind of take off the shelf and customized for their for their own projects so a lot of resources already that that could be leveraged which would shorten potentially the time it takes to to implement this remark. And and speaking of which getting into the implementation roadmap in a little bit more detail kind identified that that the high level at the highest level but the first step here again would be to catalog those existing portfolio in project management capabilities and identify what that that target state could look like so the first part is is really just doing a a a a true catalog of what they currently have in place for project management and portfolio management standpoint so for example in their I. T. department that sensually they're they're building out project management tools and frameworks there are looking to implement a maintenance or procure a maintenance management system as an in flight initiative within construction they already have you know a a home grown in there looking to revised and updated but I tool that allows them to project resources for their for their construction monitoring staff. And and one back catalog bid build then it's really conducting that landscape review of what other DO keys for example are using up from a project management standpoint but you know you can go certainly go beyond you know what other deities are using but you know frankly you know what other deities are using might have pulled that the greatest relevant and also the greatest set of tools that the department could potentially you know leverage to to shorten the implementation timeline so they could take a look at Wisconsin for example they can take a look at Virginia as I mentioned or Carolina there there are a fair amount of payments at all cal trans for example. And then from that point it's really identifying those gaps in the system and a provided you know some some example little there earlier but also here in the second step so from a preconstruction standpoint is that you know resource and budget planning as it relates to the specific projects that are coming down the pipeline and then specific project management framework not only for preconstruction and monitoring those activities all the way through leading of those projects but then on the other side when you get to construction monitor and then from a maintenance standpoint I think as we talked about potential gaps that exist are actual portfolio planning so determining you know the the level of service target that they want to hit for the system features then understanding you know what budgets they have available to achieve those potential any potential target that they identify and then identifying the projects from there and then again it's also resource and budget planning and then project management once those projects of actually been been determined. From there potentially creating project management office or a piano that essentially will will oversee the design and implementation of any portfolio management and project management Brammertz across the department you know specifically in preconstruction construction and maintenance and again you know leveraging you know already existing assets in that in that particular endeavor so at the time that we were conducting this review is our understanding that the I. T. department consensually was building out PMO and so how could that potentially be a leveraged. Also for example Garber who is one of the consultants that works directly with the department provide some targeted project management support so how can that resource potentially be leveraged again to help with building out this PMO at you know to the extent that the department adopts this particular recommendation but but you know they could potentially again a leverage that resource to help you know build that out and have a building and PM mode sorry under this really quickly building at the ammo office doesn't necessarily need ending up a whole new office in practice and hiring a bunch of people that the department doesn't already have it's really a matter of you know again going back and re organizing though that that and offices and procedures only talk about after we also mean correct now ask that well it's just really reevaluating the way in which you the structure your report the you have that that in capability. Thank you. And then the the lack of depth there is really phasing deployment to ensure that it has. You can actually implement this over time because you know to be able to implement that the crop the entire department it is going to take a fair amount of time and so phasing it would be helpful and and the first that their obvious is prioritizing the deployment so as an example operate you know project management brain works might the first phase stand at the preconstruction stage and FOR monitoring construction activities second priority could be identifying level of service or maintenance for maintenance activities and then creating a portfolio planning framework instructor around that and those could be immediate priorities and then the department could potentially move on to other things but again those are all right those are examples of of what the department could potentially prioritized. And that is really developing those standards and tools that and formalized things to standards and tools that or project management and portfolio planning and formalizing the reporting around that and and specifically again you know progress against activities which also would help with some of the customer service recommendations that we had made previously and in terms of being able to streamline that infirmity acquisition of that in information that dissemination of that information at the same time but also developing standards and tools that the round risk issue management and any change control procedures that might need to happen with those activities and then at the same time than being able to train staff members and and deploying resources so that ultimately those portfolio planning practices and hopefully and project management practices or disseminated and then actually implemented throughout the department and actually yield the the benefits and the values that that that those you know total seven those remarks are intended to the member. So with that I I think we've kind of talked through this particular recommendation and the potential roadmap and and maternity over at this point. All right thank you I members we have any questions. Senator rice recognized for a question thank you. Could you go over your Assumption on the three point eight two million thank you just mentioned triple eight million in annual savings. Hey you arrived at that what calculation. Yeah give me just a second I can actually navigate down to. Are a subpart appendix we detail this in a little bit. The council can be just one second. There we go. So the first thing that we did was try and articulate night Dennis by What the department actual budget was as it relates to their cost for preconstruction and construction engineering the and right of way it and utilities and so on and so forth what their budgets were you know over fiscal year twenty fifteen to fiscal year twenty nineteen. And so we found that the five year average with approximately thirty eight million dollars which is identified all right down here. And then again based on our review of the department we made assumption again taking a look at their existing project management tools and frameworks that they had in place and and may you know service objective you know at the met and and evaluation of where they could be on sort of the maturity from a project management standpoint. Some of the existing research and public research that we have found which is identified up here and also I referenced in our report. Identified that you know and and an organization with a less mature or project management platform and and we would consider again based on a review and the tools that the department had that the relate to project management that the department would have a less majeure platform and an organization that has the less mature platform would realize about six percent savings per project. This is ten however. This is ten percent is that but not I'm not correct. Yeah and I'm gonna get to that that the ten percent and in just a second however that thing research indicates that and organization with an average level of maturity yet the relate to project management so potentially a plate that are doctor get to save the proximately sixteen percent her project so the difference between that six percent at the teen percent is that ten percent so if you take that ten percent than and apply it to the department's budget from a preconstruction you know project design standpoint and at ten percent applied to that thirty eight million yield approximately a three point eight million dollars a. Okay and can you name the states that you take your. Analytical. A data from that shows that is they have had actual savings of those percentages that you're talking about. yeah this this doesn't reference any specific date and and using a report from of. Thank you where I thank management institute and research foundation it is and of comparative few other eight. Senate pretty subjective Mr I would the. Should the need for the. Okay mon I would like for the committee to have a updated. Report of the expenses. Of the contract overview of to date for the next committee meeting good thank. We'll do of do we have any other questions. All right of at this point in will last the highway department come up and that think they have some comments in regards to recommendation number seven. Good afternoon everyone. Let me be clear right up front our dot has a project management framework I promise you that and although god house did not mention it in there were in there and presentation just now in their findings report back dated March they acknowledge that are not consistently. Is able to execute on project development construction and maintenance functions. We agree that our systems may not be as sophisticated as the others but they work. Our guide. Right now we don't have what we call approved project management office but we have people in place that are taking care of those functions we have a program management division that takes care of the step monitoring the step making sure we spend our federal aid every year and I'll get into that just a little bit if you'll give me the if you give me that are you know privilege. We get federal funds every year that we must obligate or will lose them. So every year the Federal Highway says okay Arkansas you get this much money if you don't obligate those funds for construction projects if you don't get those projects ready we're gonna take that back and give it to other states so we're under time we're Anders. We're under so many pressures about getting these projects ready and we have to manage our time or money in our projects there's no way around it. Okay so that the majority these funds that we use from federal highway or for construction. And every year for the last for a I mean I have been in the department for thirty six years and I've been involved with project development and I will tell you we have never seen a dollar back to Washington we have always been every dollar given to us to the best of our I mean we've always done it there's no there was no okay there is no discussion about it it's what we're gonna do right I mean we're never going to hit the paper and said Arkansas does not lose is ten million dollars loses fifty million dollars no that's not gonna happen we're gonna make sure it doesn't happen and let me tell you how much even we go even further every year states in and programs that aren't obligated goes into a big pot of money and it's called August redistribution and not only do we make sure that our projects are developed to spend the money they give us we make sure we have enough projects on the shelf so that we can ask for as much of that money as possible which is gravy it's extra money for the state of Arkansas. And since two thousand I had a roomie the numbers this morning since two thousand over the last twenty years we've been in a position to ask for additional federal funds in the tune of four hundred and twenty four million dollars over the last twenty years we have gotten two four hundred and twenty four million dollars additional for the state of Arkansas because we manage our projects and it really it it's really hard to sit and listen to. To this kind of presentation where they make it sound like you know we don't know what we're doing we know what we're doing I promise you you can trust your highway department that we're taking care of the money and we're getting a projects out there we're not letting any money go to waste or go back to the federal government. Okay they mention California and Texas Arkansas has an annual construction budget not counting the half cent sales tax okay don't think about that because I'll get to that in a minute we have an annual construction budget of four hundred and forty million dollars. That sounds like a lot of money doesn't it guess what California's is six billion dollars guess what Texas is serious five billion dollars of course they need formal sophisticated project management bells and whistles because they have a heck of a lot more at stake as far as getting and certain number projects ready we can take care of what we're doing the way we're doing it and we do a good job with it with our four hundred forty million when the house is sales tax passed we realized we were under that we we were determined that we were going to deliver the promises we may there were thirty one projects for two billion dollars over two hundred and seventy one miles I believe is the number. A hundred and seventy miles pardon me. So we knew that we you know we didn't have the staff and this was a temporary tax so we hired a consultant to set up a project management office to make sure that we delivered what we promised and I'm happy to say here today with that we have we will exceed our promises because by the end of twenty twenty one will have every project under construction or completed which is far in advance of the gene twenty twenty three is with with which we promised so as you can see when we need that extracts for to use when we need extra staff to help us to manage a big program we bring that in I mean we're not sitting up there are not delivering what we promised that we can and do and I just want you to know that we can I mean everything up to now it's been gravy it's all been great staff and it's going to be better we're gonna measures things or have a better website we're gonna have all that and that's going to be great and now we're getting into meat potatoes this is what we did this is our main goal is to deliver projects and yes there's always room for improvement in yes we we we your brace continual improvement but I want you to know we do a good job with this so I just wanna make sure I understand where we are in this conversation right now. So are you. Because when I look at the written response. We talk about this tablet shipment of the PMO in maybe being a realistic opportunity in particular if issue one is approved exactly if anyone is approved and it's it's not a temporary tax. But what I was understanding and it was already something you have in place would not be be established but you're saying if issue ones proved and this may be a valuable thing FOR the department to but to to establish your set up I'm a little bit confused on the foster and in the in the other part would be at the end here on the main mismanaged system again if I read this paragraph you're in agreement with the MMS recommendation but then what I'm hearing from you right now is is that. You know doing hearing we're not changing anything some just trying to understand the posture where we are were fixed and go out of the conversation because I I will when I read this I did not anticipate this I guess the posture is I listen to guide house and their recommendations and how we can do everything that we can do better and we can but they never mentioned what we're doing right but that that but they did actually in the big report were at the recommendations part they wouldn't they would not in their recommendations. Tell you to do things that you're already doing right that would be a recommendation that was in the report but then I don't I I I don't want you to take offense because again that I think that gets us and are in the wrong direction what we're here to do is to look at these recommendations and if these recommendations can be helpful which you indicated in your written response they could be. Then those are things we need to look at I don't want to argue about something we should have argued about a few months ago which was you disagreed with reporter or whatever some of the findings in the report I think we've already done that I don't want to spend our time here in this committee doing that I want to talk about these two recommendations and if these things are gonna be value for the department not we don't like the way it apart got house made a presentation. Today. If that's possible I wanna I wanna. Look at the recommendations. I'm looking at the recommendations and while there's value in them I want to make sure the committee knows. It some point. That we are taking care of our business and we are we do project management we do have a project management framework from this recommendation in the presentation it sounds like we have we don't have that in any. Any any real for when I think that's where it's good to actually let's let's have a conversation about that we we I think from what I'm hearing from you there are places that it can be improved the the private the processes that are in place right now and when I read the letter that's what I read. And if so how do we improve that and got house was very careful to say over and over again in their research their findings what they saw this is what they saw it's I think they were trying to give you some leeway in that to be able to to you know talk about what you have in place but I don't want to take a posture where. Wherever this was fixing to go and with that I'm I'm gonna go ahead turn over Senator rice will get back to the response. Okay. And that's where I was if issue one pass. And we do have a new cap to set of congestion in capital really kept congestion relief and capital projects major projects it takes special effort to guide them through the system then possibly it would be a good thing to look at restructuring house some of our offices work. But if this point it's it's so in our opinion it's not it's a waste of taxpayer dollars. But issue one hasn't passed yet wish where where we are is where we're at today right so this is where I am as far as defending the department. In this regard. Now. As far as we we keep going back to the maintenance activities with its vote well documented that we're trying we're getting a consultant on board by the end of the year to develop a new maintenance management system that'll have all these this functionality that they keep thinking that we need and that's been document so get into that anymore because we're doing that we were in flight of doing that when the they went through the preview so that all conclude my comments. Thank you I appreciate that especially on the maintenance management system Senator rice. Thank you I I disliked rate committee alone. With maybe it up say this many times my simple mind. But I find that sometimes I'm not going to want to the jet way A comedy previously I appreciate got houses work but one thing I want to point out is some of things they're presenting this if you hear that they keep saying the highway department is has a program there they're starting to do that now I can go in any business. And find out your good stuff and put it down on paper and so I. No fears not if we do we are you're already doing working towards that and and that some of the stuff we're here and I don't expect as the chair sales to point out maybe all the good stuff. But when I turned down the road lot of times I kinda like know what planet into that road and as we go along with these committee meetings. As I've learned that the the term task force or special committee. it red flags to may. What is at the end of what we're doing I want all this good stuff for physicians see in the in the things account but. You got a look at the real stuff when you're looking at California Texas is just been said with the five and six billion dollar. out bloody versus what Arkansas do it it's not apples for apples you can expect to have the same kind of program you've got to do what makes sense. One thing I would like to know Mr chair is and you may say it's just up to the termination is committee and I train of speaking to the committee. Getting your head what you're fixing to do. We know task force gets that who's going to point the task force who's going to. do this or do that I don't want us to have. As my colleague senator checked fruitless micro managing I do will the highway department to understand their needs to be oversight for taxpayer dollars that's what this committees to the transfer case to it the transportation committee also this so I have concern. If. Anybody has and the end result that I haven't figured out yet. I will the committee to be mindful of all this is we're going down through this and I'm I'm welcome to stay as long ago as many committee meetings just need to but I'm saying some concern. Of. Some of the. Terms and language that used in the report it does make our highway department to maybe saying like they're not doing stuff that I think they're doing thank you. Thank you and in one comment on the MMS program that the in flight amend that that was brought to us by god house they knowledge there was some very there were some items that were in there efficient their infancy had just began and one the reasons they make it into the report is because that's great but we also make sure that follow through with and so if we didn't have as part of a flag recommendation if it wasn't brought out by got house we wouldn't know what was happening even in in infancy stage at the department and think it's important that we get to know and follow along and watch it come to me you know it it's conclusion that to me that MMS system is one of the most important components we have a in one of the more important things I think that you're doing right now in regards to I would legislatures been asking for for several years since the initial general revenue transfer and so I'm glad that it's it's happening I'm glad it's on track in that we're moving forward but that's that's why something like that mission the report center I represented Davis. You're recognized alright thank you Mr chairman the director to write up I thought and bay without saying that you know that we might be to your benefit to just kind of here house some of this hits us when we hear it so. I don't hear got house saying that you don't have project management system the the word they use was immature thinking to me all that means is it probably has been updated and while the it probably could have some expanded or additional components to it Yeah I would I would encourage you not be not be is defensive about that and and consider more the metrics that you were using our project management system for instance you spoke repeatedly about making sure we spent all the federal dollars from any out I don't have any doubt we can spend all the money. But are we doing it in a performance based manner where the metrics that we're using in our project management system to determine if they're being managed. To the best of our ability whether that's efficiency do we get the most for a dollar that we cannot just and we spend it all but what product did we get for the dollar I make sense so that's what I'm hearing I'm hearing that sure we have a project management system but does it look at the right things are we measuring it based on the best using the best metrics are we getting the most from dollar we can't. And the last thing I would say in this is kind of a personal I'm gonna get on a little be soapbox but I don't want to hear that we can't do it California and Texas to. Our budget smaller. But we can be as good as them or better. On a scale that fits our budget you know our budget smaller Our state smaller I know you're so we have more highway miles apart is million times but I'm only here that we can't do what they can do thank you what they are doing we can do it at least as good as they are we can do it better. Thank you. Any other questions. All right give any other comments know what I would say there I think all this talk about and oversight Cass words ensuring that we're doing certain things. Is part of the reason I want to make sure that you understand the rest of the story behind some of these recommendations. Absolutely not and I guess one thing I want to back up and say we're talking about oversight in my opinion in this committee may not agree with me it's a working group it's a it's a it's the same working group that we talked about last committee were you know senator Chesterfield said she would love to have a conversation with you about personnel and other members of said that they would love to be a part of that conversation it isn't the implementation function but it's to make sure that everybody's on the same page as were moving forward as the highway department is progressing clearly some these items are going to have some expense tied to them well because there's an expense time to them the legislature has to be involved in that conversation too so we can call it whatever you want but then again this whole committee may disagree with me but when I talk about oversight or whatever may be it's making sure that we are all on the same page as we build this roadmap on out and that is also the time and place in that working group for us to take a look at what you're doing with MMS and make sure that it it kinda we're all on the same page of what that means what is going to look like alternately and that it is going to get us to the place that we want to be it but again one of the reasons that I wanted to start the conversation without taking any action for now every two weeks this will be the fourth week actually in the end is because I believe however that structure whatever that looks like is is important and it may just be as simple as this committee again that's a discussion that we need to have this members and one we have start now because I think it's it is a complicated discussion so With that senator Chesterfield you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair up. When we began this process September go one of the things that I emphasized was that the report would also provide us those things that this department does whale. And what I find concerning he is I don't see that in the report. And I think many of you may have remembered now if we find something that I department is doing well let us tell them state employees get out. DO are tremendous job I think they're overworked underpaid and under appreciated quite frankly I have no problem we get with it in. Entering into a conversation about what I think should be an objective criteria for four rating those employees who rely on that merit system I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with the fact that we don't seem to be giving any positive feedback you know you can begin to feel like you're just being beaten up by everything you're doing wrong and you don't get an opportunity to have anybody say to you but we appreciate what you did right and that's west I guess Mr that's was troubling me about it it seems and that may not be the intent but I remember very well at the beginning of this process saying to god house. Please tell us what our folks are doing will and I have yet to hear that from them as to what that might be and that's why I ask as soon as you his fighting back I'd be fighting back to it that that like everything I was doing is being a. Under under appreciated not simply on appreciate but under appreciated I'll see it that way and I I fail to see that in this report and so that's my concern about it he is what have we been doing right because we've got highways to continue to go up and I highway system looks predate gun good when we have the construction is a perfect now nothing is and so I'd like to I think that's my concern about this whole report is there is no this you can do better this you're doing very well any reports I just anticipates sometimes that that might happen thank you. Thank you. C. eighty five who is that. Senate Johnson you're recognized. Laurie works work whenever we met you were in the planning department at. That's correct. So we never got house is. The planning design and construction. Activities of our dot. Is. Homegrown or nonexistent. Would you have a background in know where there are not has a. Has a has these components we definitely do okay were you the head of that. Planning the part was after after that I was assistant chief engineer for planning for many years all right I came back from school and I went to the planning department I spent most of my career in the planning side of things so I know there's one thing I know it's planning and I know that we have can had continual work at improving our planning process all these years I appreciated that but I I just want to members to to know that the is if you if you were Defensive then it's for good reason because that was where your heart will that at from the time you became an engineer so thank you sorry and I feel the need to defend our employees they do a good job understood that and I appreciate your efforts and and I think you you will agree with all of us that we can always do better and and we're we're we're always going up that ladder and and we're just part of that part of that effort thank you all right thank you. I think Senator any other questions if not we're going to move on to recommendation number eight. I so hopefully I think my screen refresh here and we're back at our finding. Answering to discuss recommendation eight and that is centered around. Excuse me implementing some leading practices as it relates to construction project is not and the road you know three he finding here that really led to this particular recommendation the first one being now some formal protocols around the use of practical design at least at the time of our review appear to be lacking and and just at a high level practical design it is really approach around you know construction project designed that as opposed to you know still achieve the objectives of the particular project optimize that design and potentially find ways of of lowering the cost. The second finding is that the department has not taken advantage of the full benefits of value engineering and and you know the value entering it at some of the other side of the coin here and again at a high level it really a tool to analyze project and identified some opportunities you know in that in that preconstruction phase but to identify opportunities to potentially reduce cost or even accelerate the schedule. And again our dot is implementing value engineering but again based on our review not taking full advantage of that and then the last finding is that you know engineers estimates are not necessarily formally at evaluated to identify any future design cost efficiencies. So that some of the the supporting evidence there in that you know again even though the department is using an iteration of practical design at least during our review there was you know sort of an absence of formal documentation and as a result of that it out again from the the standpoint perspective are are review are not be unable to show some of the cost savings and sustained some of that critical knowledge management without that that formal documentation being in place as it relates to value engineering the department does again from my review it did complete two point two on average value engineering studies per year and realize the cost savings of about three hundred seventy seven thousand dollars since fiscal year twenty fifteen however that is below the national average the national average from the data we were taking a look at was about three point three value engineering studies year an approximate savings about twenty one million dollars I which represents about a five percent savings on a per project basis words are not yield about a point seven percent stating. And then finally at as it relates to helping to optimize some of that construction project design work you know from our perspective we we understood that the department wasn't necessarily for example reviewing change orders that were directly tied to plant emissions and errors tend to be able to translate that back into feedback and potentially up to a certain aspects of that project design process and and what we saw from the change order data was that there was about three point one million dollars on average per year in change orders that were tied directly to plant emissions and errors. So moving on to the recommendation itself. and and you know the recommendation being implementing some of these Leding practices are really furthering the implementation of the thing practices and we recognize that are not is implementing to a certain extent these these project design crack practices some of the the the lack of formal frameworks to ensure consistent use potentially means that they could be look you know not realizing the that sort of full value of some of those practices and and you know by by having formal brain works they could strengthen some of the institutional knowledge and improve some achievement of of any specific that some target that they have around project costs for example. So are in anticipated impact and again these are correction all is by adopting a formal framework for practical design the department could save from a directional standpoint about six hundred fifty thousand dollars uh per project in this is based on Missouri for example saving about thirteen percent in their first year and the average contract from twenty fourteen to twenty nineteen after art I was about five point one million dollars and so applying that thirteen percent estimate there would yield about a six hundred sixty thousand dollars savings and we're not necessarily saying to the department of the necessarily realizing you know some or all of that right now but without that formal documentation and and capturing of the potential cost savings it it's hard to understand whether they are actually yielding I you know cost saving but that level or potentially even beyond. And then at the relate the value engineering savings we we you know estimate and again that the directional the department can stay somewhere between one and about sixteen million dollars by you know moving their value engineering process up to potentially where the national average is so right now where they're at you know what the solution twenty nineteen about one point five seven five value engineering studies per year they bump that up to three point three or if they were able to yield a copy of beings rate increase from point seven percent you know five percent or if they did both they could yield somewhere in that region in terms of a potential value engineering savings. Again there there are some consideration here no not not all projects are well suited up for these approaches so obviously requires some sort of judicious you know application now but that's where the formal documentation will well what their considerable role and and the recommendation will necessarily required you know the creation of use or technical practices but will require at some level you formalizing them and potentially expanding them in a right now as an example you know of that value engineering studies are required for federal highway minute by the Federal Highway Administration for projects that are greater than fifty million dollars that anything involved with a that involves a bridge for example that threshold is down to forty million dollars however that's at the Federal Highway Administration requirement that practice could potentially be expanded you know beyond the threshold if the department so chooses. In terms of the implementation roadmap at a high level it it's got three you know major steps you know develop those formal brain works around the formal are on the use of you know performance based practical design potentially conducted value engineering earlier in the design process and potentially more often and then you know evaluate you know what that gap is between the original bid amount on a contract and final payment to maybe I identified you know if there are potential ways to shipped the preconstruction project designed bays to potentially mitigate some of those change orders and those costs that are sort of felt you know down the road during the construction process. We talked a little bit about them of the national practices around value engineering in terms of the number of studies of the three point three and saving close to twenty two million and then it we've talked a little bit about you know the the different states that you know have realized savings and and frankly DeMint been able to actually you know capture and then communicate what the savings are by adopting you know formal practical design protocols. Spending a little bit more time on the on the implementation roadmap again you know what as I mentioned earlier this is the necessary to require that the department creeds you know technical that you know the to the technical Bremer's rented this really about you know building upon an expanding what the department's already doing hello one way or for the as. Thank you and then and actually formalizing them and making them daily procedure. The. and so that doctors part that is you know really developing those frameworks and so you know really determining whether the methodologies what the timing what the frequency of for the use of practical designed for the use of value engineering and and the timing around when you know and if and when engineers estimates are gonna be compared to file cost that again identify those areas in which you know the the yeah preconstruction project development phase could be you know further refined to yield some cost savings. you know federal highway administration obvious to provide some guidance on that but again there's you know a fair amount that already exist two other deities and then in the second step is really track you know tracking those outcomes and reviewing the trend so actually conducting the announce the to understand and truly capture what are the benefits for the caught they means what the return on investment from implementing these remarks like prop you know practical design value engineering And then again identifying any trends from the the change order data so as an example taking a look at project sites that might you know or most likely result in the greatest you know level like not only you know volume but also actual magnitude of obtained or is due to plan error mission. Or even you know the type of project that potentially exceeded the time line. Or even project types that would benefit from certain you know. Design solutions so that there are some areas in which the you know those that change order information and I final contract information could be mine to identify some suggestions is within the project of preconstruction phase. And then the last pieces of continuing to monitor the implementation of these different policies and and again based on the actual data that's being generated I come back and determine if there need to be any revision either to how they monitored or divisions of the policies and procedures themselves and then ultimately to the extent that a revision are to alter procedure the way they're monitoring the implementation of the policy the procedures is justified in actually implementing those revisions and then going through that cycle again. And so with that I think we we can turn it over as a kind of concluded our discussion here of the roadmap recommendation. I thank you just one quick question on make sure I understand and that that thank you the covered it pretty well your notes but it's not that these processes may not be in place they're just not formalized right now so it's hard to track to see what's actually materializing because of the process is is that that fair. could there we just won't know until it's formalized so you can actually have something to fall back to track. Okay yes I did that yes Sir. I was gonna say and I'm not practical design again at the time of our review I think there's probably the greatest I don't they need but there was just a true you know absence of a formal documentation around the use and implementation of you know that particular practice with value engineering we understood our review that there is a profit and place people have been trained I think the the potential areas for improvement then is expanding the use and also potentially accelerating the timing at which those value engineering studies are conducted to allow greater opportunity for savings okay perfect thank you that help clarify yes Sir and answer questions yes ma'am. Representative Davis you're recognized. They wish Jeremih questions for the consultant two questions really one question one clarification question is can you expand on sort of a definition for practical design is this a formal industry recognized design methodology or just I'm not familiar with the term civil engineer to be fair and I'm not familiar with the term some curious you capitalize in one place so I'm wondering if this is some standard methodology that you're referring to and if not can you be more specific about what you're looking for when you say practical design. So I did our understanding that this isn't necessarily a standard approach that you know is adopted in exactly the same way from DO key to DOT everything B. O. T. that adopts a that what I would term Marvin practical design approach has their own so the version or interpretation of this particular approach in again it it it's supposed to serve at the front and again from our understanding how department you know optimize that design procedure still yield those objectives but find a way to potentially reduce costs through the design process so if you go to another DOT they might have a different iteration of what this this potentially look like but it is something that is again from what we understand is an approach that required some and you know exceptions from you know the standard Federal Highway Administration design guidelines but they are ultimately approved by the federal highway administration and so they are acceptable so there is some of and there is some sort of underlying base Methodology considered practical design but obviously every state or every department's going to have their own unique you know take on what that looks like probably obviously cater towards their state. It doesn't necessarily follow the federal highway standards. To a tee. To make sense I don't like it does look confused. Yeah I think you were your intentionally recapping with under was saying which is that that that many states have implemented a practical design capability and each state has some sort of a labor of their own for the that thing that you go through a process of reviewing with the Federal Highway Administration to get approval to use that at the if the bill is. Okay and then clarification you know mine on specifically in value engineering. We're doing value engineering we're using value engineering perhaps were not documenting it to an extent where we can you know formally go back and add up what sort savings we saw from that and you're suggesting that perhaps we can optimize savings by moving up the timeline of when we implement value engineering in the design process is that by following you right. Yes Sir just to clarify their a little bit you know it the documentation exist and and staff are trained within the department for you know to conduct value engineering studies but again based on our our review our doctor your interviews A we understood that that was implemented a little bit later in the process and so you know the further on obvious you get through the design prop that the the left there is sort of an opportunity to potentially adjust the design to accommodate some of the recommendations so to the extent that that those studies could be accelerated or at least occur earlier in the process would help potentially op you know enhanced the cost savings but potentially also taking a look at how you know that particular practice potentially could be expanded to other projects where it is suitable or maybe even taking a look at the practice itself to understand again where the the department potentially is falling short of the national average in understanding if there are some refinement to that particular practice that might bring them closer to a the national average on a you know per project savings basis alright thank you. I'm sorry senator Chesterfield you're recognized thank you Mr chair if there is no formal definition of practical design or is there. What I'm hearing you say there is no formal iteration of what a practical design looks like. So there is you know definition that Federal Highway Administration what a line to there isn't necessarily a universal standard practice well every single DO tia uses and so what what that allows for it that you know any D. O. T. can potentially customizer configure there use a practical designs that they're unique circumstance but what I weighed ministrations say it looks like. That again what does the highway administration say it looks like. I can. All of that definition for United. Well the reason I'm concerned about it is we're looking at this and says they don't have it you are saying that they are missing some twenty one point five million dollars and so I need to see how you get from. Them being able to create their own to a but it's an adequate in we could save forty percent on a project cost in twenty one point five million dollars how do you compare that to something else if they get you to this point for you can say definitively that this is what would be state. For. Thank you what we can walk you through the assumptions around the our savings that we have for this particular recommendation you don't have to take down the trail would give me some idea. Sorry I didn't hear that very I see you don't have to take me all the way to the barn but just you know give me some. In hopes along the way if you don't mind sure sure we can do that but I also the the point here is not to say that the department is not doing practical design because they are with what they don't have is formalized procedures that they seen that there's one we're going to actually implement a practical design approach to this project it's on an ad hoc basis they there's not formalized officer procedure that does this kind of project Jack always get not gold mine checked and therefore we can you know ACT expect them to receiving and there's not a measurement on the backside of the project that that is we did private practical design if they does act. You get one now the point five million dollars how do you get to that that's all I'm asking. Okay yeah I want to be clear about you know what we're suggesting in terms of practical design partner can walk you through the assumption on the cost saving. You get to like value engineering that had a little bit more data through yeah the national data related to practical design no we had used for example Missouri as an example of some potential to give you know sort of an idea or direction around the level of of savings by implementing a practical design methodology and from what we understood and conducting a leading actors research that they saved at least in their first year of implementation about thirteen percent project now taking a look at the annual the average contract amount that you know average project amount about five one million dollars and I'm taking a look at this anticipated impacts assumption outgrow one you know just simply applying that thirteen percent to that approximately five point one million dollar average project cost yield about six hundred sixty four thousand dollars state. And again this is this is a directional in nature and we provide this at the same time I think with the copy on the recognition that the department might already be saving some of or relating some of the state and but I think as Erin mentioned. Because there isn't necessarily a formal mechanism around trying to capture the savings associated with that with the department's current use of practical design. It wanted it's difficult to communicate what the potential savings could be but then it also can potentially make it difficult to go back and review the any actual effectiveness or aspect at the of the department sort of flavor or version of practical design and so you know without that information it's hard then to potentially suggest some refinements or improvements that would then you'll to increased cost savings over time okay Sir you have said that it is a forty percent average project cost savings from practical design and that there would be twenty one point five million dollars an average project cost there is predicated on something. You have yet to explain to me what is predicated on I don't think we're talking about the things we must not be talking about the same. I'm talking about page seven of your report. Page eighty seven or recommendation number seven I'm looking at rep recommendation number eight implement leading practices in construction project design am I the only one on that page yes okay in that there will be a forty percent average project cost savings and twenty one point five million so I'm just trying to figure out how you got that. Okay now I understand okay we're we're with you now okay all righty okay. Founder. Yes this is this was just an again an example in sort of a directional example of what Washington department of transportation had yielded in terms of their average brought you know project cost savings from using their version of practical design based on a sample of ten project that we're taking a look at and their average project savings were twenty one point five million dollars from that sample of ten projects again it's just that the Jack that there is potentially consider amount of savings that could be yielded through having a formal process we're not necessarily stating that you know this would lead to a sort of a direct correlation in actual savings at the department on a project basis not only a percentage basis but also in terms of the actual magnitude in the value so this really has nothing to do with Arkansas. Yep right directional representation of what others are doing in terms of cost savings related act please excuse me for miss reading and I have one more questions chair could you please accept tell me Our consultants does every state operatives paid in the national averages for value engineering studies. Is this something that I don't overall by federal government the value engineering studies the national averages do all states participate in in the determination of that. I do I don't have that information at the time I had but I can definitely get back to the committee on. Sorry thank you Mr. Thank you the center Johnson you're recognized. So. Not be an engineer. So what I hear is a it's a matter of semantics our terminology and if the if the are not had said. We saved twenty percent. Through our design efforts. Then it would be a major role it would be measureable saying that the house could see. And then. Be acceptable. And not make this recommendation so. I don't know it just it just seems seems like semantics on this one committee I mean the the practical design and they talked about Missouri I I know of a couple of project there sixty where they use part of their existing two lanes that was there in may that divided four lane so they didn't have to buy those right of ways were those two lines were so that would be and I'm assuming an example where they just had to buy the extra right away to to design those other two two lanes so but that didn't fit everywhere and I had to I had to go around some places in bypass where they had to buy the whole thing but there would be the there would be savings in that uses use of that. So you know that would be my understanding of of what this design and and value engineering with me and I would it would that be correct. Director that's. Yes it's a it's a it's a process from the day the project is identified to the and practical design build the Chevy not the Cadillac you know we're we're all about practical design in every form and we do reduced does design standards FOR certain projects. Based on their functional class through traffic three use so it's it's huge it's a it's a big practical design hits a lot of different areas you're correct this seems like the. Noting that or are seeing that is what is what that these guys are talking about in the process that that they didn't see in your documentation even though you practice it across the board. You know I guess you use most terms in your. Hello anyway that's as being in it that's reason I ask the first question to can have the same question and so maybe if we can circle back one more time with them I think it's the fact that it's not formalized so it's not uniformly applied which at all times it can't be or if it will be uniformly applied but because it's not formalized you don't really get recognize what really worked on this project and how do we apply it to the next it has similarities. If I'm understanding right that's what you all are saying that these all can exist but right now they're exist on a case by case basis and if it's formalized undocumented you learn from that formalization documentation so that you're not repeating the wheel every single time up for project again that's what I was trying to ask my first question it could exist but is not formalize it in my missing something or did we miss something in that conversation. Know your craft it really is about the formalization and having an actor the measurement to be able to make ongoing determination I mean doing a practical that I may be great and you may save money but you don't have a way of actually evaluating and continuing to revise processes and view continual enhancement and improvement to your processes because your short of documenting you know for my documentation on the processes and the measurement metric that help you determine that that that that the. So the idea is you know again create a formal framework for when the used practical design how to use Arkansas practical design how to evaluate it and then you and your current treatment you understand that the processes that you put in place are actually working the way you intended and you and or figure out how to enhance them to make them work better. Chairman. So. I mean I'm not I'm like I said I'm not the engineer Andy and and other engineers room. I I can't see an engineer saying value engineering I would be like chief engineer. But I can see it engineers say we're on a over engineer practically so that would be the practical design part of it you know. Especially whenever you're talking about highway and and bridges and safety they're not run the same we did this on the cheap. Were all say they they did it at the most cost effective manner and I don't know any engineer that wouldn't over engineer and and make it cheaper in danger so. I don't want us to get into that but you know. I thank you you know. The practical part of it is is is very important. Am I wrong. Engineers in a room I don't think anybody will say you did chief engineer at Senator hand. Not at all and value engineering this means we we. We identified what the project is for and we design it in the most economical way possible with the least impacts possible while still meeting in need of the project and in safety is one of those things as far as depends on the speeds the net amount of traffic there's a lot of things that go into the engineering that we make sure it's always safe and it's the right design for the right project. But I guess I guess just the use of the terminology in your documentation is is what I'm hearing throughout is to to help get tracking you know or maybe one. Buy buy one get one free. This. Thank. With any other questions. All right direction you're recognized. Well I I guess I'm here throughout this conversation I'm I'm a little confused because at one point I thought they said we weren't using practical design and then I this term and they were saying that we did can you tell me what you. Well so I think I have think of this will be the third time I've asked the question but I think the the issue at hand is that there are there using practical design on a case by case basis it is not formalized in so I'm going to give an example all work from examples and tries to put in sprinklers from older brother right and we put in sprinklers you learn each time you put in a sprinkler a better way to do it in a more cost effective way to do it and what's the best head for this particular situation whatever it may be and so you're learning. And so you're able to make adjustments get is you know a good product that at a cheaper cost each time you go along but if you have five different engineers and none of it's formalized then one engineer may or not if they're not you know truly associated with it learn from some of the cost saving measures that another one was able to utilize that's the way I understand the importance of the formalization okay I with and so I think and I think that's what they're saying is because it's not formalized it's very difficult to track. Number one you can improve the process on that process time after time after time because it's not being documented formalized this works this doesn't work is when we should do this this is you know an opportunity to save money on a party a similar project in mind missing something that and again I don't keep the laboring it but I have the same question. This is for private house okay alright so I think that's the way on your printer print the whole thing okay correct all right that's that's good because I. I think from my rest response everyone knows that Arkansas are are dot practices practical design. We have what we call our three our standards which is three R. stands for I think rehabilitation reconstruction resurfacing. And FOR projects on lesser rose if we followed as I mean it's just like any everything else you know you have to look at what that the scope is for the project what's the purpose of the project. And so we have lesser design standards for those roads that are lower volume email. A narrow slit with lane with its narrow shoulders there's just all kinds of things to in our practical design processes that minimize the take care of the need while minimizes costs an impact. Every single project is scoped and it's code fire system chief of an engineer our assistant chief engineer for Paul design and the design hit the head of our design department or head of our breach department every project is scope before it to sign to an engineer and they're told what the parameters are for that project based on institutional knowledge are practices practical design AS functions everything that we do is is scope to enter that project and then design begins. If the where we fall short and and I will tell you we have we have excellent designers I might few get is here with me today I'm gonna bring in that police talk about that H. caress quarterly report in the projects but and they take they do a great job all the way through the project of making sure we minimize the impacts we meet the purpose in need and we build the project the way it should be built and designed the project the way it should be designed and so we're we're falling short and we for an obviously workers we set the this fission see review and where to this point and we all know where the department fall short. We don't measure. And we were not able to report into fee and that we're doing a good job but we are we just need to start measuring it right that's what we need to do I talk to the staff about this recommendation they assure me and I believe it the all the way through the project development project design from environmental all the way to the engineer's estimate we are looking at how to minimize cost how to minimize impacts ever all of that goes into every project but we're not keeping up with the cost savings every time we make a decision to change the designed to save money we don't keep up with that none of that is tracked and we're going to start tracking it so that we can make a presentation to this committee or to the public or to ever and say you know we started off with these projects in because of practical design we say the state ex number of dollars we can start tracking and we will that's where we fall short on so many things because we do a lot of these things were just not tracking so I will say that I'm glad to hear that they had said that we duties practicals design because we do that a I hear this if I hear it wants to hear it a daily we're building the Chevy not the Cadillac what do we need to do I mean we we know we have limited funding we know we have to build the project within scope within budget and we do our best to accomplish that if it's if you and I you know I guess she can remember sponsor about value engineering value engineering as required by federal highway administration for all projects roadway projects fifty million dollars or but in all breach projects forty million dollars in it that every state has to do a value engineering study on the east these call these projects in this cost range Arkansas is no different. But it is as I was talking to Mike about this he said if we're not doing our job then they're gonna find things during that value engineering study towards the end of the project because they're going to seek ways to save money but if we're doing our job and we're betting that job all the way through the design project process especially on these big projects for not to continue looking for those cost savings we get to the end of the project and they can find millions of dollars worth the savings and we haven't done our job is is that designers so we do value engineering throughout the whole project but then there are times when we have to put together a formal team and do a formal study in an and I submit that to federal highway just like every other state in the nation and that's what they're at think that's what got houses referring to again we don't track that we don't track those decisions but we were going to start. And And if if anyone would like to know more about our process is my I would ask you if you wanted Mike to come up here and talk about how we design projects and how we do minimize costs I'd be glad to comment here if anyone's interested or if not I'll just conclude my comments okay thank you it's in so to get back to I think because we one hundred back down what we're talking about is it's not formalized do you think it will be helpful to formalize those processes so that you can track in it it's kind of a learning I guess document or or program that that multiple engineers can take a look and see what other any engineers had success with whatever it may be do you think. Is that something that you do now we're formalized because we have a process in place we do it with every single project but we don't track it in and then look at you know with this really worked well and maybe this maybe we could apply this in more places that can be done okay but we are formalized in that every project is is goes through the lands of practical design and send former fashion was that makes it so the one piece that I think that we're going to take away from this that could be helpful is just. Track letting it be a learning thing so we understand again back to the example on sprinklers I don't need a three inch pop only needed one inch by the work really well on this project I could save money by installing the one inch five. Any you've got a sign of success in a project you'd learn from and you keep moving forward and learning involving in it so we're we we are in agreement I think. That that that will or could be helpful. To the department okay perfect thank you have any other questions. All right seeing none thank you very much for your time. Today me get back to my. May I ask and is there if I stay at Pearson so okay. Okay members we we've heard a presentation on a recommendation seven and eight is there an interest to Move forward with those recommendations have discussed of next meeting. There's interest thank you very much Representative David Davis other there was no public comment and so at this point we're gonna move forward. To the quarterly report is that what it is. Yep item F. on the report and with that we just go ahead and turn it back over you director and thank you and yet thank you got house for presentation that we're good. Thank you. Senator DISMANG may I ask if it would be alright with the committee of five brought up on my feet are system chief engineer of design absolutely rex finds cystic G. for operation. I noticed recognize yourself for the committee at the table I think were were do we have enough Max to spread out will have to so lost someone we share thank you. Okay Sir and insert. To just real you're recognized here I had thought that all of this was Arkansas specific and so when I started talking about the twenty one in the forty percent that was really talking about Wisconsin. Washington I think with the it is a constant the bottom I think you said Washington and I think with their point was after they implemented their process is that with the savings they were able to demonstrate. Is at the bottom down here Wisconsin dot Wisconsin department of transportation on on eight nine is that Wisconsin resolution. Page seven of the eighth our recommendation I'm not sure I know on the far right it's is sourced in regards to pretty forty percent in the twenty one point five percent what is what is is about the washing the Wisconsin department of transportation the stores maybe the washing DOT at the bottom it says Wisconsin so I just wanted to be clear I thought they were talking about the possible savings in our own state which is why I was questioning them so closely thank you house of peoples all subjective thank you very much thanks. All right with that if you all can I'm how do you want to do this you gonna just going to dive off into the quarterly report and then they're going to I guess doctor how do you want to do it well and you'll have to help me here doing just we're just here to answer questions right there's no presentation is just. As. It least that's the way I thought this. It's gone both ways were and director may make a short presentation on some highlights what's happening or we can just open up for questions and and move forward so I'm prepared for questions but not for presentation okay thank you. Alright members we have any questions about the quarterly report. Absent about you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair I have a bridge that's near the derricks junction that's what we call it the dark junction it's on highway seventy one that has been under construction for several years now and I have constituents asked me everyday when will that be finished do you think somebody could give me a time line of when that will be finished because it hits it's literally the biggest pain in the tail for all of my constituents have to go to work in Ashdown Arkansas that come from the queen because that gets so messed up through there so I'd appreciate it if you all could get me a timeline of when that will be three yes ma'am and must be under ten million dollars is not showing up I know I looked and it's not in here okay yup been more I mean they've been working on it for several years so what will definitely get that to you thank you. Thank you Representative of any other questions. All right seeing none I think we are good I members just want to. I guess I think most everybody knows but just keep a chairman aired in your prayers and then also if you're interested in and helping all you just to touch base with reps in the ball and again thank you for your time today consideration and do we have any other business. All right seeing none we are adjourned thank members.