ALC-Highway Commission Review and Advisory Subcommittee

I members we're gonna get started about five minutes. Thank you. Our members if they're back go ahead and take their seats. Go ahead and call the meeting to order chair sees a quorum. At the first item up for business is our Dodge response to the raft subcommittee report to legislative counsel and so with that we'll turn it over the director. You're recognized for the committee. Thank you. These these plexiglas. This is interesting. Okay. So like senator DISMANG co do you are packet of information for our response to on the final report is there with you and I'm going to go over that with you now. God has kicked off the efficiency review in September of twenty nineteen. Which is a little over a year ago. And since that time are not his log over four thousand hours in staff time. In our efforts to be included gathering information submission of a letter about eleven hundred files. In sixty four interviews on top of that once god has completed their recommendations. Tremendous amount of time was spent reviewing analyzing and working to understand the recommendations followed by preparing our responses. I've been the lead person on this effort from the beginning. And in the beginning I told the staff this efficiency review is our top priority. We considered it an opportunity to identify ways to become more efficient and also hopefully to increase the legislatures trust in us that we are a well run organization that are good stewards of the tax payers funds. So some key takeaways that we have from the from the efficiency reviews the majority eleven out of thirteen of the recommendations are in fly in at different levels and maturity at the department. This gives us the confidence that we're moving in the right direction. Also there was no finding the major deficiency and this also gave us a lot of confidence. But the main key takeaway is that are not falls short in measuring and reporting on efficiency efforts. When god house began their presentation of the recommendations in July Aaron Hutchins said what doesn't get measure doesn't get done what I'd like to restate that from our perspective what doesn't get measure doesn't get we don't get credit for. An example of that is practical design since nineteen eighty nine are not his implemented practice to practical design on every project during the scoping phase we determine whether practical design is is something we should use on that project and we saved. Millions of dollars using that and. Using practical design. But we have a track those cost savings and because of that we've missed an opportunity to increase public trust but that can easily be remedied. Enhanced deficiency reporting is necessary to increase our transparency and accountability to the public. And I've given a lot of thought of about why do we why do we fall short here in measuring and reporting and this is what I figured out. our management team is made up primarily of engineers. And FOR engineers measuring tracking and reporting on systems and processes that are working well and Khan pushing their purpose is not really into it if in fact it feels like possibly a waste of time. And we tend to thank you for working hard. In doing what's right in everything is running smoothly that will speak for itself in will be recognized and obviously a culture shift is needed we need to refocus and know that it's very important to measure and report on what we do at the department. It is important to me and to the commission that the tax payers and the legislature have confidence in the department and we are proud of the work that we do. And now thanks to the sufficiency review hopefully everyone has a better understanding of the complexities of the issues we face in the made in the work that we have to accomplish every day. As director my goal is to make it clear to everyone that we are a great organization and that we want the legislature in the public to have the same pride in our agency that I have. It's obvious that measuring and reporting is key to meeting that goal. So I thank you all very much for allowing me to respond to recommendations over the past few moments. And now I'm going to turn your attention. To page three of our response that there at your desk to the final report a week. We only have a comments on recommendation number six. Implement construction contractor performance management. In seventy on September sixteenth we presented our formal response to the original recommendations. And this response included the statement are not his implemented several practices over the years to expedite project delivery insure quality reward high performing contractors and encourage low performers to improve. While much has been done it's our understanding that the intent of recommendation six is for continual improvement in the construction project delivery process. So to accomplish the intent of this recommendation we propose the development of a construction contractor. Pardon me a construction contract close out report instead of a contractor rating or scoring system. This will allow tracking of objective criteria associated with each contractor at the end of each project in as I explained before each project is unique. Along with the report we will develop a collaborative process that will include a construction contract close out meeting so that between are dot in the contractor so we can sit around the table and we can take that opportunity to discuss problems what were the solutions where there is there a better solution what worked what didn't and then document those things so we can learn from women applying to to future projects. And so on. I visited this and okay so I visited this idea this proposal with the Arkansas general contractors association and the Arkansas asphalt pavement association and their full agreement with this process that we would like to put in place. And the changes to the recommendation are shown on page four and five of your of your hand out that a gate that we put at your desk and the red fund is suggested additions to the text and the blue font is suggested suggested removal of text. So with that I will let us just take any questions that you might have. Thank you members we have any questions. Senator Chesterfield you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair I'd be interested in hearing from any members of the commission who might be here. And they're not here today I have a question. Well I'll I'll say FRIDAYI we had an event Paragould and then Wednesday we have a commission meeting and as you know there commissioners are volunteers they all have jobs in these and I want that managers met madam director that is not an affront to you but I wanted to hear from them about how they felt about the process and I appreciated you let me just say publicly I appreciate you for being here and speaking with us honestly and knowledgeable about the department and being willing to work with us as we work through this process so I wanted to give them the opportunity to see how they felt about the processes will but thank you again so very very much for your graciousness and I think your candor thank you. Director I do have a couple of comments on the response And then some gonna run through those real quick. and then and then I'd like to move on you know if there's other questions on response great if not I think we do need to move on to this. the performance management. But first of all want to say thank you for the response and predict dedicating the needed time for this review I have debated with myself on how to respond to the department's closing statement since I review the director's email last night. It's important to note that this response was approved by both the department and the commission and are individuals in both that I have a great deal of respect for. While I appreciate the willingness to embrace progress there are several areas of your response the give me concern and I believe shed light into the views of are not related to the study. Yes or not has been trying to tackle the number of the identified issues a few of those were already apparent and solutions were in flight prior to the study. Many other deficiencies became clear as information was being collected by the department forgot house in response the department started in flight solutions that are now in their infancy. I have concern that the majority of the solutions for started without public involvement or discussion. In addition it has been apparent from discussions that we have had in this committee over the last several months they have started without our not having a full understanding of the actual issues they are attempting to solve. I hope that the department will slow down and allow for the needed input prior to investing resources I can't overstate how important that I believe blot broad involvement is for actual success. After the bill to response number three. I hope that are not will not use or attempt to use the excuse of additional costs for implementation as a roadblock for items they do not favor. Yes I fully understand that some of the some of the items have cost but my hope is that are not will be innovative in its response we use existing resources and personnel and we'll find ways to efficiently implement needed changes this committees here to help. It appears the remaining bulletin responses all round back to build number four. The board that I find incredibly disappointing to read. What I learned most from the study was that time and time again it was very apparent that are dot did not have transparent formalized tracking or measuring systems in place. It became clear that it was this lack of transparency management that has led to the majority of the complaints that I read receive related to the department. This section is very clearly stated this problem and our comment what doesn't get measured doesn't get done. And it's the report departments quote unquote key take away from her comment that I find the most concerning. What doesn't get measured that you don't get credit for. I want to clearly state that we do not have a credit issue never once have I had a constituent contractor mayor or county judge call upset that the department had done a good enough job ragging on itself. They call because from the outside looking in the department's actions reason reasoning and processes are often muddy at best. The flipping of the lack of reporting measurement point my miss Hutchins and turning it into an all such responses what I see as the problem. I believe that it speaks to the lack of seriousness and commitment by the department leadership to the to the to the fundamental change is needed and I hope I'm wrong on that. The reality is this without systematic measurement or formalized reporting there is no consistency there is no accountability there is no transparency and there is no improvement. These are vital issues in court what needs to be changed culturally. The need for past the need for impasse shortcomings related to formalize reporting a measurement should not be the minister shrugged off by the department or the commission. I can't see how bullet number four doesn't do anything else. With that I'll open up for any other comments questions. Senator rice you're recognized. Sure. I certainly wouldn't disagree with with all the chair statement. And I respect the concern for the parts that I. The salaries are respect some things of may not totally accept. The department of transportation. Is a independent agency that does need. Oversight from the legislative body I believe. I do think. When we point a finger at are not. We got a bunch point back it. Legislators. The executive branch. Judicial branch is a is a whole we all. Can in. Do better than we're doing. And while this committee is. Going through a process the department has been asked to put our I would guess four thousand ours is. In the state your hundred thousand dollars or more. on top of the eight hundred thousand that we spent. For the study so I do hope that things come out it. Thought about. In this what we have done an education system. We have total teachers. The give us report. To do it this way to do it that way when I hear teacher say please just let me teach. And I'm getting employees it can't count change. They can't do critical thinking I'm talking about very minor critical thank. In so many other things in many of its for your families not teachers the teachers our system that I feel like we have gone to the regulation stage it we bogged down I think we've all heard quite a bit. And I know let's not. Anybody's intent here. to do this. Director tutor or. I do appreciate you you giving a. Option that you feel like is workable because you got to work with contractors you got a. Over there by. With what you're proposing here. Do you feel like it was mentioned before. Do you feel a lot additional person male. Are sufficient for you to implement. These things is for is performance management without requiring more personal level. I don't see is needing more personnel to implement what I've suggested or proposed okay. A in something I was gonna ask the chairman stated let me make sure I've I've heard well thought this response has been approved by the commission. Yes Sir. And that was so the question was commission was here many commissioners here for a number meetings and I appreciate them being here and and to know that that they have been a part of this You know if if if this is accepted What the director is offered I would. I believe I could be in support of this we're going to go through the rest of it but I think you're is give and take in this and and I don't want to put I occur on somebody's leg in so you got to work this way in and we get. We will proficiency but we get maybe not as much efficiencies we parked out of the. Because it may not even be there to to get Naturi nice brought up the teaching Dale because you can cause problems of the place. The place is in business and and we I don't want to be at something it's damaging so Reshaped all the work it's been done this appreciate the chairman's working this because I I know the outcome of better outcomes what we're all after In a. I would ask this If there's anything else that you've got concerns with I would ask you to do and that even though these recommendations as we stated last meeting. I'm taking it this this one bills all that you say in report that you have to be concerned with because the other it says you're in implied in different degrees. This is the only thing that you see a need for change at this time. Okay thank you yes Sir thank you Mr. Ninety nine not not good enough and understanding charts know who that is. Thank you Mr chairman. Thanks for being here director up I want to ask you one question you said the one we fall short in you eaves spoke of measuring and reporting I think you'll agree with me if you if you go to five different doctors a lot of times with the and the on the server your six sometimes you get five different opinions on how we treat that from five different doctors we have a group of engineers sitting down together to work on a certain project. And those those group that group of engineers comes up with different opinions on how to how to do a a particular project who determines which direction that that group or which direction to go in who makes that final determination. Right. I guess I guess it depends on this circumstance let me clarify are you talking about a contract. Track problem out in the field or project in off it it would the final say so would be the person that's in charge of that team the highest ranking engineer all everyone's ideas would be considered. And then the highest ranking person would make the decision. And it would depend on the magnitude of the problem if it came all the way up to me or not I'm I'm I'm in my answering your question I'm sorry if I'm not. Well your in a sense you are. DO you agree do you agree with the procurement of contract from basic presentation. Montel. Given to one contractor over another do you still agree with that the the the contract should be given to a certain of contractor based solely on a presentation. How are you to you're talking about are alternative delivery process where okay. Well we have set up our alternative delivery process based on best practices across the nation we're kinda late to the game as far as Arkansans concern relate to the game and in me implementing that alternate delivery and everything we do is based off base per best practices so yes I I think what we've got in place. Is good but you know I've again. At hope and following your question senator yes as in between questions you maybe on purpose but you're giving off a little Darth Vader sound effects you may want is back up a little when you're sitting in a base camp so it's kind. Of. What you're saying is some of these companies actually specialize in presentations. I mean they do much better jobs at presenting of the information needed to do a project. Over some of the companies in mind in fact do a better job of completing the project and that that specialization in the presence presentations to me is it seems like a very unfair way to procure contract. Okay you're a I take your comments back to the department and we'll get together with alternate delivery team and we'll look at that see if if we do have something it's unfair because our our next step is to bring in Arkansas contractors till you know into this process and I know a lot none of them have any experience so we're trying to figure out how to how to do that and then I appreciate you. Bringing that to my attention and we'll look at that and make sure that's not the case that someone's not penalized because they don't have a lot experience of putting together a proposal thank you ma'am thank you Mr chair. I think Senator a center Hendren you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman. You know one of my pet peeves is when we spend months study in something and issue reports and responses in the nothing changes so I guess what I would ask director is what is can you identify one or two things that we're gonna see changed because of the results of these efforts to. things that have been brought to light that you're gonna make a substantive change on and in which do you think is the most important change that you're going to make. Well and. Given senator DISMANG comments what I'm about to say may not be agreeable. I bet we feel like the biggest change is going to be transparency. And figuring out how to to to measure and report well on what we do. And to from that learn how to do it may be better build a better mouse trap because we have you know we're watching how things are progressing if they're not going quite as quickly or as well as we want to do that then we can we can change course we think that this measuring and recording that will infiltrate every part of our department will make us a better department. At the on top of that as we you know we want to bring the legislature in to prepare and be able to reported in a way it's useful to everyone and that we need to get calls from constituents you can find the answer quickly. And then we want to improve customer satisfaction of right now we do have a disjointed way of tracking request the commission and we're going to work on and that's one of the big recommendations that we are do not have in flight that we we do have to build from the ground up and we're going to do that. And then finally I think this recommendation for number six. Is a collaborative effort this going to make us better will be better because will sit down with the contractors and hear their side and then the contractors will be better because they'll understand our side and together will will continue to improve the process improve project delivery. Yes the only comment I would have is I would say that from an engineering standpoint the measuring is different than reporting a transparency I mean measuring is a huge undertaking and that's we had some discussion about last time is the ability to measure and objectively quantify performance of contractors code performance of projects if you don't do a good job of that and don't have an organized system of doing that there's nothing to report to be transparent about and I guess that's where I come back to is if I can't know what the fix of I'm not objectively qualifying what I'm doing and so I guess a again you mentioned it but you said it's kind of under the guise of transparency but I think the discussion comes is do you feel like you have in place right now the measuring abilities procedures and standards so that you have something to be transparent about. No Sir we're going we're going to have to develop a lot of those things I mean some of the some of them are in flight and it's the key performance indicator portion of the of the organizational structure recommendations we are moving in that direction we've already got several in place we had to because the Federal Highway required it anymore building on that but there's others all three here for different a you know aspects of what we do that we don't have a good measuring system in place and will have to develop that thank you thank you members we have any other discussion. Senator rice you're recognized for a question the director to word it is the We discuss the employee retention I think one of the earlier meetings were or is that in the in this. In fly at the. What what part does at twelve million. Sorry okay that is under people capabilities I believe. Anyway Gillett leisure that that you know that there was an emphasis on that I think the it's at on number twelve senator rice sure staff can develop in their careers and that will that's tied to retention of employees and we and I will say that In fact we we present our appropriations budget. On Wednesday and we have added several. Several position not positions we've added several titles to allow for crear ladders so the employees feel like they have the have a vehicle to move that in well we're not adding a lot of we're not adding positions were just adding those letters so that people can feel that they can develop their careers that are not very good in and that's that's what I want to make sure that was a. Critical part that the. Your improving alone because the that is to me the any business that. That's the driver that's what makes it all work and hi. Just. The only by thank I'm giving you pass all this stuff in flight. have a. Fully expect that you will use everything that you can continue it to the degree that it makes sense because the. It truly believe in business you don't make dramatic changes unless it's sometimes struck upon you but you you to continually adjust and improve and I think that's what these things are rather than this to say you know you've got to do something completely off the wall the some of the state's done it may work it may not but is long as you're continually jesting all those avenues making sure what works what I'm looking for thank you and may I respond to that. I think the way this is all set up in the commission's recommendation that we continue to to report to this subcommittee on our progress will ensure that we are we are all in we're going to implement these things in we were going to report on them is a you know every I guess every quarter are whatever you decide that you know we're not just saying in flights so that she quit worrying about that and think that we're we're just going to go off in the sense that we're gonna make sure all this happens that's going to happen we're going to make it happen but we're going to report on that to you guys to get into that point out what I was trying to say earlier on these things that are in flight I mean I think we've had testimony couple meetings now there is rarely you know ever if not very limited public involvement at discussions outside of our dot in relation to how these things proceed again that's a concern to me because. You know we've had meetings here in which there's been some pretty broad confusion over what a finding is in the response to the finding and what the outcome to be I want to make sure as you are working in flight which requires some front end involvement from interested parties from this committee so be it a for the facilitators for that but I just wanna make sure that as you are moving forward with your in flight that you're getting the public involved the way that they need to be because as of the today I mean the the one that that you've got a brought in in this is only some of them is on the procurement side in relation to this you know the grading which I do want to talk about that just just real quick so. I would say what you have proposed is is great it's great because that's something that we need to be doing many for not having exit interviews with contractors if the getting up the job and I think it's wonderful that we start doing that. I would say the one thing that we were trying to drive that was some uniformity for all contractors across the state and if you don't have measurement which this strips all the bent measurement now if you don't have some uniform measurement that's applied at the close of each one of these then it's always going to be subjective. But there should be some way for a contractor to anticipate how they're graded or how they're outcome is related to another contractors and I and I think this is one of the very I mean I can't think of another business model. Out there that that that doesn't look at the performance of contractors when they're making the higher for the job again I go back to I'm not going to hire an electricity in. You know that that was over budget on my prior job that that I had to make five or six changes to whatever it may be I'm not going to hire that guy again but the way that we're set up now. So long as that person is not in liquidated damages that contractors nonliquid David liquidated damages and they're the low bidder they get the next job. M. in we were trying to rush released I say we are I was not trying to rush the idea of how these performance indicators for contractors were played out I think it's something that should be developed over time I think that the idea of exit interviews is again as it is a great idea I think it's something that we welcome back contractors at least those that are designed with but also know contractors would like to have some type of universal uniform understanding of what's expected of them and the only way that's going to be she is through actual measurements which again is stripped out of. You know this procure not be no item number six. Thank you for that. It's just it's our position the commission in mind that the bonding company is the best entity to scoring great a contractor's ability to perform the work. On a project by project basis and we're paying for the service because the cost of the bond comes is recouped through the contract the the bid. So and I appreciate what you're saying but. We feel like the bonding in place is extensive. And it does look at each project as a hot isn't unique in Tina the innate prior Avery projects unique in the bonding company looks at that but why within the bonding company bond someone if the only criteria really at the end of the day for you know getting to be boarded a project is that they're not in liquidated damages. Why with the why would the bonding company so the only limitation is liquidated damages the if you're if you're not only today but damages you can apply for whatever job you want to as long as you're low bidder you when the job what they have to the chief I have to get a bond the bonding company has to bond them. I guess maybe I'm not interstate I'm I guess I'm not understanding and I and I haven't since really the beginning again act I mean we encourage this in state government and I mean are not talks a lot about how they like to fall the state procurement laws even though the way they may not be mandated to. It is something that we actually encourage in state procurement law is is some type of performance realization four contractors are folks that we're looking to do state with a no job or jobs at the state. I just I don't understand the reluctance. To why we wouldn't create some type of universal system again my understanding contractors would welcome that because it allows them to have a true expectation from job to job regardless of the district to whatever the you know the issues may be. Well perhaps we should this is an good opportunity to see how the public involvement portion if this works and see you know bring the contracting community and to talk about this and what they see. It looking like in now and and that's what it and I think that's what we talked about in the last meeting and I thought that was the direction we were going in was to have public involvement in the in get ourselves to a point that we allowed to the time it may be a significant amount of time to be able to have those discussions in this committee in the public wherever they may be and develop a really you know hard and fast scoring system again because the way that I read what you have right now it's great in that I think the should be happening exit interview should be happening but it's also still subjective which is the problem that if we go back to we see over and over again is that if it's not measured and it's not hard and fast then it's subjective and that's what we're trying to get there there is no need we actually stripped out will and you know the the proposed form that I put together and I sent to you to look at all of those measurements are completely objective their trackable and they're you know they're either they're either yes or no and and right there yes Sir no that's right in and that so that's. That's not measuring that yes or no I mean those are qualifying factors in a bigger score system but I don't think that's what we were trying to be limited to but again I'll I'll. I'll step back represent involved. Thank you Mr chair so I'm going to kind of agree with senator DISMANG and that I keep getting someone that keeps getting contracts in my area but they tend to do kind of what I most people would consider a shoddy job because they have to go back and fix things and redo things so I'm gonna use Ashdown as my example they just got the lie and ended up having to rip part of it back up and regulate it again I have a bridge that I have complained about at the director John shin and it's that same exact contract group and if they were measured some hal maybe they wouldn't continue to get that contract in my area and continue to do a job in which they have to go back and redo again and again and again does that make sense what I'm saying. Yes ma'am and if there's no measure like you say and then they continue to get those jobs I guess they're probably the low bid is what I would figure but they're a low bid for a reason because they continue to not do a good job I understand what you're saying but I kind of see what he's saying to if that makes sense Mister chair I would like to know god houses response to what they have the what the department has brought if that's if this is a suitable time yes we tried for that because we got it yesterday I was working on I mean I work I had a lot going on and we didn't get it out and I think the Joe I think got house got it maybe this morning been an and I assume that at this point had a chance review and to provide some comment. Yeah we did have a chance to review it I think in terms of the process FOR contractor evaluation I think to your point senator DISMANG I think it is useful to have those kind of exit interview close out of report projects our intention in terms of the recommendation was to develop a more rigorous scoring method that could be used for public reporting potentially at some point for procurement related processes I realize that there may be some subjectivity and the way that some states are scoring or other states or scoring I mean this is certainly and an opportunity for our dot in the highway commission and and perhaps you all in the contractors to work together to come up with a scoring method to that He you know it is perhaps maybe maybe doesn't include that kind of subjectivity or that could be enhanced from existing scoring tools to give you the confidence that you that you want in it it's At you know again I I would just restate that our expectation are are ours propose recommendation was really related to some Governance and scoring method that could be complemented by the close up report or the close out meeting. So I don't know if you have any additional. Box I don't have anything to the air so if I understand correctly then you don't have a problem with what they've brought you just wanted to be a little bit more rigorous. You yeah I mean I think the the the idea of having a close out meeting with your contractor on or your vendor on any project is an important of quality element to make sure that everybody is closing out the project on the same page however thanks for the purposes of building that transparency how being that a at a at a simplified it scoring tools or measurements method it is an important factor in evaluating contractors going forward and keeping a record of their performances you know you you kind of think about just performance management of employees for example having a verbal conversation with them without giving them a written record and you know scoring them against performance criteria is it not a typical way of doing performance evaluations and review all right the worst suggesting that there's a similar kind of process where you thought so and you know criteria in which you're evaluating the contractors you score them and you sit down with them and you have that review the kind of conversation with them to make sure that everybody's on the same page and and you may understand how they were evaluated. Thank you for that response may I ask one other question. And I do appreciate all working so hard on the us I do want you understand that I truly do it greatly appreciate it I just don't know that I understand. Why there's such a problem with the rich doing yours and the rigorous if you can explain because I wasn't here last week it's my fault I tried to listen I had some stuff come up in my district and I tried to listen. but can you explain to me because I know it's not about the bond because we discussed that one at a previous meeting I was that and I know the bond kept coming up last week and and I thought we put the bond a bad like the the meeting before or two meetings before I can't remember so if you can just explain to me real quick and it's not in debt the thirty thousand foot view what the problem is with the rigorous portion of this okay there's we have concerns and are all from the thirty thousand foot view. An. How would a scoring system be used how would we use that what's the what's the purpose in it and what will it Cheever not extremely sure I've put together and I wish I had that in front of you a close out report two two to discuss with the contractor where we could improve in where there were problems. So I felt like that the end result of this close out process would be the same whether you put as a great on it or not and I may be wrong about that but that's the way we're preceding it. And we're not sure We're we're worried about the unintended consequence. Of favoring large national firms over are smaller Arkansas ferns because obviously the large national firms have a tremendous amount of resources are smaller Arkansas firms don't have as much and so how do you create a scoring system there is a level playing field and doesn't penalize a smaller contractor over one that can do everything do it fast I mean there you know so what do we really want to achieve from this what is it going to look like five years from now are we going to make it to where are smaller Arkansas firms are put at a disadvantage there's things that I have questions about and so does the commission. In because of the difficult. The difficulty in establishing a level playing field given that there are so many complexities to a construction job there's so many things that can go right in there so many things that can go wrong every single project is unique and so how do we do that how do we and once you start putting a great on permit someone it creates this feeling of of possible animosity and you know you're you go from a collaborative process to one it may be a little more antagonistic and we're having to defend what we're saying and they're saying well you didn't take this into account and you have the back and forth instead of just really trying to figure out how to get better and so that's that's our position that possibly what we're recommending will take care of what we need to take care of and make us better without putting that. Layer of grating on top of it it might have some unintended consequences that's where we are and the proposal can I have a follow up Mr chair may be to one if you're already doing your exit plan. And you're already sitting at the table talking to them I would think that would kinda deter any unintended consequences possibly because you're actually having a face to face and it's just not an email that they're receiving and trying to read and get a great offense and it's something that may be that they do need to work on. Per se let's just use my area again the people who people I and stuff down that we have to rip back up and regulate again because they're not doing a good enough job to begin with maybe it's something that they do need to be told Hey look guys either you're going to fix this on the front end or we're not going to hire you anymore in Arkansas because we're spending more money trying to picture messes them what we are just getting it done at the beginning. The other question is at your exit review are you gonna have like your county judges are mayors your people of the public there because I know people in my area would go ballistic about the company that keeps getting the contract when they're slow when they don't manage the traffic correctly can kill you kind of know what I'm talking about because I'm always in any of the complaints about on you know so I'm I want to know what are those people going to be at the table for the exit also when you're talking to these companies about what's going on. We need and I'll quit with that Mr chair because I know it took a lot of time thank you. And. I will tell you I haven't I haven't flesh that out in as I was going to this in the last few days I was thinking that would be more of a conversation with the department in the local officials and their and their opinions and their concerns would be incorporated into this final review report and then we would sit down with the contractor in explained to them that concerns at that that's just the first thought I had flesh that out we'll do what works best that's remaining in here I think that's a good addition to this recommendation and and hours I would like to did I did I address everything. Okay thanks a the only reason. That I'm suggesting this changer the in the commission is is because in the legislation that's being proposed it's it says implementation the recommendations included in the final report so the final report it's very important that at least it's not it's not too binding and instead in this particular. As we work through this I'm afraid if it's too if it's too prescriptive and then the legislation is passed will be in a position where we're forced to the this one maybe it's not the best idea. I don't know but that's that's one concern thank you Mr chair so in just just walk a couple things I'd like to point out I mean that the goal I mean you're asking what is the goal what we what what are we trying to do with this the goal is so the habitually late contractor slow contractor one disregard to the input from county judges mayors all these other no outside issues the once it's always over costs but can still manage to be the low bidder are continuing to be awarded jobs if we're just gonna be very sustained in the goal and I think the one thing and and I think one of the strongest point you were bringing up in relation to the. Grading was discrepancy your differences between small contractors in large contractors which is actually a piece of the recommendation that you awestruck. It I mean if if you're looking at considerations one RB one. One of the things that we asked the department to consider was the impact for both small and large contractors in that language was struck. That was struck because we were trying to get away from a scoring in grading system now if we have to if that's choir if you legislate that then of obviously will have to develop that. On. That's the reason we struck it is because we're trying to get away from the scoring. In grading of contractors okay thank you. Representative Murdock. I thank you chair and thank you Mr for being years of so couple things this go back I want to go back and make sure I'm clear on something that I thought I heard you say in response to a contractor. Greeting for lack of a better word you said or did you say that the bonding company is to the highway to put dark depends on for grading or recommendation on a contract. Yes Sir if if they're able to obtain a bond we think that that we it's our position they can perform the work what. Let me choose my words are okay so. The bonding company. Comes with the contract I'm a contractor I have one so what if I'm a little bit on a project then my bond company supports me I'm a little bit I'm I work in they they make premium from my country. They can't be your source for if the contractor is good bad or and that they make money off of the contract that they have with the how would upon the highway department must have an independent. Source for doing the things that we're hearing here today what's but which is the second part of my question. Of the. Seemingly the the disconnect on what the committee is asking for is just simple performance related components time. quality work of safety adherence to to the to the standards did you know in guidelines this in this big book those things that are components to be contracted small contract it'll it'll matters either the contractor what what we're talking about what they're talking about as I understand is components they give you an indication of how this particular contract to perform in this particular on this particular project in regard to the contractor size you a guard this of the project size. These are composed of just go and they and they together we'll give you a great or an outcome or a school work or eight something that's not real hard. To put together I'm feeling like there's a disconnect the communication somewhere in here because what I think the committee is asking for. It is not complicated is is is just use those components some of those that I just mentioned to develop an outcomes. We're going back to the body I want you to dress for me Howell eight bonding company because that's a fiduciary so if if I show a financial problem was then I can get a bond if I show a financial prowess and experience in the work so there is two things there the bonding company do look for I do agree they look for performance and they look for financial. Capacity but in terms of how they perform for the owner. I was leave the owner has problems the night and continue to give that contractor bonds if they continue to have problems we don't I do agree with that but why we would you would use. The bonding company as your. Determined verses your own system you have a need you nearing you have eighty eight you have a department with a whole lot of people that have expertise in evaluating before you pay every two weeks you go to a process of inspection approval is subsequent sending out checks that happens every two weeks. So you have someone doing these things. To determine so the bill is so at the end of the day end of the project all of that puts together able forms evaluation really at the end of the day why the bonding company. How does that work I've never heard that. Representative Murdock that was. Impressive speech non I'm trying to I wish I had met cash in here with me I were you here the day he testified about how they go about. The giving a contract or a bond for projects yes I know exactly what it bonding company do I know Medicare's I know exactly what they do and they do have an ability to evaluate they do that in order to make decisions on given bonds to contractors I know that but but they're they're they're generally not part because MJ what could happen and sorry to be so long to hear but is really see as you go forward you can be an illegal action what that bond company if you have a contract the goals of a file and you have to pull the bond or call for some reason that bonding company now departed litigation. They can't be a part of you approval so what I can be the reason why you chose this contract and then you ought to Billy could be in a legal matter what them in the courts. Because of the failure of the contractor and that's date would be on the side of to some degree then you have to call on them to go in for field the requirements of that job that's just not the role that they can play in the relationship is is kind of like a conflict of interest if you will that the bonding company is your determined that is not discrediting bonding companies for what they do and what met cash I know exactly what they do they do a great job at what they do. But you have to have eighty. A process eight eight eight eight eight internal weight of determining once you take these. Get a qualified low bidder. Go to the process that would that's what you say in your be is that the low bid is not necessarily going to be awarded the job because there is a process to should include what I think the committee is asking for to make sure that thank represented voters talking about that you don't have repeat just because someone's a little bit don't mean a couple formally. So you end up with these problems that we're trying to stay away from so hot the bonding being confuse me and some of the. Disconnect that I'm content here on this thing and each meeting it just seems like would. There's somebody over there at the highway department that I truly believe it it are that they could bring this together I'm sure. Thank you for your comments. Thank you you did II I don't know okay I mean the need to say more I understand what you're saying. Yes ma'am thank you. Seat eighty five. I can't see that far. Hammer. Yes Sir you're recognized thank you Mr chair the one thing I was wondering in this and I was looking over the recommendations and I'm wondering where it's addressed or how it's been addressed is the difference between what the contractor does that were asking for them to be held accountable for and maybe failure on the part of the inspector that's that are not inspector or the engineers that designed the programmer designed the planned in the first place and the contractors just executing it as allowed by the inspector on the job whose to improve the work for the engineer who's designed it and they are executing the project according to the side of the engineer and then it turns out later that it wasn't such a good design job or the inspector failed in their job to stop the contractor from doing something that the contractor was doing it wrong can you tell me how that's accounted for all this discussion and how that would play into evaluating the contractors ultimate outcome. Thank you senator hammer and. That's another variable I keep talking about every projects different with lots of variables with that severe bill. When grading contractors because and in my original response and I'll just if you don't mind I'll just read it. And no project is is saying no contractors the same note are dot inspector is the same there are many challenges with rating because of the numerous variables. There may be personality conflicts between the contractor superintendent in our dot inspectors. And FOR scene site conditions planners. A construction mistakes subcontractor problems material supplier problems issues in in I will tell you that I would sit here and say were perfect in every set of plans is perfect and that we get all out in the field in every problem is the contractor's fault it's it's not that way it's a give and take and we have areas we can improve in center the contractors and so and to to but that's one of our concerns with grading contractors is because into we can completely perfect ours operations and not be a hindrance it all out in the field at all and and we do the best we can issues there's no perfect there's nothing that's perfect we all know that. And so that's just the concerning I say there are. There are planners there are and miss communications with the inspectors and such as that so that's part of the overall project in that would have to be taken into account when we grade that contractor did I answer you it thank you Mr thank you in an I mean I've just go back to I think that subjectivity that you're talking about that's what we're trying to get rid of and by having something hard and fast and rigid and measured removes subjectivity in until you're measuring you're going to be subjective so on every exit interview if there is no measurement. And we're not using anything to to grade for say from a scale of one to ten you did this or whatever what you're saying we're not going to do then it's always going to be subject in a minute there is it's going to be there's me bias from job to job because like you said. There may be personality conflicts that has nothing to do with the quality of work that's a personality conflict. I mean there may be other vices it play. Five between the department and in what what I'm asking it let's remove all of that in the only way to remove all that is to be consistent and I will tell you from what I've talked to with contractors they want the consistency that is not there now because it's subjective. Inside I don't know I mean one and one thing I don't want to want to this committee to thank or department or whatever and this is the reason that it's so important when I was talking in the very beginning about having public involvement is that we're not all talking past each other because it's happened so many times in this committee were you have you come sit down with an understanding and that is a very different understanding the then committee or members and then we're able to have a conversation and work through and understand what each other is saying I think this is critical and we talk about in flight this an in flight that those conversations having occurred and what I'm most nervous about is in those in flight items that we have we're we we don't realize the disconnect that exist on how you may be for you to it moving forward in relation what it looks like the disconnected happens here right here and now on this particular issue. So again I just I don't really understand. The reluctance at I think it's something that actually improves our dot tremendously it takes away some of the subjectivity that is at least believed to be there now even if it's not. Did you get to prove. With harden fast measures that it doesn't. With that I yield to. Six sixty seven. Thank you chairman this represent a Fortner over here four layers of plexiglass floor here you go. This is a comment for everybody and I wish I want to agree with what the chairman said I take these papers home after ever I have after every meeting and I have a contractor in my district that have a very good relationship with and he he does a good job he he he just always his quality is works quality work. And I asked him I said give me some input on this and he said Jack here's the input I want you to give a he said give everybody the listen. He said. I don't care what the rules are I just want them to be consistent. And not based on personality that's exactly what he told me that he said I don't care what the rules are he said I will follow one is long as they are consistent and not based on whether people like me or don't like me. And and I just want to add that and and I thank the. Rules that are very clear very plain and easy to follow would be a good thing and I think it would help your department I thank you take some of the pressure off of your inspectors your people and I think you would take pressure off of. Us because we have better quality products that are constituents are dry and. Nobody the likes to have a bridge just fixed. And then have to come apart and have to do it again because that's who they got a call they're going to call us at two they're going to call and then we're going to call you so thank you Mr chair. Thank you Representative C. thirteen. And again I have to. I represented you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman of mystery after you know had a guy one time tell me something. A said I want to look at these two houses right here yeah. He said we're twenty thanks to better house I said I think that one right there is better quality house. A city you know the same material was used. And both of those houses. But it all depended on who put him together. So I think that what you're saying it is money for that the quality of the folks that are doing this kind of work. Really know what they're doing. And you know when you borrow money from the bank to put something together. They go in different stages to check that out to make sure one two three and four park stages of the project is done right. So I think this this FOR throw their own you know give you a little sums like about because it does make a lot of difference in whose actually putting that Bridger that road together. Thank you Mr. Okay members as I did not see anyone else on the board for questions or comments invited like to make any go ahead and get your button if not we needed to move on if we can to the report itself. So if you open up your binder that's going to be. Represented five you're recognized okay thank you Mr chair. For many years I was in construction. And the bond was always level the field if you were looking dated damages you could not get another bond I could not a contractor of that's a slap line is being able to get that bond. Of there's no perfect way is is sore like represent the vault talked about have the tear some out of asphalt that may have come from subcontractor the asphalt and no fault of the contractor himself but he did it his calls had to replace it. So when we start grading things like this is gonna get very subjective. And we're gonna help people who don't like each other gonna be grading each other. And. If a this will not be good I'm not sure how what you get this grading system in place I'm not sure how you're going to apply. A if if you notice the highway department are the contractors neither one. Like this idea and being a former contractor I can tell you that I see nothing good about it thank you Mr chair. Thank you Representative fight menace may I say one more thing in mind finance okay We were under the impression that we were on our own as far as determining what exactly the intent of each of these for. Recommendations where we we didn't think we could contact god house and ask exactly what they were trying to accomplish well so I I I just want to say that I hate for that to be out there like we continually came to the table without understanding what the recommendation was about. But that was the that was the perception we had coming into these in making these responses so and anyway I just wanted to say that just so people wouldn't think we were completely. Not doing our homework we did the best we could okay alright members on the report and. I'm assuming everyone had a chance in which we voted on all the items last week we have a report this week it sounds like to me the one item that may still be up for discussion is item number six which is to implement construction contractor performance management I guess I'll go ahead just ask is there any objection to any of the other items or do we need to discuss any other items in the report and then we'll go back and we'll have a discussion on item number six. You can please enter button and let me know and we'll have a discussion or whatever you'd like if not we're gonna get back and just focus in in discussion with the committee on. The implementation construction contract reform of management item number six. Okay seeing none if you look in your packet if you're if you're not aware of where we are if you just look at the meeting documents you go through and you're gonna see a final report Legislative Council. The one dated November twentieth and were. Okay November twentieth if you go to page five is where we discussion discuss discuss item number six one thing I would like to say I'm not sure what direction to go in number one there's nothing that prohibits are not from doing an exit interview right even if it's a recommendation not a recommendation there is nothing at all that prohibits are not from doing an exit interview that's good business and and something that I look forward your moving forward with. On implement on an item number six the goal in the writing of it was to be as broadly written as possible there if you'll notice there is no shale there is there are there are Mays in and that's intentional and that's to be able to give the flexibility and the time to develop something that like we've discussed here today and obviously even in this committee there's broad disagreement on what that should look like exactly. So. What I just like to say is let's read it that way there there's nothing hard and fast here this is still a recommendation I would like to vote this when separately since it is just seem to at least be the more controversial of all of our items and if we need an adjustment to it and let's talk about that now but again page five item number six begins and carries over to page six. I'll I mean I'll concede this. On item number six one of the concerns from the department is is how the contractors will respond I guess in general to being graded. That maybe the the apprehension is reward high performing contractors and encourage low performing contractors to improve. It is that part of the concern director. That language of so Megan for me it's more important to have the. You have some time to of clarity in and what the expectations are that maybe their reward or the encouragement at this point we can move to that at some future date. I'm not as well with the reward be if it's not tied to any kind of monetary. What I'm saying if that's the concern from the department of again I think grading is the most important factor at least in the initial stages of this and if we're trying in in the beginning stages to rewards and encouragement maybe if we strike that we can then focus back in on the grading and not. Get bogged down in you know some of what we've gotten bogged down in today. That would be good to strike that okay. I can imagine the considerations removing the impact or the consideration of their moving the impact for both small and large contractors. Not seeing anything else does senator Chesterfield you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. We do have cloud backup clawback closes in on these contracts is that correct. If the if if we don't have certain deadlines that are met then the department has the ability to get back its money or something else club accident yes is that not reward that to me money seems to me the most profoundly what you can get so explain the other rewards that we can provide in the contract because we don't completed on time then the department has the right to get back its money or that sort of thing is that correct is that already there and if you look on page. attachment to the at the end of your of your. Package. Just a simple yes or no do we have that ability yes okay that's what I'm wondering what other reward we looking for missed you. The trees were striking that language I can be determined at some future point in may we won't get bogged down in the process to to remove that language if we remove that language. Are there any other questions comments on. Item number six. All right seeing none what I'd like to do is make a motion that we adopt Or we include item number six the draft report will vote on that draft report subsequently with the exception of the language related to reward high performing contractors encourage low performers to improve. So like I would like to move that that meant that language the rest language be included in the deck draft report. I have a second all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed. I it's been including letter this motion doctrine that brings us to the final report in it and in its whole. Are there any questions or discussions on the final report. I have a motion from senator Chesterfield to adopt the final report AS amended. Any discussion any questions seeing none all those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed motions adopted. Members that. I'm on a very at my direction all. I remember so what we have left of what we have a meeting scheduled for November eighteen that's going to have the normal quarterly report is my understanding will be presented at that meeting and also I think you all are adopting your legislative package through the commission and then that will also be presented at that meeting and that this is the legislative package that are not there there was some discussion last year about ensuring that the the commission was involved in those discussions and so that's what this is related to. I. With that said we have any other business seeing no other business. We are adjourned thank you members free time today.