|FHWA > Infrastructure > Bridge > HBRRP|
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
|Subject:||INFORMATION: Use of Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) Funds for Approach Roadway Construction||Date:||May 15, 1992|
|From:||Associate Administrator for Program Development||In Reply
|To:||Regional Federal Highway Administrators
Federal Lands Highway Program Administrator
Mr. Rex C. Leathers' memorandum of August 29, 1985, pertinent to the above subject described the concern of the Washington Headquarters for the State's use of HBRRP funds for improving deficient bridges as intended by Congress rather than for constructing long approach roadways. The guidance was to limit costs for approach roadways associated with the HBRRP project so that a nationwide average of no more than 10 percent of the total project costs would result. We felt the guidance provided sufficient flexibility to allow for a higher percentage for individual bridges in unusual or exceptional cases.
Application of the guidance since it was issued has resulted in a wide variety of projects with approach roadway costs greater than the targeted 10 percent. Typical examples have been cases where sight distances across a structure or improved underclearances require longer approach roadways to a HBRRP bridge project. Also, a Division Administrator could determine that replacing a deficient bridge with a shorter span bridge and roadway fills is eligible for HBRRP funding, if this strategy is more cost-effective than replacing the deficient bridge with a similarly sized one.
The HBRRP project experience, coupled with revisions to Section 104(g) of Title 23, which provides that 40 percent of HBRRP funds may be transferred to NHS or STP funds, indicates a need to ease our previous guidance regarding a 10 percent target. The eligible costs for approach roadway work for an HBRRP project should be limited to that necessary to render the replaced or rehabilitated bridge serviceable, and may exceed 10 percent of the total roadway project within reasonable limits. Using HBRRP fund for an entire roadway project which happens to include an eligible deficient bridge is to be avoided.
Regarding the coding of HBRRP work items for the Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS), we are providing the attached guidelines for classification of project work items into specific work type codes. This is made necessary because of a 1991 HBRRP review conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The focus of the effort was to evaluate the FHWA's control over the use of HBRRP funds for non-bridge work items.
The OIG review concluded that the FHWA has adequate controls in place, but added guidance is required. When using HBRRP funds, inconsistencies were found in the FHWA Division Offices' coding of bridge, roadway, and miscellaneous work items in the FMIS. These inconsistencies do not impact eligibility of construction work for federal funding, but do affect the accuracy in identifying approach roadway and bridge costs in the FMIS. Because of the many different bridge replacement and rehabilitation project situations and he engineering judgement required, it is not possible to eliminate all inconsistencies in data entry. However, this guidance should help to arrive at better uniformity in preparing the FHWA-37 and ultimately improve the validity of the FMIS data.
/s/ original signed by
Anthony R. Kane
The following project work items can be classified using Bridge Work Type Codes = X---
Roadway and Surface Items
The following project work items can be classified using Roadway and Surface Work Type Codes = A000 thru K000.
The following project work items can be classified using Miscellaneous Work Type Codes = Y--- and others as specified below.
Note: For other project work items not listed, engineering judgement should be used to assign appropriate work type codes for entry into the FMIS.