U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

New Mexico Division

Home / About / Field Offices / New Mexico Division

Stewardship and Oversight Agreement

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES BY PROGRAM AREA

The following subsections of Section 3 describe the functional/program stewardship and oversight areas that are subject to this Stewardship Agreement. This section provides information on how NMDOT and FHWA are organized and will address required reviews, specific working relationships, and efforts relating to management systems.

Included in each section are two tables: 1) Program Area Control Standards/Document and 2) Program and Project Action Responsibilities. This will help to delineate the actions that are required through the 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and related memorandums, policies, or guidance for administering the FAHP.

Under this Stewardship/Oversight Agreement, the NMDOT division and district offices are responsible for facilitating the preparation of statewide policy and procedural directives, providing technical assistance, conducting continual technical training, and providing quality assurance (QA) in all program areas. The division and district offices may be responsible for project production. The NMDOT regional design offices and district offices are responsible for preparing the complete construction packages including; project scoping, schedules, estimates, all certification documents, agreements, plans and specifications, supplemental specifications, addenda, notice to contractors, local entity agreements, and overall management of the individual projects.

The FHWA New Mexico Division is responsible for the stewardship and oversight of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in New Mexico. FHWA Operation Engineers are responsible for project level stewardship and oversight through risk-based project level activities. FHWA Operation Engineers and other Program Managers are responsible for stewardship and oversight activities by relating policy, providing technical assistance, working with other federal agencies, guiding their programs, on a statewide basis, and for ensuring quality assurance (QA) of the entire Federal-Aid Highway Program in New Mexico. FHWA Team Leaders and Management are responsible for ensuring the Operations Engineers and Program Managers receive the appropriate resources and leadership so that they may conduct an efficient and effective QA program.

3.1.0 PLANNING & AIR QUALITY

The relevant laws pertaining to planning are found in: 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 23 CFR Part 450. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region VI Office are jointly responsible for required approval actions such as: Certification of the metropolitan planning process in each Transportation Management Area at least once every four years as well as yearly review and approval of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Planning Annual Work Program, and amendments.

Transportation Planning also includes data collection and reporting, which are included under: 23 CFR § 420.105(b) which requires that "…State Transportation Agencies shall provide data that support FHWA’s responsibilities to the Congress and to the public. These data include, but are not limited to, information required for: preparing proposed legislation and reports to the Congress; evaluating the extent, performance, condition, and use of the Nation’s transportation system; analyzing existing and proposed FAHP funding methods and levels and the assignment of user cost responsibility; maintaining a critical information base on fuel availability, use, and revenues generated; and calculating apportionment factors."

3.1.1 Planning and Air Quality Method of Operation

NMDOT has responsibility for transportation planning per Federal laws (23 USC 134 and 23 USC 135) and regulations (23 CFR 420, 23 CFR 450, 23 CFR 460, and 23 CFR 470; and 49 CFR provisions).  These laws establish the planning requirements to be conducted by NMDOT in cooperation with internal and external planning partners.  State law and federal law, ensures that planning is conducted according to USDOT standards and requirements.  At a minimum the state must develop a comprehensive, multimodal 20 year transportation plan that integrates and consolidates the regional transportation plans developed by the urban and non-urban regions of the state, a Planning Annual Work Program, and a four year STIP.

NMDOT, FHWA, RPOs, MPOs, and FTA work together closely and coordinate on issues pertaining to state and regional transportation planning in addition to periodic coordination meetings and discussions.  These include:

The method of operation for NMDOT and FHWA Stewardship Agreement objectives will be met through:

3.1.2 Planning & Air Quality Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAHP projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.1-1 Planning & Air Quality CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Annual Work Program / UPWP Policies and Procedures

NMDOT

New Document Pending 2013

NMDOT Planning Division Director

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

TBD

23 USC 134 23 USC 135 and regulations

MPO Quick Reference Guide (GTG)

NMDOT

2010 Update Pending 2013

NMDOT Planning Division Director

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/planning/MPO_Handbook.pdf

NMDOT Management Tool

Public Involvement Process
(PIP)

NMDOT

July 2007 Update Pending 2013

NMDOT Planning Division Director

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

http://website (not a working link to this on the website)

23 USC 450.210(a)(2)

RPO Handbook

NMDOT

July 2010
Update Pending 2013

NMDOT Planning Division Director

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/planning/RPO_HANDBOOK.pdf

NMDOT Management Tool

STIP/TIP Policies & Procedures

Program Mgmt.

2/9/12

NMDOT Program Management Division Director

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/STIP/Approved_STIP-TIP_Procedures.pdf

23 USC 134 23 USC 135 and regulations

Tribal / Local Gov’t Handbook (LGAU)

NMDOT

October 2007
Update Pending 2013

NMDOT Planning Division Director

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

Hardcopy

NMDOT Management Tool

3.1.3 Planning and Air Quality Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

NMDOT is committed to implementing projects that address the State’s Transportation needs identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan. Factors that are expected to improve and influence successful implementation are:

3.1.4 Planning & Air Quality & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.1-2 Planning & Air Quality P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Actions / Remarks

Air Quality

         

CMAQ funds eligibility determination

FHWA HQ CMAQ guidance memo 10/31/06

As requested by State

Planning Division Director

Environment

NMDOT develops and FHWA reviews for eligibility

CMAQ funds report (UPACS*)

FHWA HQ CMAQ guidance memo 10/31/06

Annually by Feb 1st

Planning Division Director

Environment

FHWA develops and inputs into UPACS

Discretionary funds application (FHWA)

FHWA HQ memo soliciting applications

Periodic (usually annually, date varies)

Engineering Program Manager

Planner

NMDOT develops and submits to FHWA

Functional classification of highways/streets

23 CFR 470.105, 470.115

As needed or as revised by State

STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops and submits to FHWA for approval

Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Payment Certification

23 CFR 669.7

Annually by July 1

NMDOT

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Payment Review

23 CFR 669.21 & FAPG NS 23 CFR 669

Every 3 years

NMDOT

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Obligated Projects Annual List

23 CFR 450.332

Annually, no later than 90 days after September 30th.

STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs

Planning Certification (FHWA/FTA TMA)

23 CFR 450.334

Every 4 yrs.

Planning Division Director

Planner

FHWA / FTA review and certify the review

Highway

         

Air Quality Agency agreements (MPO/State)

23 CFR 450.314

As needed or revised by MPO / State in conjunction with conformity determination

Planning Division Director

Planner

MPO / NMDOT submit to FHWA / FTA

Boundary Changes (Metro planning area)

23 CFR 450.312

As needed / revised by MPO/State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Certification of MPO planning process (MPO/State)

23 CFR 450.334

Required with every STIP amendment

STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs

Fuel report (PR 511M) prepared monthly

Chapter 2 of FHWA Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics

Monthly. Also, a review of Motor Fuel Data reporting is done every 3 years.

NMDOT

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Highway statistics reports (various)

FHWA Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics

Most annually, one biennially (per FHWA guidance)

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Highway taxes and fees report

FHWA HQ memo of request

Periodic (usually biennially)

NMDOT

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

HPMS data review (UPACS*)

FHWA HPMS Field Manual

Annually

Planning
Division Director

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

HPMS data submission (UPACS*)

FHWA HPMS Field Manual

Annually by June 15th

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Interstate additions & revisions

23 CFR 470.111, 115

As requested by State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations (MPO) Designation and Re-designation

23 CFR 450.310

As needed / revised by MPO / State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

Mileage Certification Public roads

23 CFR 460.3 & FAPG NS 23 CFR 460

Annually by June 1st

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs

Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) Evasion Project funds request

FHWA HQ memo soliciting applications

Periodic (usually annually)

NMDOT

Planner

NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA

NHS revisions

23 CFR 470.113, 115

As requested by State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs

PM2.5 and Mobile Source Air Toxics

MOMOS February 3, 2006 and March 29, 2006. 71 FR. 12468. 23 CFR 771.129

As needed

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs

SPL/PL program performance/expenditure reports

23 CFR 420.117

Annually by Sept. 30

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits; FHWA reviews

SPR & PL funded work programs;

Unified Planning Work Program for Transportation Management Areas (TMA)

LTAP Work Plan and budget

23 CFR 450.308

Annually by May 15

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops and submits; FHWA / FTA review and approve

State certification of their planning process

23 CFR 450.218

Required with every STIP amendment

Planning Division
Director

Planner

NMDOT submits and FHWA approves

State PL funds formula

23 CFR 420.109

As needed or as revised by State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits and FHWA approves

State planning process (Public Involvement Process or PIP)

23 CFR 450.210(a)(2)

As needed or as revised by State

STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops
FHWA/FTA receive for informational purposes

TIP and corollary STIP amendments for attainment areas

23 CFR 450.324 – 330

Required with every STIP amendment

STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits and FHWA approves

TIP conformity determination for non-attainment

23 CFR 450.324, 330

Every 2 years

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits and FHWA approves

Transportation plan for attainment metropolitan areas

23 CFR 450.322

Every 4 yrs. or in conjunction with conformity reviews

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits and FHWA approves

Tribal Government Consultation process

23 CFR 450.210(c)

As needed or as revised by State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits and FHWA approves

Twenty (20) Yr. Statewide Transportation Plan (Long Range Transportation Plan)

23 CFR 450.214

As needed

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT develops (at a minimum updated after Census taken)

Urban area boundaries

23 CFR 470.105

As needed or as revised by State

Planning Division Director

Planner

NMDOT submits to Governor for Approval; sends to FHWA

Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement certification

23 CFR 657.13

Annually by Jan 1

Department of Public Safety

Planner

NMDOT ensures DPS reports and submits to FHWA

Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement plan

23 CFR 657.11

Annually by July 1,
w/approval by Oct 1

Department of Public Safety

Planner

NMDOT ensures DPS reports and submits to FHWA

3.1.5 Planning and Air Quality Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators to assess health of NMDOT’s Planning and STIP Development Program:

3.1.5(a) Percent of State & Local Projects Obligated in STIP year Programmed

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 60 percent of local lead projects and 47 percent of state lead projects were obligated in the STIP year programmed. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 26 percent of local lead projects and 58 percent of state lead projects were obligated in the STIP year programmed. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 50 percent of local lead projects and 72 percent of state lead projects were obligated in the STIP year programmed. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 69 percent of local lead projects and 83 percent of state lead projects were obligated in the STIP year programmed.

3.1.5(b) Percent of projects obligated by quarter (goal FFY Q1-Q3 60%, Q4-40%)

To Be Developed

   
3.1.5(c) Cost growth during planning stage
(Intentionally left blank)
To Be Developed (Intentionally left blank)

3.2.0 ENVIRONMENT

The Environmental Program is based on policy guidance from both NMDOT and FHWA. The national commitment to the environment was formalized through the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA establishes a national environmental policy and provides a framework for environmental planning and decision-making. NEPA directs FHWA and NMDOT, when developing projects or issuing permits, to conduct environmental reviews that consider potential impacts on the environment by the proposed actions. The NEPA process consists of a set of fundamental objectives that include interagency coordination and cooperation and public participation in planning project development decision-making.

3.2.1 Environmental Program Method of Operation

For the environmental function, FHWA maintains ultimate responsibility and approval authority for all activities requiring Federal actions. Interagency coordination and stewardship are maintained through routine contacts in person, by telephone, by electronic mail, and in writing, during the course of transacting normal business operations. Contact normally occurs between FHWA Environmental Program Manager (ENV PM), FHWA Operations Engineers (OEs), and NMDOT Environmental Design Division personnel (NMEDD). The NMEDD, FHWA ENV PM, and OEs assist in coordinating interagency approvals for various environmental resources impacted by projects.

Environmental considerations affect virtually all aspects of transportation. Coordination and interaction with other disciplines is necessary to administer the environmental program. Communication is imperative to successfully ensuring State-wide consistency in intergovernmental working relationships. The NMDOT and FHWA personnel must communicate through appropriate channels within organizations and between organizations. Critical times of communications may occur requiring an urgency that entails adjusting usual protocols or chain of command. Examples might be: public health concerns, declared emergencies, critical safety issues, or violations of permits. Timely reactions by personnel are crucial to positive outcomes.

In the environmental functional area, there are several diverse factors that influence the quality of the products and services delivered. The environmental certification is the documentation verifying the decision-making process that ultimately leads to a final design. There are three levels of documentation associated with the NEPA certifications performed for Federal Aid transportation projects:

  1. Categorical Exclusion (CE) – This is the lowest level of environmental documentation approximately 96% of project NEPA certifications are approved with this level of documentation. With the Programmatic Agreement for Categorical Exclusions dated February 8, 2006, these CE projects may be administered by a CE Checklist or a simple one to two page narrative depending on the scope of work.
  2. Environmental Assessment (EA) – This is the tool used for decision-making and eventual environmental certification for projects when it is not immediately known if significant impacts exist. The certification of an EA is a signed Finding Of No Significant Impacts (FONSI). Historically, the New Mexico Division processes between seven to ten EA/FONSI documents per year. This number should decrease with the National endeavor to complete environmental documentation at the lowest level possible, meaning more CE documents. If an EA would determine that significant impacts cannot be mitigated or there is significant controversy, the highest level of environmental documentation is used, an Environmental Impact Statement.
  3. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – This document is used for the most complex projects and it is known that impacts cannot be completely mitigated or there is controversy at a level indicating a formal public processes at a National stage is necessary to provide the most transparent picture of the decision-making process. An EIS has not been completed by the NM Division in several years. One EIS document is expected in the next three years. This is the Paseo de Onate corridor and bridge in Espanola.

There are many environmental laws summarized under the umbrella documentation of NEPA. The impacts governing these particular laws are summarized and certified under NEPA documentation:

  1. The Endangered Species Act – This law is typically coordinated with our partners at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and considers impacts to plant and animal populations threatened with extinction.
  2. The National Historic Preservation Act – This law is typically coordinated with our partners at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). This law focuses on considerations on understanding, recording, and preserving history, emphasizing important and notable events and materials.
  3. The Clean Water Act – This act is typically coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and focuses on maintaining clean water.
  4. The Clean Air Act – This act is typically coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NMED and focuses on assuring improved air quality.

In addition these three factors are important aspects of NEPA. First, the timely delivery of specific environmental activities is critical to advancing transportation projects toward successful completion. For NMDOT staff specialists, project compliance activities should be completed on or ahead of the established schedule date. All NEPA documents should be completed in time for review and approval by FHWA prior to the scheduled project advertisement date.

Second, NMDOT’s public involvement procedures should conscientiously solicit the views of all affected public and should be implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The effectiveness of this program can be measured by the number and general tone of both positive and negative public comments received on the environmental documents.

Third, FHWA and NMDOT should constantly strive to improve the existing working relationships with the many resource protection agencies involved in the environmental functional area (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the N. M. Historic Preservation Division of the N.M. Office of Cultural Affairs, the N. M. Department of Game and Fish, the N. M. Environment Department, etc.).

3.2.2 Environmental Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.2-1 Environmental CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

BUREAU

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Location Study Procedures

NMDOT (Chief Engineer

August 2000

Design Bureau

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

Hard Copy

23 CFR 771

NM DO Environmental Program Guidance & Procedures

FHWA
NMDOT

February 2006

NMDOT
Division Office

FHWA Division Administrator

Hard Copy

23 CFR 771

Programmatic Categorical Exclusion

Design

February 2006

NMDOT
Environmental
Bureau

FHWA Division Administrator / Bureau Chief

Hard Copy

23 CFR 771.117

3.2.3 Environmental Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The FHWA and NMDOT review all environmental documents. The FHWA attends public hearings and other project development meetings on a review-level and as-needed basis. The NMDOT is the primary project level administrator. Both agencies monitor news articles to assess the quality of work being planned and developed by NMDOT. In addition to internal coordination, NMDOT and FHWA will work with other State and Federal reviewing agencies, Native American entities, local and regional governments and the general public to ensure that their views on the environmental function are considered in developing areas for quality improvement.

Under this Stewardship Agreement, NMDOT and FHWA personnel work together as partners to continually review, evaluate, and improve the environmental program. The main emphasis areas of the Agreement are strengthening the environmental function by sharing information and correcting identified weaknesses. The NMDOT’s Environmental Design Division and FHWA’s ENV PM will host routine meetings for Department, Division, and appropriate resource agency personnel to share information, improve the quality and consistency of the environmental documents, and instill an environmental ethic throughout the agency.

Information that documents the environmental program will be kept current as information sources permit. The NMDOT’s Location Study Procedures will be revised and improved on a resource-by-resource basis as necessary and appropriate. The MOU/MOA documents will be regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. The FHWA’s Environmental Program Guidance and Procedures and Programmatic Categorical Exclusions process agreement will be updated as according to need.

The Division Office maintains full authority over any NEPA documentation higher than the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). Oversight is provided through program and process reviews. Routine aspects of the environmental program may be selected at random and analyzed each year. Problems that arise are also diagnosed and addressed as they are identified.

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

Program / Project Reviews, Certification Review – describe the methods and anticipated frequency of oversight actions on projects and programs use by both the Division Office and SDOT (Process Review, Program / Product Evaluations, Peer Reviews, etc.)

3.2.4 Environmental Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.2-2 Environmental P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Approval / Remarks

Categorical Exclusions

23 CFR §771.117

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Class of document determination

23 CFR §771.115-119

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Endangered Species Act Section 7

50 CFR 402; Dispute Resolution Process

As needed or required

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Environmental Assessment

23 CFR §771.119

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - draft

23 CFR §771.123

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Environmental Program Manager or Area Engineer

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Final

23 CFR §771.125

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Division Administrator

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) written re-evaluations

23 CFR §771.129

If no action is taken within 3 years after final EIS As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Environmental Program Manager

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

23 CFR §771.121

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6(f)

36 CFR 59

As needed or required

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Noise Abatement

23 CFR 772; 06/12/95 HQ memo

As needed or required

Environment/ Design

Environmental Coordinator

FHWA approves SDOT' noise abatement policy

Noise walls reporting

23 CFR §772

Annually by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Submitted by NMDOT to Environmental Bureau

Notice of Intent filing

23 CFR §771.123

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Programmatic Environmental Reports (PER)

Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act

Monthly

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

NMDOT submits to State Historic Preservation Officer

Public involvement

23 CFR 771.111(h)(1)

As revised by State

Environment/ Design/Project Management

Environmental Program Manager

NMDOT submits to FHWA

Record of Decision (ROD)

23 CFR §771.127

30 days after publishing final EIS As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Division Administrator

Resource Identification & Agency Coordination

  • Section 4(f) programmatic
  • Section 4(f) individual
  • Section 106 evaluation and consultation
  • Clean Water Act
  • Tribal Government Consultation

FHWA Technical Advisory T.A. 6640-.8A

23 CFR §771.135

As submitted by NMEDB

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Rivers and Harbors Act (Bridge Permits) Section 9

23 CFR 650 Subpart H; 33 CFR 114 & 115

As needed or required

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Threatened & Endangered Species Expenditures Annual Reporting

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Annually

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Submitted by NMDOT to Environmental Bureau

Tribal Government Consultation

36 CFR 800.16(m)

As needed or required

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer

Wetland Impacts and Mitigations reporting

23 CFR §777

As required

Environmental Bureau

Environmental Program Manager

Submitted by NMDOT to Environmental Bureau

3.2.5 Environmental Performance/Compliance Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Environmental Program:

The following table below corresponds to the Environmental Assessments completed since the Federal Fiscal Year 2009 to Present Day (24MAY12). This information is taken from FHWA’s Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS). We currently show a trend of fewer EA documents. It is anticipated that we will move closer to a point where it is a rare exception that of our environmental documentation is completed with a NEPA document higher than a Categorical Exclusion (CE). This is a reflection of the type of project scope as well as a conscious effort to simplify the documentation with a philosophy focusing on the CE Checklist.

Date:  10/18/2012

EA Summary Report

 

Completed Projects

 

10/1/2008 to 9/30/2012

         

Report Parameters:

State:   NM

     
 

FONSI Date:   Range:  10/1/2008 to 9/30/2012

     
         

Summary Report:

       
 

Total number of EAs Approved during this period:

28

   
 

Average Number of months from Availability/Approved Date initiated to FONSI Date:

7

   
 

Median Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:

3

   
 

Shortest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:

1

   
 

Longest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:

59

   
         

Detailed List of EAs:

       
 

* - This project has had a dormancy period.

     
         

Project Name

State

Availability/Approved
Date

FONSI Date

Approval

Length
Month

       

NM 41 Galisteo

NM

5/2/2012

9/5/2012

4

I-40/Rio Puerco Interchange

NM

4/20/2012

6/6/2012

1

Double Eagle Airport Access

NM

3/30/2012

6/26/2012

2

I-25/US 550 Interchange Project

NM

9/1/2011

2/25/2012

5

Strauss Road/ Dona Ana Co. RD A-107

NM

5/26/2011

8/5/2011

2

I-25/Engler Road Grade Separation

NM

5/24/2011

9/9/2011

3

NM 599/Jaguar Drive Interchange

NM

7/30/2010

10/21/2010

2

Jemez Springs Bridge Replacements

NM

7/6/2010

9/1/2010

1

NM 58 Ponil Creek

NM

6/28/2010

8/11/2010

1

US 70, Portales

NM

6/14/2010

7/30/2010

1

Santo Domingo NM 22

NM

1/8/2010

2/10/2010

1

Pinon Hills/CR 3900 - County Project

NM

10/28/2009

3/1/2010

4

Eagle Draw Bridge

NM

8/28/2009

12/31/2009

4

Bayard Street

NM

8/24/2009

10/6/2009

1

Del Rey Boulevard

NM

6/30/2009

8/6/2009

1

I-10 / I-25 Interchange

NM

5/20/2009

6/25/2009

1

NM 2, Dexter

NM

4/8/2009

7/30/2010

15

Grand Avenue

NM

3/16/2009

8/6/2009

4

I-10 Corridor Texas State Line to Las Cruces

NM

3/6/2009

4/27/2009

1

I-10 / NM 404 Interchange Reconstruction

NM

1/27/2009

8/18/2009

6

Aztec East Arterial

NM

1/13/2009

4/10/2009

2

Canal Street

NM

10/14/2008

2/23/2010

16

Rail Runner I-25/NM 599 Station

NM

10/1/2008

12/5/2008

2

Canal Street Carlsbad

NM

6/4/2008

2/23/2010

20

West College Boulevard Extension

NM

5/12/2008

3/16/2009

10

I-40/Rio Grande River Pedestrian Bridge

NM

8/17/2007

11/14/2008

15

I-25 - Tramway to Bernalillo - CN G2a13

NM

4/20/2007

4/20/2009

24

*US 380

NM

11/20/2001

10/16/2009

59

Date:  10/18/2012

EA Summary Report

 

Completed Projects

 

01/01/2011 to 10/18/2012

         

Report Parameters:

State:   NM

     
 

FONSI Date:   Range:  01/01/2011 to 10/18/2012

     
         

Summary Report:

       
 

Total number of EAs Approved during this period:

6

   
 

Average Number of months from Availability/Approved Date initiated to FONSI Date:

3

   
 

Median Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:

3

   
 

Shortest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:

1

   
 

Longest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:

5

   
         

Detailed List of EAs:

       
 

* - This project has had a dormancy period.

     
         

Project Name

State

Availability/

FONSI Date

Approval

Approved

Length

Date

Month

         

NM 41 Galisteo

NM

5/2/2012

9/5/2012

4

I-40/Rio Puerco Interchange

NM

4/20/2012

6/6/2012

1

Double Eagle Airport Access

NM

3/30/2012

6/26/2012

2

I-25/US 550 Interchange Project

NM

9/1/2011

2/25/2012

5

Strauss Road/ Dona Ana Co. RD A-107

NM

5/26/2011

8/5/2011

2

I-25/Engler Road Grade Separation

NM

5/24/2011

9/9/2011

3

3.3.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY

The Right-of-Way Program (ROW) has overall responsibility for the acquisition, management, and disposal of real property on FAHP projects. The acquisition of private property for public use is governed by a host of State and Federal rules and regulations. This responsibility includes assuring that acquisition and disposals are made in compliance with the legal requirements of the State and Federal laws and regulations.

3.3.1 Right-of-Way Method of Operation

The FHWA’s relationship with NMDOT’s ROW Program has historically been a very close working relationship that strives to identify best practices and training opportunities, and maintain good communications.

The ROW operation, from the FHWA perspective includes providing the maximum delegation of authority to NMDOT. This offers the greatest possible innovation and flexibility to administer the ROW Program in New Mexico. Therefore, NMDOT ROW operations manual, known as the Right of Way Handbook, is a regulatory requirement, and an important tool.

Coordination and oversight of the ROW program are maintained between FHWA and NMDOT through meetings; routine contacts in person; in writing (letters and emails), and through telephone calls. The primary communication is normally held between NMDOT’s ROW personnel and FHWA’s ROW Program Manager (RWPM).

In circumstances where all necessary ROW for a federal-aid project has not been acquired, the ROW may be cleared for construction by use of a Conditional Clearance Certification. Determination by FHWA to accept the Conditional ROW Clearance Certification, allowing the NMDOT to move forward with advertisement for construction bid is based on an analysis of the risk to the project and the federal-aid program.

3.3.2 Right-of-Way Method Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAHP projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals (Handbooks) submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.3-1 ROW CS/D Chart (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

BUREAU

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Access Management Manual

Traffic

September 2001

Traffic

NMDOT

Hard Copy

State Law

ROW Handbook,

ROW

approved Jan 2011

ROW

FHWA

http://dot.state.nm.us/Infrastructure/ROW_Handbook.pdf

23 CFR 710.201

3.3.3 Right-of-Way Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

A program implementation review is performed in four functional areas within NMDOT ROW process documented in FHWA approved NMDOT ROW Handbook, Title 23 CFR, Title 49 CFR part 24.

Quality assurance reviews of critical areas will be made on a rotational basis based on the risk assessment made by NMDOT ROW personnel and FHWA Division ROW Program Manager.

The program and risk assessment is analyzed through the FHWA’s Division’s Yearly Unit Plan Activities. The conclusions of this assessment are discussed with the NMDOT ROW Bureau Chief.

Through the risk assessment analysis (or as designated by Division / Agency) a joint determination is made with the NMDOT ROW Bureau Chief on which areas to conduct an in-depth Program/Project review for the respective current fiscal year.

3.3.4 Right-of-Way Method Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.3-2 ROW P&PAR Table (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

Access Break / ROW Disposal authorization request (if not on Interstate system and fair market value charged)

23 CFR 710.409

As needed

Property Access Management

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA concurs in action

Access Break / ROW Disposal authorization request (if on Interstate system or fair market value not charged)

23 CFR 710.401 & 409

Project by project

Property Access Management

Right of Way Program Manager

All approval for access breaks and disposal actions at less than FMV require FHWA approval

Acquisitions, Appraisals, and Relocations

49 CFR part 24; Uniform Act

All Federal-aid projects

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

ROW BC approves activities

Approve Hardship and Protective Buying

23 CFR 710.503

As needed

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA reviews and approves as needed

Authorize Right-of-Way activities

23 CFR 710.503

As needed

Funding Control

Right of Way Program Manager/FHWA Area Engineer

NMDOT funding control submits to FHWA for approval

Develop ROW oversight agreement

23 CFR 710.201(i)

Updated as needed

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA reviews and approve jointly with NMDOT as needed

Early Acquisitions

23 CFR 710.501

As requested

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

Submit request to FHWA for concurrence

Federal land transfers

23 CFR 710.601

When requested

Relocation Specialty Unit

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA reviews and submits to resource agency for consent to appropriate

FHWA Annual Acquisition and Relocation Statistics
Previous form FHWA 1434, 1424

FHWA Order 6540.1

Annually by Nov. 15

Relocation Specialty Unit

Right of Way Program Manager

NMDOT submits completed form to FHWA

Functional Replacement

23 CFR 710.509

Project by project

Relocation Specialty Unit

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA reviews and approves

Local Public Agency Oversight

23 CFR 710.201(h)

As needed

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

DOT is responsible for oversight of T/LPA ROW activities on federal-aid projects

Outdoor Advertising policies and procedures revisions

23 CFR 750.304

As needed or submitted by State

ODA Unit Supervisor
(Maintenance Bureau)

Right of Way Program Manager

This unit has been moved to the Maintenance Bureau. No longer responsibility of ROW. FHWA reviews and approves

Railroad Agreement Alternate Procedure

23 CFR 646.220

As required

Transit and Rail

FHWA Area Engineer

FHWA reviews and approves

Requests for credits toward the non-federal share of construction costs for early acquisitions, donations or other contributions applied to a project

23 CFR 710.501

As needed

Funding Control

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA approves or rejects

Requests for waivers of Federal Regulations

23 CFR 1.9

As needed or as submitted by State

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager /DA

FHWA DA approves or rejects

ROW Conditional Clearance Certification

23 CFR 635.309

Project by Project

Chief Engineer

Right of Way Program Manager /Area Engineer

FHWA reviews and approves or rejects

ROW Plan Authorization

23 CFR 710.201 (i)

Project by Project

Right of Way Bureau Chief

RWPM/Area Engineer

NMDOT Lands and Survey reviews and approves

State ROW Handbook Certification

23 CFR 710.201

Every 5 years beginning 1/01/2001

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

NMDOT is required to administer the ROW program according to the approved Handbook

State ROW Handbook Updates

23 CFR 710.201(c)(3)

As needed or as submitted by State

Right of Way Bureau Chief

Right of Way Program Manager

ROW Handbook will be updated to reflect changes in State/Federal Law and regulations

Use of ROW Air Space authorization request (off Interstate system)

23 CFR 710.405

As needed

Property Access Management

Right of Way Program Manager

NMDOT takes action on request for lease of ROW with FHWA concurrence

Use of ROW Air Space authorization request (on Interstate system)

23 CFR 710.405

as requested

Property Access Management

Right of Way Program Manager

NMDOT takes action on request which requires FHWA approval

Utility Accommodation Policy

23 CFR 645.215

Adjusted as needed

Utility Unit

Right of Way Program Manager

FHWA review and approve as needed

Utility Cooperative Agreement

23 CFR 645.119

As needed

Utility Unit Supervisor

RWPM/Area Engineer

FHWA Reviews and approve

3.3.5 Right-of-Way Stewardship/Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Right-of-Way Program:

3.3.5(a) Percent of FAHP Utilizing a Conditional ROW Certification
3.3.5(b) Percent of Parcels Acquired Utilizing a Letter of Intent (LOI)

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 5 percent of acquisitions completed utilized a conditional Right of Way Certification. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 4 percent of acquisitions completed utilized a conditional Right of Way Certification. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 2 percent of acquisitions completed utilized a conditional Right of Way Certification. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 40 percent of acquisitions completed utilized a conditional Right of Way Certification.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 80 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing a Letter of Intent for negotiations. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 49 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing a Letter of Intent for negotiations. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 34 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing a Letter of Intent for negotiations. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 60 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing a Letter of Intent for negotiations.

These results show that the Right of Way Bureau is certifying 60% of the projects with a final certification, meaning all property interests are secured. The projects included in the 40% were due to ROW process not being

A letter of intent (LOI) must be sent out to start the clock for the condemnation process therefore there is a point in the process where a letter of intent has to be sent. This letter can be a somewhat intimidating letter to the property owner and can make our negotiations a little more sensitive. Project production dates must be monitored closely, so that LOIs are sent in order to stay on schedule and meet the certification date. The 60% includes 5 different projects throughout the state.

3.3.5(c) Percent of Parcels Acquired Utilizing an Appraisal Waiver
3.3.5(d) Percent of Administrative Settlements Up to and including $2500 and Percent of Administrative Settlements Over $2500

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Calendar Year 2009, 38 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing an appraisal waiver. In Calendar Year 2010, 67 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing an appraisal waiver. In Calendar Year 2011, 10 percent of acquisitions were completed utilizing an appraisal waiver.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, no data was reported.  In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, no data was reported. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 5 percent of Administrative Settlements were under $2500 and there were no Administrative Settlements over $2500. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 10 percent of Administrative Settlements were under $2500 and 10 percent of Administrative Settlements were over $2500.

Appraisal waivers can be prepared when the valuation of a parcel of land is not complicated (may not be complex or contain improvements or damages) and the value is known to be less than $10,000.00. The FHWA encourages the use of waivers because the waivers save both time and money. Due to the $10,000.00 threshold, there are limitations as to when waivers can be prepared. When NMDOT has rural projects the land is usually not as valuable monetarily, and more waivers can be prepared.

The $2,500 administrative settlement is a tool for the acquisition agents to use in the field thereby saving time and money. Any administrative settlement over $2,500 must have ROW upper management approval as well.

3.4.0 DESIGN

The purpose of the Project Development (Design) Program is to provide program level and project level federal oversight of project development / design. These phases span a period of time that begins with feasibility studies and ends with the completion of PS&E, resulting in a product that is buildable and biddable.

The major components at the program level are:

The major components at the project level are:

3.4.1 Design Method of Operation

Project Development at NMDOT is the responsibility of the Office of Infrastructure under the direction of the Chief Engineer which manages all aspects of Project Development beginning with programming the projects, preliminary and final design, design and development support and ending with PS&E. Project Development is managed either by the Regional Design Divisions and District Engineering Support personnel with the actual design completed with either internal design forces or consultant design support. The Office of Infrastructure provides engineering and development support through specialized bureaus including Traffic, Drainage, Bridge (structural), Pavement Design, Environmental Design, Consultant Management and PS&E.

3.4.2 Design Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAHP projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.4-1 Design CS/D Chart (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

BUREAU

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO

Office of Infrastructure

2011
6th Edition

Office of Infrastructure

Chief Engineer

Hard Copy

23 CFR 625.4

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA

Office of Infrastructure

2009

Office of Infrastructure

Chief Engineer

Hard Copy

Chapter 66,Article 7 NMSA 1978

Office of Infrastructure Design Directives

Office of Infrastructure

As needed

Chief Engineer

Chief Engineer

http://dot.state.nm.us/env/PSE/DesignDirectives.html

Department Policy

3.4.3 Design Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT is responsible for programming, development, letting and award of FAHP. The NMDOT is responsible for ensuring these projects are in conformity with AASHTO, NMDOT and FHWA design standards and specifications. The NMDOT will also staff adequate and qualified personnel to manage and deliver the Project Development Program.

The NMDOT uses design procedures that will ensure projects are designed in accordance with current and predicted traffic needs in a safe and cost effective manner. The NMDOT and FHWA will work cooperatively through the project development process to ensure projects meet the approved standards and specifications. On those occasions where design exceptions and variances are required, the NMDOT and FHWA will work together to develop mitigations in the design that meet the needs of the project and ensure the safe and efficient operation of the facility. Each bureau has their respective manuals in accordance with design deliverables.

The FHWA will monitor implementation, operation, and effectiveness of NMDOT’s project development process through process reviews by Program Area, FHWA participates as a member of project design teams through the Area Engineers, and are invited to attend bid review committee meetings as ad hoc members ( for technical assistance).

Coordination, oversight, and stewardship are maintained through meetings, and routine contacts in person, by telephone, by electronic mail, and in writing, during the course of transacting normal business operations. Contacts are normally between the FHWA Area Engineer and NMDOT Project Development Engineers.

3.4.4 Design Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.4-2 Design P&PAR Table (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

3R Program

23 CFR 625

As needed

Design/ Maintenance

National Programs

Design responsible for 3R Guidelines (Design Information Bulletin 79)

Approve addenda during advertising period

23 CFR 635.112

As needed

NMDOT Construction Liaison Engr. (CLE)

Area Engineer

Field Ops. / Area Engr. Review & approves; then CLE reviews and approves

Approve advertising period less than three weeks

23 CFR 635.112

As needed

Chief Engineer

Division Administrator

Approval by FHWA Division Administrator

Approve construction engineering by local agency

23 CFR 635.105

As needed

LGAU Manager

Area Engineer

Field Operations Area Engineer reviews and approves; SO District T/LPA POCs reviews and approves

Approve cost-effectiveness determinations for construction work performed by force account or by contract awarded by other than competitive bidding

23 CFR 635.104 &.204

As requested

Assistant District Engineer (construction)

Area Engineer

AE & ADE construction reviews and approves

Approve emergency determinations for contracts awarded by other than competitive bidding for consultant contracts

23 CFR 635.104 &.204

As needed

Chief Engineer

Area Engineer / Transportation Operations Engineer

CE & AE/TOE review and approve

Approve exceptions to maximum railroad protective insurance limits

23 CFR 646.111

As needed

Railroad Manager

Transportation Engineer

RR mgr. &TOE review and approve

Approve Federal Land Transfers

23 CFR 710 Subpart F

As needed

ROW Mgr.

Environmental Specialist

ROW & ES review & approve

Approve Hardship and Protective Buying (on Fed Aid Projects)

23 CFR 710.503

As needed

ROW Mgr.

ROW specialist

ROW & ROW review and approve

Approve preliminary plans for unusual structures

23 USC 109(a) and FHWA Policy

As Needed

PDE

Structural Engineer / Area Engineer

FHWA Structure Engineer Approves and State Bridge Engineer

Approve requests for credits toward the non-federal share of construction costs for early acquisitions, donations or other contributions applied to a project

23 CFR

As Needed

Engineer Program Manager

Division Administrator

Requires public interest finding for DA Approval

Approve use of consultants by utility companies

23 CFR 645.109(b)

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Approve utility and railroad agreements

23 CFR 645.113 & 646.216

As needed

Rail Manager & ROW Mgr.

ROW specialist

RM, ROW Mgr. & ROW specialist review and approve

Authorize advertising for bids (FHWA authorization done via construction authorization)

23 CFR 635.112, 309

As needed

Authorization Engineer

Area Engineer

AE review and approve

Authorize Right of Way Activities (on Fed-Aid projects)

23 CFR 710.307

As needed

PDE

Area Engineer

AE review and approve; SO CLE review and approve

Concur in award of contract

23 CFR 635.114

As needed

SO = CLE

Area Engineer

FO AE; SO CLE review and approve

Concur in rejection of all bids

23 CFR 635.114

As needed

Chief Engineer

Division Administrator

Approval by FHWA Division Administrator

Concur in use of publicly furnished materials

23 CFR 635.407

As needed

Chief Engineer

Area Engineer

FO AE; SO CLE review and approve

Develop Project Scoping Report

23 CFR

As Needed

PDE

Area Engineer

District Engineer and State Regional Manager Approves

Identify / Approve innovative and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects

in accordance with SEP-14 and SEP-15 (except those Design-Build projects that conform with 23 CFR 636)

As Needed

Chief Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer / Planning

Cabinet Secretary approves; TOE / Planning review and concur

Identify retaining right-of-way encroachments

23 CFR 1.23 (b) & (c)

As Needed

PDE

Area Engineer

Provide information to Right of Way

Identify the use of proprietary products, processes

23 CFR 635.411

As needed

PDE

Area Engineer

AE & PDE review and approve

Identify use of local force account agreements

23 CFR 635.104 & 204

As Needed

PDE

Area Engineer

AE & PDE review and approve

Identify use of publicly owned equipment

23 CFR 635.106

As Needed

PDE

Area Engineer

AE & PDE review and approve

Prepare plans, specifications and estimates

23 CFR 630.20

As Needed

PDE

Area Engineer

AE & PDE review and approve

Request advance construction and conversions

23 CFR 630.703 & 709

As Needed

Finance Manager

Area Engineer

AE & State Finance Manager review and approve

Request utility or railroad force account work

23 CFR 645.113 & 646.216

As Needed

Rail Manager & PDE

Area Engineer

AE & RM / ROW manager review and approve

3.4.5 Design Program Stewardship & Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Pavement Design and Materials Program:

The indicators listed below are in process and will be available at the end of FFY13.

3.4.5(a) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by number)
3.4.5(b) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by dollars)

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, there were 706 total Change Orders, 3 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, there were 693 total Change Orders, 37 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, there were 789 total Change Orders, 24 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, there were 790 total Change Orders, 49 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, there were 884 total Change Orders, 60 were for Design Oversight.

To Be Developed

3.4.5(c) Number of projects planned to let vs. number of projects let
3.4.5(d) Percent of Projects – Award within +/- 10% Engineer Estimate

An image with bar graph depicting the comparison of percent of projects let compared to projects planned to let in the year: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 51 percent of the planned projects were let. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 51 percent of the planned projects were let. Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 67 percent of the planned projects were let. Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 80 percent of the planned projects were let.

An image with bar graph depicting percent of projects where the award was within +/- 10 percent of the engineer estimate: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, 43 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of the engineer estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 33 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of the engineer estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 52 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of the engineer estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 75 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of the engineer estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 77 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of the engineer estimate.

 
 

The statistics above have been generated by the Construction Bureau; however it would be better tracked and examined by Planning and Infrastructure.

3.5.0 CONSULTANT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FHWA does not have "direct" responsibility over consultant "selection" except in sole source consultant selection and consultants who serve in a managerial role.  FHWA provides oversight through reviews, audits of the program, and approval/concurrence of procedures

3.5.1 Consultant Services Administration Method of Operation

NMDOT has the responsibility for documenting use of consultant services on Federal-aid projects. FHWA has the responsibility for approving the procedures. In the case of sole source consultant selection this is a FHWA responsibility as is consultants who serve in a managerial role. At this time NMDOT does not hire consultants to work in a managerial role.

The NMDOT through the Office of Infrastructure through the Regional Design, Engineering Support and Program Management Divisions determine the annual need for Consultant Services based on the Federal and State Transportation Program and availability of internal design resources. Once these needs have been determined the Consultant Management Unit (CMU) will work with the Regional Design Divisions and/or Engineering Support Managers to establish a budget based scope of each project. The CMU in cooperation with the Project Development Engineer (PDE) or the Engineering Support Manager will be responsible for preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP). Once the RFP is prepared the CMU will be responsible for the advertisement, consultant selection process and contract award process. Once the contract is executed the PDE or Engineering Support Manager is responsible the management of contract including ensuring the project remains on schedule, remains on scope and that all deliverables are received per the contract. The CMU is responsible for receiving and processing invoices. Amendments will be requested by the PDE as warranted and approved in accordance established NMDOT procurement procedures. The CMU will be responsible for processing the amendment.

The CMU will be responsible for maintaining a project file with all contract documents (including the RFP, negotiation documents, contract, and contract amendments), payment documentation, closeout documents, and any pertinent correspondence with between the NMDOT and the Consultant. Signature Flow:

A description for this image is available by following the link to stewardship351.cfm.

3.5.2 Consultant Services Administration Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAH projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.5-1 Consultant Services Administration CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Consultant
Services Procedures Manual & Handbook

Consultant Management Unit

April 26, 2006

Consultant Management Unit Manager

FHWA Area Engineer
& NMDOT Chief Engineer

http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/PM/CMU_manual.pdf

23 CFR 172.9 & NMAC

State Procurement Code

Procurement Services Bureau

Living Document Updated As Needed

State of
New Mexico

Legislature

www.nmcpr.state.nm.us

NMAC

Design Directives

PS&E

2012

Office of Infrastructure

FHWA Area Engineer
& NMDOT Chief Engineer

http://dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/design_directive
This URL is not a working link

23 CFR 172.9

3.5.3 Consultant Services Administration & Methods of Oversight

As needed Program Reviews, Certification Review – Process reviews every two to three years to include contract management and documentation reviews to ensure the PDE’s and CMU are practicing appropriate contract management and complying with Federal regulations.

3.5.4 Consultant Services Administration Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.5-2 Consultant Services Administration P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Actions / Remarks

Approve consultant contract agreements (Federal non-Major projects)

23 CFR 172.9, FDM 8-20-5

Chief Engineer, Deputy Secretary of PINF

CMU Manager

Area Engineer

NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection

Approve consultant contract agreements (PSA professional Services Agreement) and agreement revisions on Federal Major projects

23 CFR 172.9, FDM 8-20-5

Chief Engineer, Deputy Secretary of PINF

CMU Manager

Area Engineer

NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection

Approve hiring of consultant to serve in a "management" role

23 CFR 172.9, FDM 8-5-55

N/A

N/A

N/A

This is NOT done in NM

Consultant Contract Selection

FDM 8-5-1

Per Approved Consultant RFP Schedule

Consultant Management Unit Manager

Area Engineer

NMDOT Administers consultant contract selections

Contracting Procedures

23 CFR 172.5 & 172.9

As needed

CMU Manager

Transportation Operations Engineer

NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection

Sole source Consultant Contract Selection

FDM 8-5-1(3)

As required

CMU Manger

Area Engineer

NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection; FHWA approves selection

3.5.5 Consultant Services Administration Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Consultant Services Administration Program:

3.5.5(a) Engineer Estimate vs. Final Contract Amount

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Calendar Year 2008, 48 percent of new consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline and 81 percent of amended consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline. In Calendar Year 2009, 44 percent of new consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline and 69 percent of amended consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline. In Calendar Year 2010, 62 percent of new consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline and 71 percent of amended consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline. In Calendar Year 2011, 50 percent of new consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline and 83 percent of amended consultant contracts were processed within the required timeline.

Up until the middle of 2011, new and amended contracts were expected to be processed and finalized within 12 weeks. Since 2011, the process was reviewed and the time to process amended contracts was reduced to 6-10 weeks and the amended contracts reduced to 4-8 weeks. In CY11, new contracts were processed within the new timeline at a rate of 50% and amended contracts were processed at a rate of 83%, which indicates an improvement in processing time. In the newly established processes certain aspects of the process may vary slightly, depending on the funding source, which may affect the processing time.

3.6.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

Pavement Management Program: The Pavement Management Program functions to implement the most cost effective surface treatment and pavement maintenance program possible. The primary function is to create planning tools to be utilized in development of the Department’s transportation system such that it meets the surface condition goals established by the Transportation Commission.

The primary products and function of the Pavement Management Program include:

Concrete & Physical Properties Program: The mission of the Concrete and Physical Properties Program is to provide timely and accurate test results for concrete, aggregate, steel, and other construction and maintenance materials. This program provides statewide Portland cement concrete coordination through engineering and technical expertise that will assist the Districts in the development of NMDOT’s transportation system to meet the structural condition goals for bridges and FHWA New Mexico Division and NMDOT Stewardship and Oversight Agreement the surface condition goals for pavement.

Program consists of:
the concrete and steel testing unit, the aggregate testing unit, the pavement deflection and smoothness testing unit, the radiation safety unit, chemical unit, and engineering support.
The primary products include review of concrete mix designs, production and quality assurance testing, and concrete design specifications for aggregates and concrete.

Asphalt Program: The mission of the Asphalt Pavement Program is to provide timely and accurate asphalt mix and binder testing, ensure high quality of NMDOT asphalt mix and binder testing statewide, and provide engineering and technical expertise in the development, selection, application, construction, testing and maintenance of asphalt mix and binder materials that will assist the Districts in the development of NMDOT’s transportation system to meet the surface condition goals. The Asphalt Pavement Program consists of the Bituminous, the Flexible Pavement Laboratory, and the Asphalt Engineering Unit, in compliance with AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) standards.

Products of this program include:

The Materials Bureau is responsible for ensuring quality in the products used for construction and maintenance of the transportation system. The Bureau is responsible for the specifications, test procedures, and associated testing of materials to ensure compliance with NMDOT standards and specifications and FHWA Regulations. The programs in this Bureau include Soils and Rock fall, Geotechnical Engineering, Concrete and Physical Properties, Asphalt Pavements, Pavement Management, and Pavement Design.

3.6.1 Pavement Design and Management Method of Operation

The USC Title 23 defines maintenance as, "...the preservation of the entire highway, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary for safe and efficient utilization of the highway." Additionally, it requires a State transportation department to maintain, or cause to be maintained, each project constructed with FAHP funds; until such time that it no longer constitutes a part of the FAHP system. It is FHWA’s role to see that maintenance of FAHP projects is adequate, and to provide technical assistance in disseminating information on successful maintenance techniques.

The NMDOT and FHWA will work together as partners to continually review the materials, pavement, and geotechnical programs, verify procedures, and provide solutions to identified problem areas. This working relationship requires teamwork across functional boundaries in FHWA and NMDOT. The utilization of outside resources, such as industry groups and organizations, will be considered in this joint effort.

3.6.2 Pavement Design and Management Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAHP projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.6-1 Pavement Design and Management CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Pavement Design Policy and Guidelines

NMDOT

07/21/ 2008, Updated Pending release
FY 2013

Pavement Design Unit

NMDOT Chief Engineer and Pavement Design Unit Head

http://dot.state.nm.us/en/Infrastructure/Engineering_Support.html#a

23 CFR 626

3.6.3 Pavement Design and Management Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT Materials Quality Assurance Program (MQAP) is structured around 23 CFR § 637.207. NMDOT’s Quality Assurance Program applies to all projects that NMDOT constructs whether FAHP or non-FAHP. The NMDOT is responsible for development, implementation, and maintenance of its Materials Quality Assurance Program and FHWA oversees the MQAP for compliance to 23 CFR § 637.207.

The NMDOT is responsible for ensuring the construction operations and the materials incorporated into the construction work are controlled by sampling and testing are in conformity with the approved plans and specifications and ill also ensure adequate and qualified staff to maintain the Quality Assurance program.

The NMDOT uses the design procedure that is outlined in the NMDOT Pavement Design Guide to ensure pavements are designed in accordance with current and predicted traffic needs in a safe, durable and cost effective manner. The NMDOT will design and approve pavement designs and ensure the pavement designs are built to specifications. The FHWA will review and approve updates to NMDOT Pavement Design Guide as necessary.

The FHWA will promote improvements when deficiencies are identified or when new approaches or technologies are developed and will also provide oversight of construction materials, and compliance with Federal requirements on a State-wide basis. As a member of the Quality Assurance Steering Committee, FHWA will have ongoing involvement in the development and implementation of the MQAP and will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the MQAP through process reviews.

The FHWA will monitor implementation, operation, and effectiveness of NMDOT’s pavement design through process reviews and also participates as a member of the State-wide Pavements Committee that oversees network pavement strategies.

Coordination, oversight, and stewardship are maintained through meetings, and routine contacts in person, by telephone, by electronic mail, and in writing, during the course of transacting normal business operations. Contacts are normally between the FHWA Materials Engineer and NMDOT Pavement and Materials staff.

FHWA and NMDOT will conduct periodic oversight reviews as needed to ensure compliance with 23 CFR.

3.6.4 Pavement Design and Management Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.6-2 Pavement Design and Management P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Remarks

Independent Assurance Annual Report

23 CFR 637.207

Annually by March 1 (only required by systemic approach Albq. only)

QA / QC Engineer

Pavement Engineer

State QA/QC engineer reports to FHWA Pavement Engineer

Materials Acceptance – Quality Control / Quality Acceptance Program

23 CFR 637B

Updated as needed

Operations Director (or designee)

Pavement Engineer

Periodic updates to ensure compliance with construction program.

Materials Certifications

23 CFR 637 Appendix A

As needed on Federal-aid projects

CLEs

AE

CLE & AE review and approve

Pavement Condition Surveys

23 U.S.C. 116

Every two years

Maintenance State Maintenance Engineer?

Pavement Engineer

Pavement engineer reviews

Pavement Design Policy

23 CFR 626.3

As needed

Pavement design engineer

Pavement Engineer

NMDOT considers all alternatives when designing pavement surface.

Pavement Management System

23 CFR 500.106

As needed

State Maintenance Engineer?
Maintenance

Pavement Engineer

State reports pavement condition; FHWA Pvt Engr reviews and forwards to HQ

3.6.5 Pavement Design and Management Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Pavement Design and Materials Program:

3.6.3(a) Percent of Miles Rated Good on Interstate and Non-Interstate
3.6.3(b) Percent of Pavement Miles Rated "Good"

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In State Fiscal Year 2009, 97.4 percent of Interstate roads in NM were rated good, and 87.4 percent of Non-Interstate roads in NM were rated good. In State Fiscal Year 2010, 98.5 percent of Interstate roads in NM were rated good, and 86.2 percent of Non-Interstate roads in NM were rated good. In State Fiscal Year 2011, 96.8 percent of Interstate roads in NM were rated good, and 84.5 percent of Non-Interstate roads in NM were rated good. In State Fiscal Year 2012, 96.8 percent of Interstate roads in NM were rated good, and 84.5 percent of Non-Interstate roads in NM were rated good.

 
 
To Be Developed:
  • % of miles rated good on NHS
  • % of miles rated good on non-NHS
  • % of miles rated good on local / collector routes

*FY11 Result is estimate based on average road deterioration per year

 
Indicator 3.6.3(c) Life Cycle of Pavement – Breakdown of Dollars spent by Maintenance Category

(Intentionally left blank)

To be Developed:

  • Goal: spend $$’s in Routine / Preservation
  • Routine (surface treatment)
  • Preservation (chip seal)
  • Minor Rehab (up to 2.5")
  • Major Rehab (2.5 – 4")
  • Reconstruction
 

(Intentionally left blank)

3.7.0 CONSTRUCTION & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

The FHWA is required to assure compliance with FAHP contract provisions on all projects that utilize Federal funds. Federal responsibility includes the inspection of construction projects utilizing FAHP funds. The primary purpose of FHWA review and administration in construction is to protect the public investment, assure effective quality controls, and to verify that the project is completed in accordance with the plans, specifications, and special provisions of the contract. ISTEA and TEA-21 allow the delegation of FHWA construction review, oversight and administration responsibilities, except those based on non-Title 23 CFR requirements to the State DOT. MAP-21 or SAFETEA-LU does not substantially change this delegation. The FHWA specific construction monitoring responsibilities include stewardship as indicated in Table 3.4-1.

3.7.1 Construction & Contract Administration Method of Operation

The FHWA’s Field Operations Section (FO) and NMDOT’s Construction Bureau have the primary responsibility for the stewardship and oversight for the design and construction programs for the FAHP in New Mexico. These programs constitute a major portion of the Federal funding that is distributed to the State.

The NMDOT is broken up into six geographical Districts:

There are three Design Regions:

The NMDOT Construction Bureau is led by the State Construction Engineer (CLE), 4 to 6 Construction Liaison Engineers and associated technical support staff. Each CLE has the oversight responsibility of at least one of the NMDOT’s districts and Regional Design Centers. Construction Liaison Engineer (CLE) – an individual employed by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) to oversee the design and construction program for a respective area, i.e. NMDOT District(s).
Each District is responsible for administering the construction and maintenance of construction projects within its boundaries. They are also responsible, in some form, to oversee the development of these projects.

Stewardship & Oversight regarding Local Government Projects will adhere to the Oversight Screening Criteria (see below).

Oversight Screening Criteria

Except as noted below, all projects oversight responsibilities will initially be assigned to the NMDOT and designated as State Assumed Projects. The NM Division Office may retain Project Oversight Responsibilities based on Significant Project Impacts or risks identified in the Division Office’s Annual Risk Assessment. In conjunction with the NMDOT, the Division Office may make a determination to retain project oversight responsibilities based on one or more of the following risk based criteria;

  1. Projects of National/Regional Significance
    • Federal/State/Local (PDN, Mesa Del Sol, etc.)
  2. Projects in Support of National Program Goals (MAP 21)
    • Safety
    • Infrastructure Condition
    • Congestion Reduction
    • System Reliability
    • Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
    • Environmental Sustainability
    • Reduced Project Delivery Delays
  3. Projects with significant Environmental Impacts
    • Increased Level of Environmental Review (EIS/EA)
    • Natural Resources/Cultural Resources
    • Public/Political Controversy
  4. Projects Of Significant Complexity
    • Design/Construction (Major Projects)
    • Access Control Issues (Major IJRs)
    • Innovative Contracting Techniques (CM/GC, Design/Build, etc.)
    • EDC2 Initiatives

The Division Office may review and/or assume Project Oversight Responsibilities prior to or after any phase of the projects development or construction. At the request of the NMDOT the Division Office is prepared to provide guidance or technical assistance to any project regardless of project’s oversight designation.

Unless as otherwise noted above or as indicated on Table 3.7-2 Construction & Contract Administration P&PAR, the NMDOT will be responsible for the full oversight and stewardship of all Federal Aid Design and Construction projects. The NMDOT, through the State Construction Bureau and other associated program groups will ensure that all Federal Aid Design and Construction Projects are administered in accordance with all applicable State and Federal Regulations and Policies.

3.7.2 Construction & Contract Administration Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.7-1 Construction & Contract Administration CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Construction Guide

State Construction Bureau

1987 (Currently being updated)

NMDOT

NMDOT

Will be online once update completed

Construction procedures

Office Procedures (Manual) Guide

State Construction Bureau

2009 (Currently being updated) Should be ready for implementation by October 2012

NMDOT

NMDOT

Will be placed in internal drive/server for NMDOT use

Audit procedures consistency of project administration

Standard Specifications

State Construction Bureau

2007 (Currently being updated)

NMDOT

FHWA

Will have paper copies as well as online availability

23 CFR

3.7.3 Construction & Contract Administration & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT CLE’s, and the Districts/Regions will cooperate to ensure that process improvement activities are established and carried out for design and construction activities. The NMDOT will also staff adequate and qualified personnel to manage and deliver the Project Development Program. The FWHA OEs will be available to assist the NMDOT Construction Bureau by assisting in the development of training, providing technical assistance, and/or in any issues or conflicts encountered in the NMDOT’s Planning, Environmental, Design and Construction Programs.

Following are some of the cooperative process improvement activities:

3.7.4 Construction & Contract Administration Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.7-2 Construction & Contract Administration P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

Addenda

23 CFR 635.112

Project Specific

Construction Engineer

Area Engineer

CLE or Area Engineer approves as needed

Advanced Construction (all projects)

23 CFR 630.705

As needed

N/A

Area Engineer

FHWA approves in FMIS

Bid Review Procedure

23 CFR 635.113

As updated

Construction Engineer

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed.

Buy America Waiver

23 CFR 635.410

As needed

N/A

Area Engineer

FHWA HQ approves

Changed Conditions Changes and Extra Work

23 CFR 635.120

Project Specific

CLE (construction liaison engineer)

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Claims

23 CFR 635.124

Project specific

Construction Engineer

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Claims (State-wide)

23 CFR 635.124

As Updated

Construction Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer

FO (manager) reviews and approves

Concur in use of mandatory borrow / disposal sites

23 CFR 635.407

As needed

Construction Engineer

N/A

CE approves (project specific)

Concurrence in Award

23 CFR 635.114, 23 USC 112(d)

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Construction Inspections

23 USC 114

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Consultant Services

23 CFR 172

Project specific

Constructability Engineer

Area Engineer

Establish contract for district use

Consultant Services
(State-wide)

23 CFR 172

As needed

Constructability Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer

Establish contract for district use

Contract Time (State- wide)

23 CFR 635.121

As updated

Construction Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer

CE approves

Defense Access Roads

23 CFR 660 Part E

As needed

N/A

Transportation Operations Engineer

When needed

Design Exceptions and Variances

23 CFR 625.3

As needed

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Design Reviews

23 CFR 625

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Design Standards

23 CFR 625

As needed

Construction Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer

When needed

Emergency Repair / Projects

23 CFR 635.204

As requested

N/A

Area Engineer

When needed

Environmental Documents (Environmental Commitments required by design and constructed accordingly)

23 CFR 771

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Final Acceptance

49 CFR 18.50

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Labor Compliance

23 CFR 635.118

As needed

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Labor Compliance Policy

23 CFR 635.118, Davis-Bacon Act

As needed

Office of Equal Opportunity Programs

Civil Rights Specialist

Division office Civil Rights specialist manages program

Liquidated Damage Rates (project spec)

23 CFR 635.127

Project specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Liquidated Damage Rates (State-wide)

23 CFR 635.127

Every 2 years

Constructability Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer

Constructability Engineer reviews and approves

Local Public Agency Oversight Policies and Procedures

23 CFR 635.105

As updated

District T/LPA POC

Area Engineer

FHWA Area Engr. or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Patented/Proprietary Products (project)

23 CFR 635.411

Project specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Area Engr. or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Patented/Proprietary Products (State-wide)

23 CFR 635.411

As needed

N/A

Transportation Operations Engineer

FHWA DA approval

Plans, Specifications, & Estimates (PS&E)

23 CFR 630.205

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Area Engr. or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Project Agreements

23 CFR 630 Subpart C

As needed

District Technical Support Engineer (TSE)

Area Engineer

Area Engr. District TSE reviews and approves as needed

Project Authorization

23 CFR 630.106
23 CFR 635 Subpart C

Project Specific

N/A

Area Engineer

Area Engr. review and approve

Railroad Agreement

23 CFR 646.216

Project by project

Rail and Transit Director

Area Engineer

When needed

Railroad Agreement Alternate Procedure

23 CFR 646.220

One time

Rail and Transit Director

Area Engineer

When needed

Scoping Reports

23 CFR 625

Project Specific

CLE

Area Engineer

CLE & AE concur

Termination of Contract

23 CFR 635.125

As needed

Cabinet Secretary

Transportation Operations Engineer

FHWA DA approves

Utility Accommodation Policy

23 CFR 645.215

When changes occur

Utility Section Manager

ROW specialist

Field Ops and NMDOT review and approve as needed.

Utility Agreement Alternate Procedure

23 CFR 645.119

One time

Utility Section Manager

ROW specialist

Field Ops and NMDOT review and approve as needed.

Value Engineering (project)

23 CFR 627

Project specific

CLE

Area Engineer

FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed

Value Engineering (State-wide)

23 CFR 627

As updated

Chief Engineer

Transportation Operations Engineer

Field Ops and NMDOT review and approve as needed

3.7.5 Construction & Contract Administration Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Project Delivery Program:

3.7.5(a) Percent of Projects Completed On-Time
3.7.5(b) Final Construction Costs (less GRT) compared to Award Amount

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, 86 percent of projects were completed on-time. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 85 percent of projects were completed on-time. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 98 percent of projects were completed on-time. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 96 percent of projects were completed on-time. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 93 percent of projects were completed on-time.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, 34 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were below award amount, 45 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 0-10 percent above award amount, 13 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 10-20 percent above award amount and 8 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) over 20 percent above award amount. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 21 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were below award amount, 57 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 0-10 percent above award amount, 11 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 10-20 percent above award amount and 11 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) over 20 percent above award amount. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 29 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were below award amount, 57 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 0-10 percent above award amount, 11 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 10-20 percent above award amount and 11 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) over 20 percent above award amount. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 44 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were below award amount, 39 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 0-10 percent above award amount, 8 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 10-20 percent above award amount and 8 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) over 20 percent above award amount. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 43 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were below award amount, 35 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 0-10 percent above award amount, 11 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) were between 10-20 percent above award amount and 11 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) over 20 percent above award amount.

Ninety-three percent of projects were completed on time for FFY12, an excellent indicator of NMDOT’s Design and Construction staff effectively managing time on construction projects.

 

Forty three percent of the projects NMDOT completed in FFY12 were below the awarded amount and thirty five percent of the projects NMDOT completed in FFY12 were zero to ten percent above the award amount. Only twenty-two percent of projects were more than 10% over the award amount. This result shows that NMDOT’s Design and Construction staff effectively manages funding on construction projects.

 
3.7.5(c) Percent of Projects – Final Construction Costs within +/- 10% Engineer Estimate
3.7.5(d) Percent of Projects – Final Construction Costs within +/- 10% Engineer Estimate

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, 29 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 43 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 40 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 79 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 22 percent of projects had final construction costs (less GRT) within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, 43 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 33 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 52 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 75 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 77 percent of projects awarded were within +/- 10 percent of engineer's estimate.

 
 

The statistics above have been generated by the Construction Bureau; however it would be better tracked and examined by Planning and Infrastructure.

3.7.5(e) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by number)
3.7.5(f) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by dollars)

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, there were 706 total Change Orders, 3 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, there were 693 total Change Orders, 37 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, there were 789 total Change Orders, 24 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, there were 790 total Change Orders, 49 were for Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, there were 884 total Change Orders, 60 were for Design Oversight.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, total change orders were $20.7 million, $2.2 million were attributed to Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, total change orders were $-6.7 million, $0.9 million were attributed to Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, total change orders were $11.0 million, $2.4 million were attributed to Design Oversight. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, total change orders were $5.7 million, $2.5 million were attributed to Design Oversight.

3.7.5(g) Change Orders Attributed to Design Oversight (By Dollar and Number)
3.7.5(h) Number and type of accidents occurring in NMDOT Work Zones

To Be Developed

To Be Developed


3.8.0 CIVIL RIGHTS

The purpose of the civil rights program is to ensure nondiscrimination in the Federal Aid Highway program. The FHWA New Mexico Division Office and the NMDOT are committed to the spirit and intent of civil rights regulations and, together, implement and enforce the required civil rights programs in all aspects of New Mexico’s multimodal transportation system. The NMDOT Office of Equal Opportunity Programs (OEOP) manages the external civil rights programs; and, in cooperation with the NMDOT Human Resources Division, manages the internal affirmative action program.

3.8.1 Civil Rights Method of Operation

The Civil Rights Program uses a Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) approach, which relies on joint FHWA/NMDOT team reviews of program activities to accomplish oversight of the program.

The NMDOT, through its OEOP, ensures the USDOT/FHWA civil rights programs are implemented in accordance with all regulations and requirements. As a result, NMDOT, through its OEOP, protects individuals from and addresses instances of discrimination in all NMDOT programs and activities.

The FHWA New Mexico Division Office works with OEOP and NMDOT Human Resources by providing technical assistance, expertise and oversight. FHWA maintains ultimate responsibility and approval authority for all activities.

3.8.2 Civil Rights Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.8-1 Civil Rights CS/D Chart (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

DBE Program Plan/Manual

OEOP

Revised May 2012

OEOP

DA

Hard Copy

49 CFR 26

Title VI Program Plan

OEOP

2011

OEOP

DA

Hard Copy/
NMDOT website

49 CFR 21; 23 CFR 200

Contractor Compliance Program Plan

OEOP

2012

OEOP

DA

Hard Copy

23 CFR 230

On-the-Job Training Program

OEOP

2011

OEOP

DA

Hard Copy

23 CFR 230

State Internal Equal Employment Opportunity Program

OEOP

November 2011

Human Resources

DA

Hard Copy

23 CFR 230

ADA Transition Plan

OEOP

 

OEOP

DA

Hard Copy

28 CFR 35

EEO/Civil Rights Field Procedures Manual

OEOP

June 2011

OEOP

OEOP

Hard Copy

49 CFR 26

3.8.3 Civil Rights Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT’s Civil Rights program is documented as follows:

The FHWA New Mexico Division Office provides oversight of the NMDOT Civil Rights program to monitor its implementation and effectiveness and ensure compliance with federal regulations. In addition, the following tables delineate activities and reporting requirements along with the frequency of each.

FHWA Headquarters Civil Rights requires a triennial civil rights program assessment. This assessment is conducted by the FHWA New Mexico Division Office. Headquarters requires annual updates from NMDOT providing a status on areas identified as needing improvement and efforts to resolve issues.

The FHWA New Mexico Division Offices conducts program assessments to assess risk. Based on the findings, appropriate training and technical assistance is provided by the Civil Rights Specialist. Follow up reviews are conducts to confirm compliance.

The FHWA New Mexico Division Office and OEOP conduct program and project reviews to assess compliance by NMDOT project staff, sub recipients and contractors. OEOP has one full-time employee dedicated to projects reviews, training and technical assistance. Division Office staff conducts at least two project reviews each month and additional follow up reviews to confirm compliance.

3.8.4 Civil Rights Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state admin

Table 3.8-2 Civil Rights P&PAR Table (Update: October 2012)
Activity Authority Frequency / Due NMDOT Contact FHWA Contact Action / Remarks

ADA complaint reports of investigation

28 CFR 35.190

As requested by FHWA

OEOP

State and Local Programs/National Programs/Civil Rights

Division Office reviews, FHWA HQ approves and issues finding

Annual Contractor Employment Report [Construction Summary of Employment Data (Form PR-1392)]

23 CFR 230.121(a)(3)

Annually by Sept 30

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ

DBE Program revisions

49 CFR 26.21(b)(2)

As needed

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and approves

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Contract Compliance review reports

23 CFR 230.409, 230.413(b)(1)(i)(D)

Upon completion by State

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

EEO Contractor Compliance Plan accomplishments and next year's goals

23 CFR 230, Subpart C, Appendix A, Part I, III

Annually by Oct. 1

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

Historically Black College & University / Minority Institutions of Higher Learning / Tribal Colleges and Universities Report

EO 12876

Annually by Nov 1

LTAP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ

On-the-Job-Training (OJT) goals & accomplishments

23 CFR 230.111(b)

Annually by Jan 30

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

Report on supportive services (OJT & DBE)

23 CFR 230.113(g), 230.121(e), 230.204(g)(6)

Semi annually

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

State Employment Practices Report (EEO-4)

23 CFR 230.311(a)(2)

Due by Aug. 15 every two years

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ

State internal EEO affirmative action plan (Title VII) accomplishments, next year's goals, & employment statistical data

23 CFR 230.311,

Annually by Oct. 1

Human Resources

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

State's Overall DBE Goal

49 CFR 26.45(f)(1)

Due by Aug 1 every three years

OEOP

Civil Rights

Also requires FHWA legal review and concurrence

Supportive services funds requests (OJT and DBE)

23 CFR 230.113 & 230.204

As requested by FHWA

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ for approval

Title VI Plan revisions, accomplishments and next year's goals

23 CFR 200.9(b)(10),

Annually by Oct. 1

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and approves

Uniform Report of DBE Commitments/Awards and Payments

49 CFR 26, Attachment 2

Semi-annually by June 1 and Dec. 1

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ

Setting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Project Goals, as appropriate

49 CFR 26,

As appropriate

OEOP

   

Analysis of DBE Good Faith Efforts

49 CFR 26,

Upon submission by contractors

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Contractor Compliance Review Approval

23 CFR 230

As completed

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

Approval of New OJT Programs

23 CFR 230

Upon submission by contractors

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and approves

Analysis of OJT Good Faith Efforts

23 CFR 230

Upon submission by contractors

OEOP

Civil Rights

Division Office reviews and comments

istered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

3.8.5 Civil Rights Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Civil Rights Program:

3.8.5(a) Percent of DBE Participation on Federal-Aid Contracts

3.8.5(b) Number of employees in OJT programs attaining journeyman status (calendar year vs. number required by program).

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: Percent of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises on Federal Aid Contracts. In Federal Fiscal Year 2007, the DBE goal was 9 percent and approximately 2.5 percent DBE participation was achieved. In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, the DBE goal was 9.5 percent and approximately 3.5 percent DBE participation was achieved. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, the DBE goal was 12.5 percent and approximately 6 percent DBE participation was achieved. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, the DBE goal was 11.5 percent and approximately 12.5 percent DBE participation was achieved. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, the DBE goal was 11.5 percent and approximately 12.5 percent DBE participation was achieved. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, the DBE goal was 12 percent and approximately 18.5 percent DBE participation was achieved.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: Employees trained in 2012 OJT program. In 2012, 7 employees were required to be trained and 6 were actually trained.

The DBE goal has been exceeded for the past three Federal fiscal years. The DBE goal is a total State-wide goal for participation of DBEs on NMDOT Federally funded contracts (NMDOT Lead and Local Lead projects), and includes both race conscious and race neutral components. Race conscious goals of up to 7.5% are set on some projects, based on an analysis of the size and scope of the project and DBE availability for the types of work to be performed. Any DBE participation on contracts that does not have a race conscious goal or that exceeds a race conscious goal that is set, is race neutral participation. The goals are established using a methodology that includes, in part, reviewing NMDOT’s relevant market area, reviewing bidders for prior fiscal year and the number of bidders that are certified DBEs, and total dollars on construction and consulting projects for prior fiscal year. Prior to FFY11 this goal was annual; moving forward it is set tri-annually. The methodology and targeted performance requires FHWA approval.

The OJT Program goals were revised in 2011. The revision moved the OJT goal from a project based goal to a goal that measured the total number of trainees attaining journeyman status. Contractors that were awarded over $10 million in NMDOT construction contacts during state’s FY11 are required to graduate one trainee to journeyman status in the calendar year 2012. Contractors that do not meet the threshold of $10 million may still graduate a trainee and have it counted towards the OJT goal. Contactors may also have more than one trainee attaining journeyman status and have that number counted toward the goal in 2012. In 2012, the OJT Program goals called for seven employees to be trained to journeyman status. Six employees have or are projected to achieve journeyman status in 2012.

3.8.5(c) Percentage of companies who met assigned OJT goal.

3.8.5(d) Percentage of total compliance on program assessments (total number scored green).

An image with pie chart graph depicting the following data: Percent of companies meeting 2012 OJT goal. In 2012, 86% of companies met the goal.

An image with bar graph depicting the following data: Percent of full compliance by program area. In 2010, ADA compliance was at approximately 40 percent, in 2011 ADA compliance was at approximately 78 percent and in 2012, ADA compliance was at approximately 78 percent. In 2010, Contractor compliance was approximately 5 percent, in 2011, contractor compliance was 45% and in 2012, contractor compliance was 90 percent. In 2010, DBE compliance was 100 percent, there are no results shown for 2011 and in 2012, DBE compliance was 100 percent. In 2010, Internal EEO/AA compliance was 20 percent, in 2011 internal EEO/AA compliance was 40 percent, in 2012 internal EEO/AA compliance was approximately 63 percent. In 2010, OJT contract compliance was approximately 58 percent, there are no results shown for 2011 and in 2012, OJT contract compliance is shown at approximately 70 percent. In 2010, Title VI compliance was approximately 58 percent, in 2011, Title VI compliance was approximately 81 percent and in 2012, Title VI compliance was 90 percent.

This indicator measures the compliance level of contractors required to have a trainee attain journeyman status. In the state’s FY2011, seven contractors met or exceeded $10 million in NMDOT contact awards. These seven contractors are required to have one trainee attain journeyman status in the calendar year 2012. Six of the seven required contractors met the goal in 2012.

FHWA performs periodic Civil Rights program assessments which measures NMDOT’s compliance against a series of FHWA requirements for each program area. Each program area has a number of FHWA programmatic requirements, FHWA assess NMDOT’s level of compliance for each requirement. The result of the assessment will reflect a status of green (full compliance), yellow (partial compliance) or red (non-compliance) for each requirement. This indicator reflects each program area’s full compliance percentage. The graph above reflects NMDOT’s performance during FHWA’s program assessments in 2010 and 2011. FHWA has not finalized its 2012 program assessment and the data is based on NMDOT self-projection of compliance in the program areas. As a footnote, DBE Contract Compliance, DBE Certification, and OJT Contract Compliance were not formally assessed by FHWA in 2011.

3.9.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Financial Management encompasses the entire FAHP from the authorization to proceed with any phase (Environment, ROW, preliminary engineering, construction, and debt retirement) through final voucher. Risk based reviews are performed in the areas of accounting programs and processes, at the headquarters, regional business offices and through project site visits. Monitoring obligation limitation and discussions on FAHP financing tools available are provided in an advisory role. FHWA reviews and provides input to internal and external audits performed by and for NMDOT to ensure eligibility of FAHP funds.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) has a State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) loan Program and a Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) Program.  These two innovative finance techniques are used to varying degrees with the GARVEE Program being the more active program.  The SIB and GARVEE Programs are monitored through periodic reviews and annual reporting from NMDOT to the New Mexico Division Office as well as FHWA Headquarters where appropriate.

3.9.1 Financial Management Method of Operation

The FHWA and NMDOT personnel maintain a cooperative working relationship in the administration and review of financial management programs and processes. Communication and interaction between FHWA and NMDOT occur routinely for the exchange of information, coordination of activities, and the resolution of issues in the financial management areas of Accounting, Budget, Audit, Obligation Control, Systems Integrity and Control and Process Reviews.

3.9.2 Financial Management Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.9-1 Financial Management CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION AGENCY LAST
UPDATE
OWNER APPROVER AVAILABILITY BASIS

Desk Manual

Accounting Svc

6/30/12

Project Billing Supervisor

Accounting Svc. Mgr.

Network Drive

Internal Process

FHWA Billing Procedures

Accounting Services

Aug 2006

Office Chief Financial Officer

Assistant Accounting Svc. Mgr.

RASPS Help Menu

US Treasury Policy

DFA MAPS

DFA Financial Control

2011

DFA CAFR

DFA Comptroller

Online

State Statute

FIRE Regulation

FHWA (Financial Services Team)

11/10/08

FHWA Financial Services Team

FHWA Administrator

FHWA Web Site

FHWA FIRE Order 4560.1b

3.9.3 Financial Management Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The FHWA will monitor all financial management and accounting activities primarily through daily contacts and program level reviews to provide guidance and technical assistance in such areas as fiscal document processing, financial management and reimbursement issues. Input to State and NMDOT auditors in development of audit plans will be provided as requested. The FHWA has implemented the Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Program (FIRE Order 4560.1B) that requires each FHWA Division Office to establish an effective program to ensure that FAHP funds are properly managed and effectively used in accordance with Federal policies, and that safeguards are in place to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse. The FIRE Program is a review and review program that each FHWA Division Office is required to perform in support FHWA’s annual certification of internal and financial controls to support the financial statements. In addition, the FIRE program ensures that proper internal controls are established and followed, with objectivity and a separation of financial duties in conducting the agency’s day-to-day operations. This program incorporates the following activities:

In addition, other reviews will be conducted as deemed necessary by FHWA or as requested by NMDOT. The FHWA will, to the maximum extent possible, utilize the work of State and NMDOT auditors to limit the scope of FHWA reviews.

3.9.4 Financial Management Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.9-2 Financial Management P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity Authority Frequency / Due NMDOT Contact FHWA Contact Approval / Remarks

10 yr. 20 yr. rule

23 CFR 630.112(c)(1&2)

Annually by July 31st

Funding Control

Finance Team

NMDOT will monitor to ensure PE/ROW projects do not exceed 10/20 year requirements specified in 23 CFR 630

Appropriations, Allotments, Obligations

31 USC 1341(a)(1)(A) & (B); 31 USC 1517(a)

As needed

Funding Control/STIP

Finance Team

NMDOT will monitor appropriations, allotments and obligations to ensure that all funding is used efficiently within each Quarter and use all Obligation Authority (OA) by the end of the year. FHWA will forward all funding notices and review

Audit Coordination
FHWA Financial Statement Audit
NMDOT External Audit Reviews
NMDOT Internal Audit Reviews FHWA

FMFIA, OMB A-123, 127, GAAP, CFO Act of 1990;DOT Order 8000 1C, OMB A-87, 123, GAAP

As Needed

Accounting/OIG

Finance Team

NMDOT assures corrective action is taken to resolve audit findings and FHWA will monitor activities to ensure implementation.

Authorize current bill

49 CFR 18.20

Weekly/as requested

Funding Control/Accounting

Finance Team

NMDOT will ensure accounting system has ability to trace costs to invoice level and that adequate supporting documentation is maintained.

Billing Reviews

23 CFR 140 and 635.122

Quarterly

Local Assistance &Accounting

Financial Team

SDOT will provide all supporting documentation to include invoices, payroll, etc. FHWA will review and ensure costs reimbursed are eligible and accurate.

Develop Financial Plan for Federal Projects between $100 million to $500 million

23 U.S.C. 106(i)

When applicable

NMDOT

Finance Team

NMDOT send to transportation operations engineer and finance manager for review & approval

Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act Assurance Statement (FHWA Certification)

Congressional Act 1982

Annually by Oct. 1

N/A

Finance Team/DA

The culmination of all FIRE activities.

FIRE – Grant Process Review

FIRE Order 4560.1B

Annually by June 1

NMDOT

Finance Team

Conduct Grants Management Reviews to ensure that Federal Funds are utilized in accordance with Federal Regulations

FIRE – Inactive Projects Review

FIRE Order 4560.1B

Quarterly

Funding Control

Finance Team

Monitor Inactive Obligations to ensure projects and dollars are reduced in accordance with 23 CFR 630.106

FIRE – Management Decision Letter on NMDOT Annual Financial Statement Audit findings if any

FIRE Order 4560.1B

Annually September 30th

Accounting

Finance Team

Management Decision on the Corrective Actions taken for findings in the Single Audit of NMDOT

Improper Payments Review

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, PL No: 107-300

Yearly

Accounting

Finance Team

NMDOT will provide all required data collection form information to meet required deadlines and FHWA will review

Innovative Financing

GARVEE (GRIP and Other Bonds)

GARVEE 23 CFR 122 & Memo HABF-40, March 2004; TIFIA 23 USC 181-189; SIB Guidance 9/97; AC NHS Act Section 308; Flexible Match 23 USC 323; Tapered Match TEA-21 Section 1302

As needed

Budgets

Financial Team

NMDOT will submit requests for Innovative Financing to FHWA for review and approval prior to project authorization

Project Authorizations, Modification & Voucher

23 CFR 630

As needed

Funding Control

Field Ops, Finance, Planning & Prog Mgmt. Team

NMDOT will submit electronic authorization via FMIS and provide all required supporting documentation to FHWA for review and approval.

Recovery Act Reporting

America Recovery And Reinvestment Act of 2009

Continuous

Various Offices

Finance Team

NMDOT will meet all reporting requirements including RADS and other continuous and ad-hoc requests

State Infrastructure Bank Report

SIB Guidance 9/97 & Coop Agreement

Annually by
Dec. 31

Accounting

Finance Team

NMDOT will submit the annual SIB Report to FHWA not later than 12/31 of each year.

Transfer of funds as requested by State

23 USC 104 (c) and 119 (f)

As requested

Various Offices

Finance Team

NMDOT will submit funds transfer requests to FHWA as needed.

3.9.5 Financial Management Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following indicators will be reported on beginning in FFY13:

3.9.5(a) Number of Inactive Projects and the Dollar Amount of the Projects

Intentionally left blank

An image with bar graph depicting the Inactive projects by number and by dollar amount: In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 98 projects were inactive with a dollar value of $57.1 million. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 92 projects were inactive with a dollar value of $68.7 million. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 37 projects were inactive with a dollar value of $22.4 million. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 14 projects were inactive with a dollar value of $7.9 million.

Intentionally left blank

   

3.10.0 TRIBAL / LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY (T/LPA)

Local Transportation Facilities - Local government’s construction projects in which NMDOT participates in the funding by allocation of Federal-Aid Highway Program funds, the NMDOT will review and assure local action for compliance with all requirements of Federal and State laws in accordance with Title 23. As stated, the NMDOT is not relieved of its responsibilities even though the project may be under the supervision of another public agency or organization. In accordance with 23 CFR 1.11, the NMDOT will ensure that the agency is well qualified and suitably equipped to perform the work. Title 23, U.S.C. does not recognize local entities as direct recipients of Federal-Aid funds. Accordingly, local agencies cannot take the place of NMDOT in the context of the FAHP. NMDOT is responsible for all requirements of the Federal-Aid program whether these requirements stem from Title 23 or non-Title 23 statutes. The program and project authority that FHWA has delegated to NMDOT does not authorize NMDOT to pass these responsibilities to the local agencies.

The language of Section §1904 of SAFETEA-LU is clear in its assignment of responsibility for locally administered projects to the States. Section §1904 states that the States shall be responsible for determining that sub-recipients of Federal funds have adequate project delivery systems for projects approved under this section; and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage such Federal funds. NMDOT needs to commit sufficient staff and other resources to project and program administration to ensure that all applicable state and Federal requirements are met and the work is accomplished efficiently. The same Section also states, that FHWA shall periodically review the monitoring of sub-recipients by the States. Local Government Projects will follow the process outlined in Appendix B.

Unless specified otherwise all:

The NMDOT has the authority by legislation to provide Federal-aid Highway Program funds to sub-recipients to perform transportation related projects. A sub-recipient or Local Public Agency herein after referred to as T/LPA is the legal entity to which a sub award is made and which is accountable to the recipient for the use of the funds provided. FHWA and NMDOT do not recognize T/LPAs as direct recipients of Federal funds. The Federal funds for local aid projects are provided through the NMDOT. As a direct recipient of Federal funds, the NMDOT is ultimately responsible for ensuring that project sponsors comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations.

The NMDOT has been given the authority by legislation to provide Federal-aid Highway Program funds to

Local public agencies or sub (T/LPAs or municipalities) to perform the work herein after referred to as T/LPAs. Municipalities are not recognized direct recipients of Federal funds, the Federal funds for local aid projects are provided through the NMDOT. As a direct recipient of Federal funds, the NMDOT is ultimately responsible for ensuring that project sponsors comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations.

Additionally, MAP-21 (or Transportation bill: SAFETEA-LU Section 1904) has amended 23 USC 106 to hold the states accountable for assuring that municipalities utilizing Federal funds have adequate project delivery systems for projects and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage Federal funds.

Local lead federal aid highway projects are administered under the oversight of the Department, any T/LGA having a Project Agreement with the Department for Federal-aid funds. T/LPA are responsible for following procedures identified in the Local Tribal handbook and in the Project Agreement.

When Federal funds are to be used for local or tribal transportation projects, standard procedures, developed by the Department and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), govern project development and implementation activities.-- This handbook provides a step-by-step guide to project development, from the planning and programming process (i.e., the project’s inclusion into the STIP ~ Statewide Transportation Improvement Program) through the beginning of project to construction completion.

3.10.1 T/LPA Method of Operation

The flow chart on the following page is the minimum requirement for projects utilizing Federal-aid funds. However, sub-recipients may have policies, procedures, and regulations in excess of those established in 23 CFR 630 and 635.

A description for this image is available by following this link to stewardship3101.cfm.

3.10.2 T/LPA Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.10-1 Tribal / Local Public Agency CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION AGENCY LAST
UPDATE
OWNER APPROVER AVAILABILITY BASIS

Tribal and Local Government Handbook

Statewide Planning Bureau

10/2007

NMDOT

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

http://dot.state.nm.us/Local_Government_Agreement_Unit/
TLGA_HANDBOOK_October07.pdf

23 CFR

FHWA T/LPA Reference Guide

N/A

4/2011

FHWA

FHWA Office of Program Administration

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/LPA/reference.cfm

23 CFR

NMDOT Spec Book

Construction Bureau

2007

NMDOT

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary (FHWA concurs)

http://dot.state.nm.us/Plans_Specs_Estimates/
2007_Specs_for_Highway_and_Bridge_Construction.pdf

23 CFR 635

NMDOT T/LPA Website

NMDOT Statewide Planning Bureau

2012

NMDOT

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

http://dot.state.nm.us/Planning.html#LGAU

Department Website

NMDOT Single Audit Act Procedures Manual

OIG

Jan 2012

NMDOT

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

Hardcopy

OMB A-133 Single Audit

3.10.3 T/LPA Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT has established internal handbooks, manuals, controls, and procedures to determine that a sub-recipient of federal funds is able to satisfy the following:

The NMDOT requires through its T/LGA Handbook and Funding Agreement that the T/LPA allow the NMDOT to review and concur on all the T/LPA’s third party contractual commitments to include the use of consultants for engineering services and construction management, as provided under 23 CFR 635.105. The NMDOT Funding Agreement requires the T/LPA to designate a project manager as the single point of contact.

NMDOT has assigned Region T/LPA Coordinators at each of its three Regions to provide assistance and oversight of T/LPA projects during the project development phase. NMDOT has assigned T/LPA Coordinators at each of its six Districts to provide assistance and oversight during the construction phase. The Region T/LPA Coordinator and District T/LPA Coordinator must ensure the projects are treated as any regular federal aid eligible project (just like the Region and District ARRA coordinators did). The T/LPA Coordinator must ensure to follow the project from cradle to grave. The project must follow all CFRS as stated in the flowchart found in the T/LPA Manual.

For Authorization: Regional T/LPA coordinator must ensure that all project certifications (such as ROW, Utility, railroads, ITS, work zone, environmental) are in place. A 9 day letter will be submitted with the project packet, and should include all items listed on the FMIS checklist (previously provided). The Region must ensure that the T/LPA holds a PS&E for the project as required by CFR. The Region T/LPA Coordinator must review the design, estimate, and specifications (using either the NMDOT specifications or the T/LPA’s) during this time. The projects limits and scope of work must match all the certifications and the funding amount and scope of work on the Agreement must match the STIP.

For concurrence of Award: The Region T/LPA Coordinator must review bid tabulations and provide their concurrence or rejection to the T/LPA.

Once the project is awarded the District T/LPA Coordinator would be considered the AE overseeing the PM. T/LPA Coordinator should review all changes to the contract and to the scope of work. T/LPA Coordinator should also ensure that a tracking mechanism is in place to track time and days. The estimate should be turned in at a minimum once a month in order to ensure the project does not end up in the inactive list. The District T/LPA Coordinator should also verify all items in the joint NMDOT/FHWA project review checklist. District T/LPA Coordinator will have final authority to grant contract time extensions.

Final voucher and Final acceptance: The T/LPA must ensure a final package is turned in for final voucher to the corresponding District T/LPA Coordinator for review and approval. The District T/LPA Coordinator should perform a final inspection and final inspection report to support his concurrence with closing the project, 

The NMDOT has clearly documented the approval and oversight process on locally administered projects, in the T/LGA Handbook, the Funding Agreement and various correspondence, checklists and informational documents submitted to the T/LPA during each phase of the Funding Agreement process. FHWA participates and provides language included in these documents. NMDOT will seek FHWA guidance and approval on subsequent revisions. NMDOT has designated staff at each of its three Regions and six Districts to provide assistance and oversight to the T/LPA during the project development, procurement, construction, project reporting, and close out stage to ensure the T/LPA complies with Federal laws, regulations and NMDOT policies. NMDOT staff provides oversight on the T/LPA’s procurement methods to ensure Federal requirements and language is included in T/LPA third party contracts. NMDOT will meet with FHWA partners annually to discuss current practices, areas of concern, and establish business service standards that would provide an expectation for how long it would take to provide reports, reviews and findings along with the expectation to implement corrective actions when necessary. NMDOT oversight includes, but is not limited to the following areas:

*NMDOT ensures the T/LPA follows proper process and obtains concurrence from FHWA on contract procurement methods that do not follow the standard competitive bidding process.

FHWA conducts periodic audits of T/LPA projects and informs NMDOT of areas of concern and recommendations.

In the Funding Agreement NMDOT requires T/LPAs to use the following web based software paid for by NMDOT; LCPTracker for tracking labor compliance and B2GNow for tracking Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goals and the payments between the T/LPA and their contractor and sub-contractors. Both of these systems are utilized to track and report data to comply with the Federal Transparency Act (PL 109-282 (as amended by PL 110-252).

The NMDOT has developed a Single Audit Act Procedures Manual to provide basic information on the Single Audit process and requirements and to define responsibilities of the NMDOT to ensure sub-recipients comply with the Single Audit Act, and take corrective action when audit findings are identified. The manual will also assist NMDOT in determining if the sub-recipient has adequate project delivery systems and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage projects. Per the NMDOT Single Audit Act Procedures Manual, NMDOT Local Government Section will notify T/LPAs that they must submit their Annual Audit for review. The Local Government Section will perform a desk review of the annual audits to determine if T/LPA is considered a high or low risk audited as indicated in the independent auditor’s report. If the T/LPA is given a high-risk assessment, Local Government Section will establish a work plan. Local Government Section will notify the NMDOT’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) office if an internal audit is needed. NMDOT will also establish a policy to include imposing restrictions on audited T/LPAs that do not resolve administrative issues, audit findings, or questions within a specific period.

As part of POI FHWA will conduct reviews on a percentage of T/LPA projects as defined in FHWA strategic plan. FHWA will conduct periodic oversight reviews as needed to ensure the program is performing in compliance with 23 CFR.

A major aspect of program implementation is the completion and acceptance of the T/LGA PS&E Checklist (Appendix E). Acceptance is as follows:

The District T/LPA coordinator must ensure the projects are treated as any regular federal aid eligible project (just like the District ARRA coordinators did). District T/LPA coordinator must ensure to follow the project from cradle to grave. The project must follow all CFRS as stated in the flowchart that I previously provided. 

For Authorization: District T/LPA coordinator must ensure that all project certifications (such as ROW, Utility, railroads, ITS, work zone, environmental are in placed). It is suggested that just like with regular projects the local entity provides a nine day letter requesting FMIS approval. The project packet should include all items listed on the FMIS checklist (previously provided). The T/LPA coordinator must ensure that a PS&E is held for the project as required by CFR. At this PS&E the design, estimate, and specifications (either using the NMDOT specifications or the Local Entities) must be provided and reviewed. The projects limits and scope of work must match all those of the certifications and also the amount listed in the STIP.

For concurrence of Award: The T/LPA coordinator must review and bid tabulations and provide their concurrence or rejection to the T/LPA.

Once the project has been awarded the T/LPA coordinator would be considered the AE overseeing the PM. T/LPA coordinator should review all changes to the contract and to the scope of work. T/LPA coordinator should also ensure that a tracking mechanism is in place to track time and days. The estimate should be turned in at a minimum once a month in order to ensure the project does not end up in the inactive list. The T/LPA coordinator should also verify all items in the joint NMDOT/FHWA project review checklist.

Final voucher and Final acceptance: The T/LPA must ensure a final package is turned in for final voucher to the corresponding AE for review and approval. The T/LPA coordinator should perform a final inspection and Final inspection report to support his concurrence with closing the project, 

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

As part of POI FHWA will conduct reviews on a percentage of T/LPA projects as defined in FHWA strategic plan. FHWA will conduct periodic oversight reviews as needed to ensure program is performing in compliance with 23 CFR.

A major aspect of program implementation is the completion and acceptance of the T/LGA PS&E Checklist (Appendix E). Acceptance is as follows:

The District T/LPA coordinator will provide the FHWA Area Engineer a copy of the final inspection report (as seen in Appendix C), a final acceptance letter form the District Engineer and copies of the entire COs to aid with the review for final voucher in FMIS.

The District T/LPA coordinator shall require a monthly estimate form the T/LPA, unless otherwise stated in the agreement between the T/LPA and NMDOT.

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

T/LPA Coordinator review

The Region and District T/LPA coordinator must ensure the projects are treated as any regular federal aid eligible project (just like the District ARRA coordinators did). The T/LPA coordinator must ensure to follow the project from cradle to grave. The project must follow all CFRS as stated in the flowchart found in the T/LPA Manual.

REGION T/LPA COORDINATOR: NMDOT has assigned Engineers at each of its three Regions to provide assistance and oversight of T/LPA projects during the project development phase.

For Authorization:

For Concurrence of Award:

DISTRICT T/LPA COORDINATOR: In addition, the NMDOT has assigned Construction Staff/ Engineers at each of its six Districts to provide assistance and oversight during the construction phase.

Project Oversight: Once the project has been awarded the T/LPA coordinator would be considered the AE overseeing the PM. He/she should review all changes to the contract and to the scope of work. T/LPA coordinator should also ensure that a tracking mechanism is in place to track time and days. The estimate should be turned in at a minimum once a month in order to ensure the project does not end up in the inactive list. The T/LPA coordinator should also verify all items in the joint NMDOT/FHWA project review checklist.

Final Voucher and Final Acceptance: The T/LPA must ensure a final package is turned in for final voucher to the corresponding AE for review and approval. The T/LPA coordinator should perform a final inspection and final inspection report to support his concurrence with closing the project.

3.10.4 T/LPA Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.10-2 Tribal / Local Public Agency P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

Addenda

23 CFR

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

DRE review & approve

Buy America Waiver

23 CFR 635.410

Every applicable project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

FHWA Division Administrator approval

Certificate of Compliance

23 CFR 640

Per Project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves

Certificate of Final Acceptance

23 CFR 635.126

Per Project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves

Change Orders

23 CFR 635.120

As applicable per project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves

Claims

23 CFR 635.124

As applicable per project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves

Concurrent in Contract Award

23 CFR 635.114
23 USC 112(d)

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

Region Design Reviews & concur

Consultant Scope of Services / Agreements

23 CFR 172

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA reviews & approves

Consultant Selection

23 CFR 172

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA reviews & approves

Design Approval

23 CFR 172
23 CFR 625

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA reviews & approves or Region Design Centers

Design Exceptions

23 CFR 625.3

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

District T/LPA coordinator

Design Plan / Package Submittals

23 CFR 172

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

Regional Design Center Approves

Errors & Omissions (Deficiency Report)

23 CFR

As needed

District T/LPA coordinator

Area Engineer

District T/LPA coordinator review & approve

Interstate Access Modification

23 CFR 710.401

As needed

District Traffic Engineer

Area Engineer

FHWA Division Administrator approval

Major Scope Revision

23 CFR
450.216(9) (d)

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

District Eng.

Materials Certification

23 CFR 635.126

Every project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

District Eng review & approve

NEPA Approvals

23 CFR 771

Every project

Environmental Section Manager

Environmental Coordinator

FHWA Environmental Specialist

Notification of Pre-construction Meeting

23 CFR 635

Every project

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA Coordinator

Project Authorization for Right of Way

23 CFR 713

Every project

ROW Manager

Area Engineer

FHWA AE

Project Authorization for
Preliminary Engineering
(NMDOT informally calls
this
the obligation date)

23 CFR 172

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

Area Engineer approves

Project Authorization for Constriction

23 CFR 630.106
23 CFR 635 C

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

Area Engineer approves

Project Scope / Concept

23 CFR 625

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA / Design Center

PS&E Approval

23 CFR 630.205

Every project

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

Region Design Eng.

Public Interest Finding

23 CFR 635.411

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator / T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

Area Engineer approves

Public Interest Findings: Sole Source, Proprietary products, Local-Furnished / Designated Materials, Force Account Work completed by municipal forces

23 CFR 635.411

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator / T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

FHWA Division Administrator approval

Public Interest Findings; Buy America Waiver, Non-competitive bidding

23 CFR 635.410

As needed

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

Requires FHWA HQ approval

Rejection of Low Bidder and / or All Bidders

23 CFR 635.114(h)

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

Administrator approval

Suspension of Work

23 CFR 635.120(c)

As needed

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA

Termination

23 CFR 635.125

As needed

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

FHWA Division Administrator approval

Time Extensions

23 CFR 635.121

As needed

T/LPA District Coordinator

Area Engineer

District Engineer

Transportation Management Plans for Significant Projects

23 CFR

As needed

Planning

Planning

Region Planner

Value Engineering

23 CFR 627

As needed

Region T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA coordinator

Value Engineering Change Proposals

23 CFR 627

As needed

District T/LPA Coordinator

Area Engineer

T/LPA coordinator

3.10.5 T/LPA Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the T/LPA Program:

The follow indicators will be in place FFY13:

3.10.5(a) Single Audit Findings (as related to T/LPA’s)
3.10.5(b) Percent of projects obligated out of current STIP (Number of T/LPA projects obligated / Number of T/LPA projects in STIP [current year])

To Be Developed

Based on FY11 figures, 35 out of 64 T/LPA projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) were obligated. 24 projects were re-programmed to a subsequent fiscal year and 5 projects were removed from the STIP.

3.10.5(c) Tabulation of project reviews: 2011, 2012, and 213 to see if there are any common or recurring issues or good practices.

(Intentionally left blank)

To Be Developed

(Intentionally left blank)

3.11.0 RESEARCH

The NMDOT Research Bureau is organizationally located under the Planning Division of the Office of Programs and Infrastructure. The Research Bureau manages an ambitious program of transportation research; development and technology transfer (RD&T). The program is supported through state and federal funds, and meets federal requirements as set forth in 23 CFR 420. Administration of the program is guided by a Research Oversight Committee (ROC), composed of the three NMDOT Deputy Secretaries and a representative from the Federal Highway Administration. The ROC establishes research priorities and authorizes specific research initiatives as proposed by key Department personnel during an annual Research Project Solicitation workshop, while Research Bureau staff manages daily operations. Chairpersons of a Research Advisory Committee (C-RAC) composed of Department employees appointed by a Deputy Secretary review and prioritize projects proposed by Department personnel. Independent Technical Panels are established for each project to develop problem statements, prepare Requests for Proposals, evaluate proposals and recommend consultants, guide the conduct of research and implement results. The process is designed to identify, prioritize and conduct high value RD&T initiatives that serve the strategic needs of the Department while incorporating a system of checks and balances to minimize the potential for undue influence by any person or group of persons.

3.11.1 Research Method of Operation

The role of FHWA in the management of research activities performed through the Research Bureau is to provide oversight of the transportation research program to ensure efficient and effective operations in compliance with governing regulations. The role of the NMDOT Research Bureau is to manage the daily operations of the research program. This includes effective contract oversight and management of research performed by consultants, efficient administration of available program budget, facilitation of the means to identify and prioritize research projects deemed to be of high value, performance of in-house research, contribution to research initiatives at the national level, deployment of innovative new technologies, and implementation of research findings and recommendations, in compliance with governing state and federal regulations.

3.11.2 Research Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.11-1 Research CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Policies and Procedures Manual

Research

Jul 2009

Research Bureau

FHWA and NMDOT Cabinet Secretary

Hardcopy

23 CFR 420.209

Technical Panel Handbook

Research

Jul 2009

Research Bureau

Research Bureau Chief.

Hard Copy

23 CFR 420.209

Technology Transfer Guidelines

Research

Jul 2009

Research Bureau

FHWA and Research Bureau Chief

Hard Copy

23 CFR 420.209

3.11.3 Research Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

State-wide Planning and Research (SPR) Program:

Research Program Implementation

The requirements as embodied in 23 CFR 420 include management and administration of a State Planning and Research (SPR) Work Program, monitoring planning and research activities, submitting Performance and Expenditure reports, conducting peer exchanges, developing and managing an FHWA approved research and development management process, and maintaining program certification. The SPR Work Program consists of two parts; (1) Part I, Planning, which is prepared by NMDOT’s Planning Division and (2) Part II, Research, which is prepared by NMDOT’s Research Bureau. The NMDOT is responsible for preparation and overall coordination of the Work Program in accordance with 23 CFR 420. Amendments and revisions to the Work Program that document required changes are submitted periodically for approval by FHWA.

Method of Oversight

FHWA is represented on the Research Oversight Committee along with the three NMDOT Deputy Secretaries. This committee provides general oversight of the Research Bureau and approves project proposals generated by key Department staff through an annual Research Project Solicitation workshop. FHWA participates on many Technical Panels that guide the conduct of research from conception through implementation. FHWA reviews and approves detailed Annual Work Programs that serve as the binding scope of work for a given state fiscal year, as well as annual Performance and Expenditures reports that provide detailed information on the Research Bureau’s progress in meeting its goals and objectives. FHWA reviews and approves the Research Bureau’s policies and procedures manual on a bi-annual basis

Following are the methods of oversight used and frequency of each.

3.11.4 Research Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.11-2 Research P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Actions / Remarks

RD&T Work Program

23 CFR 420.207

Annually by July 1

Research Bureau Chief

Research Engineer

FHWA approval required

Certification of compliance with federal regulations governing administration of the RD&T Work Program

23 CFR 420.209

Annually by July 1

NMDOT Cabinet Secretary or designee

Research Engineer

Must be submitted to FHWA along with the Annual Work Program

Meeting of Chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee

23 CFR 420.209

3rd Quarter of each State FY

Research Bureau Engineering Coordinator

Research Engineer

Meeting to review and prioritize projects proposed during the RPS

P&E Report

23 CFR 420.117

Annually by September 30

Research Bureau Chief

Research Engineer

FHWA approval
required

Quarterly Progress Reports and Meetings with Contractors

 

State Fiscal Quarter

Research Bureau Project Managers

FHWA staff assigned to research project Technical Panels

Quarterly reports and meetings to review progress toward meeting project goals

Research Advisory Committee Meeting

23 CFR 420.209

2nd Quarter of each State FY

Research Bureau Engineering Coordinator

Research Engineer

Meeting to present proposed research projects to Chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee

Research Oversight Committee Meeting

23 CFR 420.209

2nd Quarter of each State FY

Department Deputy Secretaries

Research Engineer

Meeting to discuss Department needs and to set strategic priorities

Research Oversight Committee Meeting

23 CFR 420.209

3rd Quarter of each State FY

Department Deputy Secretaries

Research Engineer

Meeting to review projects prioritized and recommended by Chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee for inclusion in the next Annual Work Program

Research Peer Exchange

23 CFR 420.209

No less frequently than every five years

Research Bureau Chief

Research Engineer

 

Research Project Solicitation

23 CFR 420.209

2nd Quarter of each State FY

Research Bureau Engineering Coordinator

Research Engineer

Workshop to identify problems and recommend research projects

3.11.5 Research Performance/Compliance Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Research Program:

3.11.5(a) Percent of Recommendations implemented or adopted within two (2) years of final research report
3.11.5(b) Percent of Available Research Budget Expended
 

An image with bar graph depicting the percent of research budget expended:  In State Fiscal Year 2009, 92 percent of available research budget was expended, in State Fiscal Year 2010, 77 percent of available research budget was expended, in State Fiscal Year 2010, 95 percent of available research budget was expended, and in State Fiscal Year 2012, 97 percent of available research budget was expended.

Of twenty one (21) projects completed since FY08, eighteen (18) of these have been implemented to at least 75%, for an implementation rate of 86%. Some projects have been terminated after finding that the course of research was unproductive, for example, a study of pavement life expectancy was terminated after it was found that records of maintenance history were insufficient to support project objectives. Other projects are in various stages of implementation and have yet to be fully implemented. The implementation rate reported for any program year will therefore be less than 100%.

Funding for supplemental projects was established in FY12 in the amount of $1,800,000 from available SPR Part I budget. Seven new supplemental projects were authorized for FY12, and one conventional project in the FY12 Work Program was approved for partial funding using this budget. Of the four projects that proceeded in FY12, $1,004,350 of available funding of $1,162,500 was obligated or expended for a program total of 86%. The balance of this funding is available for projects to be administered through this program in FY13.

3.11.5(c) Percent of projects in work plan actually contacted
3.11.5(d) Percent of projects on-time and on-budget

An image with bar graph depicting the percent of projects in Annual Work Plan (AWP) contracted:  In State Fiscal Year 2009, 100 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted, in State Fiscal Year 2010, 83 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted, in State Fiscal Year 2011, 100 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted, and in State Fiscal Year 2012, 100 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted.

An image with bar graph depicting the percent of projects in Annual Work Plan (AWP) contracted:  In State Fiscal Year 2009, 100 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted, in State Fiscal Year 2010, 83 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted, in State Fiscal Year 2011, 100 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted, and in State Fiscal Year 2012, 100 percent of projects in the AWP were contracted.

All of the supplemental projects and conventional projects as documented in the Work Program and Work Program amendments which were not withdrawn or deferred until FY13 were contracted for a program rate of 100%.

100% of Research Bureau contracted projects were on time and on budget as documented in professional services agreements and contract amendments.

3.12.0 SAFETY PROGRAM

The Department of Transportation administers the State’s Traffic Safety Program. Both FHWA and NHTSA provide oversight, technical assistance, and funding to the DOT to develop, implement, and manage projects aimed at reducing motor vehicle related crashes, injuries, and deaths. The DOT Safety Program is based on the four E’s of safety; Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Medical Services. Using these proven concepts, all three agencies work in cooperation with other State, county and local partners to direct funding and programs to areas with the greatest need based on problem identification from the most current crash data available. Specific goals, objectives, and performance measures are developed and documented in several required safety plans prepared by the DOT and approved by FWHA and NHTSA.

3.12.1 Safety Program Method of Operation

DOT is required to prepare, implement, and update several safety plans and reports. Through a Federally approved process, the following plans and reports are developed by DOT and submitted for approval to FHWA and NHTSA as specified below:

Once these plans and reports are developed and approved, the DOT implements and manages the projects and programs outlined in the plans in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. Activities consist of components of planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting of safety programs and projects. This involves safety program support for problem identification, design, construction, maintenance, and technical assistance for NMDOT, FHWA, NHTSA, FTA, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Federal Railroad Administration, and local governments.

The DOT created the Transportation Safety Management Team (TSMT) that consists of a variety of State and Federal stakeholders and partners. The TSMT meets regularly and provides input and technical assistance in the development and revisions to the CTSP. The TSMT plays an important role in keeping the CTSP current and ensuring that all of the safety plans are incorporated into the CTSP.

The NMDOT and FHWA will meet semi-annually to discuss the progress in each of the items described in table 3.3-1. The NMDOT will continue to invite and encourage the FHWA to attend the Comprehensive Transportation Safety Plan (CTSP) Leadership meetings that are held quarterly.

3.12.2 Safety Program Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.12-1 Safety CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

HSIP Policy and Procedures Manual

Traffic Technical Support Bureau

June 2010

Traffic Technical Support Bureau

FHWA Safety Engineer

Hardcopy (and electronic file) at Traffic Technical Support Bureau

FHWA Office of Safety Guidance

Traffic Safety Division Policy and Procedures Manual

Traffic Safety Division

2011

Traffic Safety Division

NHTSA

Hard Copy/
NMDOT website

Recommended by NHTSA

Planning Division Policy and Procedures Manual

Planning Division

Under Development

Planning Division

FHWA reviews

Will be available by hard copy and website

Recommended by FHWA

Highway Safety Manual

Traffic Technical Support Bureau

June 2010

Traffic Technical Support Bureau

FHWA Safety Engineer

Hardcopy (and electronic file) at Traffic Technical Support Bureau

FHWA Office of Safety Guidance

3.12.3 Safety Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The overall program oversight is the DOT, FWHA, NHTSA and other Federal partner’s (everyone’s) responsibility. Through periodic meetings and reviews, the FWHA is involved in decision making and oversight of the HSIP program and other engineering safety initiatives lead by the DOT. NHTSA conducts yearly visits and periodically accompanies DOT staff on quality assurance site visits. In addition, NHTSA conducts a formal Program Review once every 3 years FHWA is an invited participant. If needed program reviews can be conducted more frequently. At the State level, the HSIP is overseen by the Program Management Division, Traffic Technical Support Bureau, by the State Traffic Engineer, assisted by the Safety Project Engineer with input and discussion from the Traffic Safety Division and other parts of the DOT. The behavioral safety program is overseen by the Traffic Safety Division which includes yearly site visits, quarterly reporting requirements, and performance measures which are included in contractual relationships. The planning safety aspects are overseen by the Planning Division through the review of the quarterly Program and Expenditure Reports. It is Federal, State, and local team effort to assure that funding is spent as efficiently and productively as possible, while following all applicable State and Federal guidelines.

3.12.4 Safety Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.12-2 Safety P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

402 Highway Safety Plan

12/22/99 guidelines, TEA-21, 2001

July 1

Traffic Safety Division Director

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA)

Traffic Safety Division coordinates with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for review and approval

Transparency Report (5% Report)

23 USC 148(c)(1)(D)

Annually by August 31

Safety Project Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

NMDOT submits online to FHWA’s Safety Office (HQ’s); FHWA Division office reviews (HSIP)

Drug offender DL revocation or suspension certification by Governor

23 USC 159, 23 CFR 192.5

Annually by Jan 1

Traffic Safety Division Director

FHWA Safety Engineer

Traffic Safety Division submits to FHWA annually

Drug offender driver’s license suspension law & enforcement certification

23 USC 159, 23 CFR 192.5

Annually by Jan 1

Traffic Safety Division Director

FHWA Safety Engineer

Traffic safety Division coordinates with Governor's office for certification

Highway Safety Improvement Program, including HES Program, Safety Programs, High Risk Rural Roads Program, and 5% Reporting

23 CFR 924.15
SAFETEA-LU 23 USC 148

Annually by Aug. 31

Safety Project Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

NMDOT submits to FHWA’s Safety Office (HQ’s); FHWA Division office reviews

MUTCD Adoption and New Mexico Supplement

23 CFR 655.603

As Needed

State Traffic Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

NMDOT submits to FHWA’s Safety Office (HQ’s); FHWA Division office reviews

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program

23 CFR 652

As needed

Traffic Operations/ Local Assistance

National Programs

Includes the non-motorized transportation pilot program

Repeat Offender

23 CFR 1275; 23 USC 164

Annually when funds are released

NMDOT Secretary

FHWA NM Division Administrator

Safety Traffic Director sends letter to FHWA when funds are released

Repeat Offender law

23 USC 164, 1406

Annually when funds are released

NMDOT Secretary

FHWA NM Division Administrator

Safety Traffic Director sends letter to FHWA when funds are released

Roadside Hardware

FHWA July 25, 1997 Policy Memo re: NCHRP Report 350

As needed

State Traffic Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) is the new state of the practice for the crash testing of safety hardware devices for use on the National Highway System (NHS). It updates and replaces NCHRP Report 350

Seat belt law

23 CFR 1215.6

Annually
(each fiscal year)

Traffic Safety Division Director

FHWA Safety Engineer

FHWA receives annual summary at conclusion of legislative session to ensure still in effect

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

23 CFR 924

Every 3rd year

Safety Project Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer reviews and approves

Temporary Traffic Control Devices Final Rule Compliance

23 CFR 630

As needed

State Traffic Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

State Traffic Engineer certifies in compliance.

Work Zone Safety and Mobility Final Rule compliance

23 CFR 630

Continuous

State Traffic Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

State Traffic Engineer certifies in compliance.

Work Zone Safety Process Review of Effectiveness

23 CFR 630.1010, Subparts J & K

Annually by Sept. 30

State Traffic Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

FHWA prepares and submits reports to HQ’s annually

Worker Visibility Final Rule Compliance

23 CFR 634

Continuous

State Traffic Engineer

FHWA Safety Engineer

State Traffic Engineer certifies in compliance

Zero tolerance law & enforcement certification

23 CFR 1210.5

Update as amended

Traffic Safety Division Director

FHWA Safety Engineer

FHWA receives annual summary at conclusion of legislative session to ensure still in effect

3.12.5 Safety Program Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Safety Program:

3.12.5(a) Annual Number of Fatalities on New Mexico Roads
3.12.5 (b) Annual Statewide fatality Rate per Vehicle Miles Traveled on New Mexico Roads

An image with bar graph depicting fatalities on New Mexico roads:  In Calendar Year 2007, there were 413 fatalities. In Calendar Year 2008, there were 366 fatalities. In Calendar Year 2009, there were 361 fatalities. In Calendar Year 2010, there were 349 fatalities. In Calendar Year 2011, there were 351 fatalities. There is also a downward trend line for these fatalities.

An image with bar graph depicting fatalities per Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on New Mexico roads:  In Calendar Year 2007, the rate per VMT was 1.53. In Calendar Year 2008, the rate per VMT was 1.38. In Calendar Year 2009, the rate per VMT was 1.38. In Calendar Year 2010, the rate per VMT was 1.44. In Calendar Year 2011, the rate per VMT was 1.35. There is also a downward trend line showing the fatalities.

 From 2007 to 2011, there was a slight decrease of 0.18 people killed in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled on New Mexico public roads. The linear trend-line shows the overall decrease in the fatality rate over the past five years.

The number of crash-related injuries remained generally the same from 2007 to 2011.  There was a minor increase in injuries in 2010 that causes the linear trend-line to be slightly increasing.  Injuries are crash-related incapacitating injuries (A) and visible injuries (B).

3.12.5(c) Annual Injuries (A & B) on New Mexico Roads
3.12.5 (d) Annual Statewide fatality Rate per Vehicle Miles Traveled on New Mexico Roads

An image with bar graph depicting injuries (A & B) on New Mexico roads:  In Calendar Year 2007, there were 5898 A & B injuries. In Calendar Year 2008, there were 5862 A & B injuries. In Calendar Year 2009, there were 5894 A & B injuries. In Calendar Year 2010, there were 6051 A & B injuries. In Calendar Year 2011, there were 5872 A & B injuries. There is also a flat trend line showing the injuries.

An image with bar graph depicting injuries (A & B) per Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on New Mexico roads:  In Calendar Year 2007, the rate for A & B injuries was 45.81. In Calendar Year 2008, the rate for A & B injuries was 45.23. In Calendar Year 2009, the rate for A & B injuries was 44.53. In Calendar Year 2010, the rate for A & B injuries was 39.98. In Calendar Year 2011, the rate for A & B injuries was 44.12. There is also a downward trend line showing the rate.

From 2007 to 2011, there was a slight decrease of 1.69 injured people in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The trend-line shows this decrease but the 2010 rate makes the linear trend-line more steeply decrease.

From 2007 to 2011, there was a slight decrease of 1.69 injured people in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The trend-line shows this decrease but the 2010 rate makes the linear trend-line more steeply decrease

3.12.5(e) Percent of HSIP Funds Obligated
3.12.5 (f) Improvement in assessment scores associated with implementation of proven safety counter measures:

To Be Developed

To Be Developed

3.12.5(f) Number of miles installed median barriers on multilane highways
3.12.5(g) Number of miles installed longitudinal shoulder rumple strips on rural roadways

To Be Developed

To Be Developed

3.13.0 STRUCTURES

NMDOT and FHWA ensure that structures are properly designed, constructed, and maintained throughout the State. These structures include: bridges which span over 20 feet, luminaries, traffic signal poles, overhead sign structures, retaining walls, and tunnels. NMDOT Bridge Bureau develops and publishes structural designs, policies, standards and specifications. They also provides other vital services such as bridge management and inspection, fabrication inspection, construction assistance, bridge rating, coordination of scour evaluations, and bridge permitting analysis for oversize and overweight loads.

3.13.1 Structures Method of Operation

NMDOT Bridge Bureau is responsible for providing final bridge or other structural design documents for all projects. All designs will be in accordance with NMDOT’s structural design policies and are stamped by a registered professional engineer prior to commencement. As requested by FHWA, NMDOT will provide to FHWA all survey reports, hydraulic reports, geotechnical reports or other information. FHWA will provide comments on design documents as necessary, and NMDOT will provide written responses to comments when required. The oversight of the Structures (Bridge) program area will be based on risk and / or random sampling of projects.

The Bridge Bureau is responsible for ensuring that NMDOT is compliant with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). NMDOT inspections are performed at the District level. Overall program management is managed from the General Office. Policies and procedures are implemented from the General office with input from the Districts and from FHWA. The Bridge Bureau, with input from the district level, will provide yearly prioritization lists for structure preventative maintenance, structure rehabilitation and structure replacements. NMDOT’s Bridge Bureau, Drainage Bureau and Geotechnical section will meet with FHWA at regular intervals for discussions on NBIS issues.

3.13.2 Structures Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.13-1 Structures CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

BUREAU

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

Bridge Design

           

NMDOT Bridge Design Guide

Bridge

2005

NMDOT

NMDOT

Y

 

AAASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th edition

Bridge

2012

AASHTO

AASHTO

Y

 

Bridge Construction

           

NMDOT Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction

Construction

2007

NMDOT

NMDOT

Y

 

AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications

Construction

2010

AASHTO

AASHTO

Y

 

NMDOT Construction Manual

Construction

1987

NMDOT

NMDOT

Y

 

Bridge Management

           

National Bridge Inspection Standards

Bridge

2012

FHWA

FHWA

Y

 

FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges

Bridge

1995

FHWA

FHWA

Y

 

AASHTO The Manual for Bridge Evaluation

Bridge

2011

AASHTO

AASHTO

Y

 

FHWA Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges

Bridge

2012

FHWA

FHWA

Y

 

AASHTO Guide Manual for Bridge Element Inspection

Bridge

2011

AASHTO

AASHTO

Y

 

NM Bridge Design Guide

Bridge

2005

NMDOT

NMDOT

Y

 

NMDOT Quality Assurance Plan

Bridge

2012

NMDOT

NMDOT

Y

 

3.13.3 Structures Implementation & Methods of Oversight

NMDOT Bridge Bureau will provide a Quality Assurance review of all structure designs. All final plans are reviewed by FHWA prior to project letting.

On bridge construction,NMDOT and FHWA monitor project performance based on project schedules, project budgets, severity of change orders and final project acceptance. NMDOT is required to perform project audits on all construction projects. NMDOT and FHWA provide final project reviews for all projects.

The Bridge ManagementNBIS compliance is measured through the NBIS Metrics. NMDOT is responsible for scheduling an annual NBIS District review with the assistance of FHWA as outlined in the Bridge Management Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan. FHWA provides an annual NBIS performance report.

Program / Risk Assessment are typically conducted annually to:

3.13.4 Structures Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.13-2 Structures P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT / Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

Bridge/Structural Design Review

23 CFR 650

Monthly

State Construction Engineer

Bridge Engineer

Reviews are completed monthly; in addition every 2 yrs. an in depth report is prepared by FHWA and signed by NMDOT

Bridge Management System (BMS)

23 CFR 500.107

Yearly (submitted between Sep – Dec)

Bridge Management
Engineer

Bridge Engineer

NBIS Review prepared by FHWA

Bridge Construction, Geotechnical, Hydraulics Review

23 CFR 650

Monthly

State Construction Engineer

Bridge Engineer

Reviews are completed monthly; in addition every 2 yrs. an in depth report is prepared by FHWA and signed by NMDOT

Construction inspections

FAPG G 6042.8

As needed

District Construction Engineer assists State Construction Engineer

Bridge Engineer

QA / QC Structures conducted independently by FHWA & NMDOT

Highway Bridge funding eligibility determinations

23 CFR 650 Subpart D

Project by project

Bridge Management assists State Construction Engineer

Bridge Engineer

QA / QC Structures conducted independently by FHWA & NMDOT

Highway Bridge funding Unit Cost submittal
& NBI tape submittal

23 CFR 650 Subpart D

Annually by April 1

State Bridge Engineer assists State Construction Engineer

Bridge Engineer

QA / QC Structures conducted independently by FHWA & NMDOT

NBIS Review State-wide report

23 CFR 650 Subpart C

Annually
Mar 31

Bridge Management Engineer

Bridge Engineer

Random list generated from FHWA HW’s on what to review then the FHWA Division Office prepares and submits

PS&E reviews (non-exempt projects)

23 CFR 630, 23 USC 106, and W.O. 11/13/98 memo

Project by project

State Construction Engineer

Bridge Engineer

FHWA and NMDOT review as needed

3.13.5 Structures Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Structures Program:
3.13.2(a) Percent of Apportioned Bridge Funds Obligated
3136.2(b) Percent of Non-Deficient Bridges on NHS and Non-NHS Routs

An image with bar graph depicting injuries (A & B) per Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on New Mexico roads:  In Calendar Year 2007, the rate for A & B injuries was 45.81. In Calendar Year 2008, the rate for A & B injuries was 45.23. In Calendar Year 2009, the rate for A & B injuries was 44.53. In Calendar Year 2010, the rate for A & B injuries was 39.98. In Calendar Year 2011, the rate for A & B injuries was 44.12. There is also a downward trend line showing the rate.

An image with bar graph depicting percent of non-deficient bridges by deck area – NHS and non-NHS routes, not including culverts:  In Federal Fiscal Year 2006, 89.1 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 83.2 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient. In Federal Fiscal Year 2007, 90 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 84.6 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient. In Federal Fiscal Year 2008, 92.9 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 86.8 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient. In Federal Fiscal Year 2009, 94.6 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 87.1 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient. In Federal Fiscal Year 2010, 95.6 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 88 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient. In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, 95.7 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 89.3 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient. In Federal Fiscal Year 2012, 96.1 percent of bridges on NHS routes were non-deficient and 88.4 percent of bridges on non-NHS routes were non-deficient.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation distributes federal and state funds to the Districts based on distribution formulas. NMDOT prioritizes these funds based on their needs, mainly:

  1. Condition.
  2. Capacity.

With limited funding at this time, NMDOT is focusing on system preservation efforts.

Bridge funds are further prioritized on bridge conditions and other bridge needs.  Data is queried from the PONTIS database and structurally deficient bridges are identified.  These lists are then prioritized by bridge sufficiency rating.  Sufficiency ratings take into account several key aspects of a bridges health, such as: structural integrity, functional status and essentiality for public use.  Six lists are generated for each District; Interstate Bridges, US Highway Bridges, NM Route Bridges, Culverts, Scour Critical Bridges and Locally Owned Bridges.  Bridges that are candidates for minor rehabilitation and preventative maintenance projects are also identified. NMDOT has been successfully targeting these bridges during the last 10 years which has led to fewer bridges becoming Structurally Deficient. This strategy has enabled NMDOT to decrease the number of structurally deficient bridges and the square footage of structurally deficient bridges significantly.

The Districts and the Bridge Bureau go over each list and factor in items such as District priorities, essentiality for oversize/overweight routing, corridor planning, future growth, public concerns, etc.  The Districts determine their STIP priorities based on these lists.

The NMDOT has made significant progress towards eliminating structurally deficient bridges. Many of these bridges have been rehabilitated with the use of BR funds. NMDOT has also used BR funds on preventative maintenance projects to prevent good bridges from deteriorating into deficient categories. Several Districts, most notably D-6, have aggressively targeted reducing their number of structurally deficient bridges and have been extremely proactive in the implementation of preventative maintenance projects.

3.13.2(c) Percent of Completed Plan of Action for Scour Critical Bridges

3.13.5 (d) Percent Compliance Completing Routing Inspections on Schedule

An image with bar graph depicting status of completed plans of actions for scour critical bridges in New Mexico: In 2012, of all bridges, 75 percent have completed POAs. Of the bridges with unknown foundations, 100 percent have completed POAs. Of the bridges coded 3 or less, 100 percent have completed POAs. Of the bridges coded 6, 4 percent have completed POAs.

 

NMDOT has 104 bridges coded as 6 (no scour calculation has been performed) which will require a significant effort for analysis. Further involvement by Drainage Bureau, Geotechnical Bureau and by the Districts will be required. Of these bridges 4 have completed POA’s. After the initial review, each of the bridges will have a monitoring POA implemented until the bridge is analyzed for scour. This will be NMDOT’s main scour priority.

The NMDOT and FHWA’s Bridge Engineer spent a significant amount of time reviewing all of the bridges coded as "3 or less" or "Unknown Foundation" and developed POA’s for these bridges. This included all state owned and locally owned bridges. NMDOT has completed 100% of the Plans of Action (POA’s) for these bridges. POA recommendations include:

  • Monitoring bridge during regularly scheduled bridge inspections
  • Monitoring bridge during high water events
  • Scour mitigation efforts needed
  • Further drainage analysis required

These bridges were further categorized into 3 categories;

Tier 1Low Level Risk
Tier 2Medium Level Risk
Tier 3High Level Risk

Tier 3 bridges will have a full scour analysis performed and Tier 1 and Tier 2 bridges will have a less intensive scour analysis performed. 

NMDOT is currently 97% compliant on completing routine inspections on schedule and is 100% compliant on completing inspections on Fracture Critical Bridges.  NMDOT is near completion of creating Fracture Critical Inspection Procedures and policy has been to inspect all Fracture Critical Bridges on a 12 month frequency, which includes a "hands-on" inspection of all tension members on bridges without individual inspection plans being performed.   NMDOT has completed approximately 60% of inspection plans for individual bridges.

Indicator 3.13.5 (e) Percent of Load Ratings Completed

Indicator 3.13.5 (f) Percent of dollars obligated on Bridge Construction projects vs. dollars obligated on Bridge Maintenance projects

An image with bar graph depicting status of bridge load rating on New Mexico bridges: In 2012, of the total 2050 bridges, 1150 have been load rated. Of the 771 NHS bridges, 727 have been load rated. Of the 1279 non-NHS bridges, 423 have been load rated. Of the 1509 state-owned bridges, 1126 have been load rated. Of the 541 non-state-owned bridges, 24 have been load rated.

To Be Developed

  • Current-year Progress – The current progress meets the proposed schedule shown in the Action Plan (complete 150 load ratings in CY 2012).
  • National Highway System (NHS) bridges – This category is largely completed (94%). The remaining bridges in this category include unique bridges that require special analysis (see below), bridges currently under construction or recently rehabilitated & structurally deficient bridges (see below).
  • State-owned, Non-NHS bridges – Current efforts are being concentrated in this subgroup; 80% are completed or in review.
  • Non State-owned bridges – This subgroup remains a low priority while the Department’s effort is concentrated on State-owned bridges.
  • Unique Bridges – The analysis & rating of sixteen cast-in-place box girder bridges (both NHS & non-NHS bridges) is being performed by consultant. Rigid frame structures will be assigned for rating in the near future.
  • Structurally Deficient Bridges – The Department has an in-house program for this category. Procedures require field review by a Bridge Engineer & documentation of load rating recommendations based on the observed bridge conditions. This program is ongoing.
  • Culverts – The Department recently developed culvert load ratings charts for new standard culvert designs. This will provide a convenient method in the future to rate new culverts.
  • Field Methods to Physically Load Rate Concrete Bridges without Plans – The Department is moving forward with a research project to test & develop field load testing methods. The results of the project will provide a valuable alternative for obtaining bridge load ratings where the usual methods (analytical) cannot be performed due to lack of bridge documentation. It is anticipated that load testing will be required for a significant number of locally owned bridges where plan data does not exist.

Load Rating:  Plan of Corrective Action is on schedule.  Completed 100% ON-SYSTEM, completed 20% OFF-SYSTEM, and Plan of Corrective Action will be complete on March 14, 2014.

 

3.14.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS) PROGRAM

MAP-21 in effect today continues what SAFETEA-LU established two major program areas regarding ITS. One is the development of a National ITS Program Plan and the other is the development of a Real-Time System Management Plan. The legislation requires that the National ITS Program Plan:

The legislation for the Real-Time Management Plan requires the development of a real-time system management information program to provide traffic and travel conditions on major highways and data exchange formats.

The overall purpose of the ITS Program is to explore new technologies, applications and concepts that may enhance the intelligent transportation system through strategic alliances with other States, agencies and the private sector. In addition, this program is responsible for enhancing the environment for commercial and non-commercial vehicle operations using the State's transportation system. This is accomplished while meeting the goals of the ITS Program, which are to improve safety, reduce traffic delays, increase the ITS system reliability, and enhance information covering mobility options.

3.14.1 Traffic Operations (ITS) Method of Operation

Continued growth in the urban areas on the transportation system in New Mexico has advanced to the degree that congestion, weather and traffic related incidents have impacted the operational efficiency of the system. The NMDOT and FHWA are committed to maintaining an acceptable level of operation on the Interstate System. The NMDOT will lead the effort to develop, deploy and operate ITS and undertake incident management strategies and operations to maximize the efficiency, and safety of the transportation system.

The NMDOT and FHWA will establish the ITS Steering Committee comprised of 2 District Engineers, FHWA ITSPM and the Highway Operations Engineer. The ITS Bureau Chief and the District Three Traffic Engineer will serve as operators and advisors for ITS to the committee. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) will serve as an advisor and support of the ITS operations. The committee shall meet at a minimum of once per year to assess the past progress, review the annual program plan and review the performance indicators.

The NMDOT shall maintain and update a State-wide ITS Architecture Plan in compliance with Title 23 CFR § 940 with concurrence by FHWA. The FHWA will have oversight of the ITS development and deployment. ITS projects shall be developed consistent with the State Architecture Plan (NMDOT) and have a Systems Engineering Analysis performed and submitted for FHWA concurrence. The ITS program shall be managed utilizing asset management principles including inventory, condition, performance and projected replacement of the equipment.

3.14.2 Traffic Operations (ITS) Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.14-1 Traffic Operations (ITS) CS/D (Update: October 2012)

DESCRIPTION

AGENCY

LAST
UPDATE

OWNER

APPROVER

AVAILABILITY

BASIS

DMS Operational Guidelines

NMDOT-ITS

9/2012

Manager ITS Operations

Cabinet Secretary

http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html

MUTCD Compliance

Statewide Architecture

NMDOT-ITS

9/2012

Manager ITS Operations

FHWA ensures in place

http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html

23 CFR 940

AMPA (Albq. Planning Area)

NMDOT-ITS & MRCOG

12/2011

Manager ITS Operations & MRCOG

FHWA ensures in place

http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html

23 CFR 940

Santa Fe Architecture

NMDOT-ITS

12/2011

Manager ITS Operations

FHWA ensures in place

http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html

23 CFR 940

Las Cruces Architecture

NMDOT-ITS

2008

Manager ITS Operations

FHWA ensures in place

http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html

23 CFR 940

Farmington Architecture

Farmington MPO

In Process

Manager ITS Operations

FHWA ensures in place

Hardcopy (Farmington MPO)

23 CFR 940

3.14.3 Traffic Operation (ITS) Implementation & Methods of Oversight

By January 15th each year, NMDOT shall prepare an annual ITS work plan for the upcoming year. The plan shall include a summary of the progress of the past year and identify the anticipated program for the following year, including performance indicators.

The NMDOT and FHWA shall also conduct FHWA’s Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment annually, by the end of July, to identify opportunities for continuous improvement. These opportunities will be included in the following years work plan.

The NMDOT shall develop performance indicators, measured on a quarterly basis, as part of the work plan which shall include the following:

The NMDOT shall develop and implement an ITS Project Certification for compliance with the systems engineering requirements for all projects pursuant to Title 23 CFR § 940.11. The certification shall become part of the project development process and the responsibility of the Project Development Engineer (PDE) with FHWA concurrence.

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

3.14.4 Traffic Operations Program & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.14-2 Traffic Operations (ITS) P&PAR (Update: October 2012)

Activity

Authority

Frequency / Due

NMDOT / Contact

FHWA Contact

Action / Remarks

Conformity with National ITS Architecture

23 CFR 940.5

ITS projects using Highway Trust

Manager ITS Operation

ITS Engineer

NMDOT prepares document; FHWA concurs

Congestion Management System

23 CFR 500.109

As needed/revised by MPO/State

Congestion Management Process sub-committee

State Planner

FHWA ensures that CMP plan is in place

Incident Management

23 CFR 500

Quarterly

District Traffic Operation

State Planner to HQ’s

NMDOT prepares document

Incident Management Assessment

23 CFR 500

Annually by June 1

Traffic & ITS Operations

ITS Engineer

FHWA interviews NMDOT departmental process & FHWA prepares report

ITS Regional Architecture

23 CFR 940.9

Project by project

Manager ITS Operation

ITS Engineer

NMDOT prepares document; FHWA concurs

Project Administration - ITS

23 CFR 940.13

Project by project

Manager ITS Operation

ITS Engineer

NMDOT ensures that projects meet state and federal standards

Regional (and statewide) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture Maintenance

23 CFR 940.9

As needed

Manager ITS Operation

ITS Engineer

NMDOT ensures compliance of the Architecture

Systems Engineering Analysis Implementation

23 CFR 940.11

As needed

Manager ITS Operation

ITS Engineer

Ensuring that ITS standards meet interoperability

Traffic Engineering and Analysis

23 CFR 940.11

As required

State Traffic Engineer

ITS Engineer

NMDOT ensure project documentation meets requirements

Traffic Operations Performance Data

23 CFR 500

Semi Annually

Traffic Operations

National Programs

Move to Safety

Traffic Surveillance and Control

23 CFR 655.411

Design / Elias Steve Egan

   

Submitted with w/PS&E submission (full oversight projects)

Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement certification

23 CFR 657.13

Annually by Jan 1

Traffic Operations

National Programs

SAFETY – DPS

Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement plan

23 CFR 657.11

Annually by Oct 1

Traffic Operations

National Programs

SAFETY – DPS

Work Zone Safety Assessment

---

Annually by June 1

     

3.14.5 Traffic Operations (ITS) Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The ITS Bureau is directly responsible to report on the following performance measures. These performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the ITS Program:

These performance measures evaluate three elements. Incident response and clearance times, number of incidents that resulted in a road closure in the Albuquerque area of greater than 90 minutes, and the percentage of ITS projects in the Bureau’s annual goals and objectives that were completed within their targeted time frame. The measurements are tracked from the beginning of the calendar year (January) to the end of the calendar year (December). Information for 2012 is year-to-date (YTD). Last quarter is not yet available; therefore, the standard deviation for each parameter was established. If the difference between the mean and this year’s YTD measurements is more than the standard deviation, we would expect to meet that specific goal.

Indicator 3.14.3(a) Performance Average: Time, Time at Incident, Overall Time
Indicator 3.14.3(b) Number of Closures lasting more than 90 minutes

An image with bar graph depicting incident response and clearance times in minutes: In Calendar Year 2007, average response time to an incident was 10.02 minutes, average time overall at the scene was 19.38 minutes, average overall time at an incident was 29.4 minutes. In Calendar Year 2008, average response time to an incident was 9.59 minutes, average time overall at the scene was 18.1 minutes, average overall time at an incident was 27.66 minutes. In Calendar Year 2009, average response time to an incident was 8.3 minutes, average time overall at the scene was 24.1 minutes, average overall time at an incident was 32.4 minutes. In Calendar Year 2010, average response time to an incident was 7.55 minutes, average time overall at the scene was 24.14 minutes, average overall time at an incident was 31.69 minutes. In Calendar Year 2011, average response time to an incident was 8.15 minutes, average time overall at the scene was 25.16 minutes, average overall time at an incident was 33.31 minutes. In Calendar Year 2012, average response time to an incident was 7.45 minutes, average time overall at the scene was 19.6 minutes, average overall time at an incident was 27.5 minutes. From CY07-CY11 the mean time to respond was 8.72, mean time at scene was 22.18 and overall mean time at scene was 30.9.

An image with bar graph depicting number of road closures greater than 90 minutes: In Calendar Year 2007, there were 17 closures greater than 90 minutes. In Calendar Year 2008, there were 23 closures greater than 90 minutes. In Calendar Year 2009, there were 9 closures greater than 90 minutes. In Calendar Year 2010, there were 5 closures greater than 90 minutes. In Calendar Year 2011, there were 7 closures greater than 90 minutes. In Calendar Year 2012, there were 7 closures greater than 90 minutes. 2009 – 2011 mean is 12 closures.

Response and Clearance times should be at or lower than the combined mean of all previous years. 2012 performance measure target was 27.05 minutes. The mean for the combined four years was 30.892. Standard deviation from the mean was 1.89 minutes. The difference between 2012 YTD and the mean (3.84) is more than the standard deviation (1.89). Target was fulfilled.

Percentage of completed targets should be at or lower than the combined mean of all previous years. The following tracks that from 2007 to 2012. Because it’s YTD, a quarter is still outstanding. Using a straight line weighting, we expect probably 2 more events to occur this year, bringing the estimated number of events to be 9. Performance Measure Target for 2012 (7 YTD+ 2 anticipated or a weighted value of 9 full road closures) was less than the combined average over the previous years (12 full road closures). Target was met.

Indicator 3.14.3(c) Percent of ITS Projects Completed

(Intentionally left blank)

An image with bar graph depicting the percent of complete Intelligent Transportation Systems projects annually: In Calendar Year 2009, 72 percent of projects were completed. In calendar year 2010, 78 percent of projects were completed. In calendar year 2011, 64 percent of projects were completed. In calendar year 2012, 52 percent of projects were completed. 2009-2011 mean is 71 percent.

(Intentionally left blank)

Every year the ITS Bureau establishes its annual goals and objectives. Within it are projects that are designed to meet each of the District’s ITS needs, as defined in their respective ITS plans. These projects have been categorized as near-term projects (those that are expected to be completed within a 3-month time period), mid-term projects (those that are expected to be completed within a 6-month time period), long-term projects (those that are expected be completed by year’s end) and extended-term projects (those that are expected to go beyond a year for completion).

This year there was a total of 39 projects, 12 as near-term, 8 as mid-term, 13 as long-term, and 6 as extended term. All near-term projects have been completed. Four (4) of the twelve (12) were completed within the 3-month target window; six (6) were completed within four (4) months (first week in April); one (1) was completed within five (5) months; and one (1) was completed within six (6) months.

Of the eight (8) mid-term projects, four (4) have been completed, three (3) within the six-month target window, one (1) within eight (1) months. The remaining four (4) are in progress. Three (3) of these are expected to be completed by the end of September (9-month window); the remaining mid-term project will (installation of network switch) is expected to be completed before year’s end. It is in the controlled ‘burn-in’ phase, required for ensured reliability.

Of the thirteen (13) long-term projects (once again, those that are to be completed within a year’s time frame), two (2) have been completed. We expect to complete three (3) of the remaining eleven (11) within the remainder of the calendar year. The remaining nine (9) are expected to be re-classified as extended-term projects.

Of the six (6) extended-term projects, two (2) are expected to be completed within this calendar year. The remaining four (4) are anticipated to begin after the new year, and come into next year’s annual goals and objectives as near-term projects.

The biggest gap is with the shift associated with the nine (9) long-term projects. A variety of issues attributed to this. Some of the projects have proved problematic in the lack of a communications infrastructure in the installation area (we typically use outside, private networks such as AT&T, Verizon, and regional internet service providers). When we established the projects, we anticipated service areas were going to be extended. This did not occur.

We also faced an issue with the availability of qualified installation personnel. There are a limited number of providers in the Albuquerque area, and they are also being used for city and county projects. This created a demand with limited supply.

Another contributing factor of this year’s performance versus previous years is that we previously had access to on-call task-driven professional service contracts to assist on project design. That option was not available to us this year. It required us to rely on internal capacity for ITS projects, which in turn resulted in unavoidable delay.

This year is a 50% year, meaning we cannot expend our budget beyond the corresponding percentage of the term of the fiscal year (cannot spend more than 50% before being halfway through the fiscal year). Our annual goals and objectives are established for a calendar year. To that end, most of our earlier projects (near-term and mid-term) were completed within anticipated targets. The long-term targets were compromised by this and a recent back-log (4 months) of manufacturing deliveries for ITS equipment. The effective window for installation after delivery is reduced from a 4-5 month window to two (2) months.

And finally, though the number of projects is relatively consistent with previous years, the complexity and content of this year’s goals and objectives created a more ambitious agenda.

(Intentionally left blank)

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000