2008 Legislation
Print Friendly

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 50<br /> – ADOPTED+<br />

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 50

View Bill Status

View Bill Text

View Amendment

View Engrossed Bill (Original Bill with Amendment(s) Incorporated)

View Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact



Text to be added within a bill has been marked with Bold and
Underline. Text to be removed has been marked with
Strikethrough and Italic. How these codes are actually displayed will
vary based on the browser software you are using.

This sentence is marked with bold and underline to show added text.

This sentence is marked with strikethrough and italic, indicating
text to be removed.

Bill Status



HCR050aa..................................................by WAYS AND MEANS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT - Stating findings of the Legislature and
requesting the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee to direct the Office
of Performance Evaluations to commission an independent evaluation of the
Idaho Transportation Department.

02/28    House intro - 1st rdg - to printing
02/29    Rpt prt - to Transp
03/07    Rpt out - to Gen Ord
03/17    Rpt out amen - to engros
    Rpt engros - 1st rdg - to 2nd rdg as amen
    Rls susp - ADOPTED - 67-0-3
      AYES -- Anderson, Andrus, Barrett, Bayer, Bell, Bilbao, Black, Block,
      Bock, Boe, Bolz, Bowers, Brackett, Bradford, Chadderdon, Chavez,
      Chew, Clark, Crane, Durst, Eskridge, Hagedorn, Hart, Harwood,
      Henbest, Henderson, Jaquet, Killen, King, Kren, Labrador, Lake,
      LeFavour, Loertscher, Luker, Marriott, Mathews, McGeachin, Mortimer,
      Moyle, Nielsen, Nonini, Pasley-Stuart, Patrick, Pence, Raybould,
      Ringo, Roberts, Ruchti, Rusche, Sayler, Schaefer, Shepherd(02),
      Shepherd(08), Shirley, Shively, Smith(30), Smith(24), Snodgrass,
      Stevenson, Thayn, Thomas, Trail, Vander Woude, Wills, Wood(27), Mr.
      Speaker
      NAYS -- None
      Absent and excused -- Bedke, Collins, Wood(35)
    Floor Sponsor - Smith(24)
    Title apvd - to Senate
03/17    Senate intro - 1st rdg - to Transp
03/20    Rpt out - rec d/p - to 10th Ord
03/27    10th Ord - ADOPTED - 31-2-2
      AYES -- Bair, Bastian, Bilyeu, Broadsword, Burkett, Coiner, Corder,
      Davis, Fulcher, Gannon(Gannon), Geddes, Goedde, Hammond, Heinrich,
      Hill, Jorgenson, Kelly, Keough, Langhorst, Little, Lodge,
      Malepeai(Sagness), McGee, McKague, Pearce, Richardson, Schroeder,
      Siddoway, Stegner, Stennett, Werk
      NAYS -- Andreason, Darrington
      Absent and excused -- Cameron, McKenzie
    Floor Sponsor - McGee
    Title apvd - to House
03/28    To enrol - Rpt enrol - Sp signed
03/31    Pres signed
04/01    To Secretary of State

Bill Text




                                                                       
  ]]]]              LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO             ]]]]
 Fifty-ninth Legislature                   Second Regular Session - 2008

                                                                       

                              IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 50

                                BY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

  1                               A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
  2    STATING FINDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND REQUESTING THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVER-
  3        SIGHT COMMITTEE TO DIRECT THE OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TO  COMMIS-
  4        SION AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

  5    Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

  6        WHEREAS,  the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has responsibility for
  7    approximately 5,000 centerline miles of highways in Idaho  with  a  budget  of
  8    over 547 million dollars; and
  9        WHEREAS,  ITD  estimates  that its annual revenue shortfall on maintenance
 10    and construction is currently 245 million dollars; and
 11        WHEREAS, highways are a critical infrastructure for  Idaho's  economy  and
 12    for the mobility of its citizens; and
 13        WHEREAS,  the Legislature is deliberating on fee increases to provide more
 14    revenue to meet the ongoing and future needs of Idaho's highways; and
 15        WHEREAS, the Legislature has the responsibility  to  ensure  that  current
 16    revenues and any potential new revenues are spent appropriately.
 17        NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Second Regular Ses-
 18    sion of the Fifty-ninth Idaho Legislature, the House  of  Representatives  and
 19    the  Senate concurring therein, that the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee
 20    is requested to direct the Office of  Performance  Evaluations  to  manage  an
 21    independent  evaluation  of the ITD by a qualified, out-of-state consultant(s)
 22    without current contractual relationships with ITD or any consultant  or  con-
 23    tractor  that works for or with ITD and without any other conflict of interest
 24    with ITD. The evaluation shall address  the  following  questions,  listed  in
 25    order of priority:
 26        (1)  As  measured over an appropriate time frame, does the manner in which
 27    ITD schedules, finances and sets priorities for improvement projects  minimize
 28    life-cycle costs?
 29        (2)  Does ITD have appropriate processes and criteria to measure and eval-
 30    uate  the  quality  of its maintenance and construction work on state highways
 31    and do these processes and criteria include value engineering?
 32        (3)  Does ITD have a process for identifying  and  selecting  projects  in
 33    writing  that  is  followed in a timely basis to ensure project consideration,
 34    progress and completion?
 35        (4)  What practices are used in determining the best price to value  ratio
 36    on project contracts?
 37        (5)  What metrics are being used to evaluate project success?
 38        (6)  Are  there state policies or legislation that might hamper ITD's pro-
 39    grams, increase costs or limit options for efficiency, and, if  so,  what  are
 40    they?
 41        (7)  Are  there any precautions undertaken by ITD to insulate it from con-
 42    struction cost fluctuations?
 43        (8)  Is there work that ITD is currently outsourcing that ITD  is  capable
 44    of  performing  in-house or work that is being done in-house and that could be

                                       2

  1    outsourced, including planning, environmental studies,  right-of-way  acquisi-
  2    tion, design, public contacts and actual construction, and, if so:
  3        (a)  Is  ITD's  staff  adequate  to  perform  work  in-house that is being
  4        outsourced;
  5        (b)  Could cost savings result by either performing the work  in-house  or
  6        outsourcing the work; and
  7        (c)  Would  the  quality of the work improve by either performing the work
  8        in-house or by outsourcing it?
  9        (9)  Does ITD have a written maintenance project budget and modeling proc-
 10    ess to project what moneys and resources will be required at any given time to
 11    maintain existing and additional highways?
 12        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the independent evaluation address  the  ITD's
 13    contracting  process  and  supervision  with  regard  to consulting contracts,
 14    including:
 15        (1)  The selection of those consultants requested to submit proposals  and
 16    whether  qualified  consultants are being given the opportunity to submit pro-
 17    posals or whether the scope of contacted consultants has been arbitrarily lim-
 18    ited;
 19        (2)  Whether the scope of the project to be performed  by  the  consultant
 20    has  been carefully defined so as to limit the need for supplementals and add-
 21    ons; and
 22        (3)  The performance of ITD  in  supervising  its  consultants,  including
 23    auditing the consultant's task performance, hours of work claimed and requests
 24    for payment.
 25        BE  IT  FURTHER RESOLVED that the independent evaluation address the ITD's
 26    contracting and supervision with regard to construction contracts, including:
 27        (1)  Whether no frills designs are being employed that ensure efficiencies
 28    in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars and that enable projects to achieve the
 29    most construction for the dollar without sacrificing safety and while  comply-
 30    ing with federal and state guidelines;
 31        (2)  ITD's  evaluation  of  methods and engineering competency employed by
 32    estimating project costs and whether such methods and  engineering  competency
 33    limit  the awarding of contracts that substantially exceed the ITD estimate or
 34    limit the rebidding of contracts;
 35        (3)  Determine whether quality  inspections  by  qualified  inspectors  or
 36    project engineers are being utilized;
 37        (4)  Examination  of ITD's current policies and efforts to avoid and limit
 38    cost overruns and limit the  supplemental  amounts  demanded  by  contractors.
 39    Also,  whether there is a fair but firm appeals process in place, staffed with
 40    competent individuals, to address these issues; and
 41        (5)  Examination of  ITD's  internal  review  process  on  change  orders,
 42    including the process for confirming change order costs and the utilization of
 43    value engineering in evaluating change orders.
 44        BE  IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee is
 45    requested to direct the Office of Performance Evaluations to develop  a  scope
 46    of  study  to  address  the issues set forth above. As part of this study, the
 47    Office of Performance Evaluations shall develop and submit  a  report  to  the
 48    Legislature,  not  later than the Second Regular Session of the Sixtieth Idaho
 49    Legislature, on findings concerning best practices and appropriate performance
 50    measures. At the conclusion of each phase of the consultant's work, the  Joint
 51    Legislative  Oversight  Committee  is requested to submit a report of the com-
 52    pleted results of the independent evaluation to the  Sixtieth  Idaho  Legisla-
 53    ture.  The results so reported are to include action item recommendations upon
 54    which the Idaho Transportation Board and the Legislature can  act  to  improve
 55    safety, efficiency and economies on surface transportation projects.

Amendment




                                                                       
  ]]]]              LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO             ]]]]
 Fifty-ninth Legislature                   Second Regular Session - 2008

                                                                       

                                                     Moved by    Smith (24)

                                                     Seconded by Mortimer


                              IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                             HOUSE AMENDMENT TO H.C.R. NO. 50

  1                             AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION
  2        On page 1 of the printed resolution, in line 24,  delete  ",  listed  in";
  3    and in line 25, delete "order of priority".

Engrossed Bill (Original Bill with Amendment(s) Incorporated)




                                                                       
  ]]]]              LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO             ]]]]
 Fifty-ninth Legislature                   Second Regular Session - 2008

                                                                       

                              IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 50, As Amended

                                BY WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE

  1                               A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
  2    STATING FINDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND REQUESTING THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE OVER-
  3        SIGHT COMMITTEE TO DIRECT THE OFFICE OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TO  COMMIS-
  4        SION AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

  5    Be It Resolved by the Legislature of the State of Idaho:

  6        WHEREAS,  the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has responsibility for
  7    approximately 5,000 centerline miles of highways in Idaho  with  a  budget  of
  8    over 547 million dollars; and
  9        WHEREAS,  ITD  estimates  that its annual revenue shortfall on maintenance
 10    and construction is currently 245 million dollars; and
 11        WHEREAS, highways are a critical infrastructure for  Idaho's  economy  and
 12    for the mobility of its citizens; and
 13        WHEREAS,  the Legislature is deliberating on fee increases to provide more
 14    revenue to meet the ongoing and future needs of Idaho's highways; and
 15        WHEREAS, the Legislature has the responsibility  to  ensure  that  current
 16    revenues and any potential new revenues are spent appropriately.
 17        NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the Second Regular Ses-
 18    sion of the Fifty-ninth Idaho Legislature, the House  of  Representatives  and
 19    the  Senate concurring therein, that the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee
 20    is requested to direct the Office of  Performance  Evaluations  to  manage  an
 21    independent  evaluation  of the ITD by a qualified, out-of-state consultant(s)
 22    without current contractual relationships with ITD or any consultant  or  con-
 23    tractor  that works for or with ITD and without any other conflict of interest
 24    with ITD. The evaluation shall address the following questions:
 25        (1)  As measured over an appropriate time frame, does the manner in  which
 26    ITD  schedules, finances and sets priorities for improvement projects minimize
 27    life-cycle costs?
 28        (2)  Does ITD have appropriate processes and criteria to measure and eval-
 29    uate the quality of its maintenance and construction work  on  state  highways
 30    and do these processes and criteria include value engineering?
 31        (3)  Does  ITD  have  a  process for identifying and selecting projects in
 32    writing that is followed in a timely basis to  ensure  project  consideration,
 33    progress and completion?
 34        (4)  What  practices are used in determining the best price to value ratio
 35    on project contracts?
 36        (5)  What metrics are being used to evaluate project success?
 37        (6)  Are there state policies or legislation that might hamper ITD's  pro-
 38    grams,  increase  costs  or limit options for efficiency, and, if so, what are
 39    they?
 40        (7)  Are there any precautions undertaken by ITD to insulate it from  con-
 41    struction cost fluctuations?
 42        (8)  Is  there  work that ITD is currently outsourcing that ITD is capable
 43    of performing in-house or work that is being done in-house and that  could  be
 44    outsourced,  including  planning, environmental studies, right-of-way acquisi-

                                       2

  1    tion, design, public contacts and actual construction, and, if so:
  2        (a)  Is ITD's staff adequate  to  perform  work  in-house  that  is  being
  3        outsourced;
  4        (b)  Could  cost  savings result by either performing the work in-house or
  5        outsourcing the work; and
  6        (c)  Would the quality of the work improve by either performing  the  work
  7        in-house or by outsourcing it?
  8        (9)  Does ITD have a written maintenance project budget and modeling proc-
  9    ess to project what moneys and resources will be required at any given time to
 10    maintain existing and additional highways?
 11        BE  IT  FURTHER RESOLVED that the independent evaluation address the ITD's
 12    contracting process and  supervision  with  regard  to  consulting  contracts,
 13    including:
 14        (1)  The  selection of those consultants requested to submit proposals and
 15    whether qualified consultants are being given the opportunity to  submit  pro-
 16    posals or whether the scope of contacted consultants has been arbitrarily lim-
 17    ited;
 18        (2)  Whether  the  scope  of the project to be performed by the consultant
 19    has been carefully defined so as to limit the need for supplementals and  add-
 20    ons; and
 21        (3)  The  performance  of  ITD  in  supervising its consultants, including
 22    auditing the consultant's task performance, hours of work claimed and requests
 23    for payment.
 24        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the independent evaluation address  the  ITD's
 25    contracting and supervision with regard to construction contracts, including:
 26        (1)  Whether no frills designs are being employed that ensure efficiencies
 27    in the expenditure of taxpayer dollars and that enable projects to achieve the
 28    most  construction for the dollar without sacrificing safety and while comply-
 29    ing with federal and state guidelines;
 30        (2)  ITD's evaluation of methods and engineering  competency  employed  by
 31    estimating  project  costs and whether such methods and engineering competency
 32    limit the awarding of contracts that substantially exceed the ITD estimate  or
 33    limit the rebidding of contracts;
 34        (3)  Determine  whether  quality  inspections  by  qualified inspectors or
 35    project engineers are being utilized;
 36        (4)  Examination of ITD's current policies and efforts to avoid and  limit
 37    cost  overruns  and  limit  the  supplemental amounts demanded by contractors.
 38    Also, whether there is a fair but firm appeals process in place, staffed  with
 39    competent individuals, to address these issues; and
 40        (5)  Examination  of  ITD's  internal  review  process  on  change orders,
 41    including the process for confirming change order costs and the utilization of
 42    value engineering in evaluating change orders.
 43        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee  is
 44    requested  to  direct the Office of Performance Evaluations to develop a scope
 45    of study to address the issues set forth above. As part  of  this  study,  the
 46    Office  of  Performance  Evaluations  shall develop and submit a report to the
 47    Legislature, not later than the Second Regular Session of the  Sixtieth  Idaho
 48    Legislature, on findings concerning best practices and appropriate performance
 49    measures.  At the conclusion of each phase of the consultant's work, the Joint
 50    Legislative Oversight Committee is requested to submit a report  of  the  com-
 51    pleted  results  of  the independent evaluation to the Sixtieth Idaho Legisla-
 52    ture. The results so reported are to include action item recommendations  upon
 53    which  the  Idaho  Transportation Board and the Legislature can act to improve
 54    safety, efficiency and economies on surface transportation projects.

Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact


                    STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

                          RS 18041

  This resolution authorizes the Joint Legislative Oversight
  Committee, through the Office of Performance Evaluations, to
  hire outside consulting company(s) to evaluate the way the
  Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) does business with
  consultants and contractors.  When the audit/performance
  evaluation is complete, the outside consulting company(s)
  brings a report back to the Joint Legislative Oversight
  Committee, the ITD Board and Legislature with observations
  and suggestions.

                                               
                        FISCAL NOTE

      An estimated cost of approximately $550,000.





   
  Contact
  Name:     Representative Leon E. Smith(24)   
  Phone:    332-1000
            Representative JoAn Wood(35)  
            Representative Phil Hart 
            Representative Dean Mortimer  
            Representative Marv Hagedorn
            Representative Mary Lou Shepherd(2)
            Representative Dell Raybould
            Representative John A. "Bert" Stevenson
            Representative Robert Schaefer
            Representative Rich Wills
            Representative Ken Andrus
            Representative Richard Harwood
            Representative Tom Loertcher
            Representative James E. Ruchti
            Representative Lenore Barrett
            Representative George Eskridge               
            
            
  
  
  
  Statement of Purpose/Fiscal Impact                   HCR 50