View Bill Status
View Bill Text
View Amendment
View Engrossed Bill (Original Bill with Amendment(s) Incorporated)
View Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact
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
]]]] LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ]]]] Fifty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2008IN 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.
]]]] LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ]]]] Fifty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2008Moved 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".
]]]] LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO ]]]] Fifty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session - 2008IN 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
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