This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
AUDIT REPORT NUMBER 04B-6004
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
This audit was conducted to meet statutory requirements and assist management in the effective implementation of transportation programs by the Department. We included such tests and other auditing procedures as we considered necessary under the circumstances. procedures and other operations of the Department and recommend improvements. Our audit was conducted in accordance with applicable Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (1994 revision) and Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing published by the Institute of Internal Auditors. require the Florida Department of Transportation's Inspector General to review.055 and 20.Office of Inspector General Audit Team Members Audit Manager Audit Team John Rendahl Candace Heins Salwa Soliman Sections 20. plans. 2 ! Report No.23. 04B-6004 . Florida Statutes. evaluate and report on policies.
E.. C. Objectives. D. Revised Procedure Resolves An Inconsistency V. District Bid Analysis Is Limited District Bid Analysis Is Reasonably Consistent 6 8 10 11 12 4 5 III.Office of Inspector General TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I. Scope and Methodology Glossary DCP Limitations Management Response Distribution 14 15 16 17 19 Report No. 04B-6004 ! 3 . Pay Item Unit Price Terminology Is Not Consistent APPENDICES A. Districts Have Established Management Controls IV. II. B.
Upon its adoption. The processes meet statutory and procedural requirements. This implementation would be done as part of the BISP effort but could be done in advance of the current BISP schedule. All districts have established processes that contain major elements in common for the technical review of bids (see page 9). through its joint participation in an AASHTO-sponsored construction management project. the “specified percentages” above or below the Department’s estimate. The Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy should direct a review of the Department’s future expectations for bid analysis of district contracts and support pursuit of appropriate tools accordingly. Currently. providing the districts with the analytical tools that are needed. the system used for district contracts. the dollar cap for district-let contracts has risen to $1 million. Furthermore. DCP was not intended to be a full contract administration system. The Contracts Administration Office should pursue adoption and implementation of the revision to this procedure. districts have included reasonable management controls to identify and reduce risks. Over time. We found that districts cannot perform bid analysis equivalent to that performed on contracts let by the Central Office due to the limitations of the District Contract Prototype (DCP) system. will be consistent with specified percentages on Central Office-let contracts. when a bidder leaves a pay item unit price blank or enters “no bid. If and when the dollar cap for district contracts is officially raised. If such equivalent analysis were deemed desirable. 4 ! Report No.Office of Inspector General EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This audit reviewed districts’ activities that constituted bid analysis on district construction and maintenance contracts. It was built for temporary use until an integrated system could be provided under BISP. The Contracts Administration Office should continue to encourage the districts’ efforts. Our principal objectives were to: C C Review bid analysis for reasonable consistency among districts. appropriate analytical tools would be required. DCP lacks the statistical capabilities used to analyze bids for Central Office-let contracts. we found that by incorporating several mechanisms as part of the bid analysis process. The Central Office and districts do not have a common understanding of acceptable terminology for bid price proposal pay item unit prices from contractors when the intent is to charge nothing for the pay item. districts may let contracts over the $1 million limit on a case-by-case basis. 04B-6004 . The scope excluded contracts involving the Contractual Services Office. During our audit the Contracts Administration Office revised the District Contracts Procedure. We found that districts performed bid analysis on district contracts in a reasonably consistent manner. and detailed analysis of the District Contract Prototype system. decisions to accept or reject bids may not be consistent. Currently. the Department is looking to implement other AASHTO software packages that would replace the existing DCP system.” The Contracts Administration Office should clarify acceptable terminology for use with pay items the contractor intends to provide at no cost to the Department. applied in conjunction with bid analysis and contract award of district contracts. for example. As a result. districts would be unable to perform bid analysis on these larger contracts equivalent to that performed by the Central Office. and Evaluate management controls over the districts’ bid analysis process. consideration of steps to further decentralize district bid analysis.
000. district contracts include both maintenance and construction.000 or just under four and a half percent of FDOT’s $1. different rules apply. Initially. 1 Source: Production Management Office.000 construction commitment. Sometimes referred to as a “technical review. The bid analysis is a review of bid(s) for irregularities in bid unit prices. District Contracts. On a case-by-case basis.1 District bid analysis is part of the contract bidding and award process.000. may be simple or complex and may be $1. The award of a contract should be to the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements.” bid analysis occurs after receipt of the bids for a given contract and prior to award of the contract.000.000 or less and are responsible for all phases of district contract activities.000.000. 04B-6004 ! 5 . The State Estimates Office has the responsibility for performing technical bid analysis on Central Office-let contracts. a district contract may exceed this amount.000 or less. district construction contract lettings totaled $47.000 or less typically follow District Contract General Specifications. Report No. For FY 1995-96. Currently. such as mowing contracts.000. Districts are authorized to develop and implement nonfederally funded construction and maintenance contracts of $1. district contracts were simple maintenance contracts. District contracts of $250. Contracts that are greater than $250. However.000 and up to $1. depending on the amount of a district contract. The FY 1995-96 commitment for district maintenance contracts totaled $103.Office of Inspector General BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION District contracts were designed to provide a relatively fast and simple method of contracting for goods and services. The Contracts Administration Office performs annual Quality Assurance reviews of the districts’ administration of district contracts including bid analysis under Procedure 375000-001.000.055. The nature of district contracts has evolved over time. Bids also undergo an administrative review to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.000 require standard specification packages identical to projects let in the Central Office along with compliance with other specific rules.
any statistical analysis done on district contracts has to be done manually. One statistical analysis performed identifies bids with pay items that are outside established high and low ranges in comparison with the FDOT official estimate. however. Front-loaded pay items are front-end pay items for which the contractor has overcharged since the contractor will be paid for these items up front. The spreadsheet computes the dollar difference between the estimate and each bid for each pay item. For Central Office-let contracts. what appears to be the low bid is really not the low bid. Another analysis performed by the statistical program identifies front-end pay items. the time value of money. District Bid Analysis Is Limited Finding Districts cannot perform bid analysis equivalent to that performed on Central Office-let contracts due to limitations of the District Contract Prototype (DCP) system. i. the DCP data cannot be retrieved for use in the 6 ! Report No. to identify the low bid. DCP lacks these statistical capabilities. The information manually entered into the LOTUS spreadsheets has already been manually entered into DCP. In contrast. unit price and dollar amount of the estimate and each bid’s unit price and dollar amount of each pay item into the LOTUS spreadsheet. a statistical program compares bids and the Department’s estimate to analyze bids for unbalancing and ultimately. District staff manually enter each pay item number.Office of Inspector General FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I.e. As a result. In the absence of DCP statistical capabilities. This program evaluates all submitted bids. 04B-6004 . calculates the difference between the low bid and the next lowest bid.. and as no access is reasonably available to the statistical programs used for Central Office-let contracts. A brief description of Central Office’s capability to utilize data from the Contract Administration System (CAS) provides perspective for comparison with districts’ manual capability. several districts use alternative tools such as a LOTUS spreadsheet in bid analysis. It is possible that due to front-loaded pay items in a bid. quantity. the system used for district contracts. The quantities of flagged pay items should be checked for errors. and analyzes the effect of loading the pay item. calculates an average cost for each pay item and flags items with above or below average prices. The amount of the bid and the interest that could be earned on the money paid to the contractor are taken into consideration when determining the low bid.
Office of Inspector General spreadsheets. If the Department decided that the cost-benefit of statistical analysis warranted the effort to reduce risk in conjunction with district contracts. the information produced by the LOTUS spreadsheet is not statistically based. Recommendation I We recommend the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy direct a review of the Department’s future expectations for bid analysis of district contracts and support pursuit of appropriate tools accordingly. responsibility for bid analysis of such contracts which were formerly analyzed with statistical program assistance would shift to districts.) From its inception. districts would be unable to perform bid analysis equivalent to that performed on Central Office-let contracts. Currently. (Appendix C describes several DCP limitations. Those in the Department with whom we spoke recognize that the DCP does not effectively serve the districts’ needs in managing district contracts. When that happens. the DCP system was not intended to be a full contract administration system for district contracts. Currently. through its joint participation in an American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)-sponsored construction management project. This is because districts lack the sophisticated analytical tools in use with Central Office-let contracts. If the dollar cap for district contracts were officially raised. may pose greater risk. This implementation would be done as part of the BISP effort but could be done in advance of the current BISP schedule. districts may let contracts well over the one million dollar limit. the Department is looking to implement other AASHTO software packages that would replace the existing DCP system. or a contract with small quantities. or a contract with a greater number of pay items. a contract in which the scope of work to be performed is difficult. The potential for officially raising the dollar cap higher exists for district contracts. One option for addressing this possibility would be for districts to assess risk and concentrate more effort in bid analysis on those contracts that presented greater risk. providing the districts with the analytical tools that are needed. Despite such efforts. Report No. on a case-by-case basis. Department managers anticipate that the historical trend in increasing the dollar cap in district contracts will likely continue. then the Department would need to provide appropriate analytical tools for this effort. 04B-6004 ! 7 . It was built as a prototype for temporary use until an integrated system could be provided under the Department’s Business Information System Plan (BISP). For example.
The procedure also indicates that the District Awards Committee’s purpose is to “review the low bid for proposal/bid document irregularities in the bid unit prices. The Department’s official engineer’s estimate shall be the base upon which all reviews are to be made. if it be awarded. that submits the lowest valid bid for the work. the lowest bid will be the bid by the firm whose bid products are determined to yield the lowest total cost in accordance with the criteria set forth in the bidding documents.007. or irregularities of any kind. The Committee shall also review any other irregularities brought to its attention by the District Contracts Administrator. In other districts.. “All proposals shall be subject to review for unit prices that are obviously unbalanced either in excess of or below the reasonable cost as compared to the Departments (sic) official estimate and historical prices kept by the Department.4 The District Contracts Procedure provides that all bids should be subject to a technical review. District Bid Analysis Is Reasonably Consistent Finding Districts performed bid analysis on district contracts in a reasonably consistent manner. provided information and recommended action for the Awards Committee’s consideration and final decision. “A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions.Office of Inspector General II.3 The Department’s District Contract General Specifications requires review for irregular or unbalanced bids. “The award of the contract. also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced. conditional or unauthorized alternate bids.8. District processes fell into two basic categories. The lowest bid will be determined as follows: (2) The lowest bid will be the bid from the responsive bidder that has submitted the lowest price for the base bid or the base bid plus the additive alternates or less the deductive alternates chosen by the Agency to be included in or excluded from the proposed contract.” District Contract General Specifications. (2).Award of contract will be made to the responsive bidder determined to be qualified in accordance with the provisions herein and meeting the requirements of the bidding documents. Florida Administrative Code. (3) On projects whose bidding documents provide for evaluation of the bids based on first cost and life cycle cost and performance criteria. 04B-6004 . alterations of form. Article 3-2. additions not called for. staff supplied 2 Section 60D-5.”5 All districts have established processes to perform technical bid analysis.2 The Department’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction describes irregularities which may cause proposals to be rejected. when only one bid is received or when the low bid exceeds the Department’s estimate by more than the specified percentage. 8 ! Report No. In several districts a multi-discipline committee reviewed bids.” 5 4 3 District Contracts Procedure 375-000-001-g. either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. Section 1. taken in numerical order listed in the bid documents. will be to the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements necessary to render it formal. The Florida Administrative Code prescribes requirements for award of a contract to the lowest bidder. “(1). page 4. The order of the alternates may be selected by the Agency in any sequence so long as such acceptance out of order does not alter the designation of the low bidder. Article 2-6. The submittal of an irregular/unbalanced unit price may be deemed as a violation of contract requirements and subject to the rejection of the Contractor’s bid proposal.” Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction..” Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction.
Was performed by personnel with different professional transportation backgrounds. Contracts Administration Office. Prompted contact with the low bidder when unit prices were extremely low or high to determine reasons or whether the contractor understood the scope. We concluded that district bid analysis was undertaken in compliance with administrative regulations and departmental procedures and performed in a reasonably consistent manner.Office of Inspector General information for the Awards Committee’s consideration but did not provide a specific recommendation to the Committee. Based on site visits to each district. Reviewed bids for unbalancing (but six of eight did not analyze bids for frontend loading). 04B-6004 ! 9 . interviews and contract file reviews. Each district sent all contracts to its Awards Committee for decision although the District Contracts Procedure allows contract awards to bypass the Awards Committee under certain conditions. continue to encourage the districts’ bid analysis efforts. Recommendation II We recommend the Manager. Calculated the percent variance of the total dollar amount of the bid from the estimate total. we concluded that the bid analysis process in all districts contained major elements in common. Used the district’s official cost estimate as the basis of comparison against the apparent low bidder and others as necessary. Included bidder-to-bidder comparison(s) as needed. Districts’ bid analysis: C C C C C C C C C Followed the Department’s award-to-low-bid philosophy. Occurred prior to award of the contract. Report No. Compared pay item unit prices of bid(s) against the estimate as needed to review for unbalancing or errors in quantities.
Among the risks associated with bid analysis are the risks of identifying as irregular a bid that is not irregular or failing to identify an irregular bid. 04B-6004 . Contracts Administration Office.007.Office of Inspector General III. C C C We concluded that the districts’ bid analysis process included reasonable management controls to identify and reduce risks. as appropriate. continue to encourage the districts’ efforts. for the Awards Committee’s consideration although specifics vary.6 Bid analysis prior to award of a contract assists in meeting this requirement. District staff with relevant knowledge and expertise participated in the process. Districts Have Established Management Controls Finding Districts have established management controls to reduce risk associated with bid analysis. In all districts all contracts were sent to the Awards Committee for its decision to award or reject the bid although the District Contracts Procedure does not require approval by the Awards Committee of every contract. For example: C All districts have established processes to perform bid analysis on all contracts although technical review is not required by District Contracts Procedure 375000-01-g. The Department is required to award a contract to the bidder that submits the lowest valid bid. Florida Administrative Code. Recommendation III We recommend the Manager. 10 ! Report No. page 8. 6 Section 60D-5. All districts have established a mechanism to provide information. for partial text. Districts have established several mechanisms as part of the bid analysis process to control such risks. See footnote 2.
so that specified percentages above or below the Department’s estimate. “Specified percentages” referenced in the District Contract procedure should be consistent with those established for Central Office-let contracts.Office of Inspector General IV. will be consistent with specified percentages on Central Office-let contracts. Contract Amount $250. Revised Procedure Resolves An Inconsistency Finding The Contracts Administration Office has revised Procedure 375-000-001.000 and Up to $1. Report No. The specified percentages are shown in the chart below. During the audit. applied in conjunction with bid analysis and contract award of district contracts. Contracts Administration Office. The decision to award a contract must be made by a district’s Awards Committee if the bid is outside the applicable specified percentage. pursue adoption and implementation of the revision to this procedure.000 District Contracts and Central Office-let Contracts Specified Percentage = 15% + Specified Percentage = 25% Specified Percentage = 10% + Specified Percentage = 25% - The draft procedure is being processed at the time of the audit. 04B-6004 ! 11 .000 or Less Above $250. and they revised District Contracts Procedure 375-000-001-g (in conjunction with other revisions) so that specified percentages referenced are consistent with specified percentages applicable to Central Office-let contracts. The specified percentage is the percent that the total dollar amount of a bid is above or below the total dollar amount of the Department’s estimate. District Contracts. We advised Contracts Administration Office staff of the difference.000. we found that the specified percentages used in conjunction with Central Office-let contracts were different than those for district contracts. Recommendation IV We recommend the Manager.
and the bid was not complete. As a result. Article 3-1. including lump sum items. decisions to accept or reject bids may not be consistent.00” would be declared acceptable or irregular. “A proposal will be subject to being considered irregular and may be rejected if it shows omissions. regular pay item. Pay Item Unit Price Terminology Is Not Consistent Finding Central Office and districts do not have a common understanding of acceptable terminology for bid price proposal pay item unit prices from contractors when the intent is to charge nothing for the pay item. In cases where the bidder’s intent was not to charge any money for a listed.. additions not called for. then the bid would be accepted. or irregularities of any kind. If the intent were to charge nothing. also if the unit prices are obviously unbalanced.” 12 ! Report No. Article 2-6. conditional or unauthorized alternate bids. In cases where a bidder left a pay item unit price blank. the bid contained an omission. Central Office and seven of eight districts reported that the bid would be considered irregular or nonresponsive. The Department’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction describes irregularities which may cause proposals to be rejected.Office of Inspector General V. 04B-6004 . Acceptable terminology for bidding pay item unit prices at no cost has not been defined. the right will be reserved to reject any or all proposals and to waive technical errors as may be deemed best for the interest of the State.” 8 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. alterations of form. and all extensions shall be carried out and entered into the ‘Amount Column’ of the bid price proposal sheet. section 1. either in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values.3. Ultimately. This meant the bid would not be considered for award. the contractor might be contacted to determine the intent.7 and the Department’s rights prior to award of the contract.2.. states.. However.8 The Department’s District Contract General Specifications. however. 7 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. “Unit prices of each pay item. staff in the Central Office and districts were not consistent in their interpretation of whether terms such as “no bid” or “$0. the time and effort might result in protecting the best interests of the State. “Until the actual award of the contract. for all bid items should be shown in both words and figures (if so indicated on the bid price proposal sheet). personnel in one district reported that while not a common occurrence.” Central Office and districts were not consistent in interpretation of acceptable terminology (words or figures) for pay item unit prices on a bidder’s bid price proposal in cases where the intent of the bidder was to charge nothing for the pay item. rather than immediately declaring the bid nonresponsive.
Report No. 04B-6004 ! 13 . Several districts reported that instances wherein the contractor has omitted a price for a pay item are uncommon.Office of Inspector General Specific definitions or standards that govern acceptable terminology in bidding on pay items have not been developed. inconsistent decisions to accept or reject bids among districts in awarding district contracts or between districts and Central Office in awarding Central Office-let contracts may be confusing or unfair to contractors who bid in more than one district or who bid on both district and Central Office-let contracts. However. initiate a revision of the Department’s Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction and the District Contract General Specifications which clarifies acceptable terminology for use with pay items that the contractor intends to provide at no cost to the Department. Recommendation V We recommend the Manager. Contracts Administration Office.
000. evaluate. 9 14 ! Report No. 04B-6004 . Evaluate management controls over district bid analysis to identify and reduce risks. We selected some contracts with bids that were within and some with bids that were outside the specified percentage in comparison to the estimate. plans. F.000 and up to $1. consideration of steps to further decentralize district bid analysis.000. We reviewed a judgmental sample of 30 district contract files in each district. and legal staff. Awards Committee members. personnel who review bids.Office of Inspector General Appendix A OBJECTIVES. We interviewed district personnel associated with bid analysis.000. Some contracts were $250. One contract file in the sample was a fixed capital outlay contract. and a few exceeded $1. and detailed analysis of the District Contract Prototype (DCP) system. Our sample included construction contract and renewable and nonrenewable maintenance contract files9 from FY 1993-94 through FY 1995-96.S. We also interviewed Central Office personnel associated with the bid analysis process.000.000 or less. and report on policies. procedures. and other operations of the Department and recommend improvements. Excluded from the scope were contracts that involve the Contractual Services Office.23. Technical Bid Review Committee members. This audit was conducted as part of the FY 1995-96 Work Plan and was designed to meet statutory requirements. The audit objectives were to: C C Review bid analysis for reasonable consistency among districts. This type of file is generally not in the DCP system although it undergoes the same bid analysis as do the other contracts. some were greater than $250.. requires the Florida Department of Transportation’s Inspector General to review. such as Contracts Administration staff. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY Objectives Section 20. a total of 240 contract files. Scope and Methodology The scope of the audit included district construction contracts including lighting/signalization contracts and district renewable and nonrenewable maintenance contracts executed during the last half of fiscal year 1993-94. fiscal year 1994-95. and the first half of fiscal year 1995-96. Our methodology included interviews and a review of district contract files in each district.
(Also “front loading”) Certain pay items such as “mobilization” are paid for at the beginning of the project or early in the construction life of the project. (Also “qualified bidder”) A firm which has submitted a bid or proposal which conforms in all material respects to the invitation to bid or request for proposals. The established percentage that a bid may vary from the Department’s official estimate: otherwise. (Also “unbalancing”) GLOSSARY Front-end Pay Items Responsible Bidder Responsive Bidder Specified Percentage Unbalanced Report No. There may be a “cost” of money to the Department due to money being paid out early versus over the normal construction life of the project.Office of Inspector General Appendix B Bidder Front-end Loading An individual. Overpricing pay items/work done early in the project to get more money at the beginning of the project. firm or corporation submitting a proposal for the proposed work. award by the Awards Committee is required. A firm with the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability to assure good faith performance. The specified percentage varies. Applies when items are bid unusually high or low in relation to the Department’s official engineer’s estimate or if the unit prices are obviously in excess of or below the reasonable cost analysis values. 04B-6004 ! 15 . depending on the total contract amount.
As a result. information is manually entered into DCP. and once the contract has been advertised. However. Several brief examples of these limitations are described below. This causes the users to spend an inordinate amount of time retyping similar data into DCP many times. which may be further manipulated as the estimate is refined. DCP does not have historical unit prices. in a district contract bid proposal. Then. used for Central Office-let contracts. When a pay item is entered into CES. Alternates provide bidders with options for accomplishing specified work with certain pay items. For each district contract. Alternate pay items can be entered into CES with Central Office-let contracts. particularly as the size of lettings increases. plan quantity. including: pay item number. The pay item for optional base is one that. 04B-6004 . Depending on the type of contract.Office of Inspector General Appendix C DCP LIMITATIONS It is common knowledge that the DCP has limited capabilities and poses a number of challenges. and pay item description. the CES. district. Many contracts within DCP. item numbers cannot be changed. but there is no efficient way provided to copy the information from one contract to another. DCP won’t accept alternate pay items. For each pay item in the contract. have similar or identical pay item numbers and quantities. such as maintenance contracts for highway lighting. The information is available on a statewide. CES provides the historical unit price for the item. the unit price must be manually input into DCP. a search of the Contract Estimating System (CES) is necessary to obtain the historical unit price. the bidder identifies the proper pay item number within the base group that will be used for bid comparison. In contrast. DCP lacks an efficient way to copy data from one contract to another. districts must manually compare the bids for any optional base projects. or county average basis. Because DCP will not allow for changes after the official cost estimate is pulled. DCP does not support optional base item numbers. some contracts allow for alternate pay items. Allowing for alternate pay items where appropriate is important as economics are a factor. 16 ! Report No. through the bidding process. unit of measure by which the pay item will be paid. DCP will not accept alternate pay items. Items are defined in DCP to a project during the preliminary cost estimating task. When a pay item is entered into DCP. information is entered into DCP to produce the bid price proposal. the form bidders use to submit their bid. captures and maintains historical unit prices. the district must choose one alternate for the bidder to bid on which defeats the purpose of having alternates.
Office of Inspector General Appendix D MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Report No. 04B-6004 ! 17 .
04B-6004 .Office of Inspector General 18 ! Report No.
Manager. District 7 Jim Ely. Chairman. Secretary. Watts. Budget Officer Harold Lewis. Secretary. Senate Transportation Committee Attention: Dorothy Johnson Chairman. Secretary. Secretary. Secretary. Chief Information Officer Larry Berridge.Office of Inspector General Appendix E DISTRIBUTION Ben G. District 6 Bill McDaniel. 04B-6004 ! 19 . Communications & Governmental Affairs Thomas F. Lester. Kirschenbaum. Secretary.A. District 2 Edward Prescott. Georgia Attention: Alan Robson Chairman. Joint Legislative Auditing Committee Attention: Terry Shoffstall Chairman. Commission Report No. State Highway Engineer Juanita Moore. Assistant Secretary for District Operations Tom Barry. Boyd. Office of the Auditor General Attention: L. Secretary. Executive Director. District 3 Rick Chesser. Turnpike District Marcia Mathis.OIG. General Counsel Jake Kraft. R. Organization and Procedures Bill Kynoch. FHWA USDOT . Director. Director.P. Division Administrator. District 5 Jose Abreu. Atlanta. District 4 Nancy Houston. Weathermon (2) Frank Carlile. Governmental Programs Jennings R. Senate Appropriations Committee Attention: John Andrew Smith Dr. Comptroller Stan Bittner. Florida Transportation Commission Attention: Jane Mathis (2) Charles L. District 1 Ken Morefield. Contracts Administration Office Pamela Leslie. Quality Management Coordinator Jim Hensley. Regional Office. G. Karen Stanford. House Committee on Transportation Attention: John Johnston Chairman. Governor's Chief Inspector General Attention: James Thomas John Turcotte. Secretary Malcolm R. House Appropriations Committee Attention: David Coburn David Twiddy. Skinner. Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability Chairman. Director. Assistant Secretary for Finance and Administration Bill Deyo. Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Nick Serianni. Manager. Secretary.