You are on page 1of 16


REPORT NO. 03-083

SUMMARY Our audit of the Florida Department of Transportation focused on evaluations of the work performance of highway construction contractors and the effectiveness of alternative and innovative construction contracting techniques. The audit included the period July 2000 through January 2002 and selected actions through June 2002. As summarized below, our audit disclosed needed improvements in several Department processes associated with these program areas that, if implemented, should enhance management controls and improve Department performance: Contractor Past Performance Evaluation M The ability of the Department to incorporate contractor past performance in the awarding of future highway construction work may be inappropriately restricted. Current State and Federal laws focus primarily on low bid for contract awards. M The Department should improve procedures to ensure that contractor past performance evaluations are timely completed, available for use in the contractor certification process, and recorded in appropriate Department information systems. Innovative and Alternative Bidding Methods M The Department is not adequately evaluating the results of individual innovative and alternative

contacting methods. The effectiveness of different contracting techniques should be formally communicated to all Districts for consideration in future procurement decisions. INTRODUCTION The primary mission of the Florida Department of Transportation (Department) is to construct and maintain the roads and bridges that comprise the State transportation system. A five-year Work Program is utilized in planning and scheduling transportation projects. Construction projects in the Work Program are accomplished using private-sector road contractors. The Department is a decentralized agency with a central office responsible for establishing rules, policies, and procedures and performing quality assurance reviews related to various aspects of Department operations. The Department’s eight district offices are responsible for ensuring that the Work Program is executed in accordance with Statutes, rules, and central office guidelines. The Department Secretary is responsible for ensuring that accountability and monitoring systems are fully integrated, that the systems provide useful information for Department managers to assess program performance, and that Department managers take corrective actions when necessary1. During the period July 2000 through December 2001, the Department awarded approximately 550 construction

Section 334.048, Florida Statutes.

Establishment of a Maximum Capacity Rating (MCR) by the Department utilizing past contractor performance grades and financial data. Our review of Department records for contracts awarded by the Department during the period July 2000 through December 2001 indicated that. However. Limitations are established on the maximum amount of uncompleted work a contractor may have under contract at any one time regardless of contract location or customer type (State or nonstate entity) The contractor certification process is an annual multi-step process culminating in the establishment of a prequalified contractor listing. Providing grades to contractors before they are finalized to allow for grade appeals. of contract dollars were awarded to contractors with average past performance scores of less than 77 percent. equipment lists. a majority of contract dollars (50. and record contractor performance. as expected. resumes. contract completion) of the project. M M The contractor past performance evaluation process is the same for all contracts in excess of $250.4 billion and paid highway construction contractors approximately $2. The Department has established requirements to communicate. but not when awarding individual contracts. Each contractor’s MCR is a dollar threshold which may prevent the contractor from bidding on Department projects should a new bid result in total uncompleted work in excess of the MCR. advertising for and accepting bids. Most road and bridge contracts are awarded by the Contracts Administration Office in Tallahassee. whether the contract award is by the Central Office or a District Office. and details of previous work experience.000. Department consideration of past contractor performance on completed Department projects. the Department generally considers past performance only in the contractor prequalification process. Completing performance evaluations no later than 45 days after the Department’s final acceptance (i.e. and executing contracts. evaluate. See Exhibit 1 for total contract awards by performance evaluation score categories. Finding No. which include: M Providing and explaining performance evaluation criteria to contractors at pre-construction conferences.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING contracts totaling $2. these efforts were directed at the contractor certification process rather than designing an approach that would have a more direct impact on individual contract awards. 1: Because State and Federal laws focus primarily on low bid for the award of construction contracts. status of existing contracts. $308.4 million. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Contractor Certifications and Performance Evaluations Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code describe the process contractors must follow in order to bid on highway construction projects in excess of $250. While the Department has taken steps to strengthen the impact of contractor past performance evaluations on subsequent contracting decisions.. The District Construction offices are responsible for various aspects of project management ranging from ensuring that construction is in accordance with contract plans to completing contractor past performance evaluations. This Office is responsible for certifying contractors as qualified to bid. Several key elements of the certification process (initial and renewals) include: M Contractor submittal and Department analysis of audited financial data. or 13 percent.8 percent) were awarded to contractors with past performance scores averaging more than 89 percent.000. For example: M M Page 2 of 12 .3 billion.

2 in response to our inquiry. We recommend that the Department continue its efforts. In evaluating bids received. 23 United States Code.000 construction project than contractor B. which is part of the annual contractor certification process. Florida Statutes. The 20 point difference in the average performance grade would not have been a factor in contractor selection. current Florida Statute requires that contract awards go to the low bidder. contractors with the poorest past performance can potentially be awarded a significant amount of work by the Department. who had an average past performance grade that was 20 points lower than contractor A. indicated that the State Construction Office plans to establish such a failing grade around the year 2004 to 2005. including the results of previous work performed for them. Based on these low bid requirements. With some exceptions. 2: The Department has not established effective procedures to ensure that contractor performance evaluations are timely completed and input to appropriate information systems. as described in Finding No. this amount could be hundreds of millions of dollars. The MCR. Section 337. M The Department's IG recommended that a failing grade be established so that contractors with substandard work could be removed from the bidding list and the impact of substandard work would have consequences greater than lowering the dollar amount of work a contractor could be awarded (June 1999 internal audit report).FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING M The Department has incorporated past contractor performance into a complex calculation that results in individual contractor MCRs.4 However. is the dollar amount of work a contractor can have under contract as either a prime or a subcontractor. Generally. as demonstrated in Exhibit 2 and recognized in the Department’s Inspector General’s (IG) report. using its revised contractor past performance evaluation process. they would select the bidder they believed had the best price/past performance combination. Section 112. Contractor Performance Evaluations Department records indicated that approximately 627 highway construction contracts in excess of $250. we also recommend that the Department seek Federal and Legislative approval to designate contractor past performance as a decision factor within the low-bid process for individual project awards. 3. contractor B would still be awarded the contract. Florida Statutes. Although the Legislature has allowed some flexibility in contracting techniques. the Federal Highway Administration does have some degree of flexibility and has incorporated innovative contracting practices in its Special Experimental Project No. For a large company. The State Highway Engineer. this flexibility is not sufficiently extended to routine consideration of contractor past performance when awarding individual contracts. In connection with its revised performance evaluation process. If implemented.11(4). The calculation utilizes ability factors (tied to performance grades) and financial data such as current ratios and adjusted net worth. Page 3 of 12 . Finding No. it still will not bring past performance grades into the contractor selection process for individual projects. the Department’s plan will establish a minimum grade for a contractor to continue doing business with the State and eliminate some contractors with poor past performance from the pool of qualified contractors. if contractor A bids only $1.3 Federal law also requires that contracts generally be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder.000 were completed during the period July 2000 through March 4 2 3 Section 20. 14 guidelines.000 more on a $500.23(3)(l). individuals or private companies selecting construction contractors for individual projects would consider factors other than price. Sufficient time is needed to receive and evaluate the results of recent Department grading changes and determine the appropriate “failing” grade. to establish a failing grade that can be used to remove a contractor from the bidding list. However. however.

2 billion in contract awards by timeliness of contractor evaluation. 2002. Thirty-three overdue performance evaluations relating to 20 contractors were not available for inclusion in the average score calculation used in determining the MCR at the certification expiration date. Department Information Systems for Recording and Tracking Evaluation Reports Historically. the Department’s current approach to incorporating a contractor’s past performance in the certification process is further weakened. 2002. The chart below also shows that. including the 62 71 66 22 6 to 31 40 40 90 to 2 tha n 2 91 e r Mo Days Late Not Completed as of May 21. it had not established monitoring procedures to provide assurance that past performance evaluations were completed and entered into applicable information systems in a timely manner. 2000. For example: Page 4 of 12 . The following chart shows the $2. and April 29. evaluations must be timely completed. 2002. We recommend that the Department enhance its monitoring processes to provide more assurance that past performance evaluations are timely completed and available for use in the certification process. Contract Awards by Evaluation Categories (in m illions) $765 M Three of eight District Construction Offices indicated that no formal monitoring procedures existed to help ensure the timely completion of performance evaluations. However. with 22 of the 66 more than 240 days late. we reviewed 52 contractor renewal applications processed by the Department during the period January 1. the majority had not been completed as of May 21.2 billion. In the absence of a complete record of evaluation scores for all contracts completed by a contractor. through April 30. District Construction offices are responsible for ensuring that performance evaluations for all contracts are completed within the time frame established by Department procedures. 2002 Completed Late Responses to our inquiries of Department Construction Offices identified the absence of formal monitoring procedures in this area as contributing to untimely contractor evaluations. Although the Central Construction Office is the primary user of past performance evaluations (needed to calculate an average past performance score for use in the contractor certification process). M $1. as of May 21. past performance evaluations for 66 of the 271 contracts had not been completed.044 $385 Evaluations Completed 10 or More Days Late Evaluations Due But Not Com pleted As of 5/21/02 Evaluations Completed Timely Our review of the Department's records indicated that past performance evaluations were not timely completed for 271 of 627 contracts (43 percent). 2002. the Department has utilized a number of IT systems to meet its information needs. 2002. Regardless of whether the Department continues with the contractor certification approach for use of performance evaluations or moves toward incorporating them in the procurement process by individual project. Perform ance Evaluations Not Com pleted Within 45-day Requirem ent 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 to 10 30 1 4 6 24 In order to determine the potential impact of untimely contractor performance evaluations on the contractor certification process.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING 2002. The original contract award amount on these 627 completed contracts totaled approximately $2. The evaluations for these 33 contracts were due between October 16.

The system only recorded the June 7. Innovative contracting techniques are non-traditional in that the low bid method is not used. For contracts let prior to May 2001. although it was actually timely completed. M Although SiteManager. the contractor past performance evaluation information is entered into either SiteManager or a new expanded CPPR system that was implemented in May 2002. input date. We recommend that the Department ensure that information systems can accumulate appropriate data and produce reports necessary to timely complete and monitor past performance evaluations. The CARS consists of multiple modules used for project management during construction. the performance grade was not entered into the new CPPR module until June 7. For example. in the absence of an actual evaluation completion date. Letting and Awarding contacts. However. when the Department revised the past performance evaluation process (applicable for contracts let beginning in May 2001). the system shows that the evaluation was performed late. 2001. We noted during our review of construction contractor performance evaluations and how grades were recorded in the Department’s project management systems that: M The Department has not established any time frame within which completed performance grades must be recorded in SiteManager or in the new CPPR. The system does record a date. not authorized by any other specific statutory M Page 5 of 12 . including a Contractor Past Performance Rating (CPPR) module used to electronically complete performance ratings for both Central and District Office contracts. 2001. there are no standard reports or on-line screens to readily determine compliance with the Department's 45-day performance evaluation standard. the Department utilized both project management systems. unlike the new CPPR. as appropriate.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING Construction Automated Reporting System (CARS). The Department should also implement procedures to ensure that past performance evaluation results are timely input to the applicable information systems. 2002. 2001. the Central Construction Office provided the Districts clarification regarding which project management system should be used when posting evaluation grades. For contracts let subsequent to April 2001. INNOVATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING Finding No.5 million were completed by the Department. includes a data field for the date the performance evaluation is completed. approximately 68 innovative and alternative contracts totaling $311. Such reports or on-line screens could be used by management to monitor the timeliness of performance evaluation completion and initiate corrective actions. and user identification number at the time information is input to the system. During the fiscal year ended June 30. For newer contracts. However. however. the system cannot accurately track and report compliance with the 45 day requirement. These contracting techniques. it did not record the December 12. 3: Improvements are needed in monitoring the effectiveness of individual innovative and alternative contracting techniques. 2002. completion date. Therefore. time. the old CPPR module was rendered obsolete for these new contracts. and the past performance evaluation was completed on December 12. This new computer information system includes SiteManager. which also is used for managing Department projects during construction. The Florida Legislature has authorized the Department to use various innovative and alternative contracting techniques to reduce cost and time on highway construction projects. The Department is currently in the process of implementing Trns*port. evaluations are manually prepared and final scores input to SiteManager. There is no data field in the new CPPR to record the actual date that past performance evaluations were completed. Typically. we noted one project that was completed on October 30. the use of multiple systems increases the risk that data will be improperly recorded or omitted. 2001. a collection of software modules designed to meet State transportation agency needs in Estimating. In June 2002. During the audit period. the CPPR system is used to track evaluation grades.

M Auditor General Analysis We obtained contract data for three fiscal years subsequent to the time period of the Department’s preliminary evaluation report. 1997. and Time Plus Money (A+B) contracts. because one contract cut its time in half. no formalized evaluative process exists to quantitatively and qualitatively determine the effectiveness of these individual contract techniques in achieving the contract method objectives. Lane Rental. but their use is authorized by specific statutory authority. include Bid Average Method (BAM) or DesignBuild (minor) contracts. The Department may enter into no more than $120 million in innovative contracts annually5. . the Department’s alternative contracting program monitoring efforts included discussions at District Construction Engineer and Executive Committee meetings. Alternative contracting techniques are also non-traditional. Ft. Florida Statutes Page 6 of 12 Turnp ike i 8 .” This evaluation included an analysis of 82 completed projects for 8 different contracting techniques ranging from 2 to 16 completed projects for an individual technique. ad hoc reports/presentations in response to specific requests. through June 30. . Many of the alternative techniques involve financial incentives or disincentives to expedite work but are generally still awarded to contractors based on the lowest bid response.025. L auder dale De L and Lake City Barto w Chip le y Innovative/Alternative Technique Bid Average Method Lump Sum No Excuse Bonus Time Plus Money Incentive/Disincentive Lane Rental Liquidated Savings Warranty D I S T R I C T S 1 √ 2 √ 3 4 √ 5 √ √ √ √ √ √ Miam 6 √ √ √ √ √ √ Tamp a 7 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Department records of contracts completed during the period July 1. however. the three years in which the program has been implemented may not have provided the quantity of data necessary to make an overall judgment of success versus ‘needed improvement’ on all facets of the program. 2001. The example used was the Liquidated Savings technique. Department Analysis Department information systems accumulate various data relating to contracts including those based on innovative and alternative techniques. Subsequent to the January 2000 report. the use of the individual innovative and alternative contracting techniques varies by district. 1999. and recent postings (2002) of quantitative time and cost data on the Department’s web page. the total average of all completed projects represented a 1 percent decrease in time. The table below summarizes completed alternative and innovative contracts for the periods indicated: 5 Section 337. The last significant written analysis of these types of contracting techniques was a January 2000 report by the Department’s Quality Initiatives Office entitled “Alternative Contracting Program Preliminary Evaluation for July 1. M The report recommended that the Department continue to monitor and evaluate the program until there is enough data to determine pattern and consistency in time and cost decreases. We believe that objective information obtained from a formal evaluative process and shared with District personnel is important because individual districts decide on contracting techniques.” A single project can significantly skew the average or total. 7 out of 10 projects used more construction time than the official days set by the Department. Examples of alternative contracting techniques include No Excuse Bonus. The Report conclusion noted the following: M “. However. As shown on the following tabulation. Specifically.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING authority. 1996 – June 30.

M M M Page 7 of 12 . In order to best utilize its limited contracting flexibility. we recommend that the Department: M Establish goals or expectations for each technique against which the effectiveness of the technique would be evaluated. create meeting discussion document. SCOPE. Additionally. Absent a periodic review of some contracts which did not significantly meet expectations. formally communicated to all Districts.. We performed similar time and cost analyses of Department-provided data on the 68 alternative and innovative contracts completed during fiscal year 2000-01. but average contract times and cost figures alone are insufficient for monitoring contract-technique effectiveness and identifying related strengths and weaknesses. Implementation of a “best practices” methodology by contracting type. qualitative data. Our objectives were: M To determine if the Department’s process of evaluating the past performance of highway construction contractors was operating effectively. the Department recognized the impact individual contract experience can have on averaged or summary data. Establish a formal mechanism to provide both qualitative and quantitative conclusions to District management for consideration in future contracting activities (e. Identifying Districts which appear to be effectively utilizing individual techniques. could improve contracting for the Department as a whole.g. post conclusions on intranet. OBJECTIVES. the Department is missing the following two opportunities: M M Determining which technique works best for a particular project type. Establish a structured process to evaluate project experiences and document reasons why some project results significantly differed from Department expectations (either exceeded or did not meet). without monitoring contracting technique effectiveness on an ongoing basis.).FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING Innovative/ Alternative Technique Bid Average Method Design-Build (Major and Minor) Lump Sum No Excuse Bonus Time Plus Money Incentive/Disincentive Lane Rental Liquidated Savings Warranty Total Source: Department records 3 years Ended 6/30/99 3 2 15 16 10 16 10 10 82 Fiscal Year Ended 6/30/00 16 10 2 7 5 7 47 6/30/01 18 12 10 7 5 15 1 68 6/30/02 1 36 19 13 13 2 8 1 93 Additionally. The results of our analysis of the No Excuse Bonus and Time Plus Money techniques are shown in Exhibit 3. We also noted that although the average percentage increases in the number of days and contract dollars (between original contract days and dollar amounts to final contract days and dollar amounts) for individual techniques were less than the increases experienced using traditional low-bid contracts. Feedback from the personnel involved with a particular project provides the best qualitative data regarding strengths and weaknesses and the appropriateness of particular techniques for specific project types. To determine if the Department had established effective methods to track and evaluate the use of In the January 2000 report. The evaluation process should also identify individual technique strengths and weaknesses and Districts achieving superior success with specific techniques. circulate document via email. AND METHODOLOGY This operational audit focused on the Florida Department of Transportation’s contractor performance evaluation process and the innovative/alternative contracting techniques used to award highway construction contracts. etc. such as contractor and citizen complaints and public safety issues. are not addressed. there was considerable variability among individual contracts incorporated in the averages. The quantitative analysis described above has value. problems related to the use of the techniques may not be readily apparent.

we reviewed applicable management controls. William O. interviewed Department personnel.45. please see the Auditor General’s website. examined records and reports and performed various other procedures as deemed necessary. AUDITEE RESPONSE In a letter dated December 3. For a more comprehensive understanding of the Department’s response to our findings and recommendations contained within this report. 2002. I have directed that this report be prepared to present the results of our operational audit. where the response may be viewed in its entirety. Florida Statutes. In conducting our audit. Department management provided explanations and corrective actions that have been made or will be implemented in response to our preliminary and tentative audit findings. AUTHORITY Pursuant to the provisions of Section 11. Our audit included examinations of various transactions (as well as events and conditions) occurring during the period July 2000 through January 2002.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING innovative and alternative contracting methods for highway construction projects. CPA Auditor General Page 8 of 12 . Monroe. and selected actions taken through June 2002.

we reviewed the contractors and number and types of projects related to the $308 million (grades less than 77).2 $1.3 $0. We noted that multiple contractors were used on a variety of project types. the chart below shows that multiple contracts comprise the $308 million.8 $210.000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 100-98 97-94 $24.7 $553. Additionally.8 $5.8 $302. 250 223 200 150 129 100 50 0 9 1 97-94 93-90 89-85 58 9 100-98 41 23 61 42 9 84-80 22 13 4 76-74 5 0 73-70 1 0 0 0 79-77 69-65 64 or less Performance Evaluation Grades Num ber of Contracts Percentage of Total Contract Am ounts Aw arded Page 9 of 12 .6 $203.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING EXHIBIT 1 CONTRACTS AWARDED FROM JULY 2000 THROUGH DECEMBER 2001 $972.3 $91.0 93-90 89-85 84-80 79-77 76-74 73-70 69-65 Performance Evaluation Grades Total Contract Amount (Millions) 64 or less To explore the possibility that a few contractors focused on unique or specialized project types.3 $0.

S o urc e : De pa rtm e nt re c o rds Factor Definitions6 Ability Current Ratio Adjusted Net Worth Numeric scale corresponding to the contractor’s average past performance grades.3 1.10 $52. For example. with 1 representing the worst past performance.50 $6. Contractor performance is given some consideration in the certification process. The example also uses the ANW typical of large.10 $334. If the resulting total would exceed the MCR. 6 Section 14-22.70 $52. Average Past Performance Scores Ability Factor x CRF x ANW (in m illio ns ) = MCR (in m illio ns ) Large Company – ANW of $100 million or more: ( 2*) 98 to 100 74 to 76 64 or less 98 to 100 74 to 76 64 or less 98 to 100 74 to 76 64 or less 15 4 1 15 4 1 15 4 1 1.3 1.3 1. and local transportation systems are important to the citizens and businesses living and operating in Florida. Florida Administrative Code. Contractor’s adjusted current assets divided by adjusted current liabilities. Department rules6 provide that the actual contractor current ratio will be used within the allowable ranges of .3 $334.50 $1.70 $1. Current Ratio Factor (CRF) and Adjusted Net Worth (ANW). The amount of work a contractor can be awarded is limited by the MCR. The Department utilizes the concept of a Maximum Capacity Rating (MCR) to provide assurances that: M M Contractors are likely to have the financial resources to properly complete the projects. We used a midpoint CRF.3 1.9 million: ( 9*): Small Company – ANW less than $20 million: ( 128*) * R e pre s e nts the num be r o f c o ntra c to rs a wa rde d c o ntra c ts by the De pa rtm e nt during the pe rio d J uly 2000 thro ugh De c e m be r 2001. Must be a positive value and is the amount of capital and surplus adjusted as described in the Florida Administrative Code. The Department calculates a contractor’s MCR by multiplying the contractor's Ability Factor.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING EXHIBIT 2 EFFECT OF PAST PERFORMANCE ON MAXIMUM CAPACITY RATING CALCULATION Construction of State.737 $434 $1. Page 10 of 12 .003. Ability factors range from 1 to 15. a contractor’s uncompleted work on other contracts regardless of its status as a prime or subcontractor is added to a potential new contract award. The illustration below was designed to show that a significant amount of work can be awarded to contractors with low past performance grades when key financial data remains constant.3 1.028 $274 $69 $29 $8 $2 Medium Company – ANW between $20 million and $99.3 1.3 1. County.3 1. and small companies based on an analysis of the companies certified by the Department.70 $52.50 $1.10 $334.515 $1. medium. the contractor will not be selected for that project.6 to a maximum of 2.

8 percent and 9.757.714.893 (12.168 3.1% 16.940 3.6% 9.959.081 611.000 1.9 percent (in District 7) while the change in dollar amount ranged from a reduction of 4.566 $ 101.5% 06 20688 110 -29 81 -26.1% -5.3% 06 20615 100 32 132 32.017 21.846 3.669 (118.2% 24.613.428 5.355.391 11.529. by individual contract the change in number of days ranged from a reduction of 27.5% 197 -1.527.114.329.110 2.020.No Excuse Bonus (12 01 19926 480 -17 01 19879 480 39 01 20105 725 -143 01 19837 560 -106 02 19839 295 13 04 20167 120 75 04 20350 200 -3 04 20438 305 44 05 19823 740 -63 06 20959 160 -14 07 20417 450 -99 31 345 07 20359 T ot al 4.7% $ 5.5% 146 -8.674 T ot al Amount $ 47.9 percent (in District 6) to a 22.662.520.0% -14.8% 351 -22.4 percent.585 149.822 2.0% 06 20749 250 9 259 3.288.491.654 3.623.4 percent increase (in District 4).609) 174.0% 1.808 112.952) (132.5 percent increase (in District 4).366.518 $ 10.5 percent (in District 4) while the change in dollar amount ranged from a reduction of 2 percent (in District 6) to a 24.560 13.468 2.198.9% 07 19783 560 T ot al 2.9% 10.Time Plus Money (10 Contracts) 04 20172 397 72 469 18.594 Cont ract Amount Amount Over/(Under) Original Cont ract 16.290 1.983) 1.7% 454 -18.961.491 813.4% 06 20800 81 -17 64 -21.0% Original Cont ract Amount $ 40.824.699.570 22.4% 677 -8.950 6.269 Alternative Method .636.900 10.505 3.3% -1.7% 6.496 1.591 2.036 5.9% 308 4.3% 0.497 1.543 2.549.390 1.987.2% 212 772 37.971.127.504 (24.000 19.800.658.338 Average High Low Page 11 of 12 .7 percent.2% 9.692.842.528.488.5% 3.471 150. However.4% Dist rict Addit ional Amount $ 6.317.175 13.666 760.325.8% $ 3. by individual contract the change in number of days ranged from a reduction of 22 percent (in District 7) to an increase of 62.883 348.241.407.955 1.1% 11.860 -243 Alternative Method .4% 6.923) 479.268 $ 60.688.676 3.0% 13.866.978.846.2% -1. However.549 6. respectively.280 6.4% 2.000 $ 54.498 1.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING EXHIBIT 3 SELECTED DATA FOR CONTRACTS COMPLETED IN FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 FOR TWO INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING TECHNIQUES No Excuse Bonus The Bonus technique had an average reduction in number of days of 5 percent and an average increase in price of 11.1% 04 20133 320 119 439 37.068 2.2% 04 20201 320 113 433 35.048 $ 91.617 -5.840 12.450.790 385 3.862.382 89.504 1.4% 20.996.0% 7.998 1.085. Time Plus Money The Time Plus Money technique had average increases in the number of contract days and dollar amount of 13.984.832.541 167.5% 519 8.070 $ 679.0% 376 9.700.755 113.1% 582 -19.078 6.5% 349 14.8% 14. Contract T ime Original Contract Contract Addit ional Days Days Number Days Over/(Under) T otal Original Days Cont ract Days Contracts) 463 -3.216.767 2.175.0% 06 20391 472 -130 342 -27.466.699 (364.6% 06 20616 180 4 184 2.642) (830) 51.7% 3.383 15.5 percent (in District 6) to an increase of 37.4% 195 62.0% 4.753 1.550 10.245 3.570 $ 3.5% -2.544.881 1.

state. This report and audit reports prepared by the Auditor General can be obtained on our Web site (http://www. activities.state. Audit Manager. or by mail (G74 Claude Pepper Building. This operational audit was made in accordance with applicable Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. and supervised by Michael McCloskey. the Auditor General makes operational audits of selected programs.fl. Florida 32399-1450). by telephone (850 487-9024). CPA. Tallahassee. This audit was conducted by Suzanne Page 12 of 12 .fl. CPA.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND INNOVATIVE/ALTERNATIVE CONTRACTING To promote accountability in government and improvement in government operations. CPA. 111 West Madison Street. and functions of State agencies. via E-mail at larrynoda@aud. Please address inquiries regarding this report to Larry or by telephone at (850) 487-9112.