 How FHWA is using a Risk-based approach  Recent FHWA changes in oversight strategies  New terminology PoCI’s, PoDI’s, & CAP Reviews  Findings for improvements  Construction Program Summary  Cap Reviews  Program Risk Assessments 2

 MAP 21 Changes  Increasing flexibilities with regard to S&O  Movement toward performance management  Emphasis on risk-based  More effective use of limited resources  More complicated FAHP programs and projects  Budget pressures within the Federal Government 3

ProgramsProjects 4

 WI FHWA Office method used was altered  New terminology PoCI’s, PoDI’s, & CAP Reviews  Greater number of state delegated projects  2 Projects of Corporate Interest PoCI  24 Projects of Division Interest PoDI  FHWA Field Engineers cover these projects 5

6

 Prescribed by Federal law not to be delegated  Examples include:  NEPA documents approvals  Interstate Access Modification approvals  Current Projects that are not PoDI’s will be treated as State Delegated 7

Projects identified thru the FHWA division’s risk assessment process as having an elevated level of risk (threat or opportunity) to the FAHP will be called Projects of Division Interest (PoDIs). 8

 FHWA divisions will use their resources on project phases or areas of these projects that add the most value.  The number of PoDI selected should be such that the total of the federal funds on those projects is equivalent to 10 to 30 percent of the State’s annual obligation limitation. 9

 Selected by FHWA Headquarters'  PoCI are a subset of PoDI that divisions identify that are so significant at a corporate level that FHWA assesses stewardship and oversight resource needs at a higher level.  St. Croix River Bridge & Zoo Interchange 10

Since the Recovery Act, FHWA has conducted a spot check program on 10% of the active construction projects. We have improved this program by using a statistical approach for project selection and created a more consistent approach nationally to conduct these reviews. These reviews are now called CAP reviews 11

 Project sample size set for each Division using statistical criteria  Random sample of projects pulled from FMIS  Division conducts reviews on random sample of projects using standard guides  Answers rolled up to allow inferences regarding compliance at both the national and state level 12

 Wisconsin has 54 CAP Projects this year  CAP Report Format  Core Question Form (all projects)  10 Review Guides (one per project, minimum)  Civil Rights, Workzones, Contract Administration, Emergency Relief, Environment, Finance, Material Quality, Planning, Realty, & Work Zone Safety 13

 Responsible Charge  Non Conforming Materials  Buy America  Subgrade Compaction  HMA Paving in cold weather 14

 Periodic WZ monitoring the quality of signing and devices, specifically better documentation.  Better BA compliance documentation, suggest having before installed.  Documentation! If there is evidence showing that a federal requirement was met, then the requirement was not met. 15

 WisDOT’s Quality Verification samples, a WisDOT certified sampling technician must witness or take the QV sample and maintain a chain of custody of that sample.  For the samples to be representative and statistically validate the material, the verification samples must be taken at random locations and the contractor should never know ahead of time when the verification sample will be taken. 16

 Ensure WisDOT Specifications, policies, procedures, and guidance is followed at the project level  Be watchful of area identified by FHWA  Be diligent in assuring public safety and accommodations during construction 17

18