Assessing the impact of federal requirements on GDOT project portfolio, volume 2 / by McKinsey & Company, Inc.

GEORGIA DOT RESEARCH PROJECT 19-18 Final Report
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ON GDOT PROJECT
PORTFOLIO VOLUME II
Office of Performance-based Management and Research
600 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30308 March 2020

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. Report No.:

2. Government Accession No.:

FHWA-GA-20-1918 Volume II N/A

4. Title and Subtitle:

Assessing the Impact of Federal Requirements on GDOT Project

Portfolio, Volume II

7. Author(s): McKinsey & Company, Inc.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address: McKinsey & Company, Inc. 1200 19th St NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036

3. Recipient's Catalog No.: N/A
5. Report Date: March 2020
6. Performing Organization Code: N/A
8. Performing Organization Report No.: 19-18
10. Work Unit No.: N/A
11. Contract or Grant No.: PI# 0017009

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Georgia Department of Transportation (SPR) Office of Performance-based Management and Research 600 West Peachtree Street NW Atlanta, GA 30308

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Final: December 2019 March 2020
14. Sponsoring Agency Code: N/A

15. Supplementary Notes: Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

16. Abstract: This volume is the second in a series. The other volume in the series is: FHWA-GA-20-1918 Volume I: Assessing the Impact of Federal Requirements on GDOT Project Portfolio Volume II

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is responsible for the state's roads, bridges, interstate

highways and other modes of transportation. In 2015, Georgia House Bill 170 (HB170) was enacted to create

additional state revenue for transportation projects through a combination of new revenue sources (e.g., fuel,

vehicle, and hotel taxes) and the elimination of certain tax breaks. Since its inception, HB170 funding has offered

GDOT benefits such as increased flexibility in project delivery and the opportunity to deliver greater public

benefit to citizens. Furthermore, GDOT has also been able to use HB170 to fund new projects managed entirely

within a modified state process.

New administrative complexity was introduced alongside the benefits of HB170: GDOT had to make an

initial decision on process and funding source and revisit those decisions over time. GDOT felt a need to

formalize and standardize the process and funding decisions, ensuring the right inputs were present early to

make better decisions across the project lifecycle. To address that need, in the fall of 2019, GDOT undertook an

effort to develop a new funding allocation process. This effort resulted in a Flow Chart Decision Tool that

details the logic flow of project attributes and considerations that would result in a decision to 1) follow a state

process and use state funds, 2) follow a federal process and use federal funds, or 3) take a hybrid approach.

The research report consists of two volumes. Volume II consists of a compilation of all templates and guides

that support the research methodology and findings to include: a) the interview guide, b) the postmortem

template, c) the postmortem guide, and d) the launch guide.

17. Keywords:

18. Distribution Statement:

HB170, allocation, funding codes, roadway

No Restriction

projects, federal funding, flowchart, fuel tax.

19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification (of this

(of this report):

page):

Unclassified

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages: 22. Price:

89

Free

Form DOT 1700.7 (8-72)

Reproduction of completed page authorized

GDOT Research Project No. 19-18
Final Report
ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ON GDOT PROJECT PORTFOLIO VOLUME II By Sarah Tucker-Ray, Project Leader Elizabeth Murphy, Co-Project Leader Carter Codes, Co-Project Leader
Pete Crawford, Example Project Manager Rebecka Pritchard Tanvi Gandham Ali Lauzon
McKinsey & Company, Inc
Contract with Georgia Department of Transportation
In cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
March 2020
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
ii

Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2
Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

inches feet yards miles

25.4 0.305 0.914 1.61
AREA

millimeters meters meters kilometers

square inches square feet square yard acres square miles

645.2 0.093 0.836 0.405 2.59

square millimeters square meters square meters hectares square kilometers

VOLUME

fluid ounces gallons cubic feet cubic yards

29.57

milliliters

3.785

liters

0.028

cubic meters

0.765

cubic meters

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS

ounces pounds short tons (2000 lb)

28.35 0.454 0.907

grams kilograms megagrams (or "metric ton")

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

Fahrenheit

5 (F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8

Celsius

ILLUMINATION

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

10.76 3.426

lux candela/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

poundforce poundforce per square inch

4.45

newtons

6.89

kilopascals

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

When You Know

Multiply By

To Find

LENGTH

millimeters meters meters kilometers

0.039 3.28 1.09 0.621

inches feet yards miles

AREA

square millimeters square meters

0.0016 10.764

square inches square feet

square meters hectares

1.195 2.47

square yards acres

square kilometers

0.386

square miles

VOLUME

milliliters liters cubic meters

0.034 0.264 35.314

fluid ounces gallons cubic feet

cubic meters

1.307

cubic yards

MASS

grams kilograms megagrams (or "metric ton")

0.035 2.202 1.103

ounces pounds short tons (2000 lb)

Celsius

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)

1.8C+32

Fahrenheit

ILLUMINATION

lux candela/m2

0.0929 0.2919

foot-candles foot-Lamberts

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

newtons kilopascals

0.225 0.145

poundforce poundforce per square inch

Symbol
mm m m km
mm2 m2 m2 ha km2
mL L m3 m3
g kg Mg (or "t")
oC
lx cd/m2
N kPa
Symbol
in ft yd mi
in2 ft2 yd2 ac mi2
fl oz gal ft3 yd3
oz lb T
oF
fc fl
lbf lbf/in2

* SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW GUIDE APPENDIX B. POSTMORTEN TEMPLATE APPENDIX C. POSTMORTEM GUIDE APPENDIX D. LAUNCH GUIDE
iv

APPENDIX A. INTERVIEW GUIDE

Interview guide: Project Post-Mortem
Prospective interview audience: GDOT leadership (e.g., Director of Program Delivery, Director of Engineering) and stakeholders who will own decision-making tool in the future (e.g., Planning team)
State vs. federal processes What are the key differences (real and perceived) today in the federal vs. state process? Are there "myths" or "habits" in project processes that are not rooted in the required state process but, rather, are completed to mimic the federal process?
State vs. federal funding decisions How are state vs. federal funding programming decisions made today? What is the set of criteria or decision tree? Who weighs in? What does the conversation involve? At what stage does it take place? What are the key moments at which having made one funding decision vs. another are most important (e.g., at funding programming decision at the start, at right-of-way acquisition, etc.)? Are project managers assigned to focus on federal funded projects vs. state funded projects? Are they assigned in a different way? Are any individual project managers known to be expert in one vs. other? What are key considerations today when GDOT attempts to maintain funding flexibility across sources? In your view, what "triggers" or "realizations" (e.g., realization of a historic preservation issue, interactions with Coast Guard as lead agency) cause the biggest impact in projects with federal funding?
Additional data and fact base What data could illustrate how federal money is allocated today (e.g., federal money associated with how many projects, which types of projects, average percentage of federal money on a project, etc.)? How did HB 170 impact GDOT's decision-making and processes? What is the background on the legislation, when did changes take effect, etc.?

Interview guide: Project Post-Mortem
Prospective interview audience: Individual project managers, planning team members, etc. who played a role in decision-making and execution for designated post-mortem project
Project timeline Where is the project today? At what point were critical decisions around funding made? Has the project faced any challenges since then that have impacted project cost, timeline, or administrative burden? Which stakeholders weighed in on funding decisions? What factors were considered to make the decision regarding federal vs. state funding? What was the expected timeline and cost for this project? What variance did it experience and what drove the variance? Is there anything here so exceptional we should ignore it? What of the different sub-stages (e.g. alternatives development) of each phase are contributing the most to delays? What are the key handovers? When do others in GDOT get involved?
Requirements and stakeholders? Following the funding decision, what stakeholders have been in the loop on subsequent decisions? Did new or previously unknown requirements surface that impacted cost, timeline, or administrative burden? What federal agencies were involved in the project? Who was the lead agency?
State vs. federal processes Were there steps of the process that you had to follow because you were trying to maintain flexibility to use federal money later? What process steps are typically most unpredictable or disruptive in terms of cost/time/paperwork impact? What are typical drivers of "difficult" projects and how does that vary by state vs. federal funding? Are there parts of the state process where you typically follow something informal or not written down? Can you provide any benefit/cost analysis that project managers completed for project justification? What materials / guides do you use for reference when working on a project?

APPENDIX B. POSTMORTEN TEMPLATE
The McKinsey & Company, Inc. Team provided the recommendations based on findings to GDOT staff at the completion of the study. To maintain confidentiality of the Postmorten Template, the complete report with all details is available internally only to GDOT.

APPENDIX C. POSTMORTEN GUIDE
The McKinsey & Company, Inc. Team provided the recommendations based on findings to GDOT staff at the completion of the study. To maintain confidentiality of the Postmorten Guide, the complete report with all details is available internally only to GDOT.

APPENDIX D. LAUNCH GUIDE
The McKinsey & Company, Inc. Team provided the recommendations based on findings to GDOT staff at the completion of the study. To maintain confidentiality of the Launch Guide, the complete report with all details is available internally only to GDOT.