1 / 17

Construction Oversight: They Build What We Accept

Construction Oversight: They Build What We Accept. Jim Sorenson Office of Asset Management. Stewardship. Program Administration Technology Deployment Technical Assistance Strategic Initiatives. Project Development Project Delivery Maintenance/Operation Oversight. Oversight and Quality.

Mercy
Télécharger la présentation

Construction Oversight: They Build What We Accept

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Construction Oversight:They Build What We Accept Jim Sorenson Office of Asset Management

  2. Stewardship • Program Administration • Technology Deployment • Technical Assistance • Strategic Initiatives • Project Development • Project Delivery • Maintenance/Operation • Oversight

  3. Oversight and Quality • Quality Construction is fundamental to meeting the FHWA’s national objectives. • Improves system performance • Reduces congestion and impacts on the environment • Improves safety by minimizing work zone frequency, duration, and disruption of traffic flow • Improves the economic efficiency of our highway investments

  4. Who wrote this report… “ …the effectiveness of the control and inspection procedures right on the site where the actual project was being carried out was the spot where we found falsification. But they were doing exceptionally well on design for instance and in other areas in the various phases of acquisition, design work, contract award, all these were conducted on a high level. But at the spot where construction was carried out they were not complying with specification as to design and quality of material. At that point it broke down and some fraudulent reports were written by incompetent young men, underpaid, untrained and inexperienced……It is things such as this that we find over and over again. No matter how well the operation is planned and designed and spelled out in detail, at a given point we find there is a breakdown and at that point the whole operation or project breaks down.”

  5. “…How widespread is it?....The disturbing this is we cannot prove that it isn’t widespread. In the face of this we must maintain the confidence of Congress in this Program.… The thing for you to look at is what is the attitude, what is the degree and level of confidence of Congress in you men, both on the Federal level and the State level…”

  6. And 40 years later… • The Honorable John A. Blatnik, chairman of the House Special Subcommittee on the Federal-aid Highway Program speaking on “Highways and the Congress”, at the 41st Annual AASHO Conference, June 1963.

  7. Evolution of FHWA Oversight The Early Years • Federal/State Partnership concept evolved • BPR oversight included • Periodic field checks • Technical input into design and construction problems.

  8. Evolution of FHWA Oversight 1960’s - The Interstate Era • Federal-aid Highway Act signed 1957 • Rapidly expanding program, and increased federal/state workforce • Serious concerns with financial management, corruption, and lack of project oversight • House special investigative committee established in 1959. • BPR changed its oversight role • Increased project level actions. • Began delegation some oversight responsibilities to the States

  9. Evolution of FHWA Oversight 1970’s – Today - Increased State Flexibility • USDOT and FHWA formed, 1967 • Continued delegation of oversight responsibility to States • Certification Acceptance initiated, 1973 • Process/Program reviews • Legislative changes - ISTEA, TEA-21 offered States more independence. • Recent concerns with lack of oversight • Some problems associated with major projects • GAO and IG reports indicating lack of FHWA oversight.

  10. Evolution of FHWA Oversight Present Past

  11. Evolution of FHWA Oversight ? Future...

  12. The Dilemma for Today’s Field Engineers • Dwindling FTE • Loss of expertise by attrition • Increasingly politicized highway program • Increasing congestion and highway construction delays • Increasing public frustration at congestion and construction delays • More complex program • While our abilities and authority have been stretched - We are still responsible

  13. Moving Forward • Project to Program • Reviews based on risk assessments • Joint FHWA/State reviews • Building our Technical Expertise • Training • Easily accessible tools • Proactive Stewardship

  14. Mary Peters - July 29, 2004 Things are certainly different today, but that doesn't have to be bad. I think it is up to us to reestablish in a new role. We certainly have a valuable role to play and much to contribute, it will just be in a different way than in the past. Likely more program than project related, and to be the guardian of a national transportation system, which is uniquely our role.

  15. This Takes You : FHWA Eyes and Ears • Professional • Value Added • Improved Work Methods • Sharing Technology • Pro Active Partners Truly a Transportation Leader

  16. Available Resources Training • Conducting Reviews that Gets Results • Just-in-time training for Teams to use for conducting effective process reviews • Construction Program Management Training Guidance • Construction Program Management and Inspection Guide • Construction Program Guide Website • National Highway Specifications Website • Headquarters initiated process reviews • QA Reviews underway • Potential for expansion to other types of reviews.

  17. Questions? Contacts Ken Jacoby Office of Asset Management 202-366-6503 Jeff Lewis CA Division 916-498-5035

More Related