HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Pavement Management Program Audit - 3/12/2019
Date: March 12, 2019
To: Kevin R. Phelps, City Manager
From: Candace MacLeod, City Auditor
Subject: Pavement Management Program Audit
As part of the FY18 audit plan, the City Auditor’s Office conducted an internal audit of
the City of Glendale’s (City) Pavement Management Program (PMP) in July 2018. The
PMP consists of the rehabilitation of deteriorating streets within the City by applying
treatments and pavement preservation methods. The City’s plan to extend the overall
life-expectancy of streets is carried out through a series of pavement preservation
projects. The purpose of the audit was to assess the adequacy of internal controls over
the City’s PMP.
The audit includes nine recommendations to strengthen controls including:
• Ensuring the current use of an on-call consultants list to award PMP projects
complies with applicable laws and contract amounts do not exceed statutory limits.
• Developing contract administration policies and procedures to manage
amendments, work performed outside contract terms, modifications to quantities,
and vendor insurance certificates.
• Evaluating the use and method to procure contracted PMP inspection services.
• Ensuring invoices are recalculated and agree with price sheets, payments are
made in accordance with contract terms, and price sheets are retained.
• Monitoring vehicles assigned to PMP inspections that are driven less than 5,000 miles
annually.
Management concurred with eight of the recommendations and expects to address
them by June 30, 2019. Field Operations partially concurred with one recommendation
regarding fleet utilization.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachment
cc: Chris Anaradian, Assistant City Manager
Michael D. Bailey, City Attorney
David Beard, City Engineer
Lisette Camacho, Assistant Director of Budget and Finance
Trevor Ebersole, Director of Transportation
Vicki Rios, Director of Budget and Finance
Rob Sweeney, Interim Assistant City Manager
Michelle Woytenko, Director of Field Operations
5850 West Glendale Avenue | Glendale, AZ 85301
Pavement Management Program Audit
July 2018
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 1 Pavement Management Program
Introduction
As part of the FY18 audit plan, the City Auditor’s Office conducted an internal audit of
the City of Glendale’s (City) Pavement Management Program (PMP) in July 2018. The
PMP consists of the rehabilitation of poor and deteriorating streets within the City by
applying treatments and pavement preservation methods. The City’s plan to extend
the overall life-expectancy of streets is carried out through a series of pavement
preservation projects. As a significant Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project for the
City, it is critical to ensure that controls over the PMP are appropriate and projects are
managed efficiently and effectively.
PMP projects are funded through a combination of Transportation Sales Tax, HURF
funds, and general obligation bonds. In FY18, the PMP was funded at a combined $77.5
million over 5 to 7 years and included five dedicated Engineering FTEs. As part of
managing the PMP, Engineering entered into 11 contracts for the provision of the
following pavement treatments:
• Crack Seal – pumping a flexible latex product into large cracks to help prevent
water intrusion and damage to the subgrade
• Slurry Seal – thin, surface treatments of oil emulsion and small aggregate rock that
combine to reseal the pavement surface
• Reclamite – application of a formulated emulsion that absorbs into the asphalt and
pavement to restore durability and extend life
• Mill & Overlay – removing 1 to 5 inches of pavement and replacing it with new
asphalt
• Reconstruction – removing existing roadway and rebuilding it from the subgrade
through the pavement surface
Table 1 below presents the amounts expended in FY17 and FY18 by type of contract or
treatment:
Table 1: Actual Expenses by Contract in FY17 and FY18 YTD*
Contract
No.
Project
No. Treatment or Service Type FY17 FY18 YTD*
C-10958 151623 Reconstruction and Mill & Overlay $6,739,424 $802,523
C-10958-1 161726 Reconstruction and Mill & Overlay $0 $5,583,007
C-10078 141515 Mill & Overlay $144,361 $0
C17-0389 161759 Crack Seal $0 $823,085
C-11093 151631 Crack Seal $889,110 $0
C17-0899 161724 Slurry Seal $0 $321,039
C-11094 151630 Slurry Seal $1,336,501 $121,135
C-10921 141516 Slurry Seal $370,598 $0
C-11355 161717 Reclamite Asphalt Rejuvenator $126,278 $11,087
C17-0169
n/a PMP Contract Inspection Services $74,385 $45,814 C17-0169-1
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 2 Pavement Management Program
C-9452 131428
PMP Design and Construction
Administration Services $344,297 $88,875
C17-0383 n/a PMP Public Outreach $46,087 $22,149
Totals $10,071,041 $7,818,714
* As of April 18, 2018
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the audit was to assess the adequacy of internal controls related to the
City’s PMP, as well as to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness.
Scope and Methodology
The scope of the audit was July 1, 2016 to April 18, 2018. To gain an understanding of
the applicable processes, policies, and procedures, we interviewed staff from
Engineering and Transportation. We also sampled contracts and invoice payments,
and reviewed various documents including:
• Budgets and financial reports
• Laws, regulations, policies, and procedures
• PMP contracts
• Vendor invoices and supporting documentation
Observations, Recommendations, and Management Responses
Our testing identified the following observations:
1) 49 contracts totaling $3.07 million were awarded using an on-call consultants list
without documented policies or procedures relating to this method of procurement.
The City’s Procurement Code and Finance Administrative Policy (FAP) No.1 establishes
the dollar thresholds for procurements. According to the City Code, purchases of
$50,000 or more are subject to formal procurement methods, which include requests for
proposals (RFP), invitations for bids (IFB), and cooperative purchasing.
Engineering has been using an on-call consultants list to award projects for
approximately 10 years. According to the City Attorney’s Office, an on-call consultants
list should be updated every 5 to 6 years. Vendors selected from these lists should be
used for unplanned, emergency, or minimal work, as needed. Additionally, vendors
from these lists should not be engaged in multiple projects simultaneously that would
result in them exceeding the statutory limit of $250,000 for architectural services or
$500,000 for general contractor services.
Engineering has used an on-call consultants list for smaller projects that do not exceed
the statutory limits noted above. The list is typically valid for two years, with the option
for two one-year renewals. The current on-call list was formed and last updated in 2016.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 3 Pavement Management Program
To create this list, Engineering developed and advertised a Request for Qualification
(RFQ). The RFQ provides information for potential bidders, including the selection
criteria, the number of vendors selected per category, and the timeline for and process
of selection. However, there are no other documented departmental policies or
procedures to govern this process.
The RFQ requires potential bidders to submit a statement of qualifications (SOQ) for
various consulting service categories. The vendors that submit an SOQ are evaluated
and ranked by a selection committee of five staff members from various City
departments selected by Engineering. The selected vendors are placed onto the on-
call list and awarded projects based on the City’s needs and vendor experience. While
Engineering stated they try to equally distribute the projects among the vendors, there
are no formalized procedures for selecting vendors from the list to ensure equal
distribution. Contracts are then developed and routed for approval from the City
Attorney’s Office and City management, and then forwarded to Council if they
exceed $50,000. As part of the approval process, a Contract Signature Routing Form
(green sheet) must be completed, requiring the department to indicate the method of
procurement. The auditors reviewed two contracts formed from the on-call list and
noted the green sheets did not indicate the method of procurement used as there is no
check box for on-call consultants.
The City Attorney’s Office recommended that Engineering monitor their on-call
contracts to ensure they do not have multiple agreements with a consultant
simultaneously that in total would exceed the statutory limits. However, Engineering is
not currently tracking this information. During the audit, Engineering identified 49
contracts totaling $3.07 million that were awarded using the on-call consultants list in
FY17 and FY18 combined. Auditors performed a review of this list and it did not appear
that any one of the consultants exceeded the statutory limit.
Procurement stated using an on-call consultants list is not a procurement method
authorized by FAP No. 1 or the City’s Procurement Code.
Potential Risk: High – Lack of formalized policies and procedures could result in
inconsistencies, non-compliance, monetary losses and potential litigation. Individuals
charged with governance may not be aware of processes used by the City to award
Engineering projects.
Recommendation:
1.1 Engineering work with the City Attorney’s Office and Budget and Finance to
ensure the use of an on-call consultants list complies with applicable laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures.
1.2 Engineering formalize policies and procedures for the on-call consultants list and
train staff. Controls should be developed to ensure contracts with the same
consultant do not exceed statutory limits.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 4 Pavement Management Program
Management Response:
1.1 Concur. Engineering will work with the City Attorney’s Office and Budget and
Finance to ensure compliance with all laws, regulations, and policies by April 30,
2019.
1.2 Concur. Engineering will formalize policies and procedures for the on-call
consultants list and implement by April 30, 2019, including training for all staff.
2) A review of PMP contracts identified amendments that were not executed, vendor
work performed outside the contract period, and missing certificates of insurance.
Contract terms and conditions should be monitored and complied with, including
annual expenditure and quantity thresholds, and retaining valid certificates of
insurance (COI).
Auditors reviewed 11 PMP contracts used in FY17 and FY18 and noted the following
issues:
Contract Amendments Not Executed
• C-10958 for reconstruction and mill and overlay services was approved by Council
for $7,333,007. A 5% contingency amount of $366,650 was included in the
communication to Council, for a total authorized amount of $7,699,657. The term of
the contract was June 28, 2016 to June 27, 2017. A total of $7,541,947 was charged
to the contract, representing additional contingency expenditures of $208,940.
However, a contract amendment was not executed for the additional contingency
expenditures.
• C-11355 for the application of reclamite asphalt was approved by Council for
$126,296. An additional $10,000 in contingency expenditures was included in the
communication to Council, for a total authorized amount of $136,296. The term of
the contract was November 22, 2016 to March 5, 2017. A total of $137,365 was
charged to the contract, representing the $10,000 requested contingency, plus an
additional amount of $1,069. However, a contract amendment was not executed
for the additional contingency expenditures and the amount exceeding the
contingency was not taken to Council for ratification.
Work Performed by Vendors Prior to Contract Execution or After Contract Termination
• C-10958-1 for reconstruction and mill and overlay services had a term that began on
June 28, 2017; however, the vendor began work on June 1, 2017 and submitted an
invoice for $1,101,722 for the period June 1 to 30, which was paid on August 1, 2017.
• C17-0383 for PMP outreach had a term that began on May 9, 2017; however, the
vendor began work in November 2016 and submitted seven invoices to the City
totaling $29,971 prior to May 2017. The invoices were not paid until June 2017.
Additionally, there were no COIs on file for this vendor as noted below.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 5 Pavement Management Program
• Vendors submitted invoices for work that was performed between 10 and 178 days
after the contract term had ended for C-10958, C-10078, C-11094, and C-11355
totaling $437,489.
Vendors Billed for Items that Exceeded Maximum Contract Quantities
• Seven contracts were billed for items that exceeded the quantity listed on the
vendor bid sheet and one of these contracts (C-10958) also exceeded its “not to
exceed” amount. Engineering did not have a policy identifying who could approve
these quantity adjustments, or if an amendment or change order was necessary.
• The price sheet for C-9452 included 15,849 man hours, with billing rates between $55
and $180 per hour, depending on the position billed, for a maximum labor cost of
$1,612,295 over the term of the contract. However, controls were not established to
track the labor costs billed by position to ensure they did not exceed the threshold
amount.
Monthly Cashflow Reports Not Submitted by Vendors
• Seven contracts required the vendor to submit updated cash flow reports with the
monthly pay application. However, cash flow reports were not submitted with the
pay applications for any of these contracts. Staff reported that they were unaware
of the requirements for monthly cashflows but requested these reports quarterly as
part of Engineering’s internal procedures.
Missing and Expired COIs
• Three contracts had no COIs on file with the City for the entire term of the contract.
• Five contracts had COIs on file with the City that had expired, anywhere from 95 to
333 days before the end of the contract term.
Potential Risk: High – Noncompliance with contract terms and conditions could lead to
potential litigation and monetary losses.
Recommendation:
2.1 Engineering establish controls and develop written contract administration
policies and procedures, including requirements for contract amendments,
vendor work performed outside the contract term, modifications to contract
quantities, managing COIs, and obtaining cash flow reports.
Management’s Response:
2.1 Concur. Engineering will monitor and ensure compliance with City contract
administration policies and procedures by June 30, 2019.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 6 Pavement Management Program
3) Contract inspection services were procured through the on-call consultants list at
over twice the City’s equivalent hourly rate.
Public funds should be utilized in a manner that maximizes value. External contractors
should be utilized when they offer unique expertise or are more cost-effective than
what can be found within the existing workforce.
Engineering utilizes inspection services as part of larger projects completed by external
contractors. However, in FY17 and FY18, Engineering entered into contracts C17-0169
and C18-0313 respectively, for PMP inspection services due to an increased work load.
They plan to continue to use these services if the workload dictates. Both contracts
were procured through the on-call consultants list referenced in Observation 1. C17-
0169 and its subsequent amendment were approved by Council at an hourly rate of
$100.25 and a total cost of $176,440 for the period February 27, 2017 to February 26,
2018. C18-0313 was approved at an hourly rate of $116.88 and a total cost of $46,750
for the period April 9, 2018 to April 8, 2019. Engineering reported that this contract has
not yet been used. These positions are equivalent to a City’s Engineering Inspector and
Senior Engineering Inspector position. Budget and Finance reported that the fully
burdened costs for an FTE in these positions are $85,682 and $89,365 annually, or $41.19
and $42.96 hourly. Table 2 below presents the hourly rate for contract inspection
services under C17-0169 as compared to the hourly rate for an FTE Senior Engineering
Inspector.
Table 2: Comparison of External Contractor to City Employee Hourly Inspection Rates
Contract
External
Contractor
Hourly
Rate
Equivalent
City Hourly
Rate
Difference
Between External
and City Hourly
Rate
Contract
Hours
Billed to
City
Difference in
Cost Between
External
Contractor and
City FTE
C17-0169 $100.25 $42.96 $57.29 1,199 $68,690.71
The hourly rate for contract inspection services procured through the on-call
consultants list was over twice the equivalent City hourly rate.
Potential Risk: High/Moderate – The City may not be maximizing value of public funds
by contracting for inspection services through the on-call consultants list.
Recommendation:
3.1 Engineering, in conjunction with City management and Budget and Finance,
evaluate the use and method to procure contracted PMP inspection services to
ensure resources are used in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 7 Pavement Management Program
Management’s Response:
3.1 Concur. Engineering will provide detailed cost information to City Management
and Budget and Finance regarding the use of contracted PMP inspection
services in comparison with internal inspection services. To date, no outside
services have been utilized. Should we need outside services this fiscal year, we
will re-evaluate with City Management and Budget and Finance at that time.
4) Contract payments totaling $12,981 could not be verified during the audit because
the price sheet was not retained.
Payments to vendors should be made in accordance with the contract terms, including
vendor charges agreeing with the contract price sheet and any approved change
orders, and vendor invoices being billed and paid in accordance with the contract’s
payment terms. Contracts and related documentation should be retained in
accordance with record retention requirements.
Auditors reviewed 30 PMP payments to vendors for design, engineering, construction,
inspection, and public outreach services, and noted the following:
• Charges for three payments totaling $12,981 were unable to be verified as
Engineering did not retain a copy of the contract price sheet.
• Three payments included charges that did not agree to the contract price sheet,
which resulted in the City being underbilled by $2,000.
• Two payments included charges totaling $12,043 for work performed by
subconsultants that were not on the contract price sheet.
• One payment included a charge that was incorrectly calculated, which resulted in
the City being underbilled by $145.
• 28 of the 30 payments had contract payment terms requiring the vendor to bill for
work performed during a calendar month and the City to make payment within 30
days of receipt of the invoice. However, one of these payments was for a vendor
invoice that billed for a period of three months, while five of these payments were
made by the City after 30 days, anywhere between 34 and 141 days.
• One payment of $121,135 for a slurry seal project was approved by an Engineering
employee that did not have signature authority for the division the expenditure was
charged to.
Potential Risk: Moderate – Not verifying charges against the contract’s price sheet
could result in the City being overcharged or undercharged or billed for services that
were not approved in the contract. Additionally, payments that are not in compliance
with the contract’s payment terms could lead to potential litigation and monetary
losses.
Recommendation:
4.1 Engineering strengthen contract management controls to ensure invoices are
recalculated and agree with price sheets, amendments are executed to
address additional services provided, payments are made in accordance with
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 8 Pavement Management Program
contract terms, and price sheets are retained in accordance with retention
schedules. Additionally, controls should be strengthened to ensure contract
payments are approved by employees with the appropriate signature authority.
Management’s Response:
4.1 Concur. Engineering has utilized the new City-wide ERP system to improve
controls, enhance retention of contract documents, and ensure the workflow
process for approvals meets City policy. Staff will be given direction to review
invoices against contract terms and price sheets to ensure accuracy and
compliance at the project managers meeting on February 15, 2019.
5) Over the past two years, 13 of the 20 vehicles assigned to Engineering were driven
less than 5,000 miles annually, including four that were used for PMP purposes.
Government assets should be utilized in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Vehicle
usage should be reviewed periodically to ensure costs are minimized, efficiencies are
maximized, and vehicles are reallocated or pooled as needs and usage dictate. A
2016 report issued by the federal General Services Administration (GSA) agency
recommended an average annual mileage of 12,000 and 10,000 for passenger
vehicles and light trucks, respectively, while the Governor’s State Fleet Council for the
State of Arizona recommends annual mileage of 8,000 or five or more trips per week.
Additionally, these mileage benchmarks are guidelines, and may need to be adjusted
due to the size of the geographical area that needs to be covered.
However, the City has not developed a policy defining vehicle needs and annual
mileage requirements. Vehicle usage is not currently monitored and evaluated to
determine if City vehicles are underutilized and need reassignment. Furthermore, the
Fleet Manager lacks the necessary authority to right size the fleet and reclaim
underutilized departmental vehicles.
Engineering, which had 30 FTEs in FY18, has been assigned a total of 20 vehicles (16
trucks, two SUVs, two vans). Of these 20 vehicles, 18 are assigned to individual
employees, one van is used by the materials lab to transport the nuclear gauge safety
box during daily activities, and one SUV serves as a pool vehicle. The vehicles assigned
to employees are primarily used to drive to job sites to perform inspections for
Engineering projects, including the PMP, which requires them to bring equipment used
in the performance these inspections and tests. The pool vehicle is used to drive to job
sites and off-site meetings. Six of these vehicles are used full-time or part-time for PMP
purposes.
Table 3 summarizes the operating and maintenance costs for the 20 vehicles assigned
to Engineering, including the six used for the PMP, over the last two years, as provided
by Field Operations.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 9 Pavement Management Program
Table 3: Vehicles Assigned to Engineering
Vehicles Used for PMP Purposes
Vehicle
Number
Vehicle
Type
FY17 FY18
Mileage Cost* Cost/Mile Mileage Cost* Cost/Mile
6324B02 Truck 4,214 $3,923 $0.93 7,348 $3,483 $0.47
6342B02 Truck 739 $821 $1.12 309 $426 $1.38
6342B30 Truck 6,616 $1,336 $0.20 7,126 $3,880 $0.54
6342B31 Truck 7,371 $1,753 $0.24 7,610 $1,884 $0.25
6342B33 Truck*** 3,953 $3,458 $0.87 15,512 $3,170 $0.20
6342B35 Truck 2,332 $3,341 $1.43 9,286 $1,763 $0.19
Vehicles Used for Other Purposes
Vehicle
Number
Vehicle
Type
FY17 FY18
Mileage Cost* Cost/Mile Mileage Cost* Cost/Mile
6331B02 Truck 33 $867 $26.27 1,223 $830 $0.67
6342B07 Truck 10,914 $3,161 $0.29 15,118 $5,383 $0.36
6342B28 Truck 12,328 $4,163 $0.34 12,734 $4,360 $0.34
6342B29 Truck 7,790 $2,351 $0.30 7,369 $2,343 $0.32
6342B32 Truck 2,414 $351 $0.15 1,625 $593 $0.36
6342B34 Truck 178 $3,012 $16.92 627 $367 $0.59
6342B36 Truck**** n/a n/a n/a 440 $1,587 $3.61
6342B37 Truck**** n/a n/a n/a 502 $1,497 $2.98
6343B07 Truck 10,633 $2,865 $0.27 5,497 $1,366 $0.25
6344B03 Truck 3,961 $805 $0.20 4,373 $1,319 $0.30
6342B26 SUV 1,670 $996 $0.60 1,063 $409 $0.38
6342B27 SUV** 2,447 $472 $0.19 3,705 $681 $0.18
6343B05 Van 9,135 $2,485 $0.27 6,926 $3,049 $0.44
6343B06 Van n/a n/a n/a 351 $960 $2.74
* Cost includes fuel, maintenance, parts, and labor
** Engineering department pool vehicle
*** Vehicle transferred to Engineering in FY17
**** Vehicle placed into service in FY18
Vehicles assigned to the PMP were driven an average of 6,035 miles annually and had
an average cost per mile of $0.40. However, four of these vehicles were driven less than
5,000 miles in FY17 and one vehicle was driven less than 5,000 miles in FY18.
Of the other vehicles assigned to Engineering, the trucks were driven an average of
5,431 miles annually and had an average cost per mile of $0.38; the SUVs were driven
an average of 2,221 miles annually and had an average cost per mile of $0.29; and the
vans were driven an average of 5,471 miles annually and had an average cost per mile
of $0.40.
In total, the 20 vehicles noted above were driven between 33 and 12,328 miles in FY17
and 309 and 15,512 in FY18 and had a cost per mile ranging between $0.15 and $26.27
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 10 Pavement Management Program
for both years. In 20 of the 37 instances above (54%), the vehicles were driven less than
5,000 miles in a fiscal year, half of the GSA-recommended annual mileage.
Additionally, while Field Operations has assigned 11 pool vehicles (six sedans, four
trucks, one van) to City Hall, Engineering does not utilize them and instead has
designated one of their SUVs as a pool vehicle.
Potential Risk: Moderate – A l ack of policies that clearly define the requirements for
vehicle needs or minimum vehicle usage can result in an inefficient use of City
resources. The use of vehicles assigned to departments as pool vehicles in locations
where Field Operations has already assigned pool vehicles creates a potential
redundancy and inefficiency.
Recommendation:
5.1 Field Operations monitor fleet utilization and develop policies and other controls
to ensure vehicles are used in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Controls
should address vehicle assignment, the use of Citywide and department pool
vehicles, and annual mileage requirements.
5.2 Field Operations work with Engineering to ensure vehicles assigned to their
department are utilized in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Any
underutilized vehicles should be returned to the City’s fleet.
Management’s Response:
5.1 Partially concur. Field Operations will monitor fleet utilization annually, and meet
with using departments to review departmental requirements. Initial meetings will
be conducted by June 28, 2019. The meetings will occur between January and
June annually.
5.2 Concur. This will occur as part of 5.1.
6) Performance measures have not been established to assess the City’s ability to
efficiently and effectively manage the PMP.
Performance measures should be established and monitored to ensure City programs
and operations are managed efficiently and effectively.
The FY18 reported goals and measures for the PMP are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4 – PMP FY18 Goals and Measures
Manage the City’s PMP through inhouse design, construction administration, and inspection
services expending $10.7M per year.
Performance Measures FY16 Actual FY17 Actual FY18 Estimate
Mill & Overlay $7.6M $7.5M $7.5M
Slurry Seal $1.4M $2.3M $2.0M
Crack Seal n/a $0.9M $1.2M
Total $9.0M $10.7M $10.7M
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 11 Pavement Management Program
Manage the City’s pavement infrastructure through ongoing maintenance, asphalt treatment
and repair of paved streets, alleys, concrete sidewalks and walkways, and provide graffiti
removal and weed abatement for developed and undeveloped ROW in the city.
Performance Measures FY16 Actual FY17 Actual FY18 Estimate
% Respond to Requests for Service, email,
online hotline, and other call‐ins within 24 hours
90% 95% 98%
Oversight of PMP (miles of work completed) No data 50 miles 145 miles
Based on discussion with staff from Transportation and Engineering, two additional PMP
goals were established informally, outside the City’s budget book, which include:
1) Ensuring every street has been “touched” at some point during the 5 to 7 year term.
2) Upgrading the City’s Pavement Condition Index rating from 65.5 to 70 by 2023.
A review of the City’s current goals and measures indicate that the City has not clearly
established performance objectives and measures to assess the City’s ability to
efficiently and effectively manage the PMP. Furthermore, PMP goals are not clearly
documented and monitored for progress. Additionally, updates and progress reports on
the achievement of stated goals and measure are not communicated to
management and governance on a periodic basis.
The auditors reviewed performance measures used by other Valley cities to track the
effectiveness and outcomes of their PMP. One common measure used is the pavement
condition index (PCI), which rates the surface condition of a road on a scale from 1 to
100 (1 being the worst and 100 being the best). As noted above, the City has not
formally established PCI rating as a performance measure of the PMP. A summary of
PCI ratings for Glendale and six other Valley cities is presented in Table 5.
Table 5: PCI Ratings by Municipality
Municipality Current Goal
Tempe 59 70
jGlendale 65.5 70
Gilbert 72 74
Peoria 72 Not stated (74 as of FY18)
Phoenix 73 75
Mesa 75 70
Scottsdale 77.3 78.3
Additional performance objectives and measures used by other Valley cities include
center lane miles maintained per FTE and cost per center lane mile serviced.
Potential Risk: Moderate – Without established performance measures and
communication of results, management is not able to determine the effectiveness and
results of the PMP and whether it assists the City in meeting its strategic goals and
objectives. Additionally, City resources may not be expended in an efficient and
effective manner.
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
City Auditor’s Office 12 Pavement Management Program
Recommendation:
6.1 Engineering and Transportation evaluate the current performance objectives
and measures to ensure they provide City management with the information
necessary to evaluate the performance and effectiveness of the PMP.
6.2 Engineering and Transportation enhance the frequency of their communications
of PMP goals and progress to City management and governance to ensure
timely information is available for decision making.
Management’s Response:
6.1 Engineering
Concur. Engineering will work with City management to evaluate the current
performance measures for the PMP during the normal budget cycle. The
department intends to have a survey of the street networks PCI rating in FY19-20
and this might be an appropriate formal goal.
Transportation
Concur. Transportation will:
• Develop a living plan with annual updates to City Council and City
Management for work done and review network conditions and needs and
continue to update PCI inventory every three years
• Evaluate 5-10 year funding scenarios to identify any impacts of funding levels
on network conditions
• Present PMP work plan and funding scenarios to City Management and City
Council for review
• Keep up to date with new industry technology and methods (to maximize
coverage of City streets).
6.2 Engineering
Concur. Engineering has been working to improve the quality and frequency of
information sharing and will continue to do so in the future. Please note that
adoption of a PCI rating, reviewed on an annual basis, is a costly undertaking
that will need to be reviewed by City management.
Transportation
Concur. Transportation will continue to meet on a regular (weekly) basis and
include appropriate staff on e-mail communication. As soon as a change or new
direction pops up, we will communicate that immediately across
Transportation/Engineering. We will participate in updating City Management
and City Council by attending important meetings, individual council member
meetings, and District Meetings with the most current information agreed upon
by both parties.