Performance Details

Department of Transportation & Public Facilities

Mission

Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.

Core Services

  • Preserve Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure
  • Operate Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure
  • Modernize Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure
  • Provide Transportation Services
  • Shared Services
  • Mission Support Services

Arrow GraphicResults

Core Services
A: Department Result  Details >
A1: Preserve Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure  Details >
A2: Operate Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure  Details >
  • TARGET #1: Average time per event to achieve performance target for each priority level (1,2,3,4). The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #2: Percentage Target Condition was achieved within Time Goal. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
A3: Modernize Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure  Details >
  • TARGET #1: Average of Engineer's estimate over the low bid. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #2: Average project development time from project initiation to bid. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #3: Comparison of planned capital program dollars with delivered capital program dollars. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #4: Design Costs over Construction Costs at Award. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #5: Final Project Costs Over Project Award Cost. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #6: Project Awards Versus Project Closeouts. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
  • TARGET #7: Construction Engineer Costs Over Contractor Payments. The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.
A4: Provide Transportation Services  Details >
A5: Shared Services  Details >
A6: Mission Support Services  Details >

Performance Detail


A: Result - Department Result

A1: Core Service - Preserve Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure
    
Target #1: Condition of Highway Infrastructure

Methodology: A=13-15;B=10-12;C=7-9;D=4-6;F=1-3


Condition of Highway Infrastructure
Fiscal Year Intl. Roughness Index (A=13-15; B=10-12) (C=7-9, D=4-6) (F=1-3)
FY 2018
8
0
0
0
FY 2017
8
0
0
0
FY 2016
8
0
0
0
FY 2015
8
0
0
0
FY 2014
8
0
0
0

Analysis of results and challenges: Pavement IRI (International Roughness Index) measures pavement smoothness. It is obtained from measured longitudinal road profiles. The measurement of IRI is required for data provided to the Federal Highway Administration and helps the department evaluate and manage road systems. The grading scale is A+ to F-.

A2: Core Service - Operate Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure
    
Target #1: Average time per event to achieve performance target for each priority level (1,2,3,4).

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Time=hours

Average Time to Restore Roads to Target Condition
Fiscal Year Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 % of Targets Achieved Total Events
FY 2017
4.62
11.02
14.07
24.50
95%
624

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tracks how often the department achieves the goals when responding to winter weather events. The department reviews its performance with regard to the goals and adjusts/reallocates resources or changes maintenance practices to improve overall performance. During the time period July 16, 2016 Ė April 17, 2017 the department logged 624 weather events. Each event had targets representing a road priority level 1-4.
    
Target #2: Percentage Target Condition was achieved within Time Goal.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.


Percentage Target Condition was achieved within Time Goal
Fiscal Year # of Targets Achieved Total # of Targets Achieved vs. Total
FY 2017
1,233
1,287
95.8%

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tracks the average time required to restore roads to target condition after a winter weather event (refers to weather conditions that create difficult driving conditions). The department includes the maximum response time by priority to show response time capabilities during extreme weather events. The data is used to identify certain event types or severity that impact service delivery. This is a proactive approach to managing resources and maintenance practices to best serve the public.

A3: Core Service - Modernize Alaskaís Transportation Infrastructure
    
Target #1: Average of Engineer's estimate over the low bid.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017

Numbers in table displayed in thousands.


Average of Engineer's Estimate Over Low Bid
Fiscal Year Engineer's Estimate Low Bid Eng Est Over Low Bid
FY 2017
$539,594.8
$514,206.5
-4.9%

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tells us how well we are estimating project costs. The data is shown as an average amount of the engineerís estimate which is what the department believes is fair or reasonable for a project over the lowest responsive bid by a contractor for a project. The engineerís estimates can vary depending on the type of project.
    
Target #2: Average project development time from project initiation to bid.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data source: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017

Time=Months


Average Project Development Time
Fiscal Year Avg Number of months Number of Projects
FY 2017
158
74

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tracks how long, on average, it takes to develop a project, from start of its design through when a construction contract is awarded. Data summarizes projects awarded over four quarters. This measure allows the department to improve planning, estimate workloads and provide better predictions to the public about how long certain types of projects will take to deliver to construction. There is a wide range of time required for projects and some challenging projects take many years. Included in the average are a number of projects that have taken over 15 years to develop.
    
Target #3: Comparison of planned capital program dollars with delivered capital program dollars.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data source: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017


Project Delivery Data
Fiscal Year Planned vs. Delivered
FY 2017
67.8%

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure compares planned capital program dollars (the amount planned by the department for delivery in a given time period based on project manager schedules) with delivered capital program dollars (a successfully completed design phase that has been certified by the department ready for obligation. This also reflects funding secured for design, right of way acquisition and utility relations; however, the vast majority of the dollars fund construction). The reason for not fully meeting all planned obligations include projects being ready but funding not available and project priorities changing during the year. Adhering to a planned project schedule helps contractors and the public anticipate when physical constructing of a project will occur. Accurate realistic project planning is essential to maximizing DOT&PFís ability to leverage federal transportation funding.
    
Target #4: Design Costs over Construction Costs at Award.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data source: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017

Numbers in table displayed in thousands.


Design Costs Over Construction Costs at Award
Fiscal Year Design Cost Construction Cost Design Over Construction
FY 2017
$69,001.9
$478,354.0
14.4%

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tracks how we are using design funds (the amount it costs to design a project and includes all engineering required to produce construction plans, specifications and costs estimates including land and boundary survey, right of way plan development, environmental documentation, permitting, and costs to advertise for bids). The data can be used to estimate future project costs for comparable projects and ensure design funds are used as efficiently as possible. The data will trend with the complexity of the projects being awarded; the percentage would be lower for large projects and higher for small projects due to economies of scale.
    
Target #5: Final Project Costs Over Project Award Cost.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data source: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017

Numbers in table displayed in thousands.


Final Project Costs Over Project Award Cost
Fiscal Year Final Project Cost Award Cost Final Proj Over Award
FY 2017
$467,140.0
$435,860.6
7.2%

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure shows the difference between the awarded costs (before construction begins) and the final costs (after construction is complete) of all construction contracts closed during the reporting period. Tracking is to show how accurately we estimate work prior to construction and how well we control costs during construction and also provides data used to understand how to best balance the program. The consistency of data over reporting periods helps establish a baseline for final costs, as compared to programmed funds, that can be used to balance funding increases or decreases.
    
Target #6: Project Awards Versus Project Closeouts.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data source: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017


Project Awards Versus Project Closeouts
Fiscal Year # of Project Awards # of Project Closeouts Award vs. Closeout
FY 2017
68
80
.85

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tracks the number of contracts closed out (the process of reconciling finances and auditing construction records to ensure compliance with federal regulations. This occurs after physical construction) versus the number of contracts awarded (when the department formally accepts the contractors proposal for work) during the reporting period. This helps allocate staffing resources and releases unspent funds for use on other projects.
    
Target #7: Construction Engineer Costs Over Contractor Payments.

The departmentís performance measures have been adjusted due to Results Based Alignment. New baselines are being established for our results.

Methodology: Data source: 4th Quarter FFY2016 and Quarters 1-3 FFY2017 = Fiscal Year 2017

Numbers in table displayed in thousands.


Construction Engineer Costs Over Contractor Payments
Fiscal Year Const Engineer Costs Contractor Payments Costs Over Payments
FY 2017
$68,667.0
$467,140.0
14.7%

Analysis of results and challenges: This measure tracks construction engineering costs (this figure includes the cost for state and consultant engineers and technicians, supplies and equipment to mobilize and operate construction field offices, laboratories and other administration costs) compared to contractor payments (the direct cost of infrastructure improvements), over time this will show us whether our engineering costs are low, normal or high.

A4: Core Service - Provide Transportation Services
    
Target #1: On time departures (AMHS)


Percentage of On-Time Departures
Year % On-time Departures
2016
92%
2015
92%
2014
92%
2013
91%
2012
92%
2011
93%
2010
90%
2009
92%
2008
93%
2007
89%
2006
83%
2005
84%

Analysis of results and challenges: The On-Time Departure table shows AMHSí on-time departure percentage for the calendar years 2005-2016. An on-time departure is defined as the vessel departing the port within 15 minutes of her scheduled departure time.
    
Target #2: Fare box recovery rate (AMHS)


Analysis of results and challenges: The Farebox Recovery Rate is used to determine the total AMHS operating cost percentage that is recovered through operating revenues. A farebox recovery rate of 100% would mean all of AMHSí operating costs are recovered through ticket sales and other revenues.

A5: Core Service - Shared Services

A6: Core Service - Mission Support Services

 

Current as of April 12, 2018