2015 MARTA External Audit

MARTA Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Process
Evaluation and Assessment
Final Report
This Draft Report is furnished for review by MARTA’s Chief of

Prepared by:
Staff and Assistant General Manager Internal Audit and is
McCloud Transportation & Associates, LLC
regarded as fully privileged. Dissemination of information
Report Date: February 13, 2015
included herein must be approved by MARTA.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................ 8

1.1 Project Goal .................................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Overview ............................................................................. 8
1.3 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process ............................................................................... 10
1.4 Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Consultants (MATC).......................................................... 11
1.5 Intueor Consulting ........................................................................................................................ 14
1.6 Capital Improvement Committee (CIC)........................................................................................ 16
Chapter 2. Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................. 17

2.1 Key Focal Areas of the Assessment .............................................................................................. 19
Chapter 3. Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Consultants (MATC)............................................. 21

3.1 Findings and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 21
Chapter 4. Intueor Consultants ............................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 5. Capital Improvement Committee (CIC) .............................................................................. 55

Chapter 6. Contracts & Procurement and Materials (CPM) ............................................................... 56

Chapter 7. Operations (Capital Improvement Program) .................................................................... 64

7.1 Engineering & Development ....................................................................................................... 65
7.2 Program & Contract Management .............................................................................................. 65
7.3 Construction Management ........................................................................................................... 65
7.4 Job Order Contracting (JOC) ....................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 8. Information Technology ........................................................................................................ 69

8.1 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 69
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 2

Chapter 9. Human Resources .................................................................................................................. 70
9.1 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 70
Chapter 10: Finance ................................................................................................................................. 72

10.1 Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 72
Chapter 11. Police Operations ................................................................................................................. 74

11.1 Findings and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 77
Chapter 12. Organizational Analysis of MARTA’s CIP Process ......................................................... 79

12.1 Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 80
Chapter 13. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Compliance of CIP Process............................... 82
14. Peer Review and Industry Best Practices ......................................................................................... 91

14.1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) .......................................................................... 91
14.2 Dallas Area Regional Transit (DART). ...................................................................................... 98
14.3 Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) ...................................................................... 104
14.4 Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) ..................................................................................................... 107
14.5 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) ............................................................................................. 111
15. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................ 115
Attachments
Attachment A: Non-Represented Positions for Migration of GEC Contractor’s Duties

Executive Summary
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s (MARTA) Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
projects help preserves its capability for high quality service over a ten-year period. MARTA’s
long-range CIP is comprised of a portfolio of five (5) major asset categories, which includes a
category for non-asset projects. These categories were adapted from the Federal Transit
Administration’s (FTA) asset management guidelines and include Vehicles, Facilities and
Stations, Maintenance of Way, Systems, and Non-Assets.
MARTA’s capital funds budget for FY 2015 has total capital expenditures of $470,109,391 for
capital cash disbursement of which $149,200,988 is programmed for principal and interest of
outstanding debt and debt issues in FY 2015. The remaining $320,908,404 represents the Capital
Improvement Program.
MARTA utilizes general engineering and related services to support the CIP and entered into a
contract with Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Consultants (MATC) for the provision of general
engineering consulting and related services in June 2007 for a term of five (5) years with five (5)
one-year options. In May 2014, MARTA exercised option year three of the General Engineering
Consultant (GEC) contract with MATC in support of the delivery and execution of the CIP in an
amount not to exceed $28,752,000. MATC is a joint venture of three (3) firms; AECOM,
Williams-Russell and Atkins. The delivery of projects through the MATC GEC includes over
twenty (20) different companies. MARTA also utilizes Intueor Consulting to support MARTA’s
implementation of enhanced project controls and project management processes Authority-wide
in support of CIP execution. Intueor also provides technical expertise for MARTA’s RFP process
and vendor selection.
To assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the CIP process, MARTA engaged McCloud
Transportation & Associates to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend strategies
to streamline its current CIP process. The review team was comprised of a project
manager/principal reviewer, a lead researcher, and four (4) reviewers who brought to MARTA
over 120 combined years of experience in project management, contracts, procurement and
materials, construction management, and organization management of transit systems capital
projects at multimodal transit systems throughout the U.S.
McCloud Transportation conducted a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of MARTA’s

CIP process to identify strengths, weaknesses and to make recommendations for improving the
effectiveness of service provided by internal staff and external consultants who provide support
to the CIP process. The evaluation focused on the effectiveness of internal staff proving support
to the CIP process, and external CIP consultants; MATC and Intueor. The assessment also
provides recommendations for migration of duties to internal MARTA staff that are currently
being performed by MATC and Intueor. The review team’s knowledge and understanding of
transit capital programs and industry best practices provided high quality assessments,
evaluations, observations, interviews, and keen insight towards identifying opportunities to
strengthen MARTA’s CIP process.
The four-month review was conducted during the period of October 2014 through January 2015.

The evaluation and assessment of the CIP process focused on the following key assessment
areas:
1. Role of internal MARTA staff in the CIP process

2. Role of external CIP consultants (MATC and Intueor) in the CIP process
3. Contracts, Procurement and Materials (CPM) Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
4. Current CIP process and organizational structure
5. Role of the Capital Improvement Committee (CIC)
6. Checks, balances and transparency of CIP processes
7. CIP monitoring, tracking, oversight and internal staff controls
8. Compliance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procurement requirements
The following departments and functional areas were included in the evaluation of MARTA’s
CIP process:
 Contracts, Procurement and Materials (CPM)

 Engineering and Development (E&D)
 Planning/Architecture and Design
 Program and Contract Management
 Operations
 Finance/Treasury and Capital Programs
 Project Management
 Technology
 Construction Management
 Quality Assurance
 Police Operations
During the assessment period, the review team conducted eighty-four (84) in-person interviews
with MARTA staff, MATC and Intueor consultants during a week-long site visit, along with
additional interviews throughout the project period. Over 175 documents were reviewed that
pertain to MARTA’s CIP process. Members of MARTA’s corporate team (CT) and executive
management team (EMT) were interviewed utilizing customized questionnaires to assess the
effectiveness of the CIP process from an internal customer perspective. An organizational
analysis and peer review of transit industry best practices were also conducted to make
recommendations for improvement of the current CIP process. A review of FTA’s capital
program requirements was also conducted.
Based on McCloud Transportation’s comprehensive review, it is proposed that MARTA

implements a strategy for changing its current CIP process as an additional element of
MARTA’s Transformation Initiative (MTI). The following four (4) changes could generate
immediate improvements towards strengthening the CIP process.
1. Reorganize the current CIP organizational structure and separate the Operations
Department from the CIP development and delivery process. A new CIP division should
be established at the executive level that reports directly to MARTA’s General
Manager/Chief Executive Officer.

This would elevate the important and critical nature of the CIP program. The proposed
reorganization would permit the Operations Department to focus on its primary role,
which is the delivery of safe, courteous, reliable and on-time transportation to MARTA’s
customers who utilize its services. MARTA is currently experiencing challenges in key
operational areas as noted in its key performance measures for Mobility, fixed-route bus
and rail operations.
2. Hire and train new staff and develop in-house staff with technical skills to support the
CIP program to complete the migration of duties and responsibilities currently performed
by MATC and Intueor.
3. Review MATC’s role and scope of service to identify services that are candidates for
migration to in-house staff. This transition of tasks to in-house MARTA staff should be
reflected in exercise the current contract option years for MATC and Intueor.
4. Develop and update policies and procedures for the CIP process and CPM to manage the
CIP process to automate tracking of projects and programs to promote efficiency,
accountability and transparency throughout the CIP process. Currently, CPM has several
key vacancies that should be immediately filled. Developing and updating MARTA’s
new CIP policies and procedures should be a top priority for the proposed new CIP
leader.
The above four focal areas of change will result in increased efficiencies, cost savings, and
improvement in the delivery of MARTA’s CIP program and would appropriately re-align
MARTA organizational structure to meet MARTA’s vision for its current and future CIP
program.
Other challenges identified in MARTA’s current CIP process include:
1. MATC develops its own scope of work and selectively assigns work orders to
consultants.
2. There are insufficient capital program controls.
3. There is no capital program Dashboard that provides a gateway to information about
MARTA’s capital program activities.
4. There are insufficient Monthly Commitments and Completions reports that provide an
overview of projects that are either starting or finishing a major stage of delivery.
5. The Capital Improvement Committee’s (CIC) document; “Governance Framework for
Capital Improvement Program” which provides an overview of the CIC, is inaccurate,
includes positions that do not exist; i.e. Deputy General Manager/Chief Operating
Officer, and has outdated membership. The CIC document is a draft document that is
dated 9/7/2011 which suggests that it has not met the approval of MARTA’s leadership.
6. The CIC’s authority is limited, and there are potential conflicts of interest as project
sponsors. CIC members can unduly influence approvals.
7. There is insufficient due diligence and completeness of Project Origination Document
(PODs).
8. There is insufficient organizational alignment to support the CIP.

9. There is a lack of staffing levels, skill sets, and expertise for project development. In
addition, there is a gap between staff capabilities and project needs. At the time of the
review, there were five (5) vacancies for positions (Contract Specialists) in CPM that are
critical to the CIP process.
10. MARTA does not provide decision-making tools or training to its internal staff.
11. There is insufficient communication of prioritization policies.
12. There is insufficient reporting and communication to MARTA’s Corporate Team and
Executive Management Team (EMT). There is no single entity (individual or office) that
is responsible for ongoing updates.
13. There is insufficient monitoring and oversight at the sponsor level, and project sponsors
are not accountable for project execution.
14. Information from the Project Controls branch is ignored regularly.
Some of the key challenges facing MARTA over the next few years include the ability to attract
a high quality workforce, investing in the continuity of its human capital, and maintaining its
assets in State of Good Repair.
This Final Report incorporates detailed findings of the interviews, observations, documents
review and evaluates the effectiveness of MARTA’s current CIP process. The report also
presents recommendations for improvement and identifies ways to strengthen the CIP process.
McCloud Transportation would like to thank Mr. Terry Thompson, Assistant General Manager
Internal Audit, and Ms. Debra Oliver, Senior Executive Administrator, for their outstanding
assistance in facilitating administrative support to the assessment team for this project.
Sincerely,
Elaine R. McCloud
President and Chief Executive Officer

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background
MARTA’s Transit Planning Program is funded from within the CIP and provides for Regional
Transit Planning, Transit Financial Planning, Short-Range and Long-Range Transit Planning and
Special Planning Projects. In compliance with the MARTA Act of 1965, staff is required to
present a 10-year CIP that includes an annual capital budget to the MARTA Board of Directors
for their approval. The CIP focuses primarily on safety, security, and regulatory requirements of
the Authority. MARTA’s 10-year capital plan relies upon debt to finance the majority of capital
projects through 2023. MARTA’s proposed fiscal year 2015 budget allocates $470.1 million for
capital programs, which includes $149.2 million for debt service.
1.1 Project Goal

The goal of the Evaluation and Assessment of MARTA’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Process is to evaluate and assess MARTA’s effectiveness in executing and implementing the
capital program; including program control and transparency measures, oversight, monitoring of
capital projects from project inception to completion, and organizational alignment of the CIP
process.
1.2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Overview

The CIP provides for the replacement, rehabilitation and enhancement of MARTA’s
infrastructure, facilities, rolling stock and equipment required to support transit operations,
regulatory requirements, and systems safety. The program ensures that MARTA’s system is
maintained to enable the delivery of high-quality service. In accordance with the MARTA Act,
the Board is required to adopt the operating and capital budgets on or before June 30 each year,
which is the last day of MARTA’s fiscal year. The Board allows for the utilization of prior year
carry-over to funds to fund both operating and capital costs. The capital funds budget for 2015 is
based on capital expenditures of $470,109,988. The capital improvement projects will help
preserve MARTA’s capability for high-quality service over a ten-year range.
The long-range CIP is comprised of a portfolio of five (5) programs and projects organized by
major asset categories of the agency; vehicles; facilities and stations; maintenance of way;
systems; and non-asset. Each of these categories includes on-going programs and each program
contains one or more projects.
1. Vehicles
a. Bus Procurement and Enhancement (vehicles and on-board systems)
b. Rail Procurement and Enhancement (vehicles and on-board systems)
c. Paratransit (vehicles, lifts, AVL)
2. Facilities and Stations

a. Rail Facilities and Equipment
b. Bus Facilities and Equipment
c. Buildings/Offices and Equipment
d. Parking Lots and Decks
e. Paving, Structures and Drainage
f. Roofing and Skylights
g. Underground Storage Tanks

3. Maintenance of Way
a. Track Maintenance and Replacement
b. Track Structures
c. Work Equipment
4. Systems
a. Revenue Collection
b. Automatic Train Control
c. Electrical Power and Equipment
d. Lighting
e. Security
f. Tunnel Ventilation
g. Fire Protection
h. Elevators and Escalators
i. Radio and Communication
j. IT Hardware/Software
k. Fuel Systems
5. Non Asset
a. Transit Planning
b. Environmental Sustainability
c. Safety and Regulatory
d. Customer Service
e. Performance Management
f. Design Criteria/Standards
g. CIP Planning and Controls
The CIP categories are shown below followed by a description of each of the categories.
Figure 1.0: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Asset Categories

During the 5-day site visit to MARTA conducted on October 27-31, 2014, over 84 interviews
were conducted with MARTA staff and its CIP contractors. In addition, interviews were
conducted with MARTA Corporate Team (CT) and Executive Management Team (EMT).
The department of CPM plays a key role in the CIP process. The CPM department last updated
its policies and procedures manual for acquisitions in February 2009. A new Senior Director of
Contracts, Procurement and Materials was hired in early 2014, and several changes took place;
the draft “Procurement Manual and Procedure Manual” was developed in November 2014. The
intent if the manual was to serve as a comprehensive reference guide for CPM’s rules and
regulations affecting CIP projects.
Currently, the CPM department’s structure has (3) distinct sections:
1. Contracts (Operations Division, Business Services, A&E/Construction Division)

2. Materials Management ( Purchasing, Materials, Supply Chain)
3. Administrative Support (Records Management, Mail Services, Reprographics,
Facilities/Moving, Contract Control)
At the time of the interview process in October 2014, the Senior Director of CPM was in the
process of implementing several proposed changes to enhance the CIP process: CIP projects.1
 Restructure the CPM department to enhance competitive procurements with full and open
competition with improved communication throughout the Agency
 Increase oversight of capital projects with at all levels of the procurement process to
enhance compliance with MARTA’s policies and procedures
 Reduce MARTA’s dependency on GCPS contractors
 Train MARTA staff to fill vacant positions with qualified personnel to manage work
demand generated by the CIP process
1.3 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process

Various MARTA departments and offices perform activities and processes required to plan and
deliver the CIP. Outlined below are the business processes required to support the delivery of the
CIP:
 Project screening and scoping

 Preparation of the annual CIP
 Procurement and contract management activities
 Management of contract contingency
 Project budget transfers
1
MARTA’s Senior Director of Contracts and Procurement resigned from the position in December 2014.

In order to assist in analyzing MARTA’s CIP process and to develop recommendations for
improvement, the review team requested a copy of the current process utilized by the Agency. In
addition, the review team requested a copy of the evaluation process for CIP projects.2
With regard to the Project Origination Process (POD), when a project is proposed, project
documents are developed and presented to the Capital Improvement Committee (CIC). There is a
new project form that has twenty-seven (27) inputs, and each input is loaded into the system;
Expert Choice, which weighs and ranks capital projects. Expert Choice has been in place for two
years, and ranks projects by priority. Prior to the implementation of Expert Choice, a formal
ranking system was not a part of the CIP process. During the interview process, several staff
noted that certain projects are ranked higher for political reasons.
1.4 Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Consultants (MATC)

MATC is an Atlanta-based joint venture that serves as MARTA’s General Engineering
Consultant (GEC). Projects are delivered through MATC’s GEC program to support MARTA’s
capital program. Under a multi-year agreement MATC provides design, engineering,
construction management and administration services to support the planning, development,
repair, maintenance and improvement of MARTA’s system.
In June 2007, MARTA’s Board approved the selection of two teams to provide GEC services in
support of MARTA’s long-range CIP. MATC was selected to provide GEC services associated
with track and systems, and Metro Atlanta Transit Team (MATT) was selected to provide
service associated with buildings and structures, beginning 2008. In June 2012, the GEC teams
combined resources under the MATC organization to improve the GEC program efficiency and
to reduce cost.
MATC’s contract term consists of a five-year base period with five one-year options. In May
2014, MARTA exercised option year three of the GEC contract with MATC, and provided
funding authorization for the GEC contract in support of the delivery/execution of MARTA’s
FY2015 CIP, in an estimated amount not to exceed $28,752,000 as follows:
Figure 1.1: MATC FY 2015 GEC Services

GEC Services FY2015 Estimate
Design $5,493,000
Engineering Services $1,670,000
Design Services During Construction $6,260,000
Construction Management $6,447,000
Technical Support $8,882,000
Total $28,752,000
Services provided by the joint venture include:

 Technical studies and analyses
 Design and engineering of equipment and systems
 Design services that may be required during construction, installation, rehabilitation
2
CIP Project Evaluation Criteria (Including Current Year’s Project Ranking and Related Analysis)

 Construction management services
 Construction and contract administration
 Safety monitoring and quality control
 design management services during design and installation of equipment
MATC is comprised of over 20 companies and provides single-point management of on-site and
off-site staff who provide services to departments within MARTA. Invoices are consolidated and
MARTA administers all MATC services with a single contract administrator. Work orders are
also consolidated. The joint venture is comprised of three (3) major firms; Williams-Russell and
Johnson, AECOM, and Atkins North America, with 20-40 consultants. During fiscal year 2015,
the joint venture will be engaged in 105 work orders issued by MARTA.3 Approximately 40-50
contractors work off-site and 100 contractors work at the MARTA Annex facility.
The existing DBE goal is 25% for the base GEC contract and applies to any option years and
activities required for the delivery and execution of the CIP. MATC develops Scopes of Work
for capital projects in collaboration with MARTA’s Project Manager. A standard labor hourly
rate cap of $125 per hour is utilized by MARTA; however, for specialized scopes a higher rate
may be justified based on “unique” qualifications and experience of the consultant candidate.
Approval of the rate requires a GCPS Justification Form approved by a MARTA Chief
Management Officer and CFO. The GCPS Rate Justification Form must include the individual’s
name, employer, education, years of experience, unique qualifications and relevant tasks and or
deliverables.4 MARTA’s GCPS Work Orders Procedure requires the Work Order packages
prepared by the CSTR to include an “Independent Labor Hour Estimate.”
Section 14(a) of the MARTA Act provides that requirements for competitive biddings shall not
apply to contracts for professional services or personal services of employees, such as engineers
and architects (and attorneys or accountants). The Brooks Act requires that, when seeking
architectural or engineering services, demonstrated professional competence and qualifications
shall be utilized as the basis for the selection of the most qualified firm. The review team
discussed the following key focal areas with MATC personnel regarding the CIP process:
 Policies and procedures

 Work orders
 Monitoring and oversight
Technical functions are handled by David Springstead, MARTA’s Senior Director Engineering
and Development, and Richard Krisak, COO. Contracting is handled by Gordon Hutchison,
CFO, the Senior Director CPM, and Liz O’Neill, Chief Legal Counsel. Auditing is performed by
Terry Thompson, AGM Auditing. MATC submits one consolidated invoice to MARTA which
includes all information from all consultants. This information contains overhead rates, hours,
and deliverables. MARTA verifies this invoice prior to payment. The results of the review
team’s findings are shown in Chapter 4 of this report.
3
Work Order Issuance Log for MATC: Master Work Order Log for FY 2015.
4
MARTA GCPS Work Orders Procedure: Revision 2. Issues Date: 2/20/14.

Figure 1.2: MATC FY 2015 Organization Chart

1.5 Intueor Consulting
Intueor is a management and business technology consulting firm who role is to support
MARTA’s implementation of enhanced project controls and project management processes
Authority-wide in support of CIP execution. The firm also provides technical expertise for
MARTA’s RFP process and vendor selection. Intueor utilizes SharePoint; which is a Cloud-
based collaboration software which shares CIP documents and information, to support project
controls and the project management process.
On May 29, 2014 MARTA’s Board of Directors approved the award of a GCPS contract for the
fiscal year 2015 (FY 2015) period of performance, which is July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015.
The work order was approved for fourteen (14) individual contractors inclusive of rate
justifications and travel allowances. For FY 2015, Intueor was allotted $5,000,000.00 for their
consultants’ labor and travel.
To determine the budget for Intueor, the GCPS budget for the fiscal year is approved by
MARTA’s Board of Directors; however, individual departments determine the amount needed
for the fiscal year and for presentation to the Board. Once the budget is approved for a
department; the GCPS Manager determines the amount of each vendor’s budget based on the
number of consultants, and each consultant’s hourly rate. Because Intueor is allotted travel
expenses by MARTA, these funds are also considered when determining the vendor’s budget for
the fiscal year. Intueor’s travel budget is determined by the Operations Department (Tesa
Gonzales, Dave Springstead, MK Khuman), which is the only department that has a budget
expense in the GCPS Program. Once the budget for each Intueor consultant is determined, it is
then approved by MARTA’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) and then forwarded to MARTA’s
Chief Financial Officer (CFO) for approval. The budget is then forwarded to the GCPS Manager
(LaTonya Pouncey).
Intueor’s Scope of Work includes the following key deliverables:
 Configuration of Primavera P6 environment to support schedule control for monitoring

the FY15 CIP
 Transform capital accounting and financial management processes
 Transform capital procurement and contract change management processes
 Design interfaces between Primavera P6 and Oracle eBusiness suite
 Prepare, implement and monitor performance indicators
 Deploy FASuite Capital Planning Module
 Support FY16 budgeting process
 Define and prepare plan for implementing centralized project delivery organization
 Manage PD/PC improvement initiative
 Train Control Systems Upgrade (TCSU)

MARTA requires all GCPS contractors to work only on projects that are assigned on their
present work order. GCPS contractors are terminated by MARTA from a contract if the
following occurs:
 The GCPS contractor’s projected hours have been depleted

 The GCPS contractor’s current projects have been completed
In addition, GCPS contractors must adhere to the following MARTA rules and regulations that
went into effect on April 1, 2013:
 All GSPS contractors will only be compensated for hours worked on site
 GCPS contractors can charge only to the projects that are on their present work
order. When the allocated funds are depleted from the specific project (on the
work order), the contract will be immediately terminated
 MARTA will not compensate GCPS contractors working remotely. The only
exception is if the contractor has authorization to travel on MARTA’s behalf and
the consultant is charging time while on a business trip
 MARTA will not compensate vendors for GCPS Technology Contractor’s

training or conferences
Compensation for work authorized by MARTA is in accordance with each consultant’s GSA
schedule and hourly rate, and actual hours worked. Payment applications are submitted monthly
to MARTA and must include the following information:
 Vendor Purchase Order Number

 Work Order Number
 Project Task Number
MARTA requires invoices to include a breakdown of individual contractor billable time worked
and project accounts. Travel authorized by MARTA includes airfare, lodging, and meals paid in
accordance with GSA FY 2015 per diem rates for Atlanta, Georgia. MARTA requires
“appropriate” travel to be submitted with the monthly invoice.
MARTA also requires a weekly Progress Report to be submitted in Replicon inclusive of all
deliverables completed in the contract, along with the time that is billed for the week. Replicon is
a software tool that captures billable time, and tracks time and costs spent on projects.
MARTA requires an Overtime Justification Form and MARTA management signatures from the
AGM/Director if a contractor exceeds 37.5 hours in a regular work week. MARTA is planning
to migrate functions to internal staff such as Project Control functions that are currently being
performed by Intueor.

1.6 Capital Improvement Committee (CIC)
The CIC is the governance structure responsible for managing the planning and execution of
MARTA’s CIP; including the on-going monitoring and reporting of individual project status and
overall program status.
The CIC meets and reviews capital projects and creates a project list which is submitted to
MARTA’s GM/CEO, who submits a final list of capital projects the MARTA Board. The CIC
functions in an advisory capacity and makes recommendations to executive staff; however, there
is no enforcement authority.
The CIC is comprised of MARTA employees. MATC and Intueor participate in the meetings;
however, they are not permitted to vote on the scoring, ranking and prioritization of projects. The
review team requested a copy the CIC’s policies and procedures, by-laws, role of members and a
list of current members/officers of the CIC.
MARTA provided a copy of the CIC’s “Governance Framework for Capital Improvement
Program” Version 1.0-Draft dated September 2011; however, the document pertains to Capital
Improvement Program Delivery Committee, which is a “proposed expansion” of the CIC.
Based on interviews, CIC has not conducted any meetings recently and committee members
interviewed stated that they had not received any orientation or training or their duties and
responsibilities. A list of nineteen (19) committee members was provided to the review team:
Members:
Beasley, Cynthia Moss Jones, Walter M.

Elsberry, Tim Krisak, Connie
Gonzales, Tesa Minnucci, Patrick
Greene, Aston Montgomery, Willie (Monty)
Guida, Bernard Saintil, Remy
Hamilton, Diane Springstead, David
Hembree, Rod Squire, Vivian
Holt, Nicolle Taylor, William
His, Ming Williams, Donald
Hurley, Kevin L.
The above list provided does not provide members’ titles/position within the Agency,
departments or officers of the CIC.

Chapter 2: Approach and Methodology
McCloud Transportation initiated the assessment by conducting an Entry Meeting with

MARTA’s Project Manager/Assistant GM Internal Audit, to review the Scope of Work and the
approach to conducting the analysis and Work Plan.
The Work Plan included multiple components to achieve the goals of the project, and to conduct
a comprehensive review of the CIP process. Key highlights of our Approach and Methodology to
the project included the following:
1. Desk Audit/Documents Review- the review team requested a list of documents relevant to
MARTA CIP process that policies and procedures, organization charts, flow charts, CIC
roles, etc. The purpose of the desk review was to evaluate and assess MARTA’s current
CIP processes. Over 175 documents were emanated and derived from the list of requested
documents.
Figure 2.0: List of Requested Documents

2. On-Site Visit- the review team conducted a 5-day on-site visit to MARTA on Monday,
October 27-Friday, October 31, 2014 to conduct MARTA staff and CIP contractor
interviews and observations.
3. Entry Meeting- prior to the initiation and lick-off of the assessment, an Entry Meeting
was conducted to introduce members of the review team and MARTA staff, and to
discuss the Work Plan, milestones, and project deliverables.
4. In-Person Interviews- the review team conducted over 84 interviews during the 5-day site
visit with MARTA staff and CIP contractors utilizing customized questionnaires.
Interviews included MARTA’s Corporate Team and Executive Management Team, and
CIP contractors; MATC and Intueor to identify weaknesses in the CIP process and ways
to enhance it. In addition, a telephone interview was conducted with MARTA’s General
Manager/CEO. Over fifteen (16) departments, offices and functional areas were
represented in the interview process.
5. Customized Questionnaires – McCloud Transportation developed customized

questionnaires based upon each person’s role in the CIP process. This tailored approach
to interviews results in a robust pool of data and information regarding the CIP process.
6. Review of FTA Capital Program Requirements- a review of MARTA’s most recent FTA
Triennial Review conducted on October 7-9, 2013 was examined to identify any
deficiencies and/or repeat findings relevant to the CIP process.
7. Exit Meeting- upon conclusion of the on-site visit, the review team provided a de-brief to
MARTA staff to present a summary of preliminary findings and observations.
8. CIP Organizational Analysis- an organizational analysis was conducted of MARTA’s

department and offices supporting the capital program.
9. Peer Review and Industry Best Practices- the review team conducted a peer review of the
CIP process of several multimodal transit systems to identify ways to enhance MARTA’s
current CIP process. Transit agencies were selected with proven processes for effective
service provided by internal staff and external consultants
10. On-going Project Updates – McCloud Transportation conducted weekly conference calls
with the review team and provided MARTA’s project manager with on-going project
updates throughout the project.
11. Progress Report- McCloud Transportation prepared and submitted to MARTA a Progress
Report that provided a summary of activities and milestone achieved since inception of
the project.
12. Final Report- the Final Report includes deficiencies, and recommendations for
strengthening the CIP process.

2.1 Key Focal Areas of the Assessment
The key focal areas of the assessment included the following elements:
1. Procurement Violations
The review team conducted an assessment of MATC to evaluate whether MATC is
appropriately utilizing and promoting full, open and competitive solicitations. The review
team also examined the CIP process to evaluate whether CIP consultants are adhering to
MARTA’s Scopes of Work (SOW), instead of developing their own SOWs. Independent
estimates are a key component that promotes integrity of the CIP process. The review team
evaluated if a third party provides “check estimates” to reduce MARTA’s exposure to
procurement violations. With regard to Buy America for state GSA-type contracts, the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires transit agencies such as MARTA to consider
the full contract amount, not the amount of its purchase when determining whether Buy
America requirements apply to those purchases. The team also evaluated compliance with
FTA requirements.
2. Work Order Deficiencies

The review team evaluated the duration of work orders and whether they are based on the
original scope of work, and whether work orders contained hours per task and/or deadlines
with clearly defined deliverables to enhance accountability.
3. Deliverables and Status Updates

The review team evaluated whether payments are being made by MARTA that includes a
“milestone verification procedure” performed as a part of monthly progress payments.
4. Travel Deficiencies
The review team evaluated whether travel fees are being paid by MARTA for full-time
consultants to commute to MARTA from out-of-state, and whether there is a limit for the
number of hours that can be billed for remote work. The review team also identified
whether full-time consultants are being paid to work remotely,
5. Transition Plan
The review team conducted assessments to determine if there is a process in place to
transition or replace out-of-state consultants. The review also evaluated the presence of an
in-house training program of MARTA employees assigned to the capital projects. In
addition, the review team evaluated the use of local talent for capital projects.
6. Scope Creep
The review team evaluated whether scopes of work being expanded with additional dollars
allocated. Typically, if there is a change in project scope and/or certain percentage change in
cost; i.e. 20%, the contractor will be required to submit documentation/justification in a
timely manner after the change(s) is/are identified. In addition, the contractor is required to
submit documentation and justification of the change(s) to a review entity for their review
and approval.

7. Project Oversight
The review team examined whether projects are being correctly charged by consultants, and
whether cross-departmental coordination is in place to avoid inefficient expenditures. The
process for ensuring that consultants are charging MARTA only for projects they are
working on was also examined. The presence of checks and balances that are continually
audited for accountability were also examined, along with evaluation of the use of Milestone
Progress Reports, and whether reports contain reasonable explanation for budget and/or
schedule variances.
The review team discussed the following key focal areas with MATC and Intueor personnel
regarding the CIP process:
 Policies and procedures

 Work orders and invoices
 Monitoring and oversight
 Selection of consultants
The review team discussed the following key focal areas with MATC personnel regarding the
CIP process:
 CIP policies and procedures

 GCPS consultants and contractors
 Monitoring, reporting and communication
 Staffing and expertise
 Work orders, changes orders, and deliverables
McCloud Transportation evaluated MARTA’s internal staff controls, the CIC, and project
management for the CIP process including the following internal departments that provide
support and management of the CIP process:
 Contracts & Procurement and Materials (CPM)

 Engineering and Development (E&D)
 Planning/Architecture and Design
 Program and Contract Management
 Operations
 Finance/Treasury and Capital Programs
 Technology
 Quality Assurance
 Police Operations

Chapter 3: Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Consultants (MATC)
MARTA has a continuing need for general engineering and related services to support the
Capital Improvement Plan. Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Consultants (MATC) plays an
important role in supporting MARTA’s CIP and project delivery. The MATC General
Engineering Consultant (GEC) also allows MARTA to more readily ramp-up skill levels
utilizing a diverse pool of resources of more than (20) twenty firms to meet specific project
needs that require specialized skills.
MATC is a joint venture of three (3) firms; AECOM, Williams Russell and Johnson, and Atkins.
There are approximately 26 sub-consultants. The MARTA Board sets a dollar threshold which
cannot be exceeded for annual project spending. There is also a numeric threshold for consultant
participation. Projects are charged by consultants based on an approved hourly rate.
Section 14(a) of the MARTA Act provides that the requirements for competitive bidding shall
not apply to contracts for professional services or the personal services of employees (i.e.
engineers and architects). The Brooks Act requires that when seeking architectural or
engineering services, demonstrated professional competence and qualifications shall be utilized
as the basis for the selection of the most qualified firm.
For accountability of the project execution process, a Project Manager is responsible for each
work order, budget and scope. MARTA requires staff to reviews milestones and deliverables to
verify project completion before approval for payment. MATC is paid on hourly basis (unit cost
payment) based on a percentage of deliverables completed.
Below are key findings and recommendations from interviews, observations and document
reviews pertaining to MARTA’s GEC contractor; MATC.
3.1 Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1:
There is no evidence of a formal standard operating procedure for verification of completion of
milestones from which payments are made to contractors.
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should establish milestones for design and construction projects, and set criteria for
verification of all milestones and use this as a mechanism for substantiating payments.
Finding 2:
Independent labor hour estimates (ILHE) do not appear to be consistently obtained. When asked
how independent estimates are obtained, MATC staff responded that estimators are “available”
to MARTA if requested. MARTA’s GCPS work order procedures requires the work order
package to include an ILHE.
Recommendation 2:
Independent estimates should be consistently conducted according to Section 3.1.3 Independent
Labor Hour Estimate (ILHE) as outlined in the GCPS Work Orders Procedure.

Finding 3:
MATC’s Master Work Order Log for FY 2015, do not contain hours per task. The FY 2015
period of performance is shown (July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015); however, the work order log
does not contain deadlines or clearly defined deliverables.
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should modify MATC’s Work Order Log format so that the dates of deliverables are
clearly defined. MARTA should also insert a column for hours per task. The term “Ball in
Court” shown on the Work Order should be changed to a more descriptive term; for example,
“current location of the work order.” Please see Figure 3.0 MATC Work Order Issuance Log for
FY15.
Finding 4:
The process to pay a MATC invoice is lengthy and payment takes approximately (90) days from
MARTA’s receipt of the invoice. A typical monthly invoice includes work orders from all
consultants and is 1,000 pages long. MARTA then sends the invoice to each Project Manager for
approval of payment to verify hours, the invoice amount and deliverables. Sign-off for payment
must navigate through several departments for processing. Milestones are measured by
percentage of project completion. If there is a change in budget or scope, the invoice is not paid
and is returned to the next cycle for payment.
Recommendation 4:
MARTA should streamline the process for payment of MATC invoices. Payment process should
be automated to allow reviewers to check off their respective areas and forward via electronic
systems to process payment. MATC and MARTA’s CPM department should work together to
create a more efficient system for evaluating and reviewing invoices for payment. This should
include revising forms to include required information.
Finding 5:
MATC appears to define its own scope of work, hours and deliverables as the project progresses.
Based on staff interviews with CPM, several staff stated that MARTA’s engineers and MATC
“seem to never put an end to contract specifications.” Also, there is a perception that MATC
handpicks consultants for work orders. Based on interviews with MATC, consultants are selected
with “specialties” in the areas of Engineering, Systems, Communications, Rail design, and
Inspectors.
Recommendation 5:
MARTA should not allow MATC to develop its own Scope of Work. Doing so creates a conflict of
interest and could result in budget overruns. MARTA should require the Scope of Work, hours
and deliverables to be assigned before the project begin; not after the project is underway.
Contract specifications should not be a moving target; but should instead have clearly
delineated deliverables and due dates. MARTA should ensure that MATC is in full compliance
with requirements for competitive bidding where applicable. Note: Competitive bidding does not
apply to contracts for professional services (i.e. engineers and architects).

The Brooks Act also requires that when seeking architectural or engineering services,
demonstrated professional competence and qualifications shall be utilized as the basis for the
selection of the most qualified firm.
Finding 6:
Project meetings are held; however “minutes” or meeting summaries are not generated.
Recommendation 6:
MARTA should require its GEC consultants to provide written meeting notes to document the
proceedings of the meeting and items requiring action.
Finding 7:
Money authorized for projects is not being spent, and task orders are not being executed; for
example, in FY2015, thirty (30) work orders sat on the desk of MARTA staff.
Recommendation 7:
To avoid penalties, MARTA should make efforts to utilize programmed CIP dollars, and execute
task orders for which Bonds were issued for funds. CPM should conduct due diligence on work
orders and approve work orders and invoices only when they meet MARTA’s requirements;
however in an effective and expeditious manner. Payment of invoices should not be made without
verification of required deliverables. For transparency, on-going meetings should be conducted
to discuss project status and to remain proactive in project management.
Finding 8:
Work orders do not contain hours per task, deadlines and clearly defined deliverables. Look at a
work order. During staff interviews, it was stated that hours are assigned as the project
progresses, and then deliverables are assigned within the scope. Regarding the selection of
consultants for work orders, staff stated that MARTA does performs as much of the work as
possible, and then assign work orders for areas of specialties (Engineering, Systems,
Communications, Rail design, Inspectors) which are performed by consultants.
Recommendation 8:
MARTA should ensure that MATC work orders contain hours per task, deadlines and clearly
defined deliverables.
Finding 9:
Work scopes are poorly written and are not or well-defined, which result in schedule delays and
cost over-runs.
Recommendation 9:
MARTA should ensure that work scopes are well-developed with clearly deliverables/dates.
Finding 10:
Project Management professional training is needed.
Recommendation 10:
MARTA should provide training for its project managers to better serve GCPS contractors.

Figure 3.0: MATC Work Order Issuance Log for FY 2015

Chapter 4: Intueor Consultants
Effective April 1, 2013, MARTA implemented new rules and regulations relevant to the
compensation of GCPS (Intueor) contractors as follows:
 All GCPS contractors will be compensated only for hours worked on site
 GCPS contractors can only charge to projects that are on their present work order. When
the allocated funds are depleted from the specific project (on the work order), the contract
will be immediately terminated
 MARTA will not compensate GCPS contractors working remotely. The only exception is
if the contractor has authorization to travel for MARTA and the consultant is charging
time while on a business trip
 MARTA will not compensate GCPS contractors while out of the office (at training,
conferences, etc.)
 MARTA will not compensate vendors for GCPS Technology contractor’s training or
conferences
Below are the key findings and recommendations from interviews, observations and document
reviews pertaining to Intueor.

Finding 1:
A majority of the consultants from Intueor are working without a valid work order. In
accordance with MARTA’s policies, work orders are not valid unless the vendor signs
agreeing to all of MARTA’s terms and conditions. Intueor objected to some aspects of the work
orders and MARTA made modifications; however; the signed work orders were never returned
to CPM (LaTonya Thompson, GCPS Manager-Contract Specialist).
Also, Mr. Vijay Mididaddi of Intueor informed MARTA that he would not sign the FY14 work
orders until MARTA changed the verbiage to allow Intueor’s team to work remotely, which
would violate MARTA’s April 1, 2013 rules and regulations which state “MARTA will not
compensate GCPS contractors working remotely.” Please see Figure 4.0: October 22, 2014
Memo: “Concern: FY15 Work Orders Needed W/Sig.”
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should adhere to its own rules and regulations that became effective on April 1, 2013,
for compensation of GCPS contractors. MARTA should also adhere to its procedures for GCPS
Work Orders issued on February 20, 2014.5 MARTA should not allow consultants to work
without a valid signed and fully executed work order acknowledging agreement with MARTA’s
terms and conditions. All modifications to work orders should be in writing and signed by all
parties before starting work. MARTA should not pay for work performed without proper
approvals.
5
MARTA GCPS Work Orders Procedure: Revision No. 2; Issue Date-2/20/14. Prepared by Lisa DeGrace; Approved by
Gordon Hutchinson.

Finding 2:
Travel Allowance Justification Forms for FY 2015 (July 1- June 30, 2015) are being submitted
by Intueor for individual consultants for amounts as high as $15,000 per subcontractor for the FY
2015 fiscal year period. Travel allowances are being approved by the COO and CFO without any
apparent follow-up or documentation. GCPS Travel Allowance Justification Forms approved by
MARTA for 12 Intueor contractors totaling $137,500 were examined by the review team. In
several instances Intueor requested and obtained approval from MARTA for both a travel
allowance and rate increase for the same consultant. Intueor’s travel budget is determined by
MARTA’s Operations Department (Tesa Gonzales, David Springstead) and MK Khuman
(contractor). The Operations department is the only department that has a budget expense in the
GCPS Program. Once the budget for each Intueor consultant is determined, it is then approved
by MARTA’s COO (Rich Krisak), forwarded to MARTA’s CFO (Gordon Hutchinson) for
approval and then forwarded to the GCPS Manager, (LaTonya Pouncey). Please see Figure 4.1:
“GCPS Travel Allowance Justification Form.”
Recommendation 2:
MARTA should conduct an independent cost analysis of Intueor’s travel budget. Allowing
Intueor staff to participate in determining the budget also lends itself to a conflict of interest
whether real or perceived. MARTA should require Intueor to submit “Trip Reports” and other
documentation such as receipt that documents travel totaling the amount being paid by MARTA
for each trip and contractor. “Reason for travel “provided by Intueor such as “ transfer of
knowledge to MARTA staff of CIP Decision model and Expert Choice software” and “provide
research and lessons learned from peer agencies” should be followed up on including
documentation of hours of training by topic along with the names of MARTA employees who
received the training. MARTA should also require Intueor to utilize technology such as
“webinars” and online meetings to conduct “team status meetings” and to “monitor progress”
on projects. Vague justifications such as “audit as needed” should not be accepted by MARTA.
MARTA should require Intueor to conduct “Peer Agency Industry Reviews” by telephone and
surveys of peers to the extent possible to minimize travel costs.
Finding 3:
Rate Justification Forms were submitted by Intueor to MARTA for seven (7) individual
consultants requesting exceptions for the standard labor cap of $125 per hour to an increased
rate of $160 per hour, which represents a 28% cost increase over the standard labor rate. Aside
from providing resumes of the individuals, there is no real justification for rate increase, which
was approved by MARTA’s COO and CFO. The total number of hours and cost of the exception
is not shown on the form. In several instances Intueor requested and obtained approval from
MARTA for both a travel and rate increase allowance for the same consultant. Please see Figure
4.2: “GCPS Rate Justification Form.”
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should modify the Rate Justification Form to include the total number of approved
project hours per contractor and allocated amount, just as the GCPS Travel Allowance
Justification Form shows the total travel amount for the fiscal year. A rate survey should be
conducted of consultants by an independent MARTA entity (i.e. HR) prior to a rate increase. This
will determine if a rate increase is justified based on local consultants with comparable skills.

Finding 4:
MARTA’s Rate Justification Form does not have a date of approval by the Chief Management
Official (CMO) and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The form also lacks a Work Order
Number.
Recommendation 5:
MARTA should revise the Rate Justification Form to include a date in which the document was
approved by both the CMO and CFO and a Work Order Number.
Finding 6:
MARTA’s Travel Justification Form does not have a date of approval by the CMO and CFO.
The form also lacks a Work Order Number.
Recommendation 6:
MARTA should revise the Travel Justification Form to include a date in which the document was
approved by both the CMO and CFO and a Work Order Number.
Finding 7:
MARTA is circumventing its own policy, which became effective April 1, 2013 regarding
compensation of GCPS contractors. It appears that the Operations team does not adhere to
MARTA’s GCPS Policies and Procedures. For example, Operations continue to:
• Request travel allowances which are eventually approved

• Request rate justifications which are eventually approved
• Requests to work remotely
Recommendation 7:
MARTA should re-assign the function of approving Intueor’s travel and rate justifications from
the Operations Department to the Finance Department who would have more insight on
financial impact of such requests.
Finding 8:
It appears there is no standardized Request for Proposal (RFP) process for MARTA’s Capital
Improvement Program. Also, the project scoring process is inconsistent.
Recommendation 8:
MARTA should develop a standardized RFP process that is consistent with program objectives
and creates a competitive program participant and project selection process.
Finding 9:
Intueor in an e-mail requested the wording of the work order wording to be altered. MARTA
advised Intueor that CPM will not be able to alter the wording of the task order and reiterated
that their team could not exceed the allotted hours for the month otherwise they would have to
provide overtime justification forms for all the contractors who exceed the monthly billable
hours.

Recommendation 9:
MARTA should ensure that Intueor understands the policies and procedures in place at MARTA
affecting a task order once written and approved in a contract. CPM is becoming pro-active in
not allowing any changes without proper justification forms for all contractors who exceed the
monthly billable hours.
Finding 10:
There is a lack of accountability, and commitment to on-time, on-budget practices. MARTA’s
GCPS contractors; MATC and Intueor appear to have open-ended and large amounts of
flexibility in CIP projects.
Recommendation 10:
MARTA should ensure that controls are in place to increase accountability of CIP projects.
Finding 11:
To track the budget, a Contractor Payment Record is utilized by the GCPS Manager to ensure
that no consultant exceeds the authorized amount; however, the document is not itemized by
authorized travel amount or authorized labor rate. Please see Figure 4.1 and Figure 4.2:
Contractor Payment Record.
Recommendation 11:
MARTA should add columns to the payment records for authorized travel and labor amounts.
Finding 12:
Intueor violated MARTA’s policies by utilizing an unauthorized, non-approved consultant
(Terry Stimson) and firm (Tek Systems) to perform MARTA work. See Figure 4.4:
Unauthorized Consultant and Firm)
Recommendation 12:
MARTA should require Intueor to strictly adhere to the use of MARTA-approved consultants and
firms.

Figuret 4.0: Memo: FY15 Work Orders Needing Signatures

Figure 4.1: Contractor Payment Record

Figuret 4.2: Contractor Payment Record
Figure 4.3: FY 2015 Intueor Travel and Rate Justification Form

Figure 4.3: Rate Justification Form

Figure 4.4:Authorized Contractors

Chapter 5: Capital Improvement Committee (CIC)
Below are findings and recommendations based on interviews with members of the CIC and
review of CIC documents:

Finding 1:
CIC members do not appear to receive training to enhance members’ understanding of the CIP
process; i.e. MARTA policies and procedures, role of GCPS contractors, monitoring and
oversights, project ranking, project implementation and delivery.
Recommendation 1:
CIC member training and orientation should be provided to enhance members’ understanding of
MARTA’s CIP process.
Finding 2:
The CIC is not fully involved in decisions relevant to the CIP process; which weakens the value
and strength of the CIC. Also CIC members are not provided orientation or training on CIP
processes.
Recommendation 2:
The policies, procedures and bylaws of the CIC should be adhered to in order to fully engaged
CIC members in the CIP process. The committee should also be provided regular updates on
active capital projects and project schedules.
Finding 3:
The CIC document provided to the review team is a draft document dated September 7, 2011.
The document is outdated, contains positions that do not exist at MARTA; for example, Deputy
General Manager/Chief Operating Officer. Also, the document contains members who are no
longer with MARTA. The document does not list the tiles of members or offices held; i.e.
Chairman, etc. The document includes “proposed new roles” such as Project Controls, Project
and Construction Management
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should revise and update the current draft CIC document and formally approve it. New
members should also be appointed.
Finding 4:
Long-term projects are not ranked as well as more immediate needs.
Recommendation 4:
Long-term projects should be ranked as thoroughly and comprehensively as short-term projects.

Chapter 6: Contracts & Procurement and Materials (CPM)
The Contracts & Procurement and Materials (CPM) office serves as the central procurement arm
of MARTA. CPM provides functions and responsibilities that include procurement and contract
management support for the delivery of the capital program. The most recent CPM Policy and
Procedures Manual is dated March 2012; however, a draft update, which has not been adopted
by MARTA, was developed by MARTA’s former Director of CPM. A Triennial Review was
conducted by the FTA in October 2013 in which there were no findings of deficiency. Based on
the review team’s assessment of the approved March 2012 manual, MARTA’s procurement
procedures appear to conform to applicable federal laws.
In accordance with the MARTA Act; Section 14(a), the requirements for competitive bidding
shall not apply to contracts for professional services or the personal services of employees, such
as engineer and architects. The Brooks Act requires that, when seeking architectural or
engineering services, demonstrated professional competence and qualifications shall be utilized
as the basis for the selection of the most qualified firm. The contracting threshold was recently
increased to authorize the General Manager/CEO authorization to approve contracts up to
$200,000. The previous amount was $100,000. In addition, sole source and proprietary vendors
are utilized as needed. According to policy, if a vendor participates in the development of a
Work Scope for capital projects, the vendor cannot compete on the project. This is to ensure that
a firm does not develop its own Scope of Work for capital projects.
MARTA has experienced some change orders to FTA-funded procurements due to inadequate
preliminary planning. MARTA has in the past, submitted a Buy America waiver request, or
experienced Buy America concerns relevant to the Buckhead Bridge Project (electronics). On
one occasion in October 2014, FTA decided not to participate in a procurement due to
MARTA’s failure to comply with FTA procurement requirements relevant to the purchase of
paratransit vehicles from a consortium bid.
At the time of the review, CPM had numerous vacant positions that are crucial to the CIP
process. Based on an interview with the Senior Director, CPM, the department was transitioning
to function more effectively by enhancing communication with all departments for greater
efficiency. This plan was to be phased in over the next few months with the hiring of staff and
creating new position titles that establishes a more dynamic CPM department.
The review team requested and received a copy of MARTA’s GCPS work order process, which
was revised by the office of CPM on February 20, 2014. The document; GCPS Work Order
Procedures6, defines the steps required to complete a GCPS work order and process invoices.
Work orders are required to be negotiated for any work performed under the MATC contract in
accordance with the terms of the work orders.
6
Procedure: GCPS Work Orders: Reference: 10.1.154, Revision No. 2. Issue Date- 2/20/14. Prepared by Lisa
DeGrace. Approved by Gordon Hutchinson.

The key roles and responsibilities of the Work Order process are:
 Contract Specialist (CS) - authorized to act on behalf of MARTA in concert with the
Contract Specialist Technical Representative (CSTR) to modify contract terms,
conditions, requirements and delivery schedules. Work undertaken without prior written
approval from the CS is subject to non-payment.
 Contract Specialist Technical Representative (CSTR) – the CSTR (Information

Technology) representative is responsible for management of the work order, and serves
as the technical contract representative for work orders. The CSTR provides technical
direction and advice to the CS and consultants on all contract-level issues, assists in the
resolution of major issues, and maintains communication. In addition, the CSTR
interprets technical requirements, reviews and recommends approval of work order
requirements and supporting documentation, negotiates resource needs and hours, and
specifies performance extensions and modification. The CSR also directs the work of the
consultant or implements and manages the accomplishment of the work order. The CSTR
reviews and manages, and recommends approval of timesheets and progress reports,
tracks consultant’s performance, adherence to cost, schedule and status reports, and
provides overall work order management.
 Chief Management Official (CMO) - the CMO responsible for the discipline is
authorized to execute work orders on behalf of MARTA.
 Consultant- responsible for submitting proposals with the necessary breakdowns,

participating in applicable negotiations, executing final work orders, responding to
requests for modifications and submitting invoices in accordance with MARTA’s
requirements.
To ensure that work orders contain hours per task and project deadlines, all work orders must be
reviewed prior to being paid by each Project Manager. Without this signoff, work orders are not
processed for payment.

During the interview process, several staff stated they were fearful to “speak up” to their direct
reports when they observe inappropriate actions regarding the CIP process, due to fear of
retaliation and ultimately job loss. During interviews, several employees expressed concern for
the lack of compliance with MARTA’s policies by staff at different levels.
Finding 1:
CPM’s three business units; Contracts, Materials Management, and Administrative Support
function as silos acting independently of each other, which generates an adverse impact on the
continuity of CPM and services rendered to internal MARTA customers.
Recommendation 1:
The CPM department’s three business units should work collaboratively in a way that optimizes
service provided to MARTA’s internal customers.

Finding 2:
On June 30, 2014 MARTA’s GCPS Manager/Contract Specialist (LaTonya Thompson) rejected
eleven (11) Intueor GCPS work orders that were submitted to CPM. The work orders did not
meet MARTA’s GCPS guidelines and could not be processed. Based on the memo, deficiencies
included work orders submitted for individuals who were not approved GCPS contractors,
lacked travel justification forms and rate justification forms, work orders assigned to preferred
vendors that had not undergone the proper solicitation process, work orders with mathematical
errors, and work orders incorrectly completed. Also, there was a work order that showed David
Gonzalez as the PM; however the signature page showed Tesa Gonzalez as the PM. Please see
Figure 6.0: June 30, 2014 Memo to Dave Springstead from LaTonya P. Thompson.
Recommendation 2:
MARTA should ensure that all Intueor work orders meet MARTA’s guidelines prior to
submittal for payment. Payment should not be made for work orders that do not conform to
MARTA’s requirements.
Finding 3:
The process of verification of deliverables before payment to GCPS contractors is a manual
process with too many signatures. Also, the manual paper-driven process results in errors.
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should streamline the process for verification of deliverables without compromising the
integrity of the process. MARTA has numerous technology resources that are under-utilized such
as the current Replicon system that is currently being used to track time. Replicon can also be
utilized to improve project costing and to easily track time spent on projects for improved
forecasting and capacity planning.
Finding 4:
CIP processes are being performed manually with numerous signatures required, and as the
result, information gets lost in the progression of documents.
Recommendation 4:
MARTA should reduce paper processing and upgrade to electronic systems allowing for the
flow of information and exchange of statistics throughout the organization. This will accelerate
the exchange of information by all departments within MARTA.
Finding 5:
Budgeted CIP funds frequently are not used due to bottlenecks in the CIP process. Bonds are let
and projects are not implemented.
Recommendation 5:
MARTA staff should improve its CIP forecasting to accurately plan for annual capital projects.
Staff should also identify and review projects to be funded and implemented within the budget
year that require bonding. Staff crucial to accomplish the capital project should be a part of the
process before committing to the projects and funding, thus reducing penalties for excessive
Bonds.

Finding 6:
Projects are complex and staff does not have the knowledge. CPM staff is not familiar with the
Expert Choice decision-making tool. Intueor’s Travel Justification Form states “knowledge
transfer on the use of Expert Choice” is being provided; however the names of trainees who
received the training was not provided
Recommendation 6:
To better assist internal and external customers (GCPS contractors), MARTA should continue
the development of its plan to utilize internal resources, and the use of local talent for CIP
projects. Training of internal staff should be expedited to better utilize MARTA’s internal
resources. Staff should also be trained to acquire expertise in the use of Expert Choice decision-
making software. This should also result in improved Work Scopes, more clearly defined
deliverables, and enhanced understanding of the project prioritization and scoring process.
Finding 7:
MARTA’s corporate team and EMT are not consistently informed by staff and learn of events
only when there is a problem or emergency. For example, staff discussed instances in which
capital funds were transferred and deadlines changed without notification to the corporate team
or EMT. The Office of Engineering & Developments lists one of its 2014 accomplishments as
establishing the CIP Change Control Committee (CCT) to manage and control budget changes
and transfers.
Recommendation 7:
MARTA should develop a standardized, uniform process for providing ongoing communication
to the corporate team and the EMT. The process should include at a minimum monthly reports
outlining the major capital projects underway. In addition, board members should be updated
and other stakeholders on capital projects from inception to completion. Budget changes and
transfers should not occur without the knowledge and/or approval of the GM/CEO and the entire
corporate team.
Finding 8:
The office of CPM has independent cost estimators for Operations, Engineering and cost and
price analysis auditing; however it appears that independent cost estimates are not consistently
being provided for GCPS contractors
Recommendation 8
MARTA should consistently adhere to its procedures for conducting independent cost estimates
as outlined in Section 3.1.3 “Independent Labor Hour Estimate (ILHE). The ILHE is the tool
utilized by CPM to project costs for a work order. The procedure further states that MARTA
CSTR (technical team) is required to prepare or obtain the ILHE without consultation with the
GCPS contractor.

Finding 9:
Currently, five (5) vacancies exist in the CPM department. There is an inadequate number of
Project Accountants and Contract Specialists. CPM utilizes some contract personnel as Contract
Specialists, who play a key role in the CIP process and have the overall responsibility for work
orders, and are authorized to act on behalf of the Authority in concert with the Contract
Specialist Technical Representative (CSTR) to modify contract terms, conditions, requirements
and delivery schedules.
Recommendation 9:
MARTA should conduct an assessment to determine the number of positions to fill for the current
vacancies that exist in CPM such as Project Accountants and Contract Specialists. Inadequate
staffing can contribute to inefficiencies in the CIP process, and could pose potential concerns
with the FTA.CPM should reduce its dependence on outsourced Contract Specialists, given the
role and responsibility of the position. CPM should fill the vacancies by hiring qualified
MARTA personnel minimize its dependency on CIP consultants.
Finding 10:
Some CPM staff has inadequate expertise for capital projects.
Recommendation 10:
MARTA should train staff to proficiency to mirror the skills required for the CIP, and to migrate
tasks that are currently being performed by consultant; i.e. database maintenance, and Expert
Choice decision-making tools used to rate projects.
Finding 11:
There is a lack of accountability, and projects are not always completed on-time or on budget.
Recommendation 11:
CPM should train staff development of scopes of work to assist with capital projects. Training
will also generate improved, more clearly defined scopes and deliverables that are timely and
on-budget.
Finding 12:
MARTA’s CIP process lacks a contingency plan that allows emergency procurements to address
new threats.
Recommendation 12:
MARTA’s CPM should develop a contingency plan that provides guidelines for emergency
procurements.
Finding 13:
Professional training for Project Management staff is needed.
Recommendation 13:
MARTA should train its Project Managers to better serve internal and external customers
relevant to CIP projects.

Figure 6.0: FY15 GCPS (Intueor) Work Order Concerns – Operations/Engineering

Chapter 7: Operations (Capital Improvement Program)
reviews pertaining to Operations. In addition to being responsible for the direction and
management of the operations and maintenance of the Authority’s transit system, Operations is
also responsible for delivery of the capital program. The Operations Department includes:
 Engineering & Development (E&D)

 Project management
 Construction management
 Capital program management
 Maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the Authority’s operating, support, and
administrative facilities in the bus, rail and paratransit mobility systems
Some of the accomplishments to-date presented to the interview team during the interview
process included the following:
Governance:
 Governance structure in place for all aspects of the CIP life cycle
o Defined the levels of responsibility
o Established the CIP Capital Improvement Committee to oversee and make
recommendations to executive staff
o Established the CIP Change Control Team (CCT) for year-round budget management
Project Delivery Organization

 Independent Project Controls Group to plan, monitor and report CIP project performance
o Created centralized office to support all business units
o Modernized project control functions and responsibilities
o Approval of budgeted positions
Project Development
o Established a structured project scoping and screening process
o Adopted standardized templates to enhance consistent and equitable competition
among projects
o Acquired Expert Choice decision-making software to prioritize and fund projects
Work currently in progress includes the integration of CIP project planning with the Asset
Management Program to capture and monitor the state of good repair backlog. Standardizing
project schedules for all types of project delivery methods is underway, and finalization of the
CIP project structure for project schedule to map to MARTA’s Financial Information System
(FIS). CIP Performance measures are also being established for accountability at all levels of
management. To finalize the FY 2015 capital budget, the Office of E&D used new decision-
making software; Expert Choice.

7.1 Engineering & Development (E&D)
E&D provides infrastructure, systems design and engineering services in support of
maintenance, rehabilitation, expansion of MARTA’s infrastructure, rolling stock, and related
systems and assets. E&D partners closely with key business units, particularly Operations, CPM,
Safety & Quality Assurance, IT and Police for effective and efficient advertisement, selection
and contract award of contractor/consultant professional services. E&D direct and manages the
technical services of the GEC, Rail Vehicle Consultants and other specialized professional
consultants, and maintain work orders at 95% of plan.
7.2 Program & Contract Management

Program & Contract Management consists of three key branches:
 Job Order Contracting (JOC)
The Project Management group provides project management services in support of MARTA’s
Long-Range CIP. Project Managers are responsible for planning, managing and directing
resources and activities to ensure that project goals and activities are successfully completed
within scope, schedule and budget. Project Management responsibilities include development
and initiation of capital projects, managing conceptual design through bid documents, oversight
of construction activity and coordinating agreements with outside agencies. Project Management
presents and briefs projects with MARTA senior managers and Board of Directors. Project
Management participates in the development of annual work programs for the GEC and other
Architectural, Engineering Consultants. Project Management monitors and manages the project
functions and activities of the GEC and other Architectural /Engineering Consultants to ensure
compliance with project scope, budget and schedule.
7.3 Construction Management

The Construction Management group provides the services necessarty to execute contracrts in
support os MARTA Long-Range Capital Improvement Program. Cosntruction contracts include
new buildings, structures and facilities for bus and rail operations, renovation and rehabilitation
of existing bus and rail facilities and equipment, and systems. Construction Management is
responsible for field activity and federal, state and city regulatory requirments; environmental
and safety compliance. Construction MAnagemen is also responsible for coordinating,
monitoring and inspecting the construction activities performed by outside contractors or
developers adjacent to MARTA property or facilities.
7.4 Job Order Contracting (JOC)

Job Order Contracting annually executes 40 to 50 time-sensitive projects for the Authority.
Typical project types include facilitie upgrades, life-safety upgrades, civil-site improvement and
systems upgrades. JOC focuses on delivering quality projects safetly.

reviews pertaining to Operations:
7.5 Key Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1:
MARTA employees and internal customers of the CIP process do not have sufficient training
and/or knowledge of the CIP process.
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should develop a training program for MARTA staff and stakeholders.
Finding 2:
MARTA’s CT and EMT are not consistently informed by staff and frequently learn of events
only when there is a problem or emergency. In several instances staff reported instances of funds
transferred and deadlines changed without knowledge of the CT or EMT. Communications
within all levels of the Agency is inadequate; particularly reporting and communication to the
EMT and above.
Recommendation 2:
MARTA should develop a standardized, uniform process for providing ongoing communication
to the corporate team and the EMT. The process should include at a minimum monthly reports
outlining the major capital projects underway. In addition, board members should be updated
and other stakeholders on capital projects from inception to completion. Budget changes and
transfers should not occur without the knowledge and/or approval of the GM/CEO and the entire
corporate team. Standing EMT meetings represent an opportunity to provide updates to the
corporate team and the EMT on capital projects.
Finding 3:
MARTA does not have adequate resources (human capital) required to deliver the CIP.
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should move forward with streamlining the General Engineering Consultants (GEC)
and migration of some duties and performed by MATC and Intueor to MARTA staff. MARTA
should also hire positions that have been budgeted and approved; i.e. Project Managers,
Portfolio Managers, Contract Specialists, etc. Savings should be utilized to train internal
MARTA staff and other reinvestment strategies.
Finding 4:
MARTA’s does not have centralized Project Management Office (PMO) which contributes to a
lack of uniformity and standardization of business processes.
Recommendation 4:
MARTA should centralize its PMO to minimize business units’ discontinuity between business
units that do not conform to MARTA’s CIP processes. According to staff, 25-33% of the CIP is
managed by individual business units, which equates to more than $100 million in capital
projects.

Finding 5:
Administrative processes are outdated and include multiple signatures.
Recommendation 5:
MARTA should centralize its PMO to minimize business discontinuity between business units
that play roles in the CIP process.
Finding 6:
There are few to no CIP performance measures to quantify accountability. Engineering and
Development only have KPIs relevant to labor although the department plays a key role in the
CIP process. The Office of Maintenance of Way does not have capital program KPIs although
this office is responsible for managing the maintenance programs for the Authority’s train
control and signaling system; traction, auxiliary and emergency power systems; track structures,
and right of way; for all Authority-owned buildings, rail stations, rail yards, parking facilities,
bus garages and real estate. Although the primary focus of this office is to “provide a safe and
reliable infrastructure and operating system for the Authority’s internal and external customers”
there are no performance indicators to measure the achievement of this goal. The Office of
Maintenance of Way oversees the branches of Automatic Train Control, Electrical Power and
Equipment, Track and Structures, Track Inspection & Support, Track Maintenance, and the
Structural Engineering & Inspection Unit.
Figure 7.0: Engineering & Development KPIs
Recommendation 6:
MARTA should establish CIP key performance measures (KPIs) to measure the achievement of
the goals of the CIP program process.
Finding 7:
Manual process exists which causes errors. CPM does not generate monthly reports, which
makes it difficult to know how much was spent due to manual process; Project Managers have
budgets reduced due to this inefficiency. Budgets are transferred without knowledge causing
projects to be underfunded as the result of errors.
Recommendation 7:
MARTA should work with IT to identify ways to automate manual processes which will also
enhance the efficiency of the capital CIP process, and would reduce errors in forecasting
budgets. This could also play a role in reducing cost over-runs.

Finding 9:
General Services Administration (GSA) schedules are being used inappropriately. For example,
IT schedules are being used for engineering services. According to CPM staff, MARTA uses
local funds at times; which precludes the use of GSA schedules. Staff stated IT Schedule 70 is
used only if an emergency is declared. GSA contracts otherwise are used on a limited basis
because of Federal guidelines with the FTA language which is required for compliance.
According to the GSA, IT Schedule 70 is the largest, most widely used acquisition vehicle in the
federal government. Schedule 70 is an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) multiple
award schedule, providing direct access to products, and services. The IT Schedule 70 offers
federal, state and local governments innovative solutions to their information technology needs.
Below are items available to state, local, and tribal governments through the Cooperative
Purchasing Program:
 Cloud IT Services  SmartBuy: Commercial Software

 Computer and Networking Hardware Solutions
 Cyber Security  Software and Applications
 Data Center and Storage  Sustainability
 IT Mandates and Initiatives  Systems Life Cycles Integration
 Satellite Services  Telecommunications, Wireless and
Mobility
 Telepresence
Recommendation 9:
MARTA should appropriately use the IT Schedule 70 as set forth by federal guidelines for capital
projects that use federal funds.

Chapter 8: Information Technology (IT)
The Department of Information Technology includes the following offices:

 Office of AGM of Technology/CIO
 Office of Technology Infrastructure & Production
 Office of Technology Applications
 Office of Technology Support Services
The Business Applications branch is responsible for planning, designing, developing or

acquiring, implementing and supporting new and advanced business applications including:
 Coordinating systems requirements with executive and clients
 Implementing and maintaining Enterprise Resource Planning and Enterprise Asset
(EAMS) Management Systems
 Business Intelligence, Data Warehouse & Balanced Scorecard Development and Support
 Making continual enhancements in business applications to support audit requests and
business user requests
 Document management systems
reviews pertaining to CIP process and Information Technology:

Finding 1:
Oracle is not being utilized in an optimal manner to support the CIP process. Also, there is
insufficient IT capability at MARTA. Programs are not in place to allow forecasting of funds,
and there are ledger variances between project spend and procurement.
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should seek ways to maximize the capability of Oracle. Staff should be trained on
Oracle programs and modules to fully implement Oracle as a tool to monitor and communicate
budget information on capital projects in real time.
Finding 2:
There is no Commitment Report available within Oracle.
Recommendation 2:
Oracle should be optimized to develop reports to provide up-to-date capital project information.
Finding 3:
There is no centralized database that creates timely and detailed information regarding capital
project transactions.
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should develop centralized project and consulting payment record-keeping to allow
performance measurement.

Chapter 9: Human Resources (HR)
The review team met with Human Resources staff to discuss staffing and training of internal
personnel to support the CIP process. The Office of E&D has identified thirty-seven (37) non-
represented positions listed by hiring priority. These positions have been approved by MARTA
and included in the FY 2015 budget. Please see Attachment A: Non-Represented Positions Listed
by Hiring Priority.
reviews pertaining to Human Resources.
9.1 Key Findings and Recommendations

Finding 1:
Engineers that are funded for MARTA’s current capital projects are hired beyond the duration of
the capital project.
Recommendation 1:
Engineers that are funded for MARTA’s current projects should be hired for only the duration of
the project and by specific project. This will enable MARTA to control costs for staffing between
MARTA departments and the MATC agreement. HR has relationships with Engineering
Affiliations to ensure that the best qualifies candidates are selected for the position.
Finding 2:
Some CPM staff does not have adequate capital projects expertise. At the time of the interviews,
no training strategies or individual development plans were developed to transition or replace
consultants who work remotely.
Recommendation 2:
MARTA should train internal staff f on core skills needed to conduct tasks that are currently
being performed by consultants; i.e. database maintenance, training on Expert Choice decision-
making tools and project management. MARTA should identify staff for training or hire new staff
and implement training programs to ensure proper skills.
Finding 3:
At the time of the review, seven vacancies for Contract Specialists existed in the Office of CPM.
This position is part of CPM, and plays a key role in the in the CIP process such modification of
contract terms, conditions, requirements and delivery schedules. Also, based on interviews with
CPM staff, Project Accountants are needed.
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should develop a plan for filling the Contract Specialist vacant positions. Human
Resources should also meet with CPM to develop roles and responsibilities for Project
Accountants and fill the positions to enhance the efficiency of the CIP process.

Finding 4:
Internal staff does not have the skills to handle the database on behalf of MARTA, which
requires MARTA to utilize outside resources. Two to three years ago, MARTA experienced high
turnover. Several interviewees involved in the CIP process stated that they were unaware of any
plans to train.
Recommendation 4:
In-house staff should be trained to increase skill sets. MARTA should also adjust pay scales to
attract the most skilled staff for the positions. Skills needed for internal staff to perform the tasks
that are currently being performed by consultants include database maintenance, and Expert
Choice decision-making tools, and contracting knowledge.
Finding 5:
With the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), DROP employees are getting promoted
and there is no knowledge transfer.
Recommendation 5
MARTA should seek ways to utilize DROP employees who played a key role in the CIP process
transfer knowledge employees to enhance skills required for the delivery of the capital program.
This could expedite the development and roll-out of MARTA’s plan to migrate tasks currently
being performed by consultants to internal staff.

Chapter 10: Finance
The review team met the Division of Finance staff to discuss the CIP process. The Office of
Management & Budget administers and develops the Authority’s capital (and operating) budgets.
The primary responsibilities of the Office of Treasury and Capital Programs are to provide
support in the areas of business and financial analysis and capital budget development. The
Financial Analysis and Planning branch provided programming and management of MARTA’s
CIP program. The Office of Federal & State Programs coordinates MARTA’s Federal and State
funding programs. The Office of Contracts & Procurement and Materials serves as the central
procurement arm of the Authority. It provides contract administration, contract records
management, storeroom operations, distribution of procurement state and federal policies and
procedures, reprographic services, furniture and facilities administration, mail and postal
services, executive meeting services and wireless communication.
The Finance Department includes the following offices:
 Office of Chief Financial Officer/CFO

 Office of Accounting
 Office of Management & Budget
 Office of Revenue Operations
 Office of Treasury
 Office of Federal and State Programs
 Office of Contracts & Procurement
Below are key findings and recommendations from interviews, observations and document
reviews pertaining to the CIP process:

Finding 1:
There is a lack of structure for capital projects that results in projects not being executed as
scoped. The overall process for scoping, screening and planning of capital projects is broken, and
planning and projection information is insufficient relevant to costs, budgets, scope of work and
resources.
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should increase its scrutiny on projects beginning with the early definition stages of the
project.
Finding 2:
Processing and payment of MATC invoices is a lengthy process and typically takes 90 days from
submittal of an invoice.
Recommendation 2:
MARTA should collaborate with Finance to identify ways to accelerate the payment of invoices.

Finding 3:
Consultant fees and work orders are not easily identified due to the lack of a centralized
accounting process. It is difficult to measure how consultants are being utilized due to the lack of
a centralized recordkeeping between all contracts, sub-consultants and on-call work orders.
Recommendation 3:
MARTA should develop and implement a centralized accounting of total fees for CIP contractors
and sub-consultants.
Finding 4:
On-call work orders and direct contracts are not being accounted for in the same cost center.
Recommendation 4:
MARTA should seek to centralize the work order and the direct contracts process to minimize
silos and enhance efficiency.
Finding 5:
Access to financial information relevant to capital projects is untimely and does not support
efficient CIP processes. Also, reports are 60 days late due to the lack of integration of project
accounting and financial systems.
Recommendation 5:
MARTA should improve access to financial information and integrate accounting and financial
systems, which also improve the availability of timely reports. This would also enhance the
accuracy of project level and program level reporting for management decision-making.
Finding 6:
Invoicing is decentralized and has numerous entry points and approvals which adversely impacts
timely payment.
Recommendation 6:
MARTA should centralize the invoicing process to shorten the time required to process invoices.
Finding 7:
Budget transfers take place without knowing the total cost of the project; dollars spent to date
and the cost to complete the project. Project Managers are not as involved with the project as
they should.
Recommendation 7:
Project Managers need to become more accountable and involved with budget to lessen the
chance of reduction of their capital project dollars. This issue would be resolved by
implementing financial reporting with projects and the status of funds expended to date and
balance remaining to complete. The total project cost should be on the report with a history for
the Project Manager and Budget to review if funds need or could be transferred to another
project.

Chapter 11: Police Operations
MARTA’s Police Operations department has approximately $30 million of programmed grant
funding associated with projects in the CIP from previous grant years. A key issue related to the
CIP is that, the process does no align with Police Operations’ grant guidance time-frame. For
example, Police Operations are awaiting grant guidance for FY15; however, the capital projects
are already underway and will be finalized by the time Police Operations submits its FY 2015
grant program.
Figure 11.0: MARTA FY 2015 Transit Security Update

The review team discussed with MARTA’s Police Chief and several members of the Police
Operations’ staff to discuss the department’s role in the CIP process. Below are the key findings
and recommendations from interviews, observations and document reviews pertaining to Police
Operations.

Listed below are some of the key challenges presented to the review team by MARTA’s Police
Operations Department:
1. The CIP Process is not designed to value Security programs and favors projects that are
related to revenue-generating initiatives. Security is a cost of doing business that is reflective
in MARTA's strategic priorities but minimized with respect to its capital program.
2. Capital projects related to security are supported in large part because of grant funding and
not solely on the basis of its intrinsic value to the Authority.
3. Expert Choice software used by Intueor did not adequately capture the importance of grant-
related funding with expiring funding.
4. A centralized CIP Office reporting to the CFO would better demonstrate fiscal
accountability, with neutrality and transparency.
5. The CIP Process is executed through the PMO office which reports through the Rail
Department which presents an inherent conflict of interest.
6. Police projects have Project Managers that report to persons outside of the department, which
can create confusion and disconnects related to priorities.
7. The PMO office would be better managed if it held a more neutral position and with subject
matter experts dedicated to the department.
8. The CIP process lacks transparency with respect to how projects are being funded and
prioritized. There are no by-laws, or deliberative process with minutes and access from all
stakeholders.
9. The CIP Champion role needs to be empowered so the Champion controls the direction of
the PM. For example the current Cyber Security Project has Chief Dunham as the sponsor
but the PM reports project details and gets project direction from external stakeholders not
privy to the Dept. of Homeland Security protocols and MARTA's current threat profile
related to Cyber security.
10. The Champion should approve funding decisions, staffing, and project direction.
11. The CIP needs to be better aligned with MARTA's Accounting and Finance systems (Oracle)
particularly in relation to tracking and managing grant funding.
12. Management of CIP funding should be transparent so that charging costs to a CIP project has
checks and balances and is also reviewable by the champion of the project.
13. No entity should be able to charge costs to the CIP project without approval of the PM who
will keep the champion informed.

Finding 1:
The CIP and procurement process have created numerous bottlenecks that hinder police
operations’ ability to advance the security and emergency management process.
Recommendation 1:
Police Operations, CPM and E&D should work collaboratively to identify and mitigate
“bottlenecks” in the CIP process, and seek ways to enhance efficiency.
Finding 2:
Police operations efforts have been hampered by CPM’s effort to apply FTA’s standards to the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) funds the department has tried to execute.
Recommendation 1:
Police Operations, Grants, and CPM should work collaboratively to identify ways to adhere to
FTA standards and obtain TSA funds to execute programmed capital projects.
Finding 3:
There are inefficiencies in the CIP process relevant to Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
grants. The timing of the CIP process and the approval of the grant applications do not align with
the execution timeline established by DHS. Police Operations has a short window of opportunity
to expend grant funds and must request extension or re-program funds to other projects.
Oftentimes there are no programmed CIP projects to execute the grant dollars against in the
event projects are not approved and funded. Also, Police Operations does not have the ability to
use DHS approved GSA schedules to execute grant dollars in a more expedient manner.
Recommendation 3:
Grants for Homeland Security and other police-related grants that have sensitive deadlines for
use of grant funds should have special consideration in MARTA’s Grants Department and Office
of CPM.
Finding 4:
The CIC committee focuses on members whose departments generate revenue. Police Operations
is not a standing member of the CIP Committee; however, is a rolling member of the committee.
Recommendation 4:
MARTA should update the governance structure of the CIC committee including by-laws and
membership. Police Operations should play a role in the CIC.
Finding 5:
Police Operations staff believes there is a bias in favor of Operations projects. For example, the
Project Manager assigned to Police Operations’ projects is a direct report of David Springstead,
MARTA’s Senior Director Engineering & Development, who reports to MARTA’s Chief
Operating Officer (COO).

Recommendation 5:
MARTA should realign the organizational structure to provide a separation between the CIP
process and the Operations group for increased efficiency.
Finding 6:
Money designated for Police Operations in the CIP is routinely reassigned to other areas. For
example, the CIP included a new Mobile Command Vehicle (MVC); however it was reassigned
away from Police Operations without discussion.
Recommendation 6:
CIP projects should not be unilaterally assigned without notification or input of the department
who is affected by the reassignment.
Finding 7:
MARTA’s CIP process lacks a contingency plan that allows emergency procurements to address
new threats.
Recommendation 7:
MARTA should develop a contingency plan that provides guidelines for emergency
procurements.
Finding 8:
Interviewees stated there are delays in project execution as the result of “micromanaging”. For
example, MARTA’s CEO expanded the purchasing authorization of AGMs to $50,000 and
Project Managers were authorized to approve purchases on projects up to $10,000. There have
been purchase orders that have remained stagnant in excess of 30 days awaiting approval, which
results in delays to project schedules. For example, Police Operations’ Vehicle Security Camera
System Project was negatively impacted and the contractor was required to lay off workers.
Recommendation 8:
MARTA should seek to identify underlying causes for delays to increase the turnaround of
purchase order approval. The CIP process is inflexible as it pertains to security matters.

Chapter 12: Organizational Analysis of MARTA’s CIP Process
MARTA is currently organized in a manner in which the Operations Department and the Office
of Program & Contract Management; which is responsible for project management, construction
management and job order contracting, are combined.
Figure 12.0: Current MARTA Corporate Team Organizational Structure
Current Organizational Structure
General
Manager/CEO
Chief of Staff
Chief
Chief Operating Chief Counsel Chief Financial
Administrative
Officer Legal Services Officer
Officer
The current organizational structure, in which the Chief Operating Officer (COO) is responsible
for delivery of the CIP, was formed under the previous administration as a strategy to cut costs
and reduce key staff overhead. Thus, the Operations Department was consolidated with
Engineering and Development, and Programs & Contract Management with the current COO
responsible for the following:
 Engineering & Development (E&D)

 Project management
 Construction management
 Capital program management
 Maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the Authority’s operating, support, and
administrative facilities in the bus, rail and paratransit mobility systems

The review team analyzed the current organization focusing on efficiency, effectiveness and
transparency. The review team also compared other transit agencies that are currently
undergoing major capital improvement projects; including State of Good Repair (SGR)
initiatives, focused on capital investment in infrastructure maintenance in order to improve the
condition of MARTA’s current transit facilities and provide safe, reliability service.

Finding 1:
MARTA’s size (9th largest in North America), capital budget, projects and infrastructure
management is not conducive to maximizing the efficiency, transparency and controls that will
produce long-term outcomes for MARTA.
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should consider re-aligning the current organizational structure to create an
independent department that reports directly to the CEO, for the delivery of MARTA’s capital
projects. An independent department would include enhanced duties and responsibilities of the
Project Management Office and team, Engineering & Development, and Program & Contract
Management, which oversees project management, construction and job order contracting. The
proposed realignment would allow a single point whereby information on project status can be
communicated to the corporate team and the EMT on a monthly basis.
Finding 2:
The Office of E&D is under Operations which does not conform to transit industry best practices
and peer reviews for organizational efficiency and delivery of capital projects.
Recommendation 2:
MARTA should re-align the Operations branch to remove E&D. Also, there should be a true
PMO function.

Figure 12.1: Proposed MARTA Corporate Team Organizational Structure
The review team believes that the new organizational structure would allow the Operations
Department to fully focus on the delivery of safe, reliable, on-time service across all modes of
transportation; particularly in the bus and Mobility service, which is currently under-performing
in key areas.
The review team also bench-marked other transit agencies and reviewed and evaluated their
organizational structure including DART, Denver RTD, Miami-Dade Transit, MTA and Chicago
Transit Authority. Please see the organizational charts for these agencies in Chapter 14: Peer
Review and Industry Analysis.

Chapter 13: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Compliance of the
Procurement Process
MARTA’s most recent FTA Triennial Review was conducted on October 7-9, 2013. The FTA
allows grantees such as MARTA to use their own procurement procedures that reflect applicable
state and local laws and regulations, provided that the process ensures competitive procurement
and the procedures conform to applicable federal law.
Architectural and Engineering (A&E) services must be procured using a qualifications-based

process in accordance with the Brooks Act. Services subject to this requirement are program
management, construction management, feasibility studies, preliminary engineering, design,
architectural engineering, surveying, mapping and related services which lead to construction.
Unlike the two-step procurement procedures in which price are an evaluation factor, an offeror’s
qualifications are evaluated to determine contract award. Price must not be considered during the
selection phase in these procurements, Firms are selected based on their qualifications. Price is
then negotiated with the most qualified firm. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the grantee
may negotiate with the next most qualified firm and so on until an agreement is reached on a
price that the grantee determines is fair and reasonable
As a part of the Triennial Review, FTA examines the following areas as part of the Procurement
area of review:
1. Procurement Policies and Procedures

2. Third-Party Contracts
3. Bus Testing
4. Buy America
5. Suspension/Debarment
6. Lobbying Certification
Based on the Triennial Review, MARTA was deficient in the following areas:
1. DBE
2. Title VI
3. Half fare
4. ADA
5. Drug Free Workplace
6. and Drug and Alcohol Program
The DBE deficiency which affects contracts and procurement with monitoring of awards has
been corrected and closed by FTA. MARTA had not implemented a process for monitoring and
enforcing that contractors complied with the prompt return of retainage requirements. MARTA
submitted a process to FTA for making written certifications of the monitoring of DBEs, and for
monitoring and enforcement to ensure contractor compliance with prompt return of retainage
requirements.

It was suggested by FTA that MARTA’s DBE function implements a tool that automates the
tracking of timely payments and returns of retainage, and flags any discrepancies for action. The
review team milestones and Milestones and FFRs, which were completed on time and with
sufficient information quarterly. Grants GA04-0031 and GA90-X228 were the only two which
had additional questions by FTA on milestones for the Quarter ending 6-30-14. With the number
of Grants open and projects underway, this is desirable Grant updating to FTA on projects.
Where FTA funds are used in procurements for services or supplies, or where FTA-funded
facilities or assets are used in revenue contracts, FTA C 4220.1F applies. With regard to
compliance, if a grantee fails to comply with FTA procurement requirements, including in other
procurement-related areas, such as Buy America, FTA may decide to not participate in the
procurement.
FTA conducts Quarterly Reviews of MARTA’s FTA-funded capital projects, and generates a
Quarterly Narrative Report that is comprised of four (4) parts:
1. Recipient Information
2. Project Information
3. Federal Financial Report
4. Milestone Progress Report
reviews pertaining to MARTA’s compliance with FTA requirements.

Finding 1:
FTA’s August 14, 2014 3rd Quarter Review of Project #GA-58-001-03 “Section 5308 Clean
Fuels Program” stated “milestones still not updated” from previous reviews conducted on three
separate previous dates; 11/8/13, 2/10/14 and 5/14/13. These are repeat findings that had not
been corrected by MARTA as shown in Figure 13.0.7
Recommendation 1:
MARTA should update all milestones and include revised estimated completion dates as required
by the FTA as part of the Quarterly Review process using reliable, realistic projections.
Finding 2:
The FTA requires grantees to have appropriate organizational structure, including sufficient staff
levels, for procurement. FTA requires that technical training is provided to procurement
employees. CPM has numerous vacancies and does not currently appear to be sufficiently
staffed. Also, the experience of procurement staff is not commensurate with the agency’s size
and complexity and the type and complexity of capital procurements that it conducts. Also, there
is no documentation of the type, frequency, and method of training provided to staff about FTA
requirements and industry best practices, which are important indicators of how well-prepared
MARTA is to be comply with the delivery of the CIP process.
7
GA-58-0001-03 Quarterly Narrative Report: April 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014, As of August 14, 2014

Recommendation 2:
MARTA should immediately recruit and fill key vacant positions required to support the CIP
process. The candidate’s experience should be commensurate with the size and scope of the
agency.
Figure 13.0: GA-58-0001-03 Quarterly Narrative Report

Chapter 14. Peer Review & Transit Industry CIP Process Best Practices
The purpose of the peer review is to make recommendations for improvement of MARTA’s
current CIP process based on industry standards and best practices. Selection criteria for peers
were based on the following characteristics:
 Multimodal transit systems operating bus, rail, and paratransit service

 Capital Improvement Program with a minimum budget of $300 million
 Utilization of a General Engineering Contractor (GEC) for capital projects
The following transit systems were selected for review:

1. Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York, NY
2. Dallas Area Regional Transit (DART), Dallas, TX
3. Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD), Denver, CO
4. Miami-Dade Transit Agency (MDT), Miami, FL
5. Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Chicago, IL
14.1 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), New York, NY

MTA’s proposed 2015-2019 Capital Program encompasses $32 billion of investments that
renew, enhance, and expand the MTA network. The majority of the plan focuses on renewing the
system to promote safe and reliable service. Enhancements are targeted toward improving
system capabilities and the customer experience. Expansion projects extend the reach of the
network to address evolving regional mobility needs. The plan is organized into a MTA Capital
Program Review Board (CPRB) portion that is subject to CPRB review.
Figure 14.0: MTA 2015-2019 Capital Improvement Program All Agency Summary ($in millions)

The Capital Program is supported by a combination of local funding—including City, State,
MTA, and private sources—and federal funding sources. Taken together, these resources are
expected to provide $16.9 billion of the $32 billion needed to deliver the 2015-2019 Capital
Program. Recommendations from MTA’s Transportation Reinvention Commission keep
investments forward-thinking, so the MTA system and the region continue to prosper.
Capital Project Review

Through MTA’s “Gates” strategy that was implemented for the first time in the 2010-2014
Capital Program, every capital project is reviewed at each stage of development to ensure that
MTA is on track to deliver intended benefits at the lowest cost. If a project doesn’t pass its
review, it won’t move forward until the problem is fixed. Gates is an integral part of MTA’s
2015-2019 Capital Program and will help them to realize significant savings.
Project Delivery and Asset Management

Capital upkeep of a transit system is costly and complex. MTA is exploring new ways to deliver
capital projects and share risks with its partners. MTA is also pursuing better asset management
practices across the entire MTA, to keep its assets running longer and improve investment
planning.
CIP Program Planning, Controls and Transparency

The MTA’s Capital Program is delivered in accordance with a series of program control and
transparency measures. The MTA Capital Program planning process is a 5-year cycle that begins
with a Twenty-Year Capital Needs Assessment (TYNA). In creating the TYNA, an inventory
and condition assessment of all existing MTA assets is compiled to identify assets that will need
renewals to promote a state of good repair. The TYNA process also includes the development of
a strategic “vision” which draws on observed and forecasted changes in the regional economy,
travel patterns and technology. These insights help to identify investments that can enhance and
expand the MTA network to meet evolving customer needs and expectations. Merging the asset
inventory findings with the strategic vision yields a set of investment strategies and prospective
capital needs for the coming 20 years.
The completed TYNA provides the basis for developing the subsequent 5-year Capital Program;
a portfolio of actionable projects to be funded and delivered. This Capital Program aims to
progress the first 5 years of the TYNA strategy, subject to the constraints of projected funding
availability, marketplace capacity, and track access. After a Capital Program is approved, it may
be periodically amended to reflect ongoing developments and evolving needs. For example, the
2010-2014 Capital Program was amended in the wake of Superstorm Sandy to incorporate Fix &
Fortify investments.

Figure 14.1: MTA 2015-2019 Capital Program Planning Process
Capital Program Controls

Various controls ensure that all projects are subject to multiple levels of ongoing oversight, from
inception through to completion. Some of the key program control mechanisms are outlined
below:
Capital Program Oversight Committee

The MTA Board convenes a monthly Capital Program Oversight Committee (CPOC) to provide
broad oversight of Capital Program activities. CPOC is chaired by the MTA Chairman and CEO
and reviews a wide variety of topics, ranging from periodic reviews of major capital projects, to
updates on special initiatives. A series of monthly program-wide progress reports are also
presented at every CPOC meeting, highlighting project status and funding.
Project Gates
MTA capital projects are subject to Gate reviews at key project delivery milestones. The Gates
process is based on industry best practices to ensure that projects:
 Deliver maximum benefits at minimum life-cycle cost (i.e., “best value”), and
 Are successfully delivered on schedule and on budget.
Each Gate represents an analytical “checkpoint” that must be passed before advancing to the next
stage of project delivery:
 Gate 1 (prior to Design) – Ensures that the project scope addresses priority business needs,
has undergone an alternatives analysis to ensure a “best value” approach, and incorporates
adequate budget and schedule.
 Gate 2 (mid-Design) – Validates that the project design is developing in line with original
scope objectives and that any variations in scope, cost, or schedule are being addressed.
 Gate 3 (prior to Construction) – Confirms that the final design meets the intended purpose of
the project, that the budget includes adequate cost contingency, and that construction risks
are identified and mitigated.

 Gate 4 (project completion) – Ensures that the project is on-course to deliver intended
benefits in operation and that lessons learned are passed on to other projects.
Where issues are encountered, each Gate review provides an opportunity to make a “mid-course
correction” before progressing a project any further, e.g., to revise a budget or reassess the
project scope. The Gates Process is also designed to improve program management efficiency,
by targeting MTA Headquarters oversight to the highest-value, highest-risk projects, and
reducing administrative transactions.
Independent Engineering Consultant

The Independent Engineering Consultant (IEC) provides independent monitoring of Capital
Program activities, typically focusing on the largest and most complex projects. Many of these
projects are subject to risk assessments, which systematically evaluate projects with the aim of
mitigating risks and ensuring adequate levels of budget and schedule contingency. The IEC
generally presents key review findings at CPOC meetings.
Capital Program Transparency

The MTA Capital Program makes a comprehensive array of information available to the public
via mta.info/capital and the MTA social media sites.
Highlights of transparency initiatives include the following:
1. Dashboard
The Capital Program Dashboard is the gateway to information about MTA Capital
Program activities. It includes interactive features such as maps, charts, photos, and
project lists that can be used to explore the entire Capital Program, or narrow in on details
of a specific project. The Dashboard is updated quarterly to reflect the scope, schedule,
and budget of hundreds of capital projects.

Figure 14.2: MTA CIP Dashboard

2. Board Materials
All MTA Board materials are available for download from the mta.info site. This
includes materials presented to the Capital Program-focused CPOC committee, as well as
various reports on Capital Program-related issues presented to the Agency committees.
Streaming webcasts of MTA Board and committee meetings are also available for
download.
3. Commitments and Completions Report

Published on a monthly basis in each CPOC committee book, this report provides a
program-level overview of projects that are either starting or finishing a major stage of
delivery in the course of the year. Explanations are also provided of any variances against
the plan.
4. Funding Report
Published on a monthly basis in each CPOC committee book, this report provides an
overview of planned fund sources by Capital Program and funding receipts to date.
5. Traffic Light Report

Published by the IEC, the Traffic Light report provides a prospective look at how
individual capital projects are trending against budget and schedule. Projects that may be
trending off course are flagged for further scrutiny. These projects are accompanied by a
one-page write-up identifying the concerns and what is being done to put the project back
on track.
6. MTA Flickr (www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos)

The MTA feed on the Flickr photo-sharing web site provides a behind the scenes look at
dozens of capital projects. The images depict everything from choreographed cranes
replacing elevated subway track, to the rebuilding of under river tubes as part of the post-
Sandy Fix & Fortify efforts, to new Second Avenue Subway stations taking shape deep
below Manhattan.
7. MTA YouTube (www.youtube.com/user/mtainfo)

The MTA feed on the YouTube video-sharing web site includes a wide variety of
content, ranging from archived Board meeting webcasts to a playlist of videos
highlighting various facets of the Capital Program.
Hill International provides project management oversight services as the MTA’s Independent
Engineering Consultant (IEC) to monitor and review the MTA’s $20 billion capital improvement
program and to regularly and frequently report findings and recommendations directly to the
MTA Board of Directors and the MTA's Office of Construction Oversight.
http://www.hillintl.com/transportation/rail-and-transit/mta-capital-improvement-program?id=

Figure 14.3: MTA Organization Structure

14. 2 Dallas Area Regional Transit (DART), Dallas, TX
DART provides bus, light rail, commuter rail, paratransit, and other services to 13 municipalities
across a 700 square mile service area with a population of 2.3 million in the Dallas, Texas area.
DART has operated bus service since its inception in 1983. The first segment of the light rail
system opened in 1996. Since then, DART has worked to expand light rail considerably. As of
August 2014 DART operates a total of 90 miles of light rail, with an extension to UNT-Dallas
scheduled to open in 2016 bringing the total to 93 miles. DART operates commuter rail service
jointly with the Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) along a 34-mile rail line between
the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth.
For FY 2015, DART’s Capital and Non-Operating Budget is $316.9 million. DART is governed
by a 15-member Board. The Board appoints our President/Executive Director, who also serves as
our Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer’s duties include awarding contracts for
services, supplies, capital acquisitions, real estate, and construction if the amount of any such
contract does not exceed $100,000, and awarding contracts of up to $250,000 for standard off-
the-shelf commercial products.
Capital Planning, Start-up Costs, and Non-Operating

Capital Planning & Development (Capital P&D) and Start-up costs are predominantly internal
staff and consulting costs associated with planning, designing, managing, constructing, and
opening new capital projects such as the light rail system. Financial Standard B-8 limits capital
planning costs to no more than 7% of the total operating budget, and start-up costs to no more
than 60% of the first year's operating costs.
Capital P&D costs are budgeted at $9.6 million for 2015. As the Light Rail build-out is
completed over the next few years, these costs will continue to be reduced, to $5.9 million in
2018, but will begin to increase again from that year forward. Non-operating costs relate to
projects/programs that are not accounted for as operating costs and are not capitalized as a
DART asset. These costs are charged through the income statement as a non-operating expense.
Examples of non-operating costs include: consulting costs for the Transit System Plan revision,
Dallas TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Streetcar
Vehicles, and various other capital planning studies.
Capital Reserves
A variety of capital reserves exist within the capital program. These reserves represent
placeholders within the Financial Plan for either known capital asset maintenance and
replacement cycles, or for funds that are set aside for projects of a specific type, for which the
exact nature, timing, and amount is unknown at the present time. When a project that is to be
funded from a specific reserve is requested and approved, the new project is given its own
specific line in the capital program, and the balance of the reserve is reduced by the budgeted
cost of the new project. Reserve balances are reviewed on an annual basis to ensure they are
adequate to cover future needs for each respective expenditure type. The FY 2015 Financial Plan
includes $2.5 billion in capital reserves over the next 20 years. These reserves ensure that DART
will be able to maintain a state of good repair with regards to capital maintenance and timely
replacement of assets. These reserves constitute more than 60% of the total 20-year capital
expenditures.

DART attempts to identify all capital projects that can be foreseen, but every year additional new
projects are requested. Significant additions to the capital program (and associated operating
costs) without concurrent increases in revenues or the deletions of offsetting capital projects
could adversely affect the Financial Plan. As an attempt to mitigate those items, DART’s
Financial Plan contains multiple capital reserves, which are placeholders for anticipated future
expenditures.
Inflation in the heavy construction arena substantially exceeded general inflation through the
middle of the last decade, but then reversed itself during the economic downturn. Costs for
specific commodities such as steel, concrete, aluminum, and copper in particular, had escalated
at unprecedented rates during 2007 and 2008, and then fell. This caused DART to revise its cost
estimates in 2008 on all capital construction projects going forward. These changes were
included in the FY 2008 Plan and are continued at those levels into the FY 2015 Plan. With the
last major light rail construction project underway, DART’s near-to-intermediate term risk has
been viewed as very limited. But with the major core capacity projects now being incorporated
into the Financial Plan; this risk will again play a prominent role.
Budget Process
The budget process begins with Strategic Priorities and Board-approved Financial Standards
that establish parameters within which management must operate. Departmental targets are set
based on projections from the approved Twenty-Year Financial Plan and other known factors or
programs (e.g., increases in health care, contract rates, or fuel costs). Based on direction from
executive management, departments prepare detailed budgets for each of their cost centers
within those targets. These budgets are, in turn, reviewed during meetings with the department
head, the Deputy Executive Director or Executive Vice President, the President/Executive
Director, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Budget Office to discuss the respective budgets as
well as any changes. All new proposed programs are evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency.
The Finance Department then compiles the numbers, coordinates work programs to achieve
strategies, and publishes the Business Plan, including the Annual Budget and Twenty-Year
Financial Plan, for the legislatively-required 30-day comment period for the budget by the cities
within the DART Service Area. The Board performs additional reviews in August and
September, as necessary, before approving the Budget and Twenty-Year Financial Plan
in September.
Priorities
The Strategic Priorities reflect three focus areas: Customer, Employee, and Stakeholder. The
Customer focus is designed to improve the customer experience and increase ridership. The
Employee focus addresses attracting and retaining quality employees, enhancing employee
engagement, ensuring a safe workplace, and providing the proper tools to efficiently and
effectively complete work assignments. The Stakeholder focus is designed to enhance
relationships with service area cities, federal, state, and local governments, and the community.
Each focus area is addressed in this section.

Capital and Non-Operating Budget
Shown below is a summary of the FY 2015 Capital and Non-Operating Budgets which include
such things as: Light Rail Transit (LRT) expansion; HOV lane construction; TRE track work;
vehicle and facility capital maintenance programs; scheduled replacement of vehicles, facilities,
infrastructure; etc.
Figure 14.4: DART FY 2015 Capital & Non-Operating

(in Thousands)
Capital Planning Organizational Unit - Growth and Development Department

The organizational unit of Growth and Development is led by the Executive VP Growth and
Development and is responsible for planning and development of the overall system as follows:
 Planning & Development

 Capital Planning
 Rail Program Development
 Commuter Rail and Railroad Management
Figure 14.5: DART Functional Organization Chart
Procurement Department
The Procurement Department is lead by the EVP/CFO and is responsible for purchasing all
commodities, services, and construction, with the specific exceptions of real estate, legal
services, and some utilities. The Vice President, Procurement, directs the overall activities of the
department.
Specific missions assigned to the Procurement Department include:
 Acquisition planning  Contract award

 Strategic sourcing of suppliers  Contract administration
 Supply chain analysis  Contract dispute resolution
 Solicitation preparation and issuance  Contract close-out
 Contract development  Procurement outreach
 Cost and price analysis  Small Purchases
 Negotiations  Supplier Management
Contract Specialists are responsible for the preparation and issuance of formal and informal
solicitations exceeding $50,000 in value; receipt and evaluation of bids/offers; preparation of
required reports and analyses; preparation of contracts below, and proposed awards in excess of
established thresholds for Board approval.
After award, they are responsible for contract administration, resolution of disputes, and all
actions necessary to close out contracts (including terminations for default or for the convenience
of the Agency). The Purchasing section’s Buyers are responsible for the preparation and issuance
of request for quotes (RFQs); receipt and award purchase orders or blanket purchase orders for
goods and services estimated in value of less than or equal to $50,000.
The Capital Projects Division consists of two sections responsible for procuring professional
services and construction, operations and maintenance contracts, and capital acquisitions. This
Division also provides cost and price analysis support for the Department.
The Strategic Sourcing Division consists of two sections responsible for operational,
maintenance, and business services procurements in support of all DART departments. This
Division procures a wide variety of goods and services, including small purchases, technology,
marketing services, and business products and services.
Procurement Administration provides administrative, technical, and policy-related support to the

Procurement Department, and responds to questions from internal customers and vendors
regarding vendor registrations, contracts, and the solicitation process. They maintain the vendor
database, issue public notices and advertisements of procurement opportunities, make
procurement-related postings to DART’s supplier portal, and manage the receipt and storage of
bids and offers.
This section is responsible for technical support, including the development of reports,
coordination with IT staff, assisting with the development and enhancement of applications, and
assisting staff with IT requirements. This section identifies process improvements and
business/system process solutions to meet business objectives. Policy support includes
coordination with internal and external audit/review teams, updating policies and procedures,
responding to public record requests, and other activities.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for FY 2015

 32% D/M/WBE Participation
 100% capital project contracts awarded on-time and under budget
 90% of contracts extended before original expiration date
 90% of contract extensions to Board 180 days or more before expiration date
 90% customer satisfaction
 85% supplier satisfaction
 3 or more bidders on at least 90% of our solicitations
 Measured savings 10x budget
 100% of protests responded to on time
 100% compliance with FTA requirements, where applicable
Hill International provides professional services in connection with DART’s capital program.
Hill’s role includes project controls, cost estimating and other services on a task order basis.
Figure 14.6: Executive Management Team Organization Chart
14.3 Regional Transit District (RTD), Denver, CO
RTD’s 2014 Adopted Budget program included new capital expenditures of $870.3 million, debt
payments of $61.5 million, a FasTracks contingency reserve of $30.0 million, a FasTracks
Internal Savings Account of $21.4 million, a Board appropriated fund of $26.5 million, a capital
replacement fund of $19.3 million, and an estimated unrestricted fund balance of $23.4 million.
A carry forward of $1,063.2 million from previously approved capital projects also was
appropriated, resulting in a total capital budget of $1,933.5 million, and a total appropriation of
$2,789.6 million.
The Capital Programs Department is responsible for project delivery of major capital programs
at RTD. The department takes the lead upon completion of planning in the engineering,
construction and integration of capital projects. This includes RTD’s FasTracks program.
Specific areas include all areas of engineering including civil, drainage, structural, track work,
utilities, architectural, mechanical, electrical and systems (traction power, overhead contact
systems, train control, communications, corrosion control and system wide electrical). The three
divisions include program implementation, engineering and systems engineering. The Capital
Programs Department is responsible for delivery project on-time, with budget and with high
quality that meets RTD requirements. The department works closely with all other RTD
departments in project delivery.
FasTracks Implementation and FasTracks Corridors are responsible for the design and
construction of all rapid transit corridor projects in the FasTracks Program. This includes
oversight of all design and construction contracts, systems design, and quality assurance for the
FasTracks program. These groups work closely with all other divisions of the Capital Programs
Department and all other departments of the District to ensure that FasTracks corridors are
completed on schedule and within budget.
Engineering is responsible for the design and construction of capital projects outside the
FasTracks Program, including bus and LRT systems, park-n-Ride and transfer facilities,
renovation and expansion of existing park-n-Rides, and construction of enhancements to the
existing transit system. It is also responsible for engineering and design support for the
FasTracks program, in the areas of utilities, drainage, track work engineering, and structural/civil
engineering. This division also is responsible for all District property management activities,
including acquisition, leases, joint-use agreements, easements, and license agreements.
The Capital Programs department is organized along functional lines, with FasTracks and non-
FasTracks staff reporting through a single organizational structure. However, the FasTracks
budget segregates Capital Programs department expenses funded through FasTracks from those
paid through RTD’s non-FasTracks funding. The FasTracks budget also includes FasTracks-
related expenses incurred by other departments, as well as interest expense on debt issued for the
FasTracks program.
Lessons Learned in CIP Program Implementation

1. Projects should be appropriately staffed with experienced planning and engineering project
managers and support personnel from day one. The staffing resources in certain areas have
not always been sufficient to adequately address the demands of the program.
2. While the matrix organization works well in most cases, each corridor needs an adequate
core group of personnel who are fully dedicated to that corridor. Decision-making needs to
be delegated to the appropriate manager, particularly the Project Manager on each corridor.
The role and assignment of consultants on the program needs to be clearly defined to take
advantage of these resources.
The personnel assigned to the program consist of both RTD personnel and consultants. The
consultants function as an extension of staff and the organization is set-up as one overall team,
without distinctions between RTD and consultant. A matrix organization has been established
where personnel from various disciplines support assigned corridors.
A major area that experienced problems and is being addressed is the staffing resources for each
corridor. For example, the West Corridor was initially set up with a Project Manager, two
support professionals and support from the matrix organization. This proved inadequate to
manage the complex issues during final design and movement into construction, particularly
after one of the key personnel left the program. This particular case has been addressed – there is
now a complete 20-person team dedicated to construction oversight on the West Corridor.
However, as pointed out by the FTA and their own peer review, inadequate project staffing is a
false savings that must continue to be addressed.
It is also important to assign full responsibility and authority to make the final decisions on
program implementation to the FasTracks Program Manager, in conjunction with the General
Manager and Board of Directors. In addition, the relevant FasTracks managers need to be
involved in decision-making and should be delegated the appropriate level of decision-making
authority.
Although a greater emphasis is placed on assigning dedicated personnel to corridors, they plan to
continue the matrix organization. This enables efficiency in assigning personnel when a specific
expertise or resource is required that may not be available on a corridor. It also assures a level of
standardization and provides great experience for personnel who may later transfer or be
promoted to a corridor position. They will also be maintaining the current “one-team” approach
with RTD and consultant personnel. Consultants will continue to be utilized for specialized areas
of expertise that would be difficult for RTD to recruit, and can be moved in and out of the
program on shorter-term assignments, as needed.
Hill International and its joint venture Triunity Engineering & Management have been awarded a
contract by RTD to provide construction management support consultant services in connection
with RTD’s FasTrack Program. The Triunity/Hill team will function as an extension of RTD’s
staff by providing a range of construction management services on various projects.
Figure 14.7: Denver RTD Organization Chart
14.4 Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), Miami, FL
Miami-Dade County (MDT) is comprised of 13 district elected commissioners and 1 elected
mayor responsible for the day-to-day operations of the county. MDT is a department of Miami-
Dade County and must ultimately bring all their Capital Improvement Plans to the Miami-Dade
Board for final approval. Before the Board of County Commissioners approves a project, the
Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust (CITT) must review and approve the use of any
surtax funds.
The citizens of Miami-Dade County approved a ½ cent Charter County Sales Surtax on
November 5, 2002. The purpose of the surtax was to implement the People’s Transportation
Plan (PTP), which includes a broad range of projects including extensions to the Metrorail
system, expansions of the MetroBus system, improving traffic signalization, improving major
and neighborhood roads and highways and the funding of municipalities for road and
transportation projects.
Voters also approved, as part of the ballot question, the “Citizens’ Independent Transportation
Trust” (the CITT or Trust) to oversee the proceeds of the surtax and the implementation of the
People’s Transportation Plan. The Board of County Commissioners amended the ordinance
governing the activities of the Trust (Ordinance 02-116) on September 21, 2010 to establish a
five-year implementation plan.
The Office of the Citizens’ Independent Transportation Trust (OCITT) provides all necessary
resources and support staff to the CITT and CITT Nominating Committee to perform oversight
of the county transit system surtax and implementation of the People’s Transportation Plan. As
part of the Transportation strategic area, the OCITT provides staff support to the CITT and its
subcommittees, reviews municipal transportation plans, conducts public outreach programs and
workshops, and provides financial controls for the allocation and transfer of surtax revenues to
municipalities.
The OCITT works closely with the CITT, MDT, the MPO for the Miami urbanized area, and
other organizations related to transportation services in Miami-Dade County. The ultimate
authority of the capital improvement projects to be recommended to the BCC is from the
Director of Miami-Dade Transit. The Project Originator is the individual that identifies the need
for a project and initiates the Project Prioritization and Budget (PPBA) approval process to
request funding. Project Originators can come from internal and external sources.
Project Originator
For projects responding to MDT’s need, requested by external sources (i.e. the general public,
other Miami-Dade County departments, Legislature, etc.), requests come in through the MDT
Director’s office then are forwarded to the authorized MDT staff who assigns a Project
Originator. For new projects responding to MDT’s needs requested by both internal and external
sources, the Project Originator completes the PPBA or the Project Number Request Form (PNR)
with support of other Miami-Date Transit divisions as required. The PNR form is submitted for
projects that do not require budget prioritization. A project number is assigned for project
identification and tracking purposes.
The Project Originator’s Division is responsible for determining if the work will be done within
the Division or a Project Manager from another Division will be requested. The Project
Originator is also responsible for the necessary coordination among divisions and departments in
completing the PBBA form. This coordination includes scheduling, cost estimating, preparation
of cash flows, etc. The Project Originator takes the necessary steps to identify the Project
Manager. The form is then submitted to the Office of Strategic Planning & Performance
Management (OSPPM) to have the project approved by the Planning Approval Board for
implementation and funding identified.
Stakeholders are involved in all phases of the project to ensure success. The Project is then
identified in the TIP that prioritizes projects for Federal, State, and local funding. The
Project Originator monitors and evaluates whether Miami-Date Transit’s goals are being
accomplished efficiently and cost effectively.
Project Originators enforce performance of the contract’s terms and conditions. The PNR form
ensures that all guidelines and requirements of each particular Grant funding source are met. The
Project Originator serves as liaison with contractor or consultant and ensures contractual services
are rendered in accordance with terms of agreement prior to invoice payment.
The Project Originator is charged with development of the CIP materials for submission to the
MDT resource allocation and Performance Reporting Division for preparing MDT’s yearly
proposed capital budget and multi-year Capital Plan. After the Project Prioritization Process and
all the stakeholders have had their input and a list of projects has been created, a (5) year plan is
developed which is submitted to the Director of MDT then the BCC receives for approval.
When the (5) year plan is approved, the first year of projects with authorized funding goes to
MDT / Divisions within Miami-Dade County to be procured.
MDT handles bus procurement, maintenance, operations, and engineering. The Trust and the
Mayor oversee the (5) year plan of the recommended projects for the ½ cent surtax funds. These
projects are consistent with the MPO’s TIP and LRTP. MDT has control over the projects they
want to recommend for funding by way of the Project Originators from internal and external
sources.
A Project Prioritization Process is accomplished with all the stakeholders to create a list of
projects for the year. This updates the 5-year plan for the TIP.
Miami-Dade Transit’s planned capital expenditures for the period FY 2015 to FY 2024 is
divided into two groups: 1.) Those projects which will be financed with People’s Transportation
Plan (PTP)-backed debt8; and, 2.) Those projects which will be paid for on a “cash” basis with
funding from various sources. For large capital projects or ongoing projects during FY 2015 –
FY 2024 (such as bus acquisition and replacement), these may be funded by a combination of
debt proceeds and cash.
8
The People's Transportation Plan (PTP) is a half-penny transportation surtax approved by Miami-Dade County
voters in November 2002. PTP revenue is used to fund major roadway and public transportation improvements.
Figure 14.8: MDT Capital Expenditures FY 2015-2014
Figure 14.9: MDT Organization Structure
14.5 Chicago Transit Authority (CTA), Chicago, IL
Twenty (20) project categories comprise the CTA’s proposed FY 2015-2019 capital plan. Each
project within these programs is evaluated in an annual review process. Evaluation criteria
include: customer and employee safety, reductions to travel time, increased customer comfort
and convenience, system security, impact on system reliability, compliance with regulations, and
community impact.
With the exception of the bond repayment category, rail system projects receive a significantly
larger portion of the proposed capital program funding than bus projects, due partly to the need
to maintain an exclusive right-of-way while buses operate on streets maintained by other units of
government. The capital projects proposed for FY 2015-2019 and beyond are intended to address
the CTA’s most critical needs for the bus and rail system, customer facilities, and system wide
support.
The proposed projects in CTA’s 2015-2019 Capital Program total $1,155,526 billion and
continue the replacement of rail cars and buses. The CTA will move forward on continued
system-wide station rehabilitations including the “Your New Blue” initiative. The two largest
investment areas are rolling stock (39%) and stations and passenger facilities (9%), while debt
service is held at 32%. The general categories of capital improvements comprising the CTA’s
portion of the Capital Program are illustrated below.
Highlights of projects included in the CTA’s proposed 2015-2019 Capital Program are:
 $513.0 million for the purchase of rail cars

 $193.4 million for the purchase of buses
 $189.8 million to rehabilitate rail stations
 $111.2 million to upgrade power and signals
 $91.0 million for the overhaul of rail cars
 $81.0 million for the improvement of facilities
 $76.7 million for the repair of track and structure
 $39.0 million to perform mid-life bus overhauls
Figure 14.10: CTA Proposed FY 2015-2019 CIP Program
Figure 14.11: CTA FY 2015Budget Organization Chart
Figure 14.12: CTA VP Level Organization Chart
Chapter 15. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations
MARTA’s leadership is committed to making its CIP process as efficient and effective as
possible through the use of technology, improved communication, training of employees,
transparency and cost-saving investment strategies. MARTA is making critical investments in its
rolling stock and infrastructure as the agency continues its focus on safety, service reliability and
on-time performance. MARTA’s 2015 Capital Program includes the installation of a Positive
Train Control (PTC) system, which will prevent train-to-train collisions, over-speed derailments,
and injuries.
GEC Contractors (MATC and Intueor)

Risk is inherent in every capital project does not need to impede its progress. MATC can play a
key role in keeping MARTA’s capital projects on track by providing independent, customized
services that manage risk and deliver desired results. MATC’s single-call network of over 20
companies with over 60,000 staff resources worldwide provide numerous benefits to the delivery
of MARTA’s capital program.
A key to success is the caliber and commitment of MARTA’s GEC professional and their transit
industry-specific expertise in the various types of rail and transit projects – from light rail to
interconnected urban transit that connects MARTA’s customers and places in new and
innovative ways. MATC should continue to play a role in providing MARTA with views if the
risks that transit projects are likely to encounter. MARTA must understanding those unique
challenges and opportunities, in addition to the intricacies and constraints of federal and state
funding in an environment with ever-tightening budgets.
Capital projects are impacted by both national trends such as Homeland Security matters, Train
Control, and hometown concerns such as the Atlanta streetcar project. Understanding this
requires a unique approach and the unique crossroad at which MARTA is facing in transitioning
some of the work performed by its GEC to internal employees. It is important that MATC and
Intueor understands the requirements of this approach. MATC and Intueor’s scope of services
should be evaluated on an ongoing basis to determine the efficiency cost and effective use of
their experience and budgeted accordingly on an annual basis.
MARTA must explore new ways to deliver its capital projects and share risks with its partners
through the pursuit of enhanced asset management practices throughout the MARTA system for
longevity of its assets and improved asset investment planning. The benchmarking of major
multimodal transit authorities and their organization has a clearly defined separation of
Operations and the responsibilities of the CIP.
We believe that MARTA should review its organization structure and separate capital program
responsibilities. A separate division should be formed that is responsible for all capital program
project management, Engineering &Development, Architecture and Design and other related
functions. The executive leader of the new CIP division should report directly to the MARTA’s
GM/CEO. This re-structuring would allow Operations to focus on its key responsibility which is
to deliver safe, reliable and on time and courteous service to MARTA’s customers who access
MARTA fixed route, rail and Mobility service.
This organizational re-alignment would also promote transparency between the Operations
Department and the CIP process, promote accountability and culture change and enhance the
migration of certain duties and responsibilities currently performed by MATC and Intueor.
MARTA personnel lack the skills necessary to reduce its dependence on the use of GCPS
contractors such as MATC and Intueor. Until qualified staff is hired in the key areas;
Engineering, A/E, and Project Management, there will continue to be a need for specialized
consultants. The migration of duties from MATC and Intueor, and the hiring of personnel with
necessary skills; along with the training of MARTA staff, should be a priority in the CIP process.
CPM is making inroads to transform itself into a new working model for the organization and
should impact many areas in a positive way; however this effort may be impaired due to the
recent departure of the Senior Director CPM. The interaction planned for the future will allow
communication and sharing of information in an open centralized and more transparent manner.
MARTA’s corporate team and the executive management team should be briefed monthly on
CIP projects to obtain updates on project schedules, project budgets and GEC contractor’s
performance. Currently there is a lack of project oversight and it is incumbent on Project
Managers to fulfill their role completely.
The last FTA Triennial Review, which was conducted in October 2013, did not raise any red
flags that triggered an enhanced review. In addition to Triennial Reviews, FTA Region 4
conducts Quarterly Reviews of MARTA’s capital projects. Based on these reviews, there have
been find that are not updated, and expired milestones. MARTA should ensure that these
ongoing FTA observations are corrected and milestones are updated as needed.
MARTA departments are seeking direction from within the organization to eliminate silos,
enhance communication between departments, enforce established policies and procedures, and
hire talented staff, increase automation of capital project oversight, and training.
As the result of the review team’s interviews with MARTA staff, GCPS contractors,
observations and peer reviews of industry best practices, listed below is a summary of key
strengths, weaknesses, and recommendations and action plan for improving MARTA’s current
CIP process.
Recommendations and action plan are prioritized for areas that have greater impact on the CIP
process than others. Recommendations are also provided as a potential way for addressing
findings. They are provided for MARTA’s consideration in developing improvements and
action plans for those findings for which improvements are indicated.
Recommendations are assigned a priority rating as follows:
Figure 15.0 Prioritization Rating

Priority Rating Impact on Improving the Customer Experience
A High Priority – recommendations that could significantly improve the CIP
process
B Medium Priority – recommendation that could have moderate impact on
improving the CIP process
C Low Priority – recommendations that could have low impact on improving
the CIP process
A= High Priority: recommendations that could significantly improve the CIP process
B= Medium Priority: recommendation that could have moderate impact on the CIP process
C= Low Priority: recommendations that could have low impact on improving the CIP process
Summary of Key Strengths, Weaknesses, Recommendations and Action Plan
Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations and Action Plan Priority
MATC MATC is comprised There is no evidence of a formal standard MARTA should establish milestones for design and A
of over 20 companies procedure for verification of completion of construction projects, and set criteria for verification of
and provides single- milestones from which payments are made to all milestones and use this as a mechanism for
point management of contractors. substantiating payments.
on-site and off-site
staff who provide Independent estimates are not being Independent estimates should be consistently A
services MARTA consistently obtained in accordance with conducted according to Section 3.1.3 “Independent
MARTA’s GCPS Work Orders Procedure Labor Hour Estimate (ILHE)” as outlined in the GCPS
which states that work order packages must Work Orders Procedure.
include an “Independent Labor Hour Estimate.”
MATC’s Master Work Order Log for FY 2015, MARTA should modify MATC’s Work Order Master
do not contain hours per task. The FY15 period Log format so that the dates of deliverables are clearly B
of performance is shown (7/1/14 – 6/30/15); defined. MARTA should also add the hours per task.
however, the work order log does not contain The term “Ball in Court” shown on the Work Order
deadlines or clearly defined deliverables. Log should be changed to a more descriptive term; i.e.
“current location of the work order.”
Payment of MATC invoices is slow taking 90 The invoice payment process should be automated to
days to process. An invoice is 1,000 pages long. expedite and streamline processing of invoices. B
Work scopes are poorly written and are not or MARTA should develop clearly defined, realistic work
well-defined, which result in schedule delays A
scopes to enhance projects that are on-budget and on-
and cost over-runs. time.
A= High Priority: recommendations that could significantly improve the customer experience
B= Medium Priority: recommendation that could have moderate impact on the customer experience
C= Low Priority: recommendations that could have low impact on improving the customer experience
Intueor A majority of the consultants are working MARTA should adhere to its rules and regulations that A
without a valid work order although MARTA became effective on April 1, 2013 which disallows
policies state work orders are not valid unless consultants to work without a valid signed and fully
the vendor signs agreeing to all of MARTA’s executed work order acknowledging agreement with
terms and conditions. MARTA’s terms and conditions. MARTA should not
pay for work performed without proper approvals.
Travel Allowance Justification Forms are being MARTA should require Intueor to submit “Trip A
approved by MARTA’s COO and CFO without Reports” and other documentation to document travel
any requiring any apparent follow-up or amounts being paid by MARTA. Reasons for travel
documentation. Forms are not dated. provided by Intueor are “transfer of knowledge to
MARTA staff of CIP Decision model and Expert
Choice software” and “provide research and lessons
learned from peer agencies” should be followed up on
including documentation of hours of training by topic
along with the names of MARTA employees who
received the training. MARTA should also require
Intueor to utilize technology such as “webinars” and
online meetings to conduct “team status meetings” and
to “monitor progress” on projects. Vague justifications
such as “audit as needed” should not be accepted by
MARTA. Also MARTA should require Intueor to
conduct “Peer Agency Industry Reviews” by telephone
Rate Justification Forms were submitted by to survey peers to the extent possible to minimize
Intueor to MARTA for 7 consultants requesting travel costs.
exceptions for the standard labor cap of $125/
hr to an increased rate of $160/hr, which Rate Justification Forms should be modified to include A
represent a 28% cost increase in the original the total number of approved project hours per
standard labor rate. Aside from providing contractor and allocated amount. A rate survey should
resumes of the individuals, there is no real be conducted of consultants by an independent
justification for the rate increase, which was MARTA prior to approval of a rate increase. This will
approved by MARTA’s COO and CFO. The determine if a rate increase is justified based on local
total number of hours and total cost of the consultants with comparable skills. Also, Rate
exception is not shown on the form. In several Adjustment Forms should be dated.
instances Intueor requested and obtained
approval from MARTA for both travel and rate
allowance for the same consultant.
Intueor A large number of Intueor consultants are MARTA should consider migrating many of Intueor A
(cont.) allowed to work remotely from locations consultant’s duties and responsibilities by hiring
outside of Georgia without oversight, control temporary workers, not to exceed 2 years which would
monitoring or reporting to validate hours result in significant cost savings over exercising option
expended on MARTA projects. For example, years remaining on the contract.
some of the Intueor consultants are budgeted to
work over $1,900 hours plus large travel budget
up to $15,000 annually at an hourly pay rate of
$160, which exceeds the standard labor rate of
$125 per hr.
Capital The CIC is the CIC members do not receive training and Provide CIC members with training and orientation to A
Improvement governance structure orientation to enhance members’ understanding enhance members’ understanding of MARTA’s CIP
Committee responsible for of the CIP process. process.
(CIC) managing the
planning and
execution of The CIC governance document dated Revise and update the current draft CIC document and
MARTA’s Capital September 7, 2011 is a draft. The document is formally approve it. New members should also be B
Improvement outdated, contains positions that do not exist appointed and each member should be provided a
Program. (Deputy General Manager/Chief Operating copy.
Officer), and contains members who are no
longer with MARTA. The document does not
list the tiles of members or offices held; i.e.
Chairman, etc. The document includes
“proposed new roles” such as Project Controls,
Project and Construction Management.
Contracts, CPM adheres to There is a good skills base in place; however, MARTA should automate CPM process to the extent A
Procurement, standard procurement due to manual and paper-driven processes possible linking to budget and financial programs and
Materials policies; including the currently in place, those skills are under- maximizing the use of Oracle and other software
(CPM) Brooks Act and Buy utilized. programs.
America as well as
required standard Some documents, policies and procedures that Revise the CPM SOP manual to reflect the proposed A
federal procurement are utilized to govern current processes and organizational/operational model currently being used.
procedures. functions throughout the Agency are out dated The new SOP should be implemented prior to the new
or in draft (unapproved) form. Outdated FY16 which starts 7/1/15.
Current procedures documents do not appropriately reflect the
generally conform to procedures that are being executed day-to-day
required procurement
procedures designed CPM has numerous functions that are outside CPM should be re-structured to focus on procurement-
to encourage and of the traditional procurement function; i.e. related activities. C
facilitate competition mail management, courier service, copy and
and DBE print management facilities, executive meeting
requirements. services, and events management which
exacerbates staffing shortages and limited
An FTA Triennial resources and detracts from managing CIP-
review was conducted related activities.
in October 2013 in
which there were no On June 30, 2014 rejected 11 Intueor’s work MARTA should ensure that all Intueor work orders
Procurement findings orders that did not meet MARTA’s GCPS meet MARTA’s guidelines prior to payment, and A
of deficiency. guidelines and could not be processed. continue to reject work orders that do not meet
Deficiencies included work orders submitted requirements.
for individuals who were not approved GCPS
contractors, work orders that lacked travel
justification forms and rate justification forms,
work orders assigned to preferred vendors that
had not undergone the proper solicitation
process, work orders with mathematical errors,
and work orders incorrectly completed.
Contracts, CPM has several vacant positions that are Vacant positions in CPM that are authorized in the A
Procurement, critical to the CIP process budget and are critical to the CIP process should be
Materials filled.
(CPM) cont.
CPM scheduled an interview with an CPM should adhere to MARA guidelines and should A
unauthorized Intueor consultant provide work orders to only MARTA-approved
(Terry Stimson) and firm (Tek Systems) to consultants and firms.
perform MARTA work.
Operations Communications within different levels of the The Operations department should develop reports to A
(CIP) Agency is inadequate; particularly reporting enhance communication with the EMT and corporate
and communication to the EMT and above. team. In addition, regularly scheduled standing meeting
should be conducted with senior staff.
MARTA does not have a centralized Project MARTA should centralize its PMO to minimize
Management Office (PMO) which contributes discontinuity between business units. According to B
to a lack of uniformity and standardization of staff, 25-33% of the CIP is managed by individual
business processes. business units, which equates to more than $100
million in capital projects.
Administrative processes are outdated and MARTA should centralize its PMO to minimize A
include multiple signatures. business discontinuity between business units that play
roles in the CIP process.
There are no CIP performance measures to Establish appropriate CIP key performance measures
quantify accountability. E&D have KPIs only (KPIs) to mirror CIP environment. B
relevant to labor although the department plays
a key role in the CIP process. The Office of
Maintenance of Way does not have capital
program KPIs although this office is
responsible for managing the maintenance
programs for the Authority’s train control and
signaling system; traction, auxiliary and
emergency power systems; track structures, and
right of way; for all Authority-owned buildings,
rail stations, rail yards, parking facilities, bus
garages and real estate.
Operations is also responsible for delivery of MARTA should re-aligning Operations organizational A
the capital program, in addition to being structure to create an independent department that
responsible for the direction and management reports directly to the CEO, for the delivery of
of the operations and maintenance of the MARTA’s capital projects.
Authority’s transit system.
Information Oracle is not being utilized in an optimal MARTA should seek ways to maximize the capability A
Technology manner to support the CIP process. Programs of Oracle. Staff should be trained on Oracle programs
are not in place to allow forecasting of funds, and modules to fully implement Oracle as a tool to
and there are ledger variances between project monitor and communicate budget information on
spend and procurement. capital projects in real time.
Human Engineering & MARTA has a lack of in-house talent to fully MARTA should continue to move forward on the A
Resources Development has support delivery of the CIP process and projects migration of duties and responsibilities from
identified non- consultants to in-house. MARTA should hire approved
represented positions staff in the FY 2015 budget (see Attachment A)
to be transitioned to
internal employees to Internal staff does not have the skills to handle In-house staff should be trained to increase skill sets. A
support the CIP the capital projects database on behalf of MARTA should also adjust pay scales to attract the
process MARTA; thus, which requires MARTA to most skilled staff for the positions. Skills needed for
utilize outside resources. Two to three years internal staff to perform the tasks that are currently
ago, MARTA experienced high turnover. being performed by consultants include database
Several interviewees involved in the CIP maintenance, and Expert Choice decision-making
process stated that they were unaware of any tools, and contracting knowledge. DROP employees
plans to train. with capital program backgrounds can be used to train
employees and assist in migrating duties performed by
consultants to internal staff.
Internal staff does not have the skills to handle In-house staff should be trained to increase skill sets. A
the database on behalf of MARTA, which MARTA should also adjust pay scales to attract the
requires MARTA to utilize outside resources. most skilled staff for the positions. Skills needed for
Two to three years ago, MARTA experienced internal staff to perform the tasks that are currently
high turnover. Several interviewees involved in being performed by consultants include database
the CIP process stated that they were unaware maintenance, and Expert Choice decision-making
of any plans to train. tools, and contracting knowledge
With the Deferred Retirement Option Program MARTA should seek ways to utilize DROP employees A
(DROP), DROP employees are getting who played a key role in the CIP process transfer
promoted and there is no knowledge transfer. knowledge employees to enhance skills required for the
delivery of the capital program. This could expedite the
development and roll-out of MARTA’s plan to migrate
tasks currently being performed by consultants to
internal staff.
Finance It takes 3 months to get an invoice prepared for MARTA should collaborate with Finance to identify A
payment. ways to accelerate processing and payment of invoices.
Invoicing is decentralized and has numerous MARTA should centralize the invoicing process to
entry points and approvals which adversely shorten the time required to process invoices. A
impacts timely payment.
Consultant fees and work orders are not easily MARTA should develop and implement a centralized
identified due to the lack of a centralized accounting of total fees for CIP contractors and sub- A
accounting process. It is difficult to measure consultants.
how consultants are being utilized due to the
lack of a centralized recordkeeping between all
contracts, sub-consultants and on-call work
orders.
Access to financial information relevant to MARTA should improve access to financial A

capital projects is untimely and does not information and integrate accounting and financial
support efficient CIP processes. Also, reports systems, which also improve the availability of timely
are 60 days late due to the lack of integration of reports. This would also enhance the accuracy of
project accounting and financial systems. project level and program level reporting for
management decision-making.
Organization Operations is combined with the Capital The review team believes that the new organizational A
Realignment Delivery Program, which limits the ability to structure would allow the Operations Department to
focus on key performance drivers of the CIP fully focus on the delivery of safe, reliable, on-time
process and Operations. This impacts the ability service across all modes of transportation; particularly
to achieve maximum efficiency with the two in the bus and Mobility service, which is currently
functions. The combined business units lend under-performing in key areas.
itself to a perception of not being transparent in
the selection and management of CIP projects. The review team also bench-marked other transit
agencies and reviewed and evaluated their
organizational structure including DART, Denver
RTD, Miami-Dade Transit, MTA and Chicago Transit
Authority. Please see the organizational charts for
these agencies in Chapter 14: Peer Review and
Industry Analysis.
Police It takes months to get through the procurement Police Operations, CPM and E&D should work A
Operations process for Homeland Security-related projects. collaboratively to identify and mitigate “bottlenecks” in
The CIP and procurement process have created the CIP process, and seek ways to enhance efficiency.
numerous bottlenecks that hinder police
operations’ ability to advance the security and
emergency management process.
Police operations efforts have been hampered Police Operations, Grants, and CPM should work A
by CPM’s effort to apply FTA’s standards to collaboratively to identify ways to adhere to FTA
the Transportation Security Administration standards and obtain TSA funds to execute
(TSA) funds the department has tried to programmed capital projects.
execute.
There are inefficiencies in the CIP process Grants for Homeland Security and other police-related
relevant to Department of Homeland Security grants that have sensitive deadlines for use of grant A
(DHS) grants. The timing of the CIP process funds should have special consideration in MARTA’s
and the approval of the grant applications do Grants Department and Office of CPM.
not align with the execution timeline
established by DHS. Police Operations has a
short window of opportunity to expend grant
funds and must request extension or re-program
funds to other projects. Oftentimes there are no
programmed CIP projects to execute the grant
dollars against in the event projects are not
approved and funded. Also, Police Operations
does not have the ability to use DHS approved
GSA schedules to execute grant dollars in a
more expedient manner.
Transparency MARTA does not have a web-based Capital MARTA should develop a web-based Capital Program A
Program Dashboard that provides internal and Dashboard which will provide internal and external
external customers and stakeholders with customers and stakeholders with access to information
access to information about each capital project about each capital project in the CIP.
in the CIP, which could promote transparency
Many of MARTA’s large and complex capital MARTA should utilize an IEC to conduct risk A
projects are not subject to risk assessments by assessments of its large and complex capital projects.
an Independent Engineer Consultant (IEC). An The IEC should systematically evaluate projects with
IEC would provide independent monitoring of the aim of minimizing and mitigating risks and
capital program activities to minimize and ensuring adequate levels of budget and schedule
mitigate risks of the largest and most complex contingency. The IEC should also present key review
projects. findings at MARTA Capital Program Oversight
Committee (CPOC) meetings.
MARTA does not have a “Project Gates” MARTA should develop and initiate a “Gates” A
Capital approach to reviewing its capital projects, approach and strategy starting with its FY 2016 CIP.
Projects which would put controls in place that at key This approach will put controls in place that review
Review stages of project development. every capital project at each stage of development to
ensure that MARTA is on schedule to deliver the goals
of the project at the lowest cost. In the event a project
does not pass its review, MARTA should place the
project on hold from advancement to the next step
until all problems have been solved. Gates is a key
element utilized by the transit industry and MARTA’s
peers to assist in realizing cost savings.
Capital MARTA’s capital program controls are not MARTA should implement the following to ensure that A
Projects subject to multiple levels of ongoing oversight projects have multiple layers of ongoing oversight:
Controls from inception to completion.
a. Capital Program Oversight Committee- the
MARTA Board should implement and convene a
monthly meeting of the Capital Program Oversight
Committee (CPOC) to provide broad oversight of
Capital Program activities. CPOC should be chaired by
the MARTA Chairman and CEO who would review a
wide variety of topics ranging from periodic reviews of
major capital projects, to updates on special initiatives.
A series of monthly program-wide progress reports
would also be presented at every CPOC meeting,
highlighting project status and funding.
b. Project Gates- MARTA capital projects would be

subject to Gate reviews at key project delivery
milestones. The Gates process is based on industry best
practices to ensure that projects:
 Deliver maximum benefits at minimum life-
cycle cost (i.e. “best value”), and
 Are successfully delivered on schedule and

on-budget
Each Gate represents an analytical “checkpoint” that

must be passed before advancing to the next stage of
project delivery.
 Gate 1 (prior to Design) – Ensures that the
project scope addresses priority business
needs, has undergone an alternatives analysis
to ensure a “best value” approach, and
incorporates adequate budget and schedule.
Capital  Gate 2 (mid-Design) – Validates that the

Projects project design is developing in line with
Controls original scope objectives and that any
(cont.) variations in scope, cost, or schedule are being
addressed.
 Gate 3 (prior to Construction) – Confirms that

the final design meets the intended purpose of
the project, that the budget includes adequate
cost contingency, and that construction risks
are identified and mitigated.
 Gate 4 (project completion) – Ensures that the

project is on-course to deliver intended
benefits in operation and that lessons learned
are passed on to other projects.
Where issues are encountered, each Gate review

provides an opportunity to make a “mid-course
correction” before progressing a project any further,
e.g., to revise a budget or reassess the project scope.
The Gates Process is also designed to improve program
management efficiency, by targeting MARTA
Headquarters oversight to the highest-value, highest-
risk projects, and reducing administrative transactions.
c. Independent Engineering Consultant (IEC) - The

IEC provides independent monitoring of capital
program activities, typically focusing on the largest and
most complex projects. Many of these projects are
subject to risk assessments, which systematically
evaluate projects with the aim of mitigating risks and
ensuring adequate levels of budget and schedule
contingency. The IEC generally presents key review
findings at CPOC
Capital MARTA’s capital program and project MARTA should make its capital program and the A
Program information has limited transparency and is not comprehensive array of capital information available
Transparency available to the public. to the public via a website; for example,
“marta.info/capital” and MARTA social media sites.
MARTA’s transparency initiatives should include the

following:
Transparency MARTA does not have a capital program a. Dashboard - MARTA should implement a capital B
Initiatives Dashboard that serves as a gateway to program Dashboard that serves as the gateway to
information about MARTA’s capital program information about MARTA’s capital program
activities. activities. It should include interactive features such as
maps, charts, photos, and project lists that can be used
to explore the entire capital program, or narrow in on
details of a specific project. The Dashboard should be
updated quarterly to reflect the scope, schedule, and
budget of MARTA’s myriad of capital projects.
b. Board Materials -MARTA’s Board material is

currently available for download from MARTA’s
website; http://itsmarta.com/board-of-directors.aspx,
however, information on MARTA’s capital program is
limited. All MARTA Board materials should be
available for download from MARTA’s website. This
should include includes materials presented to the
capital program-focused CPOC committee, as well as
various reports on capital program-related issues
presented to MARTA’s committees; i.e. Business
Management Committee, the Operations and Safety
Committee, etc. Streaming webcasts of MARTA’s
Board and committee meetings are should also be
available for download.
Capital MARTA does not publish on an on-going basis c. Commitments and Completions Report - MARTA A
Program Commitments and Completions Report that should develop and publish this report on a monthly
Transparency provides an overview of projects that are either basis in each CPOC committee book. The report
(Cont.) starting or finishing a major stage of delivery in should provide a program-level overview of projects
the course of the year. that are either starting or finishing a major stage of
delivery in the course of the year. Explanations should
also be provided of any variances against the plan.
d. Funding Report - MARTA should publish on an A

on-going basis an overview of planned fund sources
and year-to-date funding receipts. This report should
be published on a monthly basis in each CPOC
committee book. The report should provide an
overview of planned fund sources by MARTA’s
capital program and funding receipts to date.
e. Traffic Light Report - The Traffic Light Report A

should be developed and published by the IEC and
should provide a prospective look at how individual
capital projects are trending against budget and
schedule. Projects that may be trending off course
should be flagged for further scrutiny. The projects
should be accompanied by a one-page write-up
identifying the concerns and what is being done to put
the project back on track.
f. MARTA Flickr - B
(www.flickr.com/photos/martaphotos)
MARTA should obtain a feed on the Flickr photo-
sharing web site to provide a behind-the- scenes look
at its dozens of capital projects in the pipeline. The
images should depict everything from choreographed
cranes replacing track, to tunnel ventilation, the
renovation of the Browns Mill Paint booth, to the radio
infrastructure system upgrade.
Capital g. MARTA YouTube - C

Program (www.youtube.com/user/martainfo)
Transparency MARTA should obtain a feed on the YouTube video-
(Cont.) sharing web site and should include a wide variety of
content, ranging from archived Board meeting
webcasts to a playlist of videos highlighting various
facets of the capital program.
Attachments
Attachment A: Non-Represented Positions for Migration of GEC Contractors’ Duties
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2015 MARTA External Audit

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

2015 MARTA External Audit

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MARTA Capital Improvement Program (CIP)

This Draft Report is furnished for review by MARTA’s Chief of

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ................................................................................................ 8

Chapter 2. Approach and Methodology ................................................................................................. 17

Chapter 3. Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Consultants (MATC)............................................. 21

Chapter 4. Intueor Consultants ............................................................................................................... 27

Chapter 5. Capital Improvement Committee (CIC) .............................................................................. 55

Chapter 6. Contracts & Procurement and Materials (CPM) ............................................................... 56

Chapter 7. Operations (Capital Improvement Program) .................................................................... 64

Chapter 8. Information Technology ........................................................................................................ 69

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 2

Chapter 10: Finance ................................................................................................................................. 72

Chapter 11. Police Operations ................................................................................................................. 74

Chapter 12. Organizational Analysis of MARTA’s CIP Process ......................................................... 79

Chapter 13. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Compliance of CIP Process............................... 82

14. Peer Review and Industry Best Practices ......................................................................................... 91

15. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................ 115

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 3

McCloud Transportation conducted a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of MARTA’s

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 4

1. Role of internal MARTA staff in the CIP process

 Contracts, Procurement and Materials (CPM)

Based on McCloud Transportation’s comprehensive review, it is proposed that MARTA

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 5

Other challenges identified in MARTA’s current CIP process include:

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 6

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 7

1.1 Project Goal

1.2 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Overview

2. Facilities and Stations

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 8

Figure 1.0: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Major Asset Categories

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 9

Currently, the CPM department’s structure has (3) distinct sections:

1. Contracts (Operations Division, Business Services, A&E/Construction Division)

 Reduce MARTA’s dependency on GCPS contractors

1.3 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process

 Project screening and scoping

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 10

1.4 Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Consultants (MATC)

Figure 1.1: MATC FY 2015 GEC Services

Services provided by the joint venture include:

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 11

 Policies and procedures

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 12

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 13

Intueor’s Scope of Work includes the following key deliverables:

 Configuration of Primavera P6 environment to support schedule control for monitoring

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 14

 The GCPS contractor’s projected hours have been depleted

 MARTA will not compensate vendors for GCPS Technology Contractor’s

 Vendor Purchase Order Number

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 15

Beasley, Cynthia Moss Jones, Walter M.

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 16

McCloud Transportation initiated the assessment by conducting an Entry Meeting with

Figure 2.0: List of Requested Documents

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 17

5. Customized Questionnaires – McCloud Transportation developed customized

8. CIP Organizational Analysis- an organizational analysis was conducted of MARTA’s

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 18

2. Work Order Deficiencies

3. Deliverables and Status Updates

Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process: Evaluation and Assessment Page 19