Report 2015-120 Recommendations

When an audit is completed and a report is issued, auditees must provide the State Auditor with information regarding their progress in implementing recommendations from our reports at three intervals from the release of the report: 60 days, six months, and one year. Additionally, Senate Bill 1452 (Chapter 452, Statutes of 2006), requires auditees who have not implemented recommendations after one year, to report to us and to the Legislature why they have not implemented them or to state when they intend to implement them. Below, is a listing of each recommendation the State Auditor made in the report referenced and a link to the most recent response from the auditee addressing their progress in implementing the recommendation and the State Auditor's assessment of auditee's response based on our review of the supporting documentation.

Recommendations in Report 2015-120: California Department of Transportation: Its Maintenance Division's Allocations and Spending for Field Maintenance Do Not Match Key Indicators of Need (Release Date: March 2016)

:
Recommendations to Legislature
Number Recommendation Status
1

To better align the maintenance division's allocations with districts' maintenance needs, the Legislature should include language in the Budget Act that requires the maintenance division to develop and implement a budget model for field maintenance by June 30, 2017, that takes into account key indicators of maintenance need, such as traffic volume, climate, service scores, and any other factors the maintenance division deems necessary to ensure that the model adequately considers field maintenance need.

Recommendations to Transportation, Department of
Number Recommendation Status
2

To better align the maintenance division's allocations with districts' maintenance needs, the Legislature should include language in the Budget Act that requires the maintenance division to develop and implement a budget model for field maintenance by June 30, 2017, that takes into account key indicators of maintenance need, such as traffic volume, climate, service scores, and any other factors the maintenance division deems necessary to ensure that the model adequately considers field maintenance need. Once the model is developed, Caltrans should use it to inform appropriate allocations to the districts.

Pending
3

Caltrans should revise the language in its future five-year maintenance plans to accurately describe the method it uses to allocate field maintenance funding to its districts.

Fully Implemented
4

To ensure that it performs field maintenance work consistently on highways with similar needs, the maintenance division should assess whether districts are using funds in a manner commensurate with indicators of need included in its new budget model.

Fully Implemented
5

To ensure that it performs field maintenance work consistently on highways with similar needs, the maintenance division should implement the zone-level evaluation of service scores contemplated in the earlier budget model that it abandoned.

Fully Implemented
6

To ensure that it performs field maintenance work consistently on highways with similar needs, the maintenance division should establish zone-specific service score goals for all of the field maintenance activities it deems critical to ensuring a safe and usable state highway system and require districts to meet those goals for all the zones within their borders.

Fully Implemented
7

To ensure that it performs field maintenance work consistently on highways with similar needs, the maintenance division should implement the requirements for strategically planning field maintenance work that it previously included in its maintenance manual or develop similar requirements that it believes are feasible and ensure that supervisors plan and schedule field maintenance work based on service scores. Caltrans should require superintendents and regional managers to approve those plans. Caltrans should also require supervisors and superintendents to monitor progress toward improving service scores.

Fully Implemented
8

Caltrans should require its staff to verify and update the status of all outstanding service requests. Additionally, Caltrans should require supervisors to monitor completion of service requests by reviewing the data from the service request system monthly to identify service requests not completed after a period of time that Caltrans deems appropriate, such as 30 days. For all service requests outstanding after this period, Caltrans should require its supervisors to determine the status of the service request by reviewing the related work order that records what work Caltrans completed and ensure the work is appropriately prioritized. Also, Caltrans should require its staff to record all service requests it receives via methods other than Caltrans' website, such as by phone, mail, or email, in its service request system to ensure it captures all service requests in one central repository.

Fully Implemented
9

To detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse and to ensure costs are appropriate, the maintenance division should strengthen its controls over reviewing and approving work order costs by requiring its supervisors and superintendents to document their review and approval of work orders in the maintenance management system. For example, supervisors or superintendents could include a note in the comment field of the work order indicating their review and approval. The maintenance division could also establish a reasonable dollar threshold for those work orders that would require documented review and approval.

Fully Implemented
10

To ensure that field maintenance work orders are completed in a timely manner, the maintenance division should require supervisors to initiate work orders in the integrated maintenance management system at the time that they identify field maintenance work that needs to be performed and record the date that work was started and the date the work was completed. Superintendents should periodically review work orders to ensure that identified work is completed in a timely manner.

Fully Implemented


Print all recommendations and responses.


Report type

Report type
















© 2013, California State Auditor | Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Download Adobe PDF Reader