Surface Transportation
Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions Gao ID: GAO-11-234 March 30, 2011In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) appropriated $1.5 billion for discretionary grants for capital investments in surface transportation projects of national and regional significance, including highways, transit, rail, ports, and others. The act required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop criteria to award these grants--known as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants--and to meet several statutory requirements. GAO was asked to review (1) the criteria and process used to evaluate applications and award grants, (2) the outcome of the process, and (3) the extent to which DOT communicated information to applicants and the public. GAO reviewed documentation of the award process and selection documentation and interviewed key DOT officials.
DOT developed criteria to evaluate TIGER applications, such as improving the state of repair of critical infrastructure, reducing fatalities and injuries, and increasing economic competitiveness by improving the efficient movement of workers or goods. GAO has called for a more performance-oriented approach to funding surface transportation and has recommended that a merit-based competitive approach--like TIGER--be used to direct a portion of federal funds to transportation projects of national and regional significance. This is a departure from the formula-based approach regularly used for surface transportation in which funds are largely returned to their state of origin and states have considerable flexibility in selecting projects for these funds--an approach that can potentially result in projects of national or regional significance that cross state lines and involve more than one transportation mode not competing well at the state level for these funds. DOT provides over $40 billion annually in formula funds to states and urbanized areas for highway and transit projects; by contrast, TIGER provided $1.5 billion on a one-time basis. However, TIGER was part of the Recovery Act, which was intended to provide economic stimulus across the nation, and the act required TIGER to balance using a competitive approach with achieving an equitable geographic distribution of funds. DOT has proposed a discretionary grant program like TIGER in its fiscal year 2012 budget, which means that DOT and Congress have the opportunity to consider how to balance the goals of merit-based selection of projects with geographic distribution of funds. Of the 51 applications that received awards, 26 were from the highly recommended applications advanced by the Evaluation Teams and the other 25, which received one-third of TIGER funds, were from the recommended applications advanced by the Control and Calibration Team. While DOT thoroughly documented the Evaluation Teams' assessments and the Review Team's memo described the strengths of projects recommended for award, it did not document the Review Team's final decisions and its rationale for selecting recommended projects for half the awards over highly recommended ones. Internal documentation of the Review Team's deliberations was limited to draft minutes from the team's initial assessments of projects. These draft minutes, which were not complete and never finalized or approved, reflect questions Review Team members raised about the strengths and weaknesses of various applications. For example, the Review Team questioned the extent to which financial commitments of project partners had been secured, whether projects were "ready-to-go," or whether a project's economic benefits were overstated. However, these questions did not necessarily reflect the reason a project was ultimately recommended or rejected for award. In addition, DOT officials told us that some highly recommended projects were not selected to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of award funds. In particular, DOT officials stated that some highly recommended projects from the Central and Western regions were rejected to prevent these regions from being overrepresented and that they advanced recommended projects from the South because projects initially selected for award underrepresented this region. DOT's TIGER program externally communicated outcome information similar to other Recovery Act competitive grant programs GAO examined, including the Review Team's memo to the Secretary and the amount of funding awarded. As with most other programs, DOT did not publish the reasons for the Review Team's decisions or why some applications were selected while others were rejected. GAO found no requirements for federal programs to externally communicate the reasons for their selection decisions and federal agencies rarely publicly disclose the reasons for their selection decisions.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Phillip R. Herr Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure Phone: (202) 512-8509GAO-11-234, Surface Transportation: Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-234
entitled 'Surface Transportation: Competitive Grant Programs Could
Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of
Key Decisions' which was released on April 11, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
March 2011:
Surface Transportation:
Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from Increased Performance
Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions:
GAO-11-234:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-234, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery
Act) appropriated $1.5 billion for discretionary grants for capital
investments in surface transportation projects of national and
regional significance, including highways, transit, rail, ports, and
others. The act required the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
develop criteria to award these grants”known as the Transportation
Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants”and to meet
several statutory requirements.
GAO was asked to review (1) the criteria and process used to evaluate
applications and award grants, (2) the outcome of the process, and (3)
the extent to which DOT communicated information to applicants and the
public. GAO reviewed documentation of the award process and selection
documentation and interviewed key DOT officials.
What GAO Found:
Criteria and Process:
DOT developed criteria to evaluate TIGER applications, such as
improving the state of repair of critical infrastructure, reducing
fatalities and injuries, and increasing economic competitiveness by
improving the efficient movement of workers or goods. GAO has called
for a more performance-oriented approach to funding surface
transportation and has recommended that a merit-based competitive
approach”-like TIGER-”be used to direct a portion of federal funds to
transportation projects of national and regional significance. This is
a departure from the formula-based approach regularly used for surface
transportation in which funds are largely returned to their state of
origin and states have considerable flexibility in selecting projects
for these funds”an approach that can potentially result in projects of
national or regional significance that cross state lines and involve
more than one transportation mode not competing well at the state
level for these funds. DOT provides over $40 billion annually in
formula funds to states and urbanized areas for highway and transit
projects; by contrast, TIGER provided $1.5 billion on a one-time
basis. However, TIGER was part of the Recovery Act, which was intended
to provide economic stimulus across the nation, and the act required
TIGER to balance using a competitive approach with achieving an
equitable geographic distribution of funds. DOT has proposed a
discretionary grant program like TIGER in its fiscal year 2012 budget,
which means that DOT and Congress have the opportunity to consider how
to balance the goals of merit-based selection of projects with
geographic distribution of funds.
The process DOT used to evaluate TIGER applications involved several
teams. First, 10 Evaluation Teams of five reviewers assessed over
1,450 applications requesting almost $60 billion. The evaluators
drafted narratives explaining their assessments for each selection
criterion, assigned ratings such as ’highly recommended“ and ’
recommended,“ and advanced those that best met the merit-based
criteria for further review. A Control and Calibration Team also
selectively reviewed and advanced applications throughout the process
to ensure consistency across the Evaluation Teams‘ ratings and to help
meet statutory requirements such as an equitable geographic
distribution of funds. The Evaluation Teams advanced 115 highly
recommended applications. The Control and Calibration Team advanced an
additional 50 recommended applications as well as 1 not recommended
application. Together, the teams advanced 166 applications for further
review.
The TIGER Review Team, composed of 12 senior DOT officials, such as
the Deputy Secretary and cognizant operating administrators, reviewed
these 166 applications in a series of meetings over about 2 months.
This team considered a broader set of factors than those considered by
the Evaluation Teams. For example, it assessed the readiness of
projects and confirmed the accuracy of information in applications,
including whether project benefits outweighed costs. It also had to
ensure that TIGER awardees, taken as a whole, met the requirements of
the Recovery Act, such as achieving an equitable geographic
distribution of funds. The Review Team developed a memo with its final
list of 51 projects that it recommended to the Secretary of
Transportation for award, and all projects were accepted by the
Secretary.
Outcomes:
Of the 51 applications that received awards, 26 were from the highly
recommended applications advanced by the Evaluation Teams and the
other 25, which received one-third of TIGER funds, were from the
recommended applications advanced by the Control and Calibration Team.
Figure: Number of Applications Advanced and Selected:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Over 1,450 applications received, requesting almost $60 billion:
The Evaluation Teams advanced 115 highly recommended applications
requesting $7.7 billion:
The Control and Calibration Team advanced 50 recommended applications
and 1 not recommended application requesting $3.7 billion:
Review Team:
* 26 awardees received about $950 million (recommended by Evaluation
Team);
* 25 awardees received about $549 million (recommended by Control and
Calibration Team);
* In total, 51 awardees received about $1.5 billion in TIGER funds.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
[End of figure]
While DOT thoroughly documented the Evaluation Teams‘ assessments and
the Review Team‘s memo described the strengths of projects recommended
for award, it did not document the Review Team‘s final decisions and
its rationale for selecting recommended projects for half the awards
over highly recommended ones. Internal documentation of the Review Team‘
s deliberations was limited to draft minutes from the team‘s initial
assessments of projects. These draft minutes, which were not complete
and never finalized or approved, reflect questions Review Team members
raised about the strengths and weaknesses of various applications. For
example, the Review Team questioned the extent to which financial
commitments of project partners had been secured, whether projects
were ’ready-to-go,“ or whether a project‘s economic benefits were
overstated. However, these questions did not necessarily reflect the
reason a project was ultimately recommended or rejected for award. In
addition, DOT officials told us that some highly recommended projects
were not selected to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of
award funds. In particular, DOT officials stated that some highly
recommended projects from the Central and Western regions were
rejected to prevent these regions from being overrepresented and that
they advanced recommended projects from the South because projects
initially selected for award underrepresented this region.
Because the Review Team was responsible for considering a wider range
of factors than the Evaluation Teams, it is not unreasonable to expect
that the Review Team‘s deliberations could produce a different result.
Furthermore, the draft minutes and GAO‘s discussions with DOT
officials provide some insight into the deliberations of the Review
Team and indicate they raised some valid concerns about highly
recommended projects. However, because no internal documentation from
Review Team meetings exists in which final decisions to recommend or
reject projects for award were made, DOT cannot definitively
demonstrate the basis for its award selections, particularly the
reasons why recommended projects were selected for half the awards
over highly recommended ones. Developing internal documentation of
agency activities is a key part of accountability for decisions, and
DOT guidance states that officials should explain how discretionary
grant projects were selected when projects with the highest priority
in a technical review are not funded. The absence of documentation can
give rise to challenges to the integrity of the decisions made, and
DOT is vulnerable to criticism that projects were selected for reasons
other than merit.
Communication:
DOT‘s TIGER program externally communicated outcome information
similar to other Recovery Act competitive grant programs GAO examined,
including the Review Team‘s memo to the Secretary and the amount of
funding awarded. As with most other programs, DOT did not publish the
reasons for the Review Team‘s decisions or why some applications were
selected while others were rejected. GAO found no requirements for
federal programs to externally communicate the reasons for their
selection decisions and federal agencies rarely publicly disclose the
reasons for their selection decisions. However, TIGER represented a
new approach to funding projects on a competitive basis across many
modes of transportation, including ports and freight projects that
rarely compete for federal transportation funds and DOT has proposed a
new $2 billion discretionary grant program in fiscal year 2012 modeled
after TIGER. Given this continued interest in awarding some
transportation funds based on merit and performance”-and GAO‘s
previous work supporting such an approach for projects of regional and
national significance”-disclosing additional information would give
Congress a better basis to assess the merits of this new approach and
the information it needs to judge whether and how to continue with it.
Developing a strategy, in consultation with the Congress, to disclose
additional information publicly would also help build confidence in
DOT‘s institutional ability to expertly administer a departmentwide,
competitive program.
What GAO Recommends:
Congress may wish to consider balancing the goals of merit-based
selection of projects with geographic distribution of funds and limit,
as appropriate, the influence of geographic considerations in any
future DOT competitive discretionary grant program. GAO recommends
that DOT document decisions in its review of applications and, in
consultation with Congress, develop and implement a strategy to
disclose information about its decisions. DOT provided technical
comments on this report.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-234] or key
components. For more information, contact Phillip Herr at (202) 512-
2834 or herrp@gao.gov. [End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
DOT Developed Comprehensive Merit-Based Selection Criteria and a
Competitive Selection Process to Evaluate TIGER Applications and Meet
Statutory Requirements:
DOT Applied Competitive Selection Criteria and Addressed Statutory
Requirements; However, It Did Not Document Key Decisions:
DOT Communicated the Criteria and Selection Process to Applicants and
the Public but Provided More Limited Information on Award Decisions:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Lessons Learned from TIGER and Applied in TIGER II:
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix III: Standard Evaluation Sheet Used by Evaluation Teams to
Evaluate Applications against TIGER Criteria:
Appendix IV: Applications Received and Projects Selected for Funding:
Appendix V: Status of Implementation of TIGER Grants:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: TIGER Grant Primary and Secondary Selection Criteria:
Table 2: Evaluation Team Adjectival Ratings:
Table 3: Applications by Evaluation Team Overall Scores:
Table 4: Percentage and Amount of TIGER Funding Selected in Each
Transportation Mode:
Table 5: Percentage of Advanced and Awarded Applications Receiving
Highly Recommended Overall Ratings by Individual Evaluation Team
Members:
Table 6: Discretionary Grant Programs Reviewed:
Table 7: Number and Percentage of Applications Submitted and Funding
Requested by Region:
Table 8: Number and Percentage of Applications Submitted and Funding
Requested by Project Type:
Table 9: Number and Percentage of Advanced Applications and Funding
Requested by Region:
Table 10: Number and Percentage of Advanced Applications and Funding
Requested by Project Type:
Table 11: Number and Percentage of Awardees and Funding Amount by
Region:
Table 12: Number and Percentage of Applications Submitted and Funding
Requested by Project Type:
Figures:
Figure 1: Timeline for TIGER:
Figure 2: TIGER Selection Process Flow Chart:
Figure 3: Awardees by Region, Jurisdiction Size, Transportation Mode,
and Funding Level:
Figure 4: Results of the TIGER Selection Process:
Abbreviations:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
NOFA: Notice of Funding Availability:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act:
TIGER: Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 30, 2011:
The Honorable James M. Inhofe:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Chairman:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
In February 2009, facing what was generally reported to be the most
serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, Congress enacted
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to,
among other things, preserve and create jobs, promote economic
recovery across the nation, and invest in transportation and other
infrastructure to provide long-term economic benefits. The Recovery
Act appropriated $48 billion for transportation investments, including
$1.5 billion for discretionary grants available to state and local
governments, including organizations such as transit agencies, port
authorities, and metropolitan planning organizations, among others,
and to be administered by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for
capital investments in surface transportation, including highway,
transit, rail, port, and other projects.[Footnote 1] The
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER)
discretionary grants were designed to fund merit-based projects
expected to have a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan
area, or a region. In making awards, the legislation directed DOT to
address several statutory requirements. In December 2009, Congress
appropriated $600 million to DOT for a "TIGER II" discretionary grant
program similar to the original TIGER program's structure and
objectives.[Footnote 2] DOT announced the projects selected for TIGER
grants in February 2010 and projects selected for TIGER II grants in
October 2010.
You expressed interest in DOT's evaluation and selection process for
the TIGER grants and the extent to which information about that
process was made public. In response, we examined (1) the criteria and
process established by DOT to evaluate TIGER applications and award
grants; (2) the outcomes of DOT's process to evaluate TIGER
applications and award grants; and (3) the extent to which DOT
communicated the TIGER criteria, evaluation process, and outcomes to
applicants and the public. This report also addresses, in appendix I,
lessons learned from TIGER that were applied in TIGER II.
To carry out this work, we reviewed the act and its requirements for
TIGER grant awards and the department's criteria for selecting
awardees as published in the Federal Register and other TIGER guidance
materials, such as the DOT Evaluation Score Sheets that defined what
characteristics would meet each criterion. We reviewed documentation
such as the TIGER grant selection process summary and DOT's March 2009
Financial Assistance Guidance Manual, which provides guidance on
discretionary grant processes. We analyzed (1) available data from the
applications such as the amount of the request, transportation mode,
and region; (2) the initial ratings from a competitive review focused
on project merits; (3) which applications were advanced for further
review and which were not; and (4) recommendations of senior staff
that described the strengths and weaknesses of projects recommended
for award. However, because DOT did not document its reasons for key
decisions, our review was limited to draft minutes that were not
finalized or approved and that summarized initial assessments of
advanced projects. To gain insight into award decisions, we asked DOT
officials to reconstruct and discuss why projects were recommended or
rejected for award, and, while this offers some insight, such
information has significant limitations. Specifically, it is
testimonial in nature and reflects officials' recollections several
months after TIGER grants were announced. It may therefore contain a
greater level of uncertainty and error than documentation created
while decisions were made. We assessed DOT's level of public
communication regarding the criteria and evaluation process for TIGER
grants by comparing it to Office of Management and Budget guidance on
publishing selection criteria. We also compared DOT's communication of
TIGER grant awards to other Recovery Act discretionary grant programs.
Finally, we reviewed TIGER II guidance and training resources to
identify changes between TIGER and TIGER II. We also interviewed 8 of
the 51 TIGER awardees, selecting them based on funding level, region,
transportation mode, and jurisdiction size. We conducted this
performance audit from June 2010 through March 2011 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more information on our
scope and methodology, see appendix II.
Background:
The Recovery Act provided the Secretary of Transportation $1.5 billion
for the purpose of awarding discretionary grants on a competitive
basis. Eligible projects included capital investments in roads,
highways, bridges, or transit; passenger and freight rail; and port
infrastructure, as well as bicycle and pedestrian-related
improvements.[Footnote 3] The TIGER program's purpose was to fund
merit-based projects that would provide a significant impact on the
nation, a metropolitan area, or a region and required DOT to develop
criteria to evaluate the merits of and select grants that would meet
the goals of the program. The Recovery Act also directed the Secretary
to meet several statutory requirements in making the final award
selections including:
1. ensuring an equitable geographic distribution of funds;
2. achieving an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of urban
and rural communities;[Footnote 4]
3. giving priority to projects for which federal funding would be
required to complete an overall financing package that includes
nonfederal sources; and:
4. giving priority to projects that are expected to be completed
within 3 years of enactment of the act and obligating all TIGER funds
by September 30, 2011.
The Recovery Act also allowed DOT to provide up to $200 million to
support projects eligible for federal credit assistance. The
legislation required that DOT make individual awards of no less than
$20 million and no more than $300 million. However, the legislation
gave the department discretion to waive the minimum grant size for the
purpose of funding significant projects in smaller cities, regions, or
states, and DOT opted to do so in certain cases.
Traditionally, federal surface transportation funding has been
primarily delivered through formula grant programs--about $40 billion
annually--based on distributions prescribed by federal statute. In
addition, to address concerns about the "equity" of how federal aid is
distributed among states, Congress has included legislative provisions
for geographic distribution in every surface transportation
reauthorization act since 1982. For highway programs, DOT's
distribution formulas include provisions to ensure that states receive
a guaranteed portion--92 percent since fiscal year 2008--of the
estimated share of taxes highway users in each state contributed for a
subset of highway programs.[Footnote 5] The grant funds are then
administered by the state or passed through an intermediary or
subrecipient, such as a local government.
Compared with formula programs, discretionary grant programs are
rarely used to distribute surface transportation funding. In a
discretionary grant program, agencies rely on a competitive process in
which Congress gives award discretion to federal agencies to review
applications in light of legislative and regulatory requirements as
well as published selection criteria established for a program. The
review process gives agencies the discretion to determine which
applications best address the program requirements and are, therefore,
most worthy of funding. The TIGER program was a new discretionary
grant program for DOT, wherein DOT had to establish criteria and an
evaluation process that could be used to assess applications from
several different transportation modes. By including the requirement
that awards achieve an equitable geographic distribution, among
others, DOT had to design a process that addressed both competitive
selection criteria and statutory requirements.
The Recovery Act set short time frames for DOT to implement the TIGER
program so that these funds--like other programs in the Recovery Act--
would produce a stimulative effect on the economy. Specifically, the
act required DOT to announce all projects selected to be funded by
TIGER grants by February 17, 2010, 1 year after enactment and to
obligate all TIGER funds by September 30, 2011. DOT published its
Notice of Funding Availability on June 17, 2009; applications were due
by September 15, 2009, and awards announced by the statutory deadline
(see figure 1 for a timeline of TIGER activities).
Figure 1: Timeline for TIGER:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
Event: Law enacted (February 17, 2009);
Interim between events: 3 months.
Event: TIGER interim NOFA (May 18, 2009);
Interim between events: 1 month.
Event: TIGER final NOFA (June 17, 2009);
Interim between events: 3 months.
Event: Application deadline (September 15, 2009);
Interim between events: 5 months.
Event: Awards announced (February 17, 2010);
Interim between events: 19.5 months.
Event: Funds obligated (September 30, 2011);
Interim between events: 4.5 months.
Event: Projects completed (February 17, 2012).
Source: GAO analysis of DOT guidance.
[End of figure]
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010 appropriated
$600 million to DOT for National Infrastructure Investment grants in
support of a TIGER II discretionary grant program. Similar to the
TIGER program's structure and objectives, these grants were to be
awarded on a competitive basis for projects that are expected to have
a significant impact on the nation, a metropolitan area, or a region.
TIGER II had many of the same statutory requirements that TIGER had,
as well as some additional ones, including a requirement that DOT
ensure selection of a variety of transportation modes.
DOT Developed Comprehensive Merit-Based Selection Criteria and a
Competitive Selection Process to Evaluate TIGER Applications and Meet
Statutory Requirements:
DOT Established Criteria for Awarding Competitive Grants That Support
Merit-Based Investments in Transportation Infrastructure:
To meet the Recovery Act requirement that DOT develop criteria to
evaluate the merits of TIGER program applications and select grants,
DOT published criteria in a May 2009 interim Notice of Funding
Availability after the passage of the Recovery Act,[Footnote 6] and in
June 2009, when DOT published its final Notice of Funding
Availability, we evaluated the criteria. We concluded that DOT had
followed key federal guidance and standards for developing selection
criteria.[Footnote 7] For example, DOT's criteria clearly indicated
that projects should produce long-term benefits such as improving the
state of repair of existing transportation infrastructure, reducing
fatalities and injuries through safety investments, and increasing
economic competitiveness by improving the efficient movement of
workers or goods. In addition, a benefit-cost analysis was generally
required to determine if a project's expected benefits outweighed its
costs.[Footnote 8]
Developing rigorous criteria for discretionary grants is important
because criteria focus the competitive selection process and helps
agencies, like DOT, address national and regional priorities and
achieve the highest possible return on federal investments. As we have
reported, many federal surface transportation programs do not
effectively address key challenges because federal goals and roles are
unclear, programs lack links to performance, and some programs do not
use the best tools and approaches to ensure effective investment
decisions.[Footnote 9] For these and other reasons, surface
transportation funding remains on GAO's high-risk list.[Footnote 10]
Our previous work has called for a more performance-oriented approach
to funding surface transportation, and in particular policies that
ensure that goals are well-defined and focused on the federal interest
and that recipients of federal funds are accountable for results.
[Footnote 11] Specifically, we have recommended that a criteria-based
selection approach--like that developed in TIGER--be used to direct a
portion of federal funds in programs designed to select transportation
projects with national and regional significance.[Footnote 12]
Such an approach--one rarely used to fund surface transportation--
represents a significant departure from the formula-based approach
regularly used to fund the nation's surface transportation program.
Formula programs distribute over $40 billion annually to states and
urbanized areas for highway and transit projects (compared with the
$1.5 billion one-time appropriation provided for TIGER). In fiscal
year 2009, this included almost $36 billion for highway infrastructure
projects through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
approximately $10 billion in transit grants to urbanized areas and
states through the Federal Transit Administration. The Federal-Aid
Highway Program in particular poses considerable challenges to
introducing a merit-based performance orientation for selection of
projects of national or regional significance. This is because this
program distributes funding through a complicated process in which the
underlying data and factors are ultimately not meaningful because they
are overridden by other provisions designed to yield a largely
predetermined outcome--that of returning revenues to their state of
origin. Moreover, once the funds are apportioned, states have
considerable flexibility to reallocate them among highway and transit
programs. As we reported in June 2010, this flexibility, coupled with
a rate-of-return orientation, essentially means that the Federal-Aid
Highway Program functions, to some extent, as a cash transfer, general
purpose grant program.[Footnote 13] This formula-based approach can
potentially result in meritorious projects of national or regional
significance--in particular those involving multiple modes of
transportation or those that cross state boundaries--not competing
well at the state level for available funds.
TIGER selection criteria reflected federal interest in specific goals,
such as improving the state of repair of transportation
infrastructure. Specifically, DOT developed and applied two primary
criteria--(1) long-term outcomes and (2) job creation and economic
stimulus--and two secondary criteria--innovation and partnerships. DOT
further defined its primary and secondary criteria with the concepts
described in table 1 to help TIGER reviewers determine how well a
proposed project aligned with each criterion. DOT described these
criteria in its final Notice of Funding Availability, noting that
primary criteria were weighted more heavily than secondary criteria,
while the concepts defining each selection criterion were weighted
equally.
Table 1: TIGER Grant Primary and Secondary Selection Criteria:
Primary:
Selection criterion: Long-term outcomes;
Definitions:
* State of good repair: improving the condition of existing
transportation facilities or systems, minimizing life-cycle costs;
* Economic competitiveness: contributing to the economic
competitiveness of the United States over the medium-to long-term;
* Livability: improving communities' quality of living and working
environments;
* Sustainability: improving energy-efficiency, reducing dependence on
oil, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, benefiting the environment;
* Safety: improving the safety of U.S. transportation facilities and
systems.
Selection criterion: Job creation and economic stimulus;
Definitions:
* Promoting the short-or long-term creation or preservation of jobs;
* Quickly promoting new or expanded business opportunities;
* Readiness to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER grant (measured
by proposed schedule, ability to obtain environmental and legislative
approvals, technical and financial feasibility, the degree to which
the project was or would be incorporated into larger planning efforts).
Secondary:
Selection criterion: Innovation;
Definitions:
* Use of innovative technology (such as smart cards, real-time
dispatching, and radio frequency identification) to pursue long-term
outcomes and/or significantly enhance the performance of the
transportation system;
* New approaches to transportation funding and finance, contracting,
project delivery, congestion management, safety management, asset
management, or long-term operations and maintenance.
Selection criterion: Partnership;
Definitions:
* Partnership with nonfederal entities and use of nonfederal funds;
* Involving parties not traditionally involved in transportation
projects (example: partnering with community-based organizations to
connect disadvantaged people with economic opportunities);
* Support from nontransportation public agencies pursuing similar
objectives.
Source: 74 Fed. Reg. 28755, June 17, 2009.
[End of table]
The criteria were designed to help DOT reviewers and applicants
determine which projects were closely aligned with the goals of the
TIGER program. Some criteria assessed the direct effects--such as
reductions in travel time and the number of fatalities and injuries--
that are common metrics used in evaluating the performance of
transportation projects. For example, to assess whether a project
achieved a "state-of-good repair" within the long-term outcomes
criterion, evaluators had to determine if a project was relevant to
regional, state, or local efforts to maintain transportation
facilities; if failing to rehabilitate the condition of infrastructure
would threaten future economic growth and stability; and if a
sustainable source of revenue was available for the long-term
operation and maintenance of the infrastructure, among other issues.
The Beartooth Highway Reconstruction Project in Park County, Wyoming,
a project awarded $6 million, proposed to improve the state of repair
of a 7-mile segment of a highway, including replacing a critical
bridge in deficient condition, connecting Yellowstone National Park
with the Shoshone National Forest by completing its reconstruction.
FHWA deemed this segment of highway inadequate and substandard in 1994.
Other criteria were intended to help DOT assess the potential for a
project to produce indirect effects such as improved quality of life,
coordinated economic development, and better land use. One factor also
within the long-term outcomes criterion--fostering livable communities
or "livability"--represented a new focus for DOT projects. DOT defined
livability as:
* enhancing mobility through the creation of more convenient
transportation options for travelers,
* increasing modal connectivity between various transit and other
transportation options,
* improving accessibility to transportation for economically
disadvantaged populations, and:
* coordinating transportation and land-use planning decisions.
For example, the Saint Paul, Minnesota, Union Depot Multi-Modal
Transit and Transportation Hub, a project awarded $35 million, was
given funding to renovate the city's historic Union Depot to colocate
Amtrak, intercity bus carriers, local buses, light rail services,
taxis, and bicycle accommodations, as well as offer new space for
commercial development. The award announcement indicated that
colocating these transportation services would increase connectivity
between transportation modes and create commercial space that would
promote economic growth and redevelopment in the downtown area. For
more discussion of how DOT defined its criteria, see appendix III,
which shows the score sheet Evaluation Teams used to assess
applications.
To meet the Recovery Act's direction that the Secretary meet several
statutory requirements in making the final award selections,[Footnote
14] DOT published and made potential applicants aware of these
requirements in its Notice of Funding Availability. In addition, DOT
developed internal guidance to clarify these requirements in the award
process. For example, according to officials, DOT defined achieving an
equitable geographic distribution of funds by establishing four
regions based on a methodology that accounted for population sizes,
geographic proximities, and the existing distribution of federal
surface transportation formula funds. In addition, DOT sought to
ensure within regions that awards were not clustered in one or two
states, but were reasonably well distributed within a region. To give
priority to projects for which federal funding would be required to
complete an overall financing package, DOT gave priority to projects
that included significant state, local, or private co-investment,
required projects to demonstrate "independent utility," meaning that
projects created a complete and operable segment that would produce
significant transportation benefits upon completion, according to
officials. In some cases, this meant DOT funded a project in its
entirety, while in others it funded a segment of a larger application
as long as that segment resulted in complete and operable
infrastructure.
DOT Established a Competitive Selection Process for Evaluating
Applications That Included Merit-Based Assessments and Addressed
Statutory Requirements:
DOT's process for competitively selecting applications involved
several teams of reviewers--Evaluation Teams assessed and rated
applications and a senior-level Review Team made final award
recommendations. In addition, other teams evaluated the consistency of
the ratings and assessed the accuracy of applicants' economic analyses
and project readiness. The TIGER selection process is described in
figure 2.
Figure 2: TIGER Selection Process Flow Chart:
[Refer to PDF for image: process illustration]
DOT received applications:
DOT received over 1,450 TIGER applications.
Applications are assigned to Evaluation Teams:
DOT assigned about 150 applications to each of the 10 Evaluation Teams
for merit-based reviews.
Individual evaluations are conducted:
Each Evaluation Team member provided adjectival ratings for all
selection criteria with accompanying narratives.
Evaluation Teams came to consensus ratings:
Evaluation Teams met to assess individual team member ratings and
agree upon overall adjectival ratings with narratives.
Evaluation Teams selected highly recommended applications:
The Evaluation Teams advanced highly recommended applications to the
Review Team for additional evaluation.
The Control and Calibration Team selected additional applications:
The Control and Calibration Team advanced additional applications to
the Review Team for consistency, to support statutory priorities, and
at the request of the Review Team.
Economic analysis evaluations and environmental reviews are conducted:
The Economic Analysis Team assessed the benefits and costs; and the
Environmental Analysis Team assessed environmental readiness of
advanced applications.
Applications presented to Review Team:
The Evaluation and Economic Analysis Team leads presented the merits
of applications to the Review Team.
Applications submitted to the Secretary of Transportation for approval:
The Review Team submitted applications to the Secretary of
Transportation for review and approval.
Applicants notified of final decisions:
The Secretary of Transportation approved all submitted projects and
notified applicants that they would receive a TIGER award.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
Note: Adjectival rating categories were highly recommended,
recommended, not recommended, and negative. See table 2 for additional
explanation of these ratings.
[End of figure]
Evaluation Teams:
DOT used 10 Evaluation Teams of five reviewers each--primarily career
employees with technical knowledge--who represented the different DOT
operating administrations, including the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Transit
Administration, the Maritime Administration, and the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST). This team design meant that
applications were reviewed by an intermodal team that included members
with subject matter expertise from several different transportation
modes. Although applications were assigned randomly, DOT did ensure
that at least one team member had expertise in the mode presented in
the application. The teams assessed over 1,450 applications that
requested almost $60 billion, and each team evaluated approximately
150 applications.
Evaluation Team members were directed to select projects that they
judged had the greatest potential to meet the primary and secondary
criteria. Individual team members provided a rating of "highly
recommended," "recommended," "not recommended," or "negative" for each
of the elements defining the primary and secondary criteria--for
instance, state of good repair, livability, and others--and an overall
score based on these criteria. Individuals also drafted short
narratives supporting their assessment. Table 2 presents the
definition of each adjectival rating:
Table 2: Evaluation Team Adjectival Ratings:
Rating: Highly recommended;
Description: The project aligns extremely well with the objectives of
the selection criterion under consideration.
Rating: Recommended;
Description: The project aligns well with the objectives of the
selection criterion under consideration.
Rating: Not recommended;
Description: The project provides limited value with respect to the
selection criterion under consideration, or the project's alignment
with the criterion was not addressed in the application.
Rating: Negative;
Description: The project would adversely impact the department's
efforts to promote the outcomes described for the criterion under
consideration.
Rating: Not rated;
Description: Projects determined to be ineligible early in the process
were excluded from review.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT guidance.
[End of table]
Once the team members completed their individual evaluations, the team
met as a whole to come to consensus on an overall team rating for each
application and a narrative describing their assessment of each
project. The Evaluation Teams prioritized applications receiving an
overall team rating of highly recommended and advanced these projects
to the Review Team for further evaluation.
In determining the overall project rating, DOT's guidance encouraged
Evaluation Teams to identify and advance for further review projects
that best met the merit-based criteria. These applications were to be
ranked "highly recommended" and were to be subject to additional
review by additional teams on a wide range of factors--a time-
consuming process that needed to be reserved for a smaller group of
applications. DOT's guidance to individual Evaluation Team members
indicated they should in general give an overall rating of highly
recommended to projects that receive a highly recommended in multiple
selection criteria and that a negative score on any of the selection
criteria reduced the likelihood that the project would receive a
highly recommended overall rating. Furthermore, DOT's guidance stated
that Evaluation Teams generally should advance projects that received
an overall highly recommended score from four to five of the
individual team members. Those receiving three highly recommended
overall scores were to be advanced only on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with other teams involved in the review process. Projects
receiving one to two highly recommended overall scores generally were
not to be advanced. Finally, DOT's guidance noted that Evaluation
Teams should not advance any project unable to demonstrate a
likelihood of significant long-term benefits in the long-term outcome
criterion.
As the Evaluation Teams' primary responsibility was to conduct a merit-
based technical review of applications based on the criteria DOT
developed, according to DOT officials, they were not responsible for
addressing other factors in the TIGER review:
* The Evaluation Teams were directed to consider information presented
in the applications--including project benefits and costs and the
project's completion of National Environmental Policy Act[Footnote 15]
requirements--but not confirm its accuracy. Evaluation Teams were told
that separate Economic Analysis and Environmental Teams would
determine the accuracy of the benefits and costs and would validate
projects' environmental readiness.
* The Evaluation Teams were not responsible for ensuring that
applications selected would meet the Recovery Act's statutory
requirements, including achieving an equitable geographic distribution
of funds and balancing the needs of urban and rural communities. The
teams did contribute to prioritizing projects expected to be completed
within the 3-year time frame as part of project readiness, but they
did not have to ensure projects met this requirement. Finally, with
regard to prioritizing applications in which TIGER funding would
complete a funding package, while the Evaluation Teams could make
recommendations on funding levels and whether segments of a project
(rather than the entire project) should be funded, determining what
level of funding to present to the Secretary of Transportation as part
of an award fell primarily to the senior-level Review Team.
Control and Calibration Team:
A Control and Calibration Team--led by a Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy with two staff members from OST's Office of Policy--also
reviewed and advanced applications, and it did so both during the
Evaluation Teams' assessments as well as later in the process when the
Review Team identified projects for award. According to DOT officials,
the Control and Calibration Team advanced applications primarily in
two ways: It used a statistical analysis to assess the ratings across
the 10 Evaluation Teams and ensure that projects of similar types and
quality were advanced consistently to the Review Team. This analysis
was also intended to make certain that there were no significant
disparities in ratings among the different transportation modes--an
issue that, while not a requirement in TIGER, officials believed was
worth monitoring given TIGER's unique approach.
The Control and Calibration Team also advanced projects at the request
of the Review Team. In several cases, the Review Team asked to assess
projects of similar types in an effort to ensure that the most
meritorious projects of this type were selected for award. For
instance, the Review Team requested an analysis of the effect on port
projects of the expansion of the Panama Canal as well as a side-by-
side comparison of all streetcar applications and projects on Indian
Reservations and federal lands. The Review Team also asked the Control
and Calibration Team to identify additional projects to help them meet
statutory requirements such as geographic distribution and providing
some funding in the form of credit assistance. In response, the
Control and Calibration Team, in consultation with the Evaluation Team
leads, identified additional projects beyond those initially advanced
by the Evaluation Teams for the Review Team to consider, which
resulted in additional projects being advanced that received an
overall ranking from the Evaluation Teams of recommended rather than
highly recommended.
Economic Analysis and Environmental Analysis Teams:
DOT required applicants to include a description of the status of
environmental approvals as well as information on the project's
benefits and costs. Applications advanced to the Review Team were
reviewed by an Environmental Analysis Team that assessed each advanced
project's ability to substantially meet federal environmental
readiness requirements. In addition, an Economic Analysis Team
composed of nine DOT economists--including the Chief Economist and
economists from relevant operating administrations--assessed the
economic analysis from each advanced application to determine whether
the analysis was "useful" or "not useful" in its presentation of
information and variables considered and whether the total benefits of
a proposed project were reasonably likely to outweigh its costs. DOT
required applicants to provide different types of information of
benefits and costs depending on the amount the application requested.
Specifically, projects requesting more than $100 million were required
to calculate the net benefits of a project, indicate the value
assigned to qualitative benefits, and describe the methodology used to
arrive at this calculation. DOT directed applicants requesting more
than $20 million and less than $100 million to provide estimates of
expected benefits in the five long-term outcomes. Applicants
requesting less than $20 million did not have to submit a benefit-cost
analysis. The Economic Analysis and Environmental Analysis Teams
presented their findings to the Review Team, which considered this
information along with other factors in its assessment of applications.
Review Team:
The Review Team consisted of 12 senior DOT staff, including the Deputy
Secretary, Under Secretary, three Assistant Secretaries, the Chief of
Staff, the General Counsel, and Administrators from the cognizant
operating administrations--the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Railroad Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Maritime
Administration, and the Research and Innovative Technology
Administration. This team assessed all applications advanced by the
Evaluation Teams and Control and Calibration Team. The Review Team was
responsible for addressing four broad areas:
* First, it was responsible for ensuring that the award
recommendations made to the Secretary, taken as a whole, met all
statutory requirements, including ensuring an equitable geographic
distribution of funds, balancing the needs of urban and rural
communities, prioritizing projects for which federal funding would
complete an overall funding package that included nonfederal sources,
and prioritizing projects that could be completed within 3 years of
the act's enactment.
* Second, it assessed the merits of advanced projects by considering
the TIGER criteria applied by the Evaluation Teams and whether project
benefits outweighed costs. It accomplished this by receiving technical
presentations from the Evaluation Team leaders and the Economic
Analysis Team.
* Third, it had to ensure that potential awardees were in fact
eligible, ready-to-go, and that information in the application--such
as expected benefits--was accurate. To accomplish this, the Review
Team requested more information on some advanced projects. For
example, in some cases, validating environmental readiness required a
follow-up conversation with applicants to obtain clarification about
the documentation submitted or assurances provided in their
applications.
* Fourth, it recommended to the Secretary of Transportation which
projects to fund and whether an application should receive partial or
full funding.
The Review Team's initial assessments were conducted during a series
of meetings that occurred over about 2 months. In each meeting, the
Review Team evaluated about 6 to 12 projects, discussed project
strengths and weaknesses, identified areas for clarification or follow-
up, and ranked each project in a tier based on the likelihood that the
team would fund the project. At the conclusion of its assessment, the
Review Team developed a memo with a final list of projects that it
recommended for award. This memo included a description of each
project's strengths, benefits, and how the project aligned with TIGER
criteria. This memo was sent to the Secretary of Transportation who
approved all the recommended projects and announced the TIGER
recipients and award amounts in February 2010.
DOT Applied Competitive Selection Criteria and Addressed Statutory
Requirements; However, It Did Not Document Key Decisions:
The Review Team Assessed 166 Advanced Projects and Selected 51
Projects for Award:
Of the 1,457 applications submitted, 8 percent or 115 applications
received an overall team rating of highly recommended and were
advanced by the Evaluation Team for further review. These 115
applications made requests for funding that totaled about $7.7
billion--about five times the $1.5 billion available for award. About
33 percent of the 1,457 applications received an overall team rating
of recommended. The remaining 59 percent received a not recommended or
negative rating or were excluded from evaluation for reasons such as
eligibility, readiness, or other factors that made the application not
acceptable to receive funding. Table 3 shows how all applications were
rated by the Evaluation Teams.
Table 3: Applications by Evaluation Team Overall Scores:
Rating: Highly recommended;
Number of applications: 115;
Percentage of applications receiving this rating: 8%;
Amount requested: $7.7 billion.
Rating: Recommended;
Number of applications: 487;
Percentage of applications receiving this rating: 33%;
Amount requested: $22.3 billion.
Rating: Not recommended;
Number of applications: 731;
Percentage of applications receiving this rating: 50%;
Amount requested: $25.8 billion.
Rating: Negative;
Number of applications: 6;
Percentage of applications receiving this rating: 0.4%;
Amount requested: $0.07 billion.
Rating: Other[A];
Number of applications: 118;
Percentage of applications receiving this rating: 8%;
Amount requested: $3.3 billion.
Rating: Total;
Number of applications: 1,457;
Percentage of applications receiving this rating: 100%;
Amount requested: $59.1 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT guidance.
Notes: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[A] These projects were either not rated or removed from additional
review for reasons primarily related to eligibility and readiness
issues.
[End of table]
In addition to projects advanced by the Evaluation Team, the Control
and Calibration Team advanced 50 recommended projects and 1 not
recommended project to the Review Team, for a total of 166 advanced
projects. As noted, the Review Team ultimately selected for approval
by the Secretary of Transportation 51 of the 166 advanced projects for
award. The Secretary approved awards for each of these 51 applications.
TIGER awards were distributed across the country with 41 states and
the District of Columbia receiving awards and with roughly equal
funding levels (from 20 to 27 percent of funding) going to the four
geographic regions DOT established, as shown in figure 3. Awardees
represented a balance between the needs of urban and rural
communities, as both groups received awards in about the same
proportion as applications submitted and advanced. However, rural
projects tended to receive smaller awards and received 11 percent of
the total funds. The average TIGER award was just under $30 million.
The largest award was $105 million for a large freight rail project in
two states that would improve intermodal domestic rail service. The
smallest award was $3.15 million for a project to improve a road and
waterfront bike path in Vermont.[Footnote 16] Figure 3 shows the
distribution of awards by region, jurisdiction size, transportation
mode, and funding level.
Figure 3: Awardees by Region, Jurisdiction Size, Transportation Mode,
and Funding Level:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
The map depicts the following regions:
Northeast;
South;
Central;
West.
Within each region, the location of each awardee is depicted
indicating jurisdiction, transportation mode, and award amount, as
follows:
Jurisdiction:
Urban;
Urban/rural;
Rural.
Transportation mode:
Highway;
Port;
Rail;
Transit;
Other.
Award amount:
Less than $20 million;
$20 million to less than $100 million;
$100 million or more.
Number of awardees depicted by region:
Northeast: 8;
South: 9;
Central: 13
West: 16;
Cross-regional: 4.
Sources: DOT (data); Map Resources (map); and GAO.
[End of figure]
While there was no requirement to distribute awards across different
modes of transportation, TIGER funding supported highway, transit,
rail, port, and other projects--including bridge replacements,
streetcar lines, and bicycle-pedestrian networks (see table 4).
Transit projects received the most funding with 12 projects receiving
$469 million. Although TIGER grants were not awarded to intercity
passenger rail projects, freight rail projects received about 25
percent of the total award funds. Although these projects received
less funding overall than transit, funding levels tended to be higher
per project with 5 freight projects receiving a total of $354 million.
Table 4: Percentage and Amount of TIGER Funding Selected in Each
Transportation Mode:
Transportation mode: Transit;
Percentage of total funding award: 31%;
Amount of funding: $469 million;
Number of projects: 12.
Transportation mode: Rail;
Percentage of total funding award: 25%;
Amount of funding: $379 million;
Number of projects: 6.
Transportation mode: Highway;
Percentage of total funding award: 22%;
Amount of funding: $335 million;
Number of projects: 18.
Transportation mode: Other;
Percentage of total funding award: 14%;
Amount of funding: $216 million;
Number of projects: 9.
Transportation mode: Port;
Percentage of total funding award: 7%;
Amount of funding: $98 million;
Number of projects: 6.
Transportation mode: Total;
Percentage of total funding award: 100%;
Amount of funding: $1.498 billion;
Number of projects: 51.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
In addition, TIGER-funded projects were eligible for federal credit
assistance through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (TIFIA), which provides direct loans, loan guarantees,
and standby lines of credit to finance surface transportation projects
of national and regional significance.[Footnote 17] TIGER funds used
for TIFIA grants allow DOT to make a smaller financial commitment to
support much larger projects--specifically, DOT estimates that each
dollar of federal funds can provide up to $10 in TIFIA credit
assistance. DOT offered TIFIA awards to five applicants in the amount
of either $10 million or $20 million each. One applicant had applied
for and received a TIFIA award, and four applicants, while applying
for a regular grant, were offered an opportunity to use the grant
funds as a TIFIA award, at their discretion. Three of these four
applicants opted to take the award as a grant and one took a TIFIA
award.
DOT officials said that, as required by the Recovery Act and part of
DOT's partnership criterion, applicants who had secured funding
commitments from third parties such as state and local government and
private industry fared better in the TIGER process. Specifically, DOT
noted in the Review Team's memo to the Secretary that 11 of the 51
awardees had arranged funding partnerships for their projects and were
seeking TIGER funding to complete a funding package. While all TIGER
awards were directed to projects that applicants indicated could be
completed as a result of the award, these 11 awardees received 40
percent of the awarded funds. See appendix IV for additional
information on the awardees and selection process and appendix V for
information on the status of obligations and outlays for TIGER grants.
Half the Awardees Were Chosen from Applications Advanced by the
Evaluation Teams While the Other Half Were Advanced by the Control and
Calibration Team:
The Review Team selected 26 awardees from the pool of 115 highly
recommended applications advanced by the Evaluation Teams' competitive
review process. These applicants received about $950 million of the
funds. The other 25 applications selected for award, which received
about $549 million of TIGER funds, were from the pool of applications
advanced by the Control and Calibration Team. Applications advanced by
the Control and Calibration Team included 50 that received an overall
rating of recommended from the Evaluation Teams and one that received
a not recommended rating: Cincinnati's streetcar project. DOT
officials said this project was advanced to the Review Team because it
provided additional context for the Review Team's analysis of
streetcar projects, and it was not awarded a TIGER grant. Figure 4
shows the results of the TIGER selection process, including
applications advanced by the Evaluation Teams and the Control and
Calibration Team.
Figure 4: Results of the TIGER Selection Process:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Over 1,450 applications received, requesting almost $60 billion:
The Evaluation Teams advanced 115 highly recommended applications
requesting $7.7 billion:
The Control and Calibration Team advanced 50 recommended applications
and 1 not recommended application requesting $3.7 billion:
Review Team:
* 26 awardees received about $950 million (recommended by Evaluation
Team);
* 25 awardees received about $549 million (recommended by Control and
Calibration Team);
* In total, 51 awardees received about $1.5 billion in TIGER funds.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT information.
[End of figure]
The recommended projects advanced by the Control and Calibration Team
tended to fare less well in the technical review process. As mentioned
earlier, each project received an overall rating from individual
Evaluation Team members as well as a consensus overall rating from the
team as a whole. The recommended projects advanced by the Control and
Calibration Team not only received lower overall consensus ratings
from the Evaluation Teams (recommended versus highly recommended),
they also received fewer overall highly recommended ratings from
individual Evaluation Team members. For example, as shown in table 5,
the 51 projects advanced by the Control and Calibration team received
a highly recommended overall rating from individual team members less
than one-fourth of the time. By comparison, projects advanced by the
Evaluation Teams received highly recommended overall ratings from
individual team members about two-thirds of the time.
Table 5: Percentage of Advanced and Awarded Applications Receiving
Highly Recommended Overall Ratings by Individual Evaluation Team
Members:
Number of applications;
Projects advanced: Evaluation Teams: 115;
Projects advanced: Control and Calibration Team: 51;
Projects awarded: Evaluation Teams' advanced projects: 26;
Projects awarded: Control and Calibration Team's advanced projects: 25.
Individual scores: Percent receiving highly recommended overall rating
from individual Evaluation Team members;
Projects advanced: Evaluation Teams: 65%;
Projects advanced: Control and Calibration Team: 21%;
Projects awarded: Evaluation Teams' advanced projects: 78%;
Projects awarded: Control and Calibration Team's advanced projects:
23%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Because the Review Team was responsible for considering a wider range
of factors than the Evaluation Teams, it is not unreasonable to expect
that the Review Team's deliberations could produce a different result.
However, while DOT thoroughly documented the Evaluation Teams'
assessments and the reasons for its decisions and the Review Team's
memo to the Secretary described the strengths and benefits of projects
recommended for award, DOT did not document the Review Team's reasons
for its decisions, including the reasons for selecting recommended
projects over highly recommended ones. Most significantly, DOT did not
document Review Team meetings in which final decisions to recommend or
reject a project for award were made. Documentation of the Review
Team's deliberations was limited to draft minutes from the team's
initial assessments of advanced projects--a process that occurred in
meetings held over a period of about 2 months. The minutes were never
finalized or approved and were provided to us in draft form.
We analyzed these draft minutes and found that they reflected
questions Review Team members raised about the strengths and
weaknesses of various applications--questions consistent with TIGER
criteria and requirements. For instance, the Review Team raised
questions about the following projects, none of which received an
award:
* The extent to which financial commitments of project partners had
been secured. For instance, the Coos Bay Rail Line Rehabilitation
Project in Oregon proposed rehabilitating track so that a shortline
railroad could serve regional industrial operations, distribution
facilities, and marine terminals around the Coos Bay harbor and other
locations in southwest Oregon. The project would also have reconnected
these facilities to the national rail system. The Review Team raised
questions about the project's financial commitments--specifically,
whether there would be any significant cost-sharing by the state or
other commitments to the project.
* Whether projects were sufficiently ready-to-go. For example, the
North Corridor Commuter Rail Project in North Carolina proposed to
upgrade 25 miles of rail to permit faster passenger operations as well
as construct new passenger and maintenance facilities and acquire
additional equipment. The Review Team was concerned that this project
would require an environmental impact statement to satisfy the
environmental readiness requirements, which could substantially delay
the project's initiation.
* Whether a project's economic benefits were overstated. The West
Shoreway Project in Cleveland, Ohio, proposed to reconstruct 2.5 miles
of limited access highway along Cleveland's lakefront into a boulevard
with six intersections, providing improved waterfront access. However,
the Economic Analysis Team characterized the analysis provided by the
applicant as "not useful" and therefore insufficient to demonstrate
that the project's benefits exceeded its cost. In response, the Review
Team asked whether more data could be found on the potential benefits
and economic merits of the project. According to DOT officials,
producing a useful benefit-cost analysis was a challenge for many
TIGER applicants. (See appendix I for a discussion of steps DOT took
to improve applicant benefit-cost analyses in TIGER II.)
Our review of these narratives suggests that, on the whole, the team
asked reasonable questions and raised some valid concerns about many
of the projects they did not recommend for award. However, DOT
officials told us that these questions did not necessarily reflect the
reason a project was ultimately recommended or rejected for award.
Furthermore, some of the draft minutes simply noted that the Review
Team did not see what made a certain project more compelling than
similar projects--a comment that yields limited insight into why
certain projects were selected and others rejected.
To gain insight into the Review Team's final decisions, we asked DOT
officials with the Control and Calibration Team overseeing the TIGER
process to reconstruct and discuss the reasons why projects were
recommended or rejected for award by the Review Team. While these
discussions offered some insight, such information has significant
limitations. Specifically, it is testimonial in nature and reflects
officials' recollections from several months after the completion of
the TIGER grant awards. It may therefore contain a greater level of
uncertainty and error than documentation created while decisions were
being made.
According to these DOT officials, one important factor affecting award
decisions was the need to achieve an equitable geographic distribution
of funds (which, as noted earlier, DOT defined as distributing funding
in roughly equal amounts across four regions and without concentrating
projects in any one state within a region). DOT met this requirement
by rejecting some highly recommended projects to limit the number of
awards to regions that would have been overrepresented and by making
awards to recommended projects in regions that would have been
underrepresented. Specifically, officials stated that 15 highly
recommended projects in the West and the Central regions were rejected
to limit the awards to these regions. In addition, although the
Evaluation Teams advanced 23 highly recommended projects from the
South, the Review Team recommended only 2 of these projects for award.
DOT officials indicated that these projects were rejected for a wide
range of reasons such as limited financial partnerships or the
availability of other funding sources such as tolls or user fees to
support the project, among others. As a result, the South was
underrepresented for awards. To address this, officials told us they
advanced 14 additional Southern region applications that had received
lower overall ratings of recommended from the Evaluation Teams,
[Footnote 18] and 6 of these 14 recommended projects received an award.
While the DOT's draft minutes and our discussions with OST officials
provide some insight into the deliberations of the Review Team,
because there was no internal documentation from the Review Team
meetings in which final decisions to recommend or reject projects for
award were made, DOT cannot definitively demonstrate the basis for its
award selections, particularly the reasons why recommended projects
were selected for half the awards over highly recommended ones. For
example, without documentation DOT cannot demonstrate why statutory
requirements such as geographic distribution and other priorities such
as projects being ready-to-go and documenting their benefit costs
analysis could not have been achieved by selecting $1.5 billion of
applications from among the $7.7 billion in highly recommended
applications advanced by the Evaluation Teams. As our previous work
has noted, documentation of agency activities is a key part of
accountability for decisions.[Footnote 19] Furthermore, DOT's Office
of Inspector General (OIG) has published several documents in which it
raised questions about DOT's discretionary grant selections, noting
that projects were not always selected based on the relative priority
assigned in a technical review.[Footnote 20] According to the OIG,
when decisions to fund projects deemed to be of lower-priority in a
technical review over higher-priority projects, a more thorough review
and analysis of project alternatives and documentation of the
rationale used to support decisions are necessary. DOT's March 2009
Financial Assistance Guidance Manual also stresses the importance of
documenting such decisions. This manual provides a standardized set of
procedures for DOT in processing and awarding grants, and it states
that decisions not to fund projects with the highest priority from a
technical review shall be documented.[Footnote 21] The absence of an
insightful internal record of award decisions and the reasons why
final selections differ from the priorities recommended from the
technical review can give rise to challenges to the integrity of the
decisions made. DOT's lack of documentation of key decisions--
particularly those in which it selected recommended projects for award
over those receiving a highly recommended rating in the technical
evaluation--makes it vulnerable to criticism that projects were
selected for reasons other than merit.
DOT Communicated the Criteria and Selection Process to Applicants and
the Public but Provided More Limited Information on Award Decisions:
DOT externally communicated information on the TIGER evaluation
criteria and selection process, and some of the applicants we
interviewed, each of which received awards, said they understood the
criteria and found DOT's guidance helpful. According to grant policies
and guidance from the Office of Management and Budget,[Footnote 22]
funding announcements that clearly state selection criteria promote
competition and fairness in the selection of grantees. DOT's Notice of
Funding Availability for TIGER included information on all of the
statutory requirements and competitive criteria that DOT used to
evaluate the applications, as well as the relative weights of the
competitive criteria,[Footnote 23] and some of the applicants we
interviewed specifically said they understood the criteria and found
the information clear. For example, a Burlington Vermont Waterfront
Transportation Improvements North project official said that they were
able to find information on all of the criteria and application
process through publicly available sources, including the DOT Web site
that posted several "Questions and Answers" regarding TIGER. Several
applicants we interviewed said that DOT officials responded to
questions in writing online for the benefit of all applicants.
DOT made less information publicly available on the outcome of its
selection process--for instance, it did not publish the reasons for
the Review Team's decisions or why some applications were selected
while others were rejected. However, in our review, we did not find
any requirements or guidance instructing federal programs to publicly
disclose the reasons for their selection decisions. Congress and the
President have emphasized the need for accountability, efficiency, and
transparency and have made these a central principle of the Recovery
Act,[Footnote 24] but the act did not define the attributes of
transparency or how deep into the deliberative process an agency's
actions should be transparent.[Footnote 25]
To assess the extent to which DOT publicly communicated outcome
information, we compared the information TIGER externally communicated
to the information communicated by 22 other similar Recovery Act
competitive grant programs (for a list of these programs, see appendix
II). Only one of the programs communicated more outcome information on
technical scores and comments. Although it was not required in the
Recovery Act to do so, the Department of Education's Race to the Top
grant fund published all of its ratings and decisions regarding its
applicants on its Web site,[Footnote 26] including the application,
the score sheet summarizing how the application was rated, narratives
on the application that describe the ratings, the application's
progression through the selection process, and whether each applicant
received an award.
In addition to these Recovery Act grant programs, we also compared the
TIGER program to the Federal Transit Administration's discretionary
New Starts program--the federal government's primary program for
supporting capital investments in rail and bus rapid transit systems.
Like Race to the Top, DOT's New Starts program also published all
scores. However, the evaluations in these two programs were not
structured identically to TIGER. Specifically, New Starts did not have
a second round of review and used the ratings from its evaluative
process as the basis for recommending awards to Congress. Race to the
Top used a different approach from TIGER to gain further insight into
applicants being considered for award--namely, it invited small groups
of applicants to give oral presentations to a panel before awards were
finalized.
DOT officials told us they took actions to provide feedback to
applicants but have not yet developed a strategy for disclosing
additional information to the public. Specifically, officials noted
that they provided one-on-one discussions between DOT staff and
applicants that requested feedback on their TIGER applications.
However, DOT officials also told us they recognize that they will need
to make the process more transparent. For instance, officials told us
they are exploring plans to increase the program's level of
communication with the public for TIGER II and future discretionary
grant programs, although they have not yet decided what additional
information they would make available. Officials said they are
considering providing a summary abstract for each TIGER II application
that describes the project and its strengths and also indicates the
rationale for why it was selected or not selected. Officials said this
approach could increase transparency, show accountability for DOT's
decisions, and offer an opportunity to improve applications in
subsequent discretionary programs. However, DOT officials also
expressed concern that public disclosure of considerations or
opinions--favorable or unfavorable--taken into account by individuals
or groups during the application review and selection processes could
hamper deliberation in future discretionary grant selection processes.
Although DOT is not required to make this kind of complete and
detailed information public, in not doing so, it may be missing an
opportunity to better meet Congress' and applicants' needs. TIGER is a
unique program that distributes surface transportation funds based on
merit and performance across many modes of transportation on a
competitive basis--a new approach for DOT. TIGER also made federal
investments in projects like ports and freight rail infrastructure
that rarely compete for federal transportation funds. Congress
expressed an interest in continuing this new approach when it enacted
TIGER II, and DOT has proposed a new $2 billion discretionary grant
program in its fiscal year 2012 budget modeled after TIGER. Were DOT
to make additional information on its selection decisions publicly
available, Congress would have more information to help them better
understand the basis on which the funding is being distributed, and
thus would have additional information about the merits of this new
approach and more confidence in the outcome. In addition, the demand
for TIGER funds was substantial, with over 1,450 applications
received. Were DOT to make additional information on its selection
decisions publicly available, potential applicants would have better
information on how to develop and submit well-developed projects that
address significant regional and national transportation challenges.
Conclusions:
The TIGER program represented an important step toward investing in
projects of regional and national significance on a merit-based,
competitive basis. Allocating federal funding for surface
transportation based on performance in general, and directing some
portion of federal funds on a competitive basis to projects of
national or regional significance in particular, is a direction we
have recommended to more effectively address the nation's surface
transportation challenges. TIGER--and the TIGER II program that
followed--was a novel approach to funding surface transportation in
that it distributed funds across many modes of transportation and
allowed projects like ports and freight railroads that rarely compete
for existing federal transportation funds to participate. While
Congress, when it enacted TIGER II, and the Administration have
expressed an interest in this new approach, the role of discretionary
grants in the funding the nation's overall surface transportation
program is evolving. Formula funding is--and will likely continue to
be--the primary mechanism for distributing federal funds for surface
transportation. Congress has struck a careful balance in formula
programs to achieve equity among the states in how surface
transportation funds--in particular, highway funds--are distributed
and to allow states to select projects that reflect state and local
priorities. There is a natural tension between providing funding based
on merit and performance and providing funds on a formula basis to
achieve equity among the states. Consequently, meritorious projects of
national or regional significance, in particular those involving
multiple modes of transportation or those that cross geographic
boundaries, may not compete well at the state level for formula funds.
Given that the Recovery Act was intended to create and preserve jobs
and promote economic recovery nationwide, Congress believed it
important that TIGER grant funding be geographically dispersed. In the
future, however, surface transportation competitive grant programs
provide Congress the opportunity to consider the appropriate balance
between funding projects based on merit and performance and providing
funds to achieve equity among the states.
TIGER was a new program for DOT, and the Recovery Act set short time
frames for establishing and administering the program. DOT met these
deadlines and developed a sound set of criteria to evaluate the merits
of applications and select grants that would meet the goals of the
program. Furthermore, it maintained good documentation of the criteria-
based evaluation conducted by its Evaluation Teams in the technical
review and effectively communicated information about its criteria to
applicants--an important step in promoting competition and fairness.
By thoroughly documenting how its technical teams considered and
applied the criteria, clearly communicating selection criteria to
applicants, and publicly disclosing some information on the attributes
of the projects that were selected, DOT took important steps to build
the framework for future competitive programs and its institutional
capacity to administer them. This foundation is important if there are
going to be future rounds of TIGER or similarly structured programs.
Congress needs to have the best information on how well the TIGER
program has worked, and DOT needs to gain the confidence of Congress
and the public so that it can fairly and expertly administer a multi-
modal, multi-billion dollar discretionary program.
The absence of documentation--in particular, the lack of documentation
regarding decisions to select recommended projects for half the awards
over highly recommended ones--can give rise to challenges to the
integrity of the decisions DOT made and subject it to criticism that
projects were selected for reasons other than merit. Documenting key
decisions, as good internal control practices and DOT's guidance
already require, could provide a roadmap for administering future
competitive grant programs and help build confidence in DOT's
institutional ability to administer this type of program. Furthermore,
while federal agencies rarely publicly disclose the reasons for their
selection decisions in a competitive review process, the uniqueness of
the TIGER approach and DOT's limited experience with it suggests that
publicly disclosing additional information about selection decisions
would give Congress a better basis to assess the merits of this new
approach and the information it needs to judge whether and how to
continue with it. Given DOT's concerns about the potential effect on
internal deliberations, the decision of what information to disclose
publicly is best made by DOT in consultation with the Congress,
balancing DOT's concerns with the Congress' need for information.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
If Congress enacts competitive discretionary grant programs such as
the TIGER program in the future, it may wish to consider balancing the
goals of funding projects through merit-based selection with achieving
an equitable geographic distribution of funds by establishing
thresholds and other mechanisms to limit, as appropriate, the
influence of geographic considerations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that future rounds of the TIGER program or other similarly
structured competitive grant programs are accountable to Congress,
transparent to the public, and provide meaningful feedback to
applicants, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation (1)
document key decisions for all major steps in the review of
applications, particularly the reasons for acceptance or rejection of
applications and decisions in which lower-rated applications are
selected for award over higher-rated applications, and (2) in
consultation with the Congress, develop and implement a strategy to
disclose information regarding award decisions.
Agency Comments:
GAO provided DOT with a draft of this report for its review and
comment. DOT officials provided technical comments via e-mail which we
incorporated as appropriate. DOT officials stated the department would
consider our recommendations.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to congressional subcommittees with responsibilities for surface
transportation issues and the Secretary of Transportation. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
Phillip Herr:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Lessons Learned from TIGER and Applied in TIGER II:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) identified several challenges
during the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery
(TIGER) evaluation process that it sought to address as "lessons
learned" in the TIGER II process. In TIGER, many projects were given a
full review multiple times before DOT determined their eligibility and
readiness. The Evaluation Teams tried to identify projects that were
not eligible or were not ready-to-go with respect to environmental
approvals or securing other financial commitments. However, some of
these applications still advanced to the Review Team and were thus
reviewed again by the Economic Analysis Team or the Control and
Calibration Team before their final status was determined. The
solution in TIGER II was to implement a pre-application process that
required applicants to provide documentation that would determine if
each project or planning activity was (1) eligible, (2) ready-to-go,
and (3) had secured the necessary nonfederal funding match claimed in
the application. As stated in the TIGER and TIGER II Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFA), DOT officials required documentation such as
project schedules, environmental and legislative approvals, state and
local planning, and technical and financial feasibilities for review.
DOT officials said this pre-application process provided more
assurance that the final applications being reviewed were eligible and
ready-to-go, which improved efficiency and allowed teams to focus on
the merits of qualified applications.
A second challenge resulted from the fact that applications were
randomly assigned to the 10 Evaluation Teams, which also caused DOT to
have to review them a number of times. As a result of the random
assignment, each Evaluation Team reviewed projects from a mix of
transportation modes, which prevented a side-by-side comparison of the
merits and benefits for similar types of projects. Although the
Evaluation Teams assessed all applications and advanced only highly
recommended projects for further review, the Review Team wanted to
review certain projects that had significant similarities to ensure
that the most meritorious projects had in fact been advanced. For
example, the Control and Calibration Team advanced five recommended
streetcar applications and several recommended port projects that
cited benefits from the expansion of the Panama Canal. The Review Team
reevaluated them all to determine which projects were the most
meritorious. The solution in TIGER II was to assign similar types of
projects to Evaluation Teams so that the initial review assessed the
merits of applications from the same types of projects side-by-side at
the beginning of the process. Projects advanced for further review
were evaluated all together without respect for mode. DOT officials
told us this change allowed them to substantially improve the
efficiency of the review process and make awards expeditiously in
TIGER II.
A third challenge in TIGER was for DOT to meet the statutory
requirement to prioritize awards to projects for which federal funding
would complete a funding package--a challenge, in part, because of the
high demand for TIGER funds and the statutory requirement that funds
be equitably distributed across the nation. In TIGER, DOT interpreted
this requirement to mean that it would give priority to projects that
included substantial co-investment, and that it would fund discrete
project segments from within larger applications as long as these
segments demonstrated "independent utility," which DOT defined as a
segment of a larger application that provided significant
transportation benefits and created an operable project when
completed. However, although the TIGER NOFA did state it would
consider one or more components of a large project that met selection
criteria, it did not explicitly state that DOT would consider funding
project segments. Further, DOT officials said that the extent to which
applications provided information on how projects could be segmented
varied. As a result, DOT had to contact some applicants the Review
Team was considering for award to discuss whether projects could be
segmented to achieve operable and complete projects and at what
funding level. In TIGER II, DOT provided explicit guidance in the NOFA
defining independent utility and the potential for large applications
to receive partial funding. Further, TIGER II guidance requires the
applicant to identify and clearly describe the benefits of each
discrete project segment and how this segment aligns with selection
criteria.
According to DOT officials, a final challenge in TIGER was that many
applications evaluated by the Economic Analysis Team were deemed to
not have useful analyses of expected project benefits and costs.
Further, DOT economists stated that many applicants also substituted
economic impact analyses, which typically focus on local and regional
benefits rather than national benefits. Because of this, the Economic
Analysis Team individually assessed the economic analyses from the 166
advanced applications to determine the actual benefits and costs to
present accurate information to the Review Team, which they stated was
a time-consuming process. DOT officials thought the limited usefulness
of applicants' economic analyses was largely a consequence of
applicants lacking familiarity with how to properly conduct such
analyses. For TIGER II, DOT provided specific benefit-cost guidance
that roughly accounted for about one-third of the information in the
TIGER II NOFA. DOT also provided question and answer webinars on how
to conduct a benefit-cost analysis. Lastly, DOT provided training
seminars for applicants explaining the differences between benefit-
cost and other analyses, the standards for conducting proper benefit-
cost analyses, and the characteristics of a useful benefit-cost
analysis. DOT also indicated in these sessions and in its guidance
that not including useful benefit-cost analyses might be the basis for
denying an award. As a result, DOT officials hoped to improve the
quality of the benefit-cost analyses applicants provided and that it
would be able to conduct an efficient assessment of them.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To determine what criteria and processes were used in evaluating
applications and making award selections, we reviewed goals and
objectives for the TIGER program provided in the law, the Federal
Register, and DOT documents. We also reviewed guidance and
documentation of training provided to individuals serving as reviewers
in the grant evaluation process. Further, we reviewed prior GAO work
evaluating DOT's TIGER grant criteria and guidance developed by DOT
and the Office of Management and Budget on leading practices for
managing discretionary grant programs.
To describe the outcomes of DOT's evaluation process, we requested
documentation of the Evaluation and Review Teams' assessments of
applications. Due to the level of documentation DOT maintained, our
ability to analyze this information differed substantially between the
two teams.
* Evaluation Teams: DOT maintained thorough documentation of the
Evaluation Teams' reviews, including individual team member and team
ratings, as well as associated narratives describing the strengths and
weaknesses of each application. We assessed the reliability of these
data by interviewing the leaders of each of the 10 Evaluation Teams,
as well as DOT officials who helped develop the process for Evaluation
Teams to record their assessments. Ratings of each application by each
individual team member were recorded in spreadsheets along with
narratives describing the individual team member's assessment. Then,
when the entire Evaluation Team met to discuss scores and develop team
ratings, these scores and accompanying narratives were also recorded
in a spreadsheet. We reviewed these data for missing information,
errors, and other indicators of reliability. We determined that the
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We
used these data to summarize information on the initial pool of
applicants, those advanced to the Review Team, and those selected for
an award. Specifically, we categorized projects by award amount,
region, transportation mode, jurisdictional size, and other measures
to describe patterns in the characteristics of the projects and
patterns of awards.
* Review Team: DOT provided draft minutes that were never finalized or
approved from 15 of the 16 Review Team meetings. In each of these
meetings, the Review Team evaluated about 6 to 12 projects and made an
initial assessment and as needed identified issues in need of follow-
up, such as confirming financial commitments. The minutes did not
include what we understood was the final meeting to rate the remaining
applications (about 15 projects did not appear in the draft minutes).
The minutes also did not include information about the final award
decisions. Because DOT did not document the rationale for selecting
recommended projects for award over highly recommended ones, to gain
insight into award decisions, we asked DOT officials to reconstruct
and discuss why projects were recommended or rejected for award. This
approach provided some insight, but such information also has
significant limitations. Specifically, it is testimonial in nature and
reflects officials' recollections from several months after the
completion of the TIGER grant awards. It may therefore contain a
greater level of uncertainty and error than documentation created
while decisions were being made.
We also examined the extent to which DOT's competitive selection
process helped DOT to achieve statutory requirements for TIGER as
defined in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act). We accomplished this by analyzing data on geographic
location, jurisdiction size, and other factors among applications
submitted, advanced, and awarded. We summarized information on the
extent to which DOT officials documented their decisions to advance
applications for the next round of review, and to select applications
for an award.
To determine the extent to which DOT communicated the criteria,
process, and outcomes to applicants and the public, we compared
application review documents, including technical evaluation guidance
and information used to make awards decisions, with information
communicated to potential applicants through the Federal Register. In
addition, we interviewed DOT program officials, including technical
evaluation panelists, as well as examined outreach presentations and
documentation to understand the level of communication between
potential applicants and DOT officials regarding the TIGER process and
outcomes. We also interviewed a judgmental selection of TIGER awardees
to get their perspective on DOT's level of communication. We spoke to
eight awardees because they could discuss the entire process and
outcomes. We judgmentally selected awardees based their funding level,
region, transportation mode, and jurisdiction size. Because this was
not a random or representative sample, the views of these applicants
cannot be generalized. We also reviewed other Recovery Act
discretionary grant program Web sites--22 in total--as well as DOT's
New Starts discretionary grant program to determine the types of
information these programs make publicly available, and compared this
level of communication to the TIGER grant program. Table 6 lists these
programs.
Table 6: Discretionary Grant Programs Reviewed:
Program title: Broadband Technology Opportunities Program;
Agency/office: Department of Commerce.
Program title: Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title XXXIV;
Agency/office: Department of the Interior.
Program title: Emergency Medical Services for Children (Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Emergency Watershed Protection Program;
Agency/office: Department of Agriculture.
Program title: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act;
Agency/office: Department of the Interior.
Program title: Geologic Sequestration Training and Research Grant
Program;
Agency/office: Department of Energy.
Program title: Grants to Health Center Programs (Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Head Start (Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: High-Speed Rail Corridors and Intercity Passenger Rail
Service - Capital Assistance Grants;
Agency/office: Department of Transportation.
Program title: National Geospatial Program: Building The National Map;
Agency/office: Department of the Interior.
Program title: National Railroad Passenger Corporation Grants;
Agency/office: Department of Transportation.
Program title: Office of Science Financial Assistance Program;
Agency/office: Department of Energy.
Program title: Pregnancy Assistance Fund Program;
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Preventing Healthcare-Associated Infections (Recovery
Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Prevention and Wellness--Leveraging National
Organizations (Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Recovery Act Grants for Training in Primary Care
Medicine and Dentistry Training and Enhancement;
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Recovery Act Transitional Housing;
Agency/office: Department of Justice.
Program title: Science Grants for Basic Research, Educational
Outreach, or Training Opportunities (Recovery Act);
Agency/office: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Program title: Senior Community Service Employment Program;
Agency/office: Department of Labor.
Program title: State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Race-to-the-Top
Incentive Grants (Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Education.
Program title: State Grants to Promote Health Information Technology
(Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Program title: Trans-National Institutes of Health Research Support
(Recovery Act);
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To determine what challenges DOT faced and the steps DOT took to
address them in TIGER II, we interviewed relevant DOT officials
involved in the TIGER evaluation process, including all 10 of the
Evaluation Team leaders and 2 members of the Review Team. We also
reviewed DOT webinars, reviewed guidance DOT issued in the form of
"Question and Answer" documents on the TIGER Web site, and reviewed
supplemental guidance. We also made comparisons between the TIGER and
TIGER II guidance documents to understand what had been changed or
clarified from the first round of review to the second.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through March 2011
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Standard Evaluation Sheet Used by Evaluation Teams to
Evaluate Applications against TIGER Criteria:
Exhibit A ” Standard Evaluation Sheet:
For each item identified below, please provide a rating of highly
recommended, recommended, not recommended, or negative. Each rating
should be supported by a narrative statement explaining why the
application received such a rating. Narrative statements should be
clear, concise and written in plain English, without undefined
acronyms. A few well-written sentences should be sufficient for many
of the criteria, but evaluation team members may provide longer
narratives if necessary. Narratives should reference the application
where appropriate, to avoid lengthy duplication of application
contents. Overall ratings should be justified by the underlying
ratings.
Please note: While the Federal Register notice provides examples of
measures that can be used to demonstrate alignment with each of the
selection criteria, and these measures are specified in the relevant
tables below, the Federal Register notice also encourages applicants
to demonstrate the responsiveness of a project to any and all of the
selection criteria with the most relevant information that applicants
can provide, regardless of whether such information has been
specifically requested, or identified, in the notice. Therefore,
evaluation team members may base their ratings on information provided
by an applicant that demonstrates the responsiveness of its project to
a particular criterion regardless of whether such information was
identified or requested in the Federal Register notice.
Primary Selection Criteria:
1. Long-Term Outcomes:
State of Good Repair:
"In order to determine whether the project will improve the condition
of existing transportation facilities or systems, including whether
life-cycle costs will be minimized, the Department will assess (i)
whether the project is part of, or consistent with, relevant state,
local or regional efforts to maintain transportation facilities or
systems in a state of good repair, (ii) whether an important aim of
the project is to rehabilitate, reconstruct or upgrade surface
transportation projects that threaten future economic growth and
stability due to their poor condition, (iii) whether the project is
appropriately capitalized up front and uses asset management
approaches that optimize its long-term cost structure, and (iv) the
extent to which a sustainable source of revenue is available for long-
term operations and maintenance of the project, The application should
include any quantifiable metrics of the facility or system's current
condition and performance and, to the extent possible, projected
condition and performance, with an explanation of how the project will
improve the facility or system's condition, performance and/or long-
term cost structure."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
Economic Competitiveness:
"In order to determine whether a project promotes the economic
competitiveness of the United States, the Department will assess
whether the project will measurably contribute over the long-term to
growth in employment, production or other high value economic
activity. For purposes of aligning a project with this outcome,
applicants should provide evidence of the long-term economic benefits
that are provided by the completed project, not the near-term economic
benefits of construction that are captured in the Jobs Creation &
Economic Stimulus criterion. In weighing long-term employment
benefits, the quality of jobs supported will be considered as well as
number of jobs and whether these jobs are expected to provide
employment in Economically Distressed Areas. Priority consideration
will be given to projects that: (i) improve long term efficiency,
reliability or cost-competitiveness in the movement of workers or
goods, or (ii) make improvements that allow for net new investments in
expansion, hiring, or other growth of private sector production at
specific locations, particularly Economically Distressed Areas.
Applicants may propose other methods of demonstrating a project's
contribution to the economic competitiveness of the country and such
methods will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
Economic competitiveness may be demonstrated by the project's ability
to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation
system through integration or better use of all existing
transportation infrastructure (which may be evidenced by the project's
involvement with or benefits to more than one mode and/or its
compatibility with and preferably augmentation of the capacities of
connecting modes and facilities), but only to the extent that these
enhancements lead to the economic benefits that are identified in the
preceding paragraph."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
Livability:
"Livability investments are projects that not only deliver
transportation benefits, but are also designed and planned in such a
way that they have a positive impact on qualitative measures of
community life. This clement of long-term outcomes delivers benefits
that are inherently difficult to measure. However, it is implicit to
livability that its benefits are shared and therefore magnified by the
number of potential users in the affected community. Therefore,
descriptions of how projects enhance livability should include a
description of the affected community and the scale of the project's
impact. In order to determine whether a project improves the quality
of the living and working environment of a community, the Department
will qualitatively assess whether the project:
(1) will significantly enhance user mobility through the creation of
more convenient transportation options for travelers;
(2) will improve existing transportation choices by enhancing points
of modal connectivity or by reducing congestion on existing modal
assets;
(3) will improve accessibility and transport services for economically
disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, senior citizens, and persons
with disabilities, or to make goods, commodities, and services more
readily available to these groups; and/or:
(4) is the result of a planning process which coordinated
transportation and land-use planning decisions and encouraged
community participation in the process.
Livability improvements may include projects for new or improved
biking and walking infrastructure. Particular attention will be paid
to the degree to which such projects contribute significantly to
broader traveler mobility through intermodal connections, or improved
connections between residential and commercial areas."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
Sustainability:
"In order to determine whether a project promotes a more
environmentally sustainable transportation system, the Department will
assess its ability to:
(1) improve energy efficiency, reduce dependence on oil and/or reduce
greenhouse gas emissions; applicants are encouraged to provide
quantitative information regarding expected reductions in emissions of
CO2 or fuel consumption as a result of the project, or expected use of
clean or alternative sources of energy; projects that demonstrate a
projected decrease in the movement of people or goods by less energy-
efficient vehicles or systems will be given priority under this
factor; and:
(2) maintain, protect or enhance the environment, as evidenced by its
avoidance of adverse environmental impacts (for example, adverse
impacts related to air quality, wetlands, and endangered species)
and/or by its environmental benefits (for example, improved air
quality, wetlands creation or improved habitat connectivity).
Applicants are encouraged to provide quantitative information that
validates the existence of substantial transportation-related costs
related to energy consumption and adverse environmental effects and
evidence of the extent to which the project will reduce or mitigate
those costs."
Narrative: Ito be provided by team member]
Rating:
Safety: Improves safety:
"In order to determine whether the project improves safety, the
Department will assess the project's ability to reduce the number,
rate and consequences of surface transportation-related crashes, and
injuries and fatalities among drivers and/or non-drivers in the United
States or in the affected metropolitan area or region, and/or its
contribution to the elimination of highway/rail grade crossings, the
protection of pipelines, or the prevention of unintended release of
hazardous materials."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
Overall Rating for Long-Term Outcomes[A]:
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
[A] A project need not be well aligned with each of the long-term
outcomes in order to receive a rating of "highly recommended" in the
long-term outcomes criterion overall. However, to receive a rating of
"highly recommended" in the long-term outcomes criterion a project
must be "highly recommended" for at least one of the long-term
outcomes or "recommended" for multiple long-term outcomes. Projects
that are strongly aligned with multiple long-term outcomes should be
the most likely to receive a rating of "highly recommended" in this
criterion.
2. Job Creation & Economic Stimulus[B]:
"In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, the
Department will assess whether the project promotes the short- or long-
term creation or preservation of jobs and whether the project rapidly
promotes new or expanded business opportunities during construction of
the project or thereafter. Demonstration of a project's rapid economic
impact is critical to a project's alignment with this criterion.
Applicants are encouraged to provide information to assist the
Department in making these assessments, including the total amount of
funds that will be expended on construction and construction-related
activities by all of the entities participating in the project and, to
the extent measurable, the number and type of jobs to be created
and/or preserved by the project during construction and thereafter.
Applicants should also identify any business enterprises to be created
or benefited by the project during its construction and once it
becomes operational.
To the extent possible, applicants should indicate whether the
populations most likely to benefit from the creation or preservation
of jobs or new or expanded business opportunities are from
Economically Distressed Areas. In addition, to the extent possible,
applicants should indicate whether the project's procurement plan is
likely to create follow-on jobs and economic stimulus for
manufacturers and suppliers that support the construction industry. A
key consideration in assessing projects under this criterion will be
how quickly jobs arc created.
Consistent with Section 1602 of the Recovery Act (Preference for Quick-
Start Activities), the Department will assess whether a project is
ready to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.
In compliance with the Recovery Act, the Department will give priority
to projects that are expected to be completed on or before February
17, 2012. For purposes of this solicitation, "completed" means that
all of the TIGER Discretionary Grant funds awarded to the project have
been obligated and expended and construction of the project is
substantially complete.
The ability of the grant recipient to complete the project by this
date must be clearly demonstrated in the project schedule. The
Department will give priority to projects that utilize innovative
contracting approaches that encourage accelerated project delivery.
The Department will consider projects that are not expected to be
completed by February 17, 2012, but these projects will not be rated
as highly under this criterion."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member)
Rating:
[B] For the Jobs Creation & Economic Stimulus criterion, projects need
not receive a rating of "highly recommended" in order to be advanced
to the Review Team, although a project that is not ready to proceed
quickly, as evidenced by the items identified in the Project Readiness
table (Project Schedule, Environmental Approvals, Legislative Approvals,
State and Local Planning Technical Feasibility, and Financial Feasibility),
should be less likely to receive a high rating in this criterion.
Project Readiness (A Component of Job Creation & Economic Stimulus):
For each item identified below, please provide an assessment of
whether a project is ready to proceed rapidly upon receipt of a TIGER
Discretionary Grant. To the extent a project is not ready, please
provide an assessment of whether the project is reasonably likely to
be ready within 6 months of award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant.
1. Project Schedule:
"A feasible and sufficiently detailed project schedule demonstrating
that the project can begin construction quickly upon receipt of a
TIGER Discretionary Grant and that the Grant Funds will be spent
steadily and expeditiously once construction starts; the schedule
should show how many direct, on-project jobs are expected to be
created or sustained during each calendar quarter after the project is
underway."
[brief assessment of project readiness]
2. Environmental Approvals:
"Receipt (or reasonably anticipated receipt) of all environmental
approvals necessary for the project to proceed to construction on the
timeline specified in the project schedule, including satisfaction of
all Federal, State and local requirements and completion of the
National Environmental Policy Act process."
[brief assessment of project readiness]
3. Legislative Approvals:
"Receipt of all necessary legislative approvals (for example,
legislative authority to charge user fees or set toll rates), and
evidence of support from State and local officials, including relevant
governor(s) and/or mayors. Evidence of support from all relevant State
and local officials is not required, however, the evidence should
demonstrate that the project is broadly supported."
[brief assessment of project readiness]
4. State and Local Planning:
"The inclusion of the project in the relevant State, metropolitan, and
local planning documents, or a certification from the appropriate
agency that the project will be included in the relevant planning
document prior to award of a TIGER Discretionary Grant; any MPO that
is applying for a TIGER Discretionary Grant should provide evidence
that the owner of the project supports the application and will
cooperate in carrying out the activities to be supported by the TIGER
Discretionary Grant."
[brief assessment of project readiness]
5. Technical Feasibility:
"The technical feasibility of the project, including completion of
substantial preliminary engineering work."
[brief assessment of project readiness]
6. Financial Feasibility:
"The viability and completeness of the project's financing package
(assuming the availability of the requested TIGER Discretionary Grant
funds), including evidence of stable and reliable financial
commitments and contingency reserves, as appropriate, and evidence of
the grant recipient's ability to manage grants."
[brief assessment of project readiness]
Overall assessment of when the project will be ready to proceed to
construction: [to be provided by team member].
Secondary Selection Criteria:
3. Innovation: Rating:
"In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, the
Department will assess the extent to which the project uses innovative
technology (including, for example, intelligent transportation
systems, dynamic pricing, rail wayside or on-board energy recovery,
smart cards, real-time dispatching, active traffic management, radio
frequency identification (RF1D), or others) to pursue one or more of
the long-term outcomes outlined above and/or to significantly enhance
the operational performance of the transportation system. The
Department will also assess the extent to which the project
incorporates innovations that demonstrate the value of new approaches
to, among other things, transportation funding and finance,
contracting, project delivery, congestion management, safety
management, asset management, or long-term operations and maintenance.
The applicant should clearly demonstrate that the innovation is
designed to pursue one or more of the long-term outcomes outlined
above and/or significantly enhance the transportation system."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
4. Partnership:
Jurisdictional & Stakeholder Collaboration:
"In order to measure a project's alignment with this criterion, the
Department will assess the project's involvement of non-Federal
entities and the use of non-Federal funds, including the scope of
involvement and share of total funding. The Department will give
priority to projects that receive financial commitments from, or
otherwise involve, State and local governments, other public entities,
or private or nonprofit entities, including projects that engage
parties that are not traditionally involved in transportation
projects, such as nonprofit community groups. Pursuant to the OMB
Guidance, the Department will give priority to projects that make
effective use of community-based organizations in connecting
disadvantaged people with economic opportunities.
In compliance with the Recovery Act, the Department will give priority
to projects for which a TIGER Discretionary Grant will help to
complete an overall financing package. An applicant should clearly
demonstrate the extent to which the project cannot be readily and
efficiently completed without Federal assistance, and the extent to
which other sources of Federal assistance are or are not readily
available for the project, including other funds made available
pursuant to the Recovery Act. The Department will assess the amount of
private debt and equity to be invested in the project or the amount of
co-investment from State, local or other non-profit sources.
The Department will also assess the extent to which the project
demonstrates collaboration among neighboring or regional jurisdictions
to achieve National, regional or metropolitan benefits. Multiple
States or jurisdictions may submit a joint application and should
identify a lead State or jurisdiction as the primary point of contact.
Where multiple States are submitting a joint application, the
application should demonstrate how the project costs are apportioned
between the States to assist the Department in making the
distributional determinations described below in Section III(C)
(Distribution of Funds)."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
Disciplinary Integration:
"In order to demonstrate the value of partnerships across government
agencies that serve the various public service missions forwarded by
the Recovery Act and to promote collaboration on the objectives
outlined in this notice, the Department will give priority to projects
that are supported, financially or otherwise, by non-transportation
public agencies that are pursuing similar objectives. For example, the
Department will give priority to transportation projects that create
more livable communities and are supported by relevant public housing
agencies, or transportation projects that encourage energy efficiency
or improve the environment and are supported by relevant public
agencies with energy or environmental missions."
Narrative: [to be provided by team member]
Rating:
Overall Rating for Partnership:
5. Overall Project Rating:
Narrative: Ito be provided by team member ” the overall project rating
needs to be justified by the underlying ratings assigned for each of
the selection criteria.]
Rating:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Applications Received and Projects Selected for Funding:
Composition of Initial Applicant Pool:
DOT's TIGER program received 1,457 applications requesting almost $60
billion. The applications were distributed among the regions with the
South submitting both the highest number of applications and the
highest percentage of the total funding request. See table 7 for a
summary of the regional distribution of the applications.
Table 7: Number and Percentage of Applications Submitted and Funding
Requested by Region:
Region: Northeast;
Number of applications: 234;
Percentage of applications: 16%;
Amount of funding requested: $9.984 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 17%.
Region: Central;
Number of applications: 339;
Percentage of applications: 23%;
Amount of funding requested: $12.562 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 21%.
Region: South;
Number of applications: 519;
Percentage of applications: 36%;
Amount of funding requested: $23.206 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 39%.
Region: West;
Number of applications: 365;
Percentage of applications: 25%;
Amount of funding requested: $13.319 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 23%.
Region: Total;
Number of applications: 1,457;
Percentage of applications: 100%;
Amount of funding requested: $59.071 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Highway project applications by far represented the largest number of
applicants by project type comprising over half the number of
applicants and amount requested. Transit projects accounted for the
second largest percentage with about 15 percent of applications and
almost one-fifth of the amount requested. See table 8 for a summary of
the distribution of project types among the applications submitted.
Table 8: Number and Percentage of Applications Submitted and Funding
Requested by Project Type:
Project type: Highway;
Number of applications: 831;
Percentage of applications: 57%;
Amount of funding requested: $33.074 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 56%.
Project type: Transit;
Number of applications: 223;
Percentage of applications: 15%;
Amount of funding requested: $10.934 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 19%.
Project type: Other;
Number of applications: 174;
Percentage of applications: 12%;
Amount of funding requested: $5.559 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 9%.
Project type: Rail;
Number of applications: 129;
Percentage of applications: 9%;
Amount of funding requested: $5.923 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 10%.
Project type: Port;
Number of applications: 100;
Percentage of applications: 7%;
Amount of funding requested: $3.572 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 6%.
Project type: Total;
Number of applications: 1,457;
Percentage of applications: 100%;
Amount of funding requested: $59.07 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Considering the size of jurisdiction, urban areas made up the majority
of applications and funding requests with rural areas representing
slightly over one-quarter of applications and slightly less than one-
quarter of funds.
Composition of Applications Advanced for Further Review:
From this initial applicant pool, DOT officials from both the
Evaluation Teams and the Control and Calibration Team advanced 166
applications requesting approximately $11 billion in TIGER funds for
further review. Of these, DOT advanced just over one-fifth of
applications from the Northeast, Central, and South regions. The West
region, however, had more applications advanced than the other
regions. The Northeast, Central, and West regions requested around the
same proportion of funds requested by forwarded applications, but the
South requested substantially more, around one-third of the total. The
requested amounts for advanced projects were roughly in line with the
funding requests for all applicants within each region. As discussed
in the report, decisions on which applications to advance were a
combination of the applications' ratings against DOT's selection
criteria and other factors such as geographic distribution
requirements. See table 9 for a summary of the regional distribution
of the advanced applications.
Table 9: Number and Percentage of Advanced Applications and Funding
Requested by Region:
Region: Northeast;
Number of applications: 33;
Percentage of applications: 20%;
Amount of funding requested: $2.338 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 21%.
Region: Central;
Number of applications: 36;
Percentage of applications: 22%;
Amount of funding requested: $2.270 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 2%.
Region: South;
Number of applications: 39;
Percentage of applications: 23%;
Amount of funding requested: $3.810 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 33%.
Region: West;
Number of applications: 58;
Percentage of applications: 35%;
Amount of funding requested: $2.982 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 26%.
Region: Total;
Number of applications: 166;
Percentage of applications: 100%;
Amount of funding requested: $11.400 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Approximately 40 percent of the advanced applications were for highway
projects. Transit projects were about one-quarter of the total
advanced applications and requested funds. Rail, port, and other
projects each had about one-tenth of applications forwarded. These
applicants also requested less funding overall. See table 10 for a
summary of the distribution of project types among the advanced
applications.
Table 10: Number and Percentage of Advanced Applications and Funding
Requested by Project Type:
Project type: Highway;
Number of applications: 67;
Percentage of applications: 40%;
Amount of funding requested: $5.070 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 44%.
Project type: Transit;
Number of applications: 43;
Percentage of applications: 26%;
Amount of funding requested: $2.736 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 24%.
Project type: Rail;
Number of applications: 21;
Percentage of applications: 13%;
Amount of funding requested: $1.672 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 15%.
Project type: Port;
Number of applications: 19;
Percentage of applications: 11%;
Amount of funding requested: $1.046 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 9%.
Project type: Other;
Number of applications: 16;
Percentage of applications: 10%;
Amount of funding requested: $875 million;
Percentage of total funding request: 8%.
Project type: Total;
Number of applications: 166;
Percentage of applications: 100%;
Amount of funding requested: $11.400 billion;
Percentage of total funding request: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Both urban and rural applications were advanced in roughly the same
proportion in number and funding level requested as they had
applications submitted.
Composition of Selected Projects:
DOT officials selected 51 projects to receive about $1.5 billion in
TIGER funds. Of the many characteristics of the TIGER awardees, there
was one discernible trend with respect to which projects were selected
to receive the most funds. DOT officials said that awardees with
significant leveraged funds from third parties fared well in the
process. For example, while DOT noted leveraging or partnerships for
11 of the 51 awardees in its decision rationale document, these 11
awardees received 40 percent of the distributed funds. DOT officials
said that this trend occurred because they selected applicants that
could leverage funding from third parties, allowing DOT to complete
funding packages for more applicants. In conjunction with the tendency
to select leveraged projects, DOT also awarded partial funding to all
but six applicants. The average amount of funds made available was
about half of what had been requested with some applicants receiving
only 3 percent of what they had requested. However, DOT officials said
that all awards went to applicants that could complete a project with
independent utility.
TIGER awards ranged from 20 percent to 27 percent of funds awarded
over the four geographic regions. The four regions received roughly
the same percentage of TIGER funds with the Northeast and the West
receiving 27 percent each and the South receiving 20 percent. Of note,
while the South requested 39 percent of funds in the initial
application pool and 33 percent of funds for advanced applications, it
ultimately received about one-fifth of the funding. This was due in
part to questions about the economic benefits of projects and
additional funds of some highly recommended Southern applications, as
well as lower evaluative ratings for Southern projects overall. See
table 11 for a summary of the regional distribution of the awardees.
Table 11: Number and Percentage of Awardees and Funding Amount by
Region:
Region: Northeast;
Number of awardees: 10;
Percentage of awardees: 20%;
Amount of funds made available: $398 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 27%.
Region: Central;
Number of awardees: 15;
Percentage of awardees: 29%;
Amount of funds made available: $392 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 26%.
Region: South;
Number of awardees: 10;
Percentage of awardees: 20%;
Amount of funds made available: $302 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 20%.
Region: West;
Number of awardees: 16;
Percentage of awardees: 31%;
Amount of funds made available: $406 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 27%.
Region: Total;
Number of awardees: 51;
Percentage of awardees: 100%;
Amount of funds made available: $1,498 billion;
Percentage of total funding made available: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
[End of table]
Funding awards among selected project types ranged from 7 percent to
31 percent. For example, transit projects received about 31 percent of
the total funds, whereas port projects received 7 percent of the
total. See table 12 for a summary of the distribution of project types
among the TIGER awardees.
Table 12: Number and Percentage of Awardees and Funding Amount by
Project Type:
Project type: Highway;
Number of awardees: 18;
Percentage of awardees: 35%;
Amount of funds made available: $335 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 22%.
Project type: Transit;
Number of awardees: 12;
Percentage of awardees: 24%;
Amount of funds made available: $469 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 31%.
Project type: Other;
Number of awardees: 9;
Percentage of awardees: 18%;
Amount of funds made available: $216 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 14%.
Project type: Rail;
Number of awardees: 6;
Percentage of awardees: 12%;
Amount of funds made available: $379 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 25%.
Project type: Port;
Number of awardees: 6;
Percentage of awardees: 12%;
Amount of funds made available: $98 million;
Percentage of total funding made available: 7%.
Project type: Total;
Number of awardees: 51;
Percentage of awardees: 100%;
Amount of funds made available: $1.498 billion;
Percentage of total funding made available: 100%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOT data.
Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.
[End of table]
There was no discernible trend for urban or rural projects in terms of
the number of projects selected for funding, as both locality groups
received funding amounts in about the same proportions as applications
submitted and advanced. However, rural projects tended to be smaller
and received only 11 percent of the TIGER funds.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Status of Implementation of TIGER Grants:
As of February 2011, DOT had executed all but two of the 59 grant
agreements[Footnote 27] and obligated $1,468 million in TIGER funds.
In addition, DOT has outlayed $39 million of the obligated funds. DOT
delegated responsibility for completing grant agreements, obligating
funds, and overseeing the projects to the operating administrations
based on the project's transportation mode and the applicant. The
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Maritime Administration have
executed all of their grant agreements and obligated all of their
funds. The two outstanding grant agreements are both Transportation
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) projects, which
required additional time to complete. For example, one project in
Colorado opted to use its $10 million grant as TIFIA assistance, and
doing so required additional traffic and revenue studies before the
agreement could be finalized. Recovery.gov tracks the amount of funds
obligated by state, but not the grant agreements.
DOT divided oversight responsibilities among the operating
administrations, depending upon the transportation mode of the project
in each grant agreement as well as prior institutional relationships
between the applicant and DOT. Specifically, DOT considered the
capacity of the operating administrations and whether there was an
existing oversight relationship between a grantee and a federal
agency. For example, some rail projects were delegated to the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) because FHWA has existing relationships
with the relevant states and freight railroads, and FRA has limited
capacity for overseeing grants, especially with the large volume of
High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail grants FRA is overseeing.
Also, projects such as improving grade crossings can be overseen by
FHWA because FHWA has a history of oversight with these types of
projects as they affect both rail and highways.
According to officials, DOT is interested in performance measurement
and is taking steps to begin building knowledge on this subject across
the department. Our prior work has shown that measuring performance
allows organizations to track the progress they are making toward
their goals and gives managers crucial information on which to base
their organizational and management decisions.[Footnote 28] TIGER
presents an opportunity to focus on performance and results in
transportation projects, and DOT officials incorporated performance
measurements into grant agreements. Officials believe that every TIGER
project can incorporate and collect performance measures, but regions
and states have varying capabilities. For example, localities with
existing data collection programs and resources may be able to collect
and manage performance information; however, other localities may find
such a task more challenging, according to DOT officials. In these
cases, DOT has asked these awardees to collect information that would
serve as a precursor to performance measurements, which should help to
build capacity and experience among these localities. DOT is currently
developing and experimenting with the best methods for measuring
objectives and collecting data, and it is working collaboratively with
applicants to weigh different options for performance measurements.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Phillip Herr, (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are Steve Cohen (Assistant Director),
Joah Iannotta (analyst-in-charge), Carl Barden, Aisha Cabrer, David
Hooper, Sarah Jones, SaraAnn Moessbauer, Amy Rosewarne, and Max
Sawicky.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 203 (2009).
[2] Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010, Pub. L. No.
111-117, 123 Stat. 3034, 3036 (2009).
[3] Eligible projects include any highway and bridge project eligible
under Title 23 of the United States Code and public transportation
projects eligible under Chapter 53 of Title 49 of the United States
Code.
[4] The Recovery Act did not provide a metric or further define an
"appropriate balance" of the needs of urban and rural communities, and
DOT did not elaborate on this in its Notice of Funding Availability
(NOFA). 74 Fed. Reg. 28755, June 17, 2009. The Fiscal Year 2010
Appropriations Act that established TIGER II set a more specific
requirement than TIGER by requiring DOT to award no less than $140
million of the $600 million to projects located in rural areas.
[5] The Equity Bonus is calculated from 12 formula programs and High
Priority Projects designated by Congress.
[6] 74 Fed. Reg. 23226, May 18, 2009.
[7] GAO, Recovery Act: The Department of Transportation Followed Key
Federal Requirements in Developing Selection Criteria for Its
Supplemental Discretionary Grants Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-785R] (Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2009).
[8] In our 2009 report, we compared the information in DOT's interim
Federal Register notice to requirements identified in the following:
(1) a 2003 directive from the Office of Management and Budget that
establishes the information requirements federal agencies should
communicate to applicants for discretionary grants; (2) a March 2009
Administration memorandum that provides the overarching goals
executive departments and agencies should follow when developing
transparent, merit-based selection criteria to award Recovery Act
funds; and (3) a 1994 executive order outlining several principles
executive departments and agencies should follow when developing and
implementing plans for infrastructure investment and management. 68
Fed. Reg. 37370, June 23, 2003, 74 Fed. Reg. 12531, March 25, 2009,
and 59 Fed. Reg. 4233, January 31, 1994, respectively.
[9] GAO, Surface Transportation: Restructured Federal Approach Needed
for More Focused, Performance-Based, and Sustainable Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400] (Washington, D.C.:
March 6, 2008).
[10] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February
2011).
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-400].
[12] GAO, Surface Transportation: Clear Federal Role and Criteria-
Based Selection Process Could Improve Three National and Regional
Infrastructure Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-219] (Washington, D.C.: February 6,
2009).
[13] GAO, Highway Trust Fund: Nearly All States Received More Funding
Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes Since 2005, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-780] (Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2010).
[14] Including (1) ensuring an equitable geographic distribution of
funds; (2) achieving an appropriate balance in addressing the needs of
urban and rural communities; (3) giving priority to projects for which
federal funding would be required to complete an overall financing
package that includes nonfederal sources; and (4) giving priority to
projects that are expected to be completed within 3 years of enactment
of the act (obligating funds by September 30, 2011).
[15] The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal
agencies to integrate environmental values into their decision-making
processes by considering the environmental impacts of their proposed
actions and reasonable alternatives to those actions. To meet NEPA
requirements, federal agencies may be required to prepare a detailed
statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement. The
Environmental Protection Agency reviews and comments on environmental
impact statements prepared by other federal agencies.
[16] As stated, applicants from smaller cities, states, or regions
could be exempted from the $20 million minimum funding request size
requirement.
[17] TIFIA provides federal credit assistance to nationally or
regionally significant surface transportation projects, including
highway, transit, and rail. The program is designed to fill market
gaps and leverage substantial private co-investment. The Recovery Act
allowed DOT to provide up to $200 million to support subsidy and
administrative costs of projects eligible for federal credit
assistance.
[18] DOT officials stated that 5 of the 14 projects were also advanced
because they were helpful in meeting other goals or requirements--such
as projects suitable for federal credit assistance.
[19] GAO, Standards for Internal Controls in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[20] See Department of Transportation, Office of the Inspector
General, DOT's Implementation of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act: Continued Management Attention Is Needed to Address
Oversight Vulnerabilities, MH-2010-024 (Washington, D.C., Nov. 3,
2009); ARRA Advisory - FAA's Process for Awarding ARRA Airport
Improvement Program Grants, AA-2009-003 (Washington, D.C., Aug. 6,
2009); Awarding Discretionary Funds in the U.S. Department of
Transportation, MH-1998-155 (Washington, D.C., June 12, 1998).
[21] Department of Transportation, Financial Assistance Guidance
Manual (Washington, D.C., March 2009).
[22] Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial
Management Policy Directive on Financial Assistance Program
Announcements, 68 Fed. Reg. 37370 (June 23, 2003). This directive
requires federal government financial assistance program offices to
publish notices that contain clear information regarding the funding
availability.
[23] 74 Fed. Reg. 28755, June 17, 2009.
[24] As Congress finished work on the act, the House Appropriations
Committee released a statement saying, "A historic level of
transparency, oversight and accountability will help guarantee
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and Americans can see results for
their investment." To do so, Congress built into the act numerous
provisions to increase transparency and accountability over spending
that require recipients of Recovery Act funding to report quarterly on
a number of measures, as contained in section 1512 of the act. For
example, the Recovery Act also requires that nonfederal recipients of
Recovery Act-funded grants, contracts, or loans submit quarterly
reports on each project or activity, including information concerning
the amount and use of funds and jobs created or retained.
[25] The Recovery Act contains a number of provisions related to
transparency, notably the requirement that recipients of these funds
report quarterly on a number of things, such as the purpose and
expected outcomes of their awards and on jobs created. These reports
are available on the Administration's Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.recovery.gov]. See GAO, Recovery Act: Increasing the
Public's Understanding of What Funds Are Being Spent on and What
Outcomes Are Expected, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-581] (Washington, D.C.: May 27,
2010).
[26] Race to the Top, which is part of the Recovery Act's State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund (sec. 14006), is a competitive grant program that
provides funds to states to encourage educational reform that will
result in improved academic performance.
[27] Although 51 projects were selected for award, several projects
have more than one grant agreement. For example, the Crescent Corridor
project, which involves a freight rail line crossing two states, has
two grant agreements--one with each of the two states that received
money for the project.
[28] GAO, Statewide Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to
Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-77] (Washington, D.C.:
December 15, 2010).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
