Key Performance Indicators in

Highway Design and Construction

Keith R. Molenaar and Desiderio Navarro
published in 2011 titled Key Performance Indicators in PublicPrivate
Contracts Partnerships: A State of Practice Report discovered that
international highway agencies using a combination of performance
measures and KPIs have typically aligned project-level KPIs with
agency-level performance measures (4). The agencies use KPIs to
hold contractors and concessionaires responsible for reaching project targets and goals established in a number of different KPIs that
ultimately assist the highway agency in meeting its goals as well.
The findings provided information on the use of highway operations
and maintenance KPIs, but only briefly touch on the use of KPIs in
the design and construction phases of highway projects. This paper
explores how U.S. state departments of transportation with mature
performance management systems are managing contractor performance during design and construction in designbuild (DB) contracts.
It also determines the similarities these practices have to a formal
performance measure and KPI management system.

AASHTO has expressed the need for formalized and effective

performance-based management in highway projects. Performance
measures and key performance indicators (KPIs) are widely used by
international highway agencies to manage performance in publicprivate
partnership contracts, with great success. Performance measures have
been used by a number of U.S. state departments of transportation
(DOTs) to manage highway agency performance, but the use of formalized
KPIs is limited. This research presents information from four detailed
designbuild (DB) case studies. The case studies were selected from
DOTs with mature performance management systems to determine how
contractor performance is managed during design and construction.
The research found that although performance measures were used in the
majority of the case studies, formal KPIs were not. This paper provides a
description of practices for managing performance during design and
construction and how the current practices and DB requests for proposal offer state DOTs the opportunity to implement KPIs effectively.
The results include examples from each case study revealing how the
opportunities for design and construction KPIs are aligned with higher
agency-level performance measures. The findings and these relationships
were determined for six different performance areas common to design
and construction: (a) cost and schedule monitoring, (b) quality monitoring, (c) safety management, (d) public information management,
(e) environmental stewardship, and ( f ) traffic reliability during construction. Results of this study may assist agencies and researchers in
developing a more standard form of performance management.

NEED FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED

MANAGEMENT
The need for performance-based management is readily apparent.
AASHTO declares that the U.S. transportation system needs reform
(2). The association states that federal funding for the system has
been perpetually inadequate, inhibiting system maintenance and
expansion as a direct result of a poor public perception about the way
tax dollars are spent on construction processes deemed wasteful,
time consuming, and overly expensive (1, 2). ASCE solidifies
AASHTOs push for reform by stating the lack of federal funding
has resulted in 26% of the nations bridges being structurally deficient
or functionally obsolete, 33% of major roads being in mediocre to
poor condition, 36% of urban highways becoming overly congested,
and only 25% of Americans perceiving the current transportation
system to be a good option for fast and reliable travel (5).
Performance management will be a pillar of progressive federal
reform to correct these deficiencies. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission states, The [reformed]
Federal program should be performance-driven, outcome-based, and
refocused to pursue objectives of genuine national interest (2). In
addition, AASHTO comments on its own reform strategy advocating
that Reform of the program can increase public confidence in the
federal transportation programs ability to deliver what the Nation
needs. . . . Reform should improve program delivery, be performancebased, and provide accountability for achieving results (2). Clearly,
AASHTO is encouraging the use of performance-based management
within highway agencies and also searching for new and innovative
program delivery methods. Performance-based management in the DB
delivery presents itself as a viable consideration.

FHWA is beginning to require the use of performance measures

and state departments of transportation (DOTs) are moving toward
a focus on performance-based management of design, construction,
and maintenance (13). The primary function of these measures is
to assess the performance of a highway agency in various areas and
use the results to guide future decision-making processes in the agency.
The typical performance areas that are measured include safety,
mobility (highway congestion), environmental stewardship, preservation, and public information management (3). Our international
highway agency partners have found the benefit of using performance
measures and have taken performance-based management one step
further and have begun assessing project-level performance by using
key performance indicators (KPIs) in addition to assessing agencylevel performance with performance measures. A research scan
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of
Colorado at Boulder, Campus Box 428, Boulder, CO 80309-0428. Corresponding
author: K. R. Molenaar, keith.molenaar@colorado.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2228, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011, pp. 5158.
DOI: 10.3141/2228-07

51

52

Transportation Research Record 2228

PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT
Performance-based management for highway construction was
initially referred to as a transportation asset management system by
practicing foreign countries. Canada, Britain, Japan, Australia,
and New Zealand are currently recognized as innovative leaders in
performance-based management and have been applying the methodology for nearly two decades with significant results (6, 7). Several
of these countries infrastructure agencies established themselves on
principles of performance measurement, such as Japans Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure, and Transportation and Queensland, Australias
Department of Transport and Main Roads; others attained this
program by way of government policies and acts requiring the use
of measurable standards and targets for government ministries
and agencies, similar to Canadas British Columbia Ministry of
Transportation (6). No matter the journey, various developed countries around the world are currently profiting from its use, whereas
others, including the United States, are only beginning to realize the
systems effectiveness and potential for inducing success.
AASHTOs task force on performance management has developed
a basic framework for transportation performance management. The
association states that a proper framework must first be practical,
focused, cost-effective, and consistent with what is measured, how
it is measured, and how the measured data are presented while also
quantifying agency performance, driving interest and participation
in achieving improvement, and aligning the measurement activities
with outcomes and objectives (8). As shown in Figure 1, AASHTOs
fundamental process for performance management consists of five
phases. The first phase is the selection of appropriate performance
measures to evaluate the agency in critical program and service areas.
That is followed by monitoring and reporting the performance results.
It is this phase in which results must be monitored on the agency-

Select measures to assess

performance in key program/
service areas

Track and report performance

results

Identify key factors influencing

performance and opportunities to
improve

Allocate resources to drive better

results

level and a project-level basis. The third phase consists of analyzing

the results and identifying key factors that are influencing performance
and what opportunities exist for improvement. Subsequently, resources
must be distributed to the system in a manner that drives better
results. Finally, progress in achieving results should continue to be
monitored and reported. The process then cycles back into the third
step and repeats (1, 2). As time progresses and highway agencies are
continually pushed to achieving higher standards and societal goals
by both the public and the legislature, the first step in the framework
would need to be revisited.

DEFINITIONS
State DOTs use a divergent array of language to describe their
own unique performance management techniques. For simplicity
and consistency, this research defines the terms state policy, performance objective, performance measure, and key performance
indicator as overarching terms for the array of individual DOT
terms.
Statewide policy goals are established by the state government
for each transportation agency. Statewide policy goals typically
include areas such as safety, congestion and mobility, environmental
compliance, stewardship, and preservation.
Performance objectives are DOT mission statements or objectives
for each state policy area guiding the decisions made by the state
DOT and contractors during the course of the project. The performance objectives symbolically represent a promise to the traveling
public for achieving positive results in each performance area.
Performance measures are derived from the programmatic levels
of service sought by the transportation agency and imposed contractually as broad classifications of desired outcomes required of the
contractor.
KPIs are more project-specific milestones or components in
performance measures serving as precursors to indicate progress
toward the eventual achievement of the desired performance measures.
As broad classifications of desired outcomes, performance measures are most often reflected by contractual goals and statements of
increasing or decreasing specifics, ensuring a specific, establishing
a specific, or implementing a specific in one of the general performance areas of safety, mobility (highway congestion), environmental
stewardship, preservation, or public information management. Key
performance indicators typically include, but are not limited to,
elements such as project benchmarks, targets, milestone dates,
numbers, percentages, variances, distributions, rates, time, cost,
indexes, ratios, survey data, and report data. These targets and data
provide a state DOT with tangible evidence as to how a contractor is performing. It allows the agency to determine whether or
not it will achieve its set performance measures on the basis of the
positive and negative contributions of individual projects toward
those measures. These definitions are useful in understanding the
results and conclusions examining the information gathered from
each case study.

RESEARCH APPROACH
Continue to monitor and report
progress

FIGURE 1 AASHTOs performance

management process.

The research approach consisted of three primary tasks: (a) literature

review, reviewing existing documentation for performance-based
management in highway projects and the literature containing KPI
information; (b) data collection, obtaining detailed information

Molenaar and Navarro

via communication with domestic practitioners; and (c) synthesis,

synthesizing final results and documentation.

Literature Review
The research team conducted a thorough review of existing documentation for performance-based management in highway agencies
and projects. This task focused on data collection concerning current
national and international industry approaches to KPIs and more
general performance measures. The objective of the data collection
effort was to provide information to define the state of the practice.
An extensive literature review was conducted by using general
Internet search engines (Google, Google Scholar, Yahoo, and so
forth); TRBs Transportation Research Information Systems Online
(TRIS Online); academic engineering databases (e.g., LexisNexis
and Engineering Village 2); academic business databases (EBSCO
Business Source Complete and Management and Organizational
Studies); ASCE civil engineering database; and selected transportation
agency websites and reports.
The team was able to gather more than 40 different scholarly
articles and research reports from these sources. The team extracted
more than 1,700 performance measures and indicators in use or previously used by different highway agencies relating to all aspects of a
project, including design, construction, operation, and maintenance.
This extraction was useful in defining performance measures and
indicators for the purpose of this study, as well as familiarizing the
team with possible measures and indicators for use in examining the
different case study projects.

Data Collection
The scope of the data collection involved gathering information from
four DB project case studies. The project case studies also required
the collection of agency data on statewide policy goals, performance
objectives, and programmatic performance measures. Before beginning the case studies examination, the research team conducted a
content analysis of the existing literature and contract documents the
team had in its current database. Subsequently, the team developed
a data collection instrument in the form of a case study protocol to
collect comprehensive and consistent information from the domestic
practitioners.
The first step in obtaining detailed information was conducting a
content analysis of the case study requests for proposal (RFPs) before
creating the data collection instrument. The purpose of the content
analysis was to (a) identify measures and procedures used in policy
and implementation documents and (b) minimize the burden on
the national respondents. A formal content analysis involves a set of
procedures for collecting and organizing information in a standardized
format that allows for the transformation of nonstructured information
into a format that permits analysis. The basic steps of the content
analysis method are to (a) decide to use content analysis, (b) determine
what material should be included in content analysis, (c) select units
of analysis, (d) develop coding categories, (e) code the material, and
( f ) analyze and interpret the results (9). The results of the content
analysis were a listing of performance measures and KPIs that
the team used as a basis for designing the case study protocol and
supplementing the data collection from the national practitioners.
To preserve the quality of the research, the case studies were
required to maintain trustworthiness, credibility, conformability,

53

and data dependability. Four validity tests were used to determine the
quality of the case study research: (a) construct validity, (b) internal
validity, (c) external validity, and (d) reliability (10). Construct
validity deals with peoples opinions and biasessubjectivity should
be avoided in the research. This study dealt with the construct
validity by using multiple sources to collect the data for the research
(e.g., both agency and contractor representatives). Internal validity
refers to the interpretation of the data, especially when some causal
factors are not recognized or are omitted during the analysis of the
data. To ensure the internal validity of this study, the team used
the technique of pattern matching across the case studies. External
validity in this study involved the transfer of the results to practice.
The external validity test was met by replicating the findings developed in one case study in another. Reliability is the capability of
replicating the findings if the same steps are repeated. The condition
of reliability was met by drafting a detailed protocol that guided the
formulation of propositions, research questions, case study design,
and data collection.

Synthesis
The research team synthesized the data by exploring patterns across
multiple case studies and the literature. The team used the performance
categories discovered in the content analysis to organize the results.
The categories, which were used for the presentation of results, were
also chosen to align with AASHTOs performance management
model as closely as possible. They included the performance areas
of (a) cost and schedule monitoring, (b) quality monitoring, (c) safety
management, (d) public information management, (e) environmental
stewardship, and ( f ) traffic reliability during construction. Design
and construction performance measures and KPIs were then identified
for each.

CASE STUDY SELECTION AND DESCRIPTION

As a basis for this study, four different state DOTs and DB project
case studies are analyzed. Case study selection was dependent on
five different criteria. These criteria, listed in descending order of
significance, are (a) the project delivery method, (b) the maturity of
the state DOTs performance management system overseeing the
case study, (c) the cost of the case study project, (d) the status of the
project (i.e., whether it is in procurement, design and construction,
or open to traffic), and (e) the availability of the case study contract
documents.
DB delivery was used in each project offering the ability to
thoroughly analyze performance management in both design and
construction processes. The second criterion ensures the use of
performance measures, KPIs (or elements similar to KPIs), or both
for study in each DOT or case study project. Maturity was determined
by the states publication of statewide policy and performance management information as well as participation in a national performance
management initiative (e.g., AASHTO and TRB). Using individual
case study project costs as the third criterion provides a useful comparison of larger DB project performance management with smaller
DB projects, allowing the research team to determine whether and
how techniques vary according to project size. The status of the case
study project is useful because it allows a range of information
to be gathered from interviews with state DOT practitioners who
have recently seen the different phases of procurement, design and

54

TABLE 1

Transportation Research Record 2228

Case Study Summary Table

Duration
(years)

Project Name

State DOT

DesignBuilder

Location

Bellevue Braids: I-405 at NE 8th St.

to SR-520 Braided Ramps Interchange
Improvements
Safe and Sound: Safe and Sound Bridge
Improvement Project
I-85 Interchange: West Point I-85
Interchange
Hastings Bridge: TH-61 Hastings
Bridge Project

Washington State

Atkinson Construction,
LLC of Renton

Downtown Bellevue,
Washington

255

Missouri

KTU Constructors

700

Georgia

Matthews Contracting,
Inc.ARCADIS
LundaAmes

Various locations throughout

the state of Missouri
Troup County, Georgia

1.5

81

34

225265

Minnesota

construction, and closeout and can offer recent information on each

phase. Finally, the availability of the contract documents was considered as the fifth and final criterion. Case studies with readily
available documents for analysis were considered over those that
lacked the availability. Table 1 provides brief project information
followed by a more detailed description of each case study.

Washington State DOT: Bellevue Braids

The Washington State DOT is designing and building the I-405
Bellevue Braided Ramps Interchange Improvements project located
in downtown Bellevue, Washington. The project involves the construction of new multilevel braided ramps to separate vehicles
entering and exiting northbound I-405 between 8th Street and SR-520.
These roads experience considerable congestion during peak hours.
The project also involves the construction of a new ramp from the
northeast 10th Street overpass providing commuters with direct access
to SR-520 from downtown Bellevue. The project received roughly
$30 million in stimulus funding from the 2009 American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), allowing the project to be delivered
to the public approximately 1 year earlier than originally scheduled.
The primary contribution of the project to the traveling public is a
significant reduction in traffic congestion in the area. Furthermore,
reducing the weave traffic congestion also improves the safety for
motorists by significantly reducing congestion-related collisions.
In addition, the project design team is continually making efforts
to avoid and minimize impacts to the environment as the project
progresses to completion.
Atkinson Construction, LLC, of Renton, Washington, was awarded
the DB lump sum contract on December 7, 2009. Construction began
shortly after with an expected open-to-traffic date in the winter of
2012. The ARRA and the 2005 gas tax (a partnership funding providing up to $247.4 million) provided funding for the total cost of
the project, roughly $255.3 million.

Missouri DOT: Safe and Sound Bridge

Improvements Project
Currently, more than 10,000 bridges exist in the Missouri state
highway system, and roughly 10% of these bridges are in poor to
seriously poor condition. In an effort to combat this issue, the
Missouri DOT has created the Safe and Sound Bridge Replacement
(Safe and Sound) project to correct the majority of these structurally
deficient bridges by rehabilitating or replacing 802 bridges in just

Washington and Dakota

Counties, Minnesota

Cost ($ million)

under 5 years. The recent financial downturn of the construction

market made the originally proposed delivery method of design
buildfinancemaintain unaffordable; instead, the project was broken
down into two groups of bridges, each having its own independent
contract. Doing so is projected to save the Missouri DOT more than
$500 million in project costs.
The first contract group is made up of 248 bridges, which simply
need rehabilitation work to reach an acceptable condition level. These
were delivered under a modified design-bid-build contract approach
and are not the focus of this research report. This report analyzed the
remaining 554 bridges, which are being delivered under one DB
contract. KTU Constructors was selected on May 21, 2009, by the
Missouri Highways and Transportation program to be the design
builder for the replacement of these 554 bridges. The primary members contributing to the KTU Constructors team are Kiewit Western
Company of Omaha, Nebraska; Traylor Bros., Inc., of Evansville,
Indiana; United Contractors, Inc., of Great Falls, South Carolina;
HNTB Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri; and the LPA Group,
Inc., of Columbia, South Carolina. KTU Constructors employed
several Missouri-based subcontractors and suppliers to complete
various and specialized portions of the project.
The DB team proposed to have all 554 bridges replaced and
opened to traffic by December 31, 2013, nearly 10 months ahead of
the Missouri DOTs required final completion date of October
2014. The price quoted by the contractor was $487 million for the
554-bridge-replacement contract, bringing the total cost for all
802 bridges under the two contracts to roughly $700 million.

Georgia DOT: West Point I-85 Interchange Project

In 2006 Kia Motors elected to use West Point, Georgia, as the
location for its first vehicle manufacturing plant in the United States.
The Georgia Department of Economic Development purchased a
2,200-acre site along the western side of Interstate 85 for the plants
manufacturing and community training center. The existing roads
and infrastructure in the area could not sustain the projected increase
in traffic volume resulting from the construction of the Kia Motors
plant nearby. In response to the issue, Georgia DOT initiated the
West Point Interstate 85 Interchange project.
The project involved the design and construction of a new diamond
interchange to I-85. This project involved approximately 5 mi of
new frontage and access roads, two new bridges, two walls, 12 new
box culverts and several box culvert extensions, roadway and site
drainage improvements, new traffic signals at four intersections and
the interchange, and highway lighting at the new interchange along

Molenaar and Navarro

55

the frontage road. The department selected C. W. Matthews Contracting, Inc./ARCADIS as the DB team to complete the project. On
May 25, 2007, the notice to proceed was given to the contractor with
a contract completion date set for December 31, 2008. The total cost
of the project was $81 million.
Georgia DOT constructed the contracts RFP special provisions
to require the designbuilder to propose state-of-the-art methods
and innovative strategies to monitor and report on the achievements
of KPI targets in the performance areas of safety, congestion minimization, quality, and user satisfaction. Measuring performance in
these areas as project deliverables and tying these deliverables to an
incentivedisincentive program was a first for Georgia DOT. In doing
so, Georgia DOT made the project eligible to receive a $1 million
Highways for LIFE (HfL) grant, a program dedicated to improving
highway safety and the quality of infrastructure as well as reducing
the delays experienced by commuters caused by construction by
offering project grants as incentives for including strategies for
monitoring performance in these areas in project contracts.

Minnesota DOT: Hastings Bridge

The Minnesota DOT recently sent out an RFP for a new DB project
the Highway 61 Hastings Bridge. The project is located in Washington
and Dakota Counties in Minnesota, over the Mississippi River near the
city of Hastings. The scope of work involves the design and construction of a new four-lane cable-stay or tied arch bridge (the selection
choice remains with the selected contractor) over the Mississippi
River along with both the north and south pavement approaches.
The removal of the existing two-lane bridge is also included in the
project scope. Minnesota DOT remained open to receiving technical
proposals until April 16, 2010, and price proposals until May 10, 2010.
The two-phased procurement process began with short-listing contractors on the basis of statements of qualifications received in response
to Minnesota DOTs requests for qualifications sent out in August
2009. The issuing of the RFP to the short-listed and qualified bidders
made up the second phase of the process.
Minnesota DOT has estimated the total cost of the project to be
in the range of $200 million to $220 million. Minnesota DOT set the
maximum price proposal at the upper end of the estimated range,
$220 million, and will consider bids beyond this amount unresponsive.

TABLE 2

The anticipated start of the project is fall 2010 with a substantial

completion deadline set for June 1, 2014. The contractor must
achieve final acceptance of the project no later than 730 calendar
days following substantial completion.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDIES

The research findings involve information on the agency-level performance measures and how these relate to state policies and projectlevel KPIs. As previously mentioned, the term key performance
indicator was not found in the documents of the four case studies.
However, each of the case study RFPs does outline elements of
performance-based management at the project level that reflect the
functions of KPIs and how they are used internationally. The findings
and these relationships were determined for six different performance
areas common to design and construction, including (a) cost and
schedule monitoring, (b) quality monitoring, (c) safety management,
(d) public information management, (e) environmental stewardship,
and ( f ) traffic reliability during construction. The findings are presented through case study examples in the performance categories
of cost and schedule monitoring, quality monitoring, public information management, and traffic reliability during construction. Safety
management is not addressed in this paper due to constraints on
length. However, because information on incentive and disincentive
programs related to performance is a common finding across multiple performance categories and case studies, incentive and disincentive
programs are also briefly discussed.
The performance area of cost and schedule is illustrated through
examples from the Bellevue Braids case study in Table 2. The policy
of stewardship was developed by the Washington State legislature
for every sector of transportation including highway, aviation, and
ferry with a focus on using economic and material resources efficiently.
The performance objective was developed by Washington State DOT
to reflect the policy and hold the DOT to a high standard of accountability, especially in the area of using economic resources effectively.
After establishing the objective, Washington State DOT created a
manageable number of performance measures to aid in achieving
this objective, one of which was project delivery on time and within
budget. The objective and this performance measure along with
others can be found in Washington State DOTs Gray Notebook and

Washington State DOTs Bellevue Braids Cost and Schedule Monitoring

Performance Objective

Performance Measure

Opportunities to Use KPIs

Enhance Washington State DOTs

management and accountability
processes and systems to support
making the right decisions,
delivering the right projects, and
operating the system efficiently
and effectively in order to achieve
the greatest benefit from the
resources entrusted to us by
the public

Capital project delivery:

on-time and within budget

Progress reports
Executive summary of project achievements and difficulties
Analysis of project condition with respect to on-time and on-budget performance
Discussion of contract milestones and the project critical path
Detailed review of each disciplines past performance and future goals
Status of required submittals, RFIs, and design approvals that impact timely
performance
Contractor self-assessment of performance against incentive performance issues
Monthly schedule updates
Calculations, reports, and narratives regarding the project schedule and budget
Statistical comparison of the current schedule to the previous and expected final
schedule
Changes to activity logic and durations and expected impact of the changes
Discussion of milestones that are being calculated to finish later than the contract
milestone completion dates and how they might be improved

NOTE: Performance area: cost and schedule monitoring; policy: stewardship (State Policy 5).

56

Transportation Research Record 2228

TABLE 3 Georgia DOTs West Point I-85 Interchange

Quality Monitoring
Performance Objective

KPIs

1. Promote efficient system

management and operation
and
2. Emphasize the preservation
of the existing transportation
system

Pavement sound intensity testing

results: HfL goal of 96.0 dB(A) or
less for all paved surfaces
Pavement smoothness
HfL goal of 43.8 in./mi (international
roughness index) or less for all
paved surfaces
Smoothness index of 900 or less for
new construction
Smoothness index of 1,025 or less
for corrective work
Profile index of 30 in./mi or less for
bridge approaches
Hot-mix asphalt (HMA)
HMA concrete thickness
measurements
HMA concrete spread rates

NOTE: Performance area: quality monitoring; policy: stewardship and

preservation.

20092015 Strategic Plan (11, 12). The last column of Table 2 presents language used in the project RFP indicating the use or further
development of KPIs (or performance management tools with characteristics similar to formal KPIs). For example, under progress
reports the requirement of the designbuilder to provide an analysis
of the project condition with respect to on-time and on-budget performance gives Washington State DOT tangible results on the projects delivery status and whether or not this individual project is
contributing to the departments performance measure and objective
of using public resources effectively and efficiently. In this example,
Washington State DOT allows the designbuilder the freedom to
propose an analysis framework for on-time and on-budget performance
for acceptance, whereas in using a formal KPI, the department would
have set the standard and framework for the designbuilder (1315).
The findings of the West Point I-85 Interchange case study for the
performance area of quality monitoring are presented in Table 3.

TABLE 4

The policy of stewardship and preservation can be found in Georgia

DOTs 20052035 State Strategic Plan (16). This case study is
unique in that at the time of the design and construction of the I-85
Interchange, the Georgia DOT did not have formal performance
measures in place. However, it did have formal performance objectives
described in the strategic plan reflecting the common performance
areas analyzed across each case study. It is also unique in that although
Georgia DOT lacked formal performance measures at the time, the
project itself used a more formal set of KPIs than any other case study.
They are considered more formal because the targets and milestones
for the project were set by the HfL program and adopted by the
department rather than being established by the designbuilder
(17). After these project-level KPIs were examined, a link was found
from each back to the performance objectives established in the strategic plan, which is a consistent finding across the majority of the case
studies. The last column of Table 3 presents language used in the project RFP indicating the use of KPIs. For example, under pavement
smoothness the goal established by the HfL program and adopted by
Georgia DOT was a smoothness target of 43.8 in./mi or less (on the
international roughness index) for all paved surfaces (18).
The findings of the Missouri DOTs Safe and Sound project
case study in Table 4 illustrate the performance area of public
information management. The department does not have a state
policy to reflect this performance area, but it does have a number
of performance objectives and measures relating to public information management. The objectives for Missouri DOT in this area
are involving the public in the agencys decision-making processes
and providing fast and reliable information about the project to
the public (19, 20). The department is currently providing this
information to the public by using a progress web page displaying the current status of the project. The information provided to
the public on this web page is shown in the last column of Table 4.
Interested commuters and highway users can access the web page
at any time and know the progress of the project. It is also helpful
in allowing commuters to choose alternative routes to destinations
affected by current construction since the project bridge locations
are all over the state. The departments performance measures for
this area appear to focus more on extracting information from the
public about their satisfaction with Missouri DOT and its ability

Missouri DOTs Safe and Sound Bridge Public Information Management

Performance Objective

Performance Measures

Opportunities to Use KPIs

1. Customer involvement in
transportation decision making,
2. Personal, fast, courteous and
understandable response to
customer requests (inbound),
and
3. Accurate, timely,
understandable and proactive
transportation information
(outbound)

Percent of overall customer satisfaction

Percent of customers who contacted Missouri DOT that felt they were
responded to quickly and courteously with an understandable response
Percent of documented customer requests responded to within 24 h
Average completion time on requests requiring follow up
Number of customers who attend transportation-related meetings
Percent of customers who are satisfied with feedback they receive from
Missouri DOT after offering comments
Percent of positive feedback responses received from planning partners
regarding involvement in transportation decision making
Number of public appearances
Percent of customers who feel Missouri DOT provides timely, accurate
and understandable information
Number of contacts initiated by Missouri DOT to media
Percent of Missouri DOT information that meets the medias expectations
Percent of positive newspaper editorials
Number of overall visitors to Missouri DOTs websites

Progress web page

Number of bridges complete
Number of bridges under construction
Number of bridges remaining until
full project completion

NOTE: Performance area: public information management; policy: not applicable.

Molenaar and Navarro

TABLE 5

57

Minnesota DOTs Hastings Bridge Traffic Management

Performance Objective

Performance Measures

Opportunities to Use KPIs

Provide mobility and address

congestion in the Twin Cities
by optimizing use of the existing
system and making strategic
capacity investments in both
highways and transit

Travel time index and national ranking: Twin Cities ranking

among metropolitan areas for peak to off-peak travel times
Duration and extent of congestion on freeways: percent of freeway
miles congested in weekday peak periods
Transit ridership: passengers served in the Twin Cities region
Bus-only shoulders: miles of bus-only shoulders
Incident clearance: average clearance time for urban freeway
incidents
FIRST route coverage: total miles covered by the freeway incident
response safety team (FIRST)
Metro signal retiming on arterial routes: signal retiming frequency

Progress reports: summary of known traffic

incidents within the work zone
Maintenance of traffic plan
Identification of measurable limits for the
repair and replacement of traffic control
devices
Traffic control supervisor daily drivethrough inspection report results
Video records: weekly drive-through video
records of the project site provided to the
department

NOTE: Performance Area 6: traffic management; policy: travel within the Twin Cities metro area.

to manage its projects than about getting information out to the

public. The information collected from the Missouri DOT case study
provides a clear understanding of what is needed to distribute and
gather information from highway users to better the agency and
highway network performance (2123).
The performance area of managing traffic during construction
is illustrated in Table 5 from Minnesota DOTs Hastings Bridge
project. Minnesota DOT has structured its performance management
system to reflect statewide policies with performance objectives and
measures in this area. The policy and objectives are coupled to create
a focus on improving commuter mobility in one of the most heavily
congested areas of the state, the Twin Cities metro area (24). The performance measures provide Minnesota DOT with relevant information
on the unrestricted flow of traffic through this area by reporting travel
time indexes and incident clearance times. Finally, the last column
presents language used in the project RFP suggesting opportunities
to use or further develop elements such as KPIs into the contract to
monitor performance in this area. One of the requirements in this
column is for the designbuilder to report on incidents in the work
area. This reporting appears to be directly aligned with the performance measure concerning incident clearance times. In addition, the
RFP language requiring the designbuilder to identify measurable
limits for the repair and replacement of traffic control devices is a
good example of an indicator as to when these devices need to be
replaced to ensure that traffic congestion does not occur as a result
of their failure (2528).

INCENTIVE AND DISINCENTIVE PROGRAMS

Noncompliance tracking and incentivedisincentive programs are
necessary for performance-based contracts and for providing DOTs
and contractors with a means to monitor performance and obtain
rewards for superior performance. Noncompliance tracking is often
a system of reports and documents generated by the contractor,
department, or both revealing areas of the work that do not conform to
the project documents or specifications. Generally, these documents
and reports are added to a database of other outstanding reports. A
contractor with one or more outstanding noncompliance reports may
be ineligible to receive portions of its progress payments or any
incentives that may exist for the project.
Incentivedisincentive programs function to encourage superior
contractor performance. Generally, these programs exist for exceed-

ing schedule and quality requirements. The contractor is made aware

of the program in the project RFP and is given adequate time to
generate strategies and procedures to obtain as much of the incentive
as possible. Some incentives are given periodically on the basis of
milestone achievements, whereas others are made available only
after the project is completed in its entirety.
Each of the case studies has an incentive program. For example, the
Bellevue Braids project has a program offering opportunities for the
contractor to receive up to $670,000 in incentives. These incentives can
be earned periodically and on a project basis for superior performance
in the areas of environmental compliance and pavement quality. Similarly, the Hastings Bridge project contains an incentive program for
pavement smoothness based on international roughness index values.
The Safe and Sound and I-85 Interchange projects are similar in regard
to incentive programs because both offer substantial monetary rewards
for early project completion. Because the Safe and Sound project
involves the construction of 554 different project bridges, the incentive
is available periodically on the basis of the completion of individual
bridges as well as at the end of the entire project (after all 554 bridges
have been completed). The I-85 interchange project incentive is
available only for finishing before the final completion date.

CONCLUSIONS
The use of performance management in highway design and construction is rapidly evolving. This research found that agencies with
a strong focus in performance management are applying agency-level
performance measures, objectives, and policies, as well as projectlevel KPIs. These elements were found in all four case studies.
However, the term key performance indicator is not common.
These elements provide each department with tangible evidence
of how designbuilders are performing. The six major design and
construction performance areas were found to be cost and schedule
monitoring, quality monitoring, safety management, environmental
stewardship, public information management, and traffic management.
Each case study exhibits examples of RFP language or requirements
in the majority of these performance areas, indicating the use or
further development of KPIs.
The opportunities for using KPIs in DB contracts allow for a more
formalized process. This process follows that seen in international
publicprivate partnership project contracts using stated performance
measures and KPIs. That is to say that these opportunities reflect the

58

general structure of aligning themselves with agency-level performance measures and objectives. As the federal government and state
agencies move toward agency-level performance management
systems, positive contributions must be made by individual projects.
An agency cannot reach a performance measure related to reducing
work-zone-related injuries without reducing work-zone-related injuries
in each of its individual projects. Each of the four case studies shows
progression toward this type of performance-based management
structure. It is hoped that the definitions and examples provided in
this paper will help the highway sector move toward an integrated
performance management system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was sponsored by FHWAs Office of International
Programs. The authors thank the case study sponsors and project
personnel who contributed their time to this study. The authors also
thank FHWAs Construction Management Expert Task Group for
its guidance.

REFERENCES
1. State DOT Performance Management Programs: Select Examples.
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2007.
2. AASHTO Authorization Policy Topic I Performance Management.
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008.
3. Task Force on Performance Management. A Primer on PerformanceBased Highway Program Management Examples for Select States.
AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2008.
4. Molenaar, K. R., G. Proctor, and D. Navarro. Key Performance Indicators
in PublicPrivate Contracts Partnerships: A State of Practice Report.
Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-PL-10-02 U.S.
Department of Transportation, 2011.
5. ASCE. Report Card for Americas Infrastructure. ASCE Report Card
for Americas Infrastructure. www.asce.org/reportcard/2009/grades.cfm.
Accessed July 19, 2009.
6. MacDonald, D., C. Yew, R. Arnold, J. Baxter, R. Halvorson, H. Kassoff,
M. Meyer, K. Philmus, J. Price, D. Rose, M. Walton, and W. White.
Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan, and
New Zealand. American Trade Initiatives, Inc., LGB & Associates, Inc.,
2004, pp. 184.
7. Booz, Allen, Hamilton. Relationships Between Asset Management and
Travel Demand. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2008,
pp. 199.
8. Measurement Working Group. Area Performance Indicator (API)
Handbook. Highways Agency, United Kingdom, 2007, pp. 160.
9. Content Analysis: A Methodology for Structuring and Analyzing Written
Material. GAO/PEMD-10.1.3. General Accounting Office, Washington,
D.C., 1996, pp. 177.
10. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed. Applied
Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5. Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, Calif., 1994.
11. Washington State Department of Transportation. Business Directions:
WSDOTs 20092015 Strategic Plan. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Olympia. www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/Performance
Reporting/StrategicPlan.htm. Accessed March 1, 2010.
12. Washington State Department of Transportation. The Gray Notebook.
Edition 35. Jan. 2009. www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/
navigateGNB.htm. Accessed March 1, 2010.

Transportation Research Record 2228

13. Washington State Department of Transportation. Instructions to Proposers: I-405/NE 8th St to SR 520 Braided RampsInterchange Improvements. 2009. www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/contaa/designbuildcontracts/bellevue
%20braids/default.htm. Accessed March 1, 2010.
14. Washington State Department of Transportation. Design-Build Contract,
Chapter 1 General Provisions: I-405/NE 8th St to SR 520 Braided
RampsInterchange Improvements. 2009. www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/
contaa/designbuildcontracts/bellevue%20braids/default.htm. Accessed
March 1, 2010.
15. Washington State Department of Transportation. Design-Build Contract,
Chapter 2 Technical Requirements: I-405/NE 8th St to SR 520 Braided
RampsInterchange Improvements. 2009. www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/
contaa/designbuildcontracts/bellevue%20braids/default.htm. Accessed
March 1, 2010.
16. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 20052035 Georgia Statewide Transportation Plan Update. 2009. www.dot.state.ga.us/informationcenter/
programs/transportation/Pages/swtp.aspx. Accessed March 1, 2010.
17. FHWA. Highways for Life: Final Report. 2009. www.fhwa.dot.gov/
hfl/summary/ga/index.cfm. Accessed March 1, 2010.
18. Proposal: Interchange Construction on I-85/SR 403 at CR 98. Georgia
Department of Transportation, Atlanta, 2007.
19. Tracker: Measures of Departmental Performance. Missouri Department
of Transportation, Jefferson City, 2009, pp. 1233.
20. Missouri Department of Transportation. MoDOT Tracker. 2010. www.
modot.mo.gov/about/general_info/Tracker.htm. Accessed March 1,
2010.
21. Missouri Department of Transportation. Request for Proposals for the
Bridge Improvements Project: Book 1Design Build Contract. 2008.
http://search.mo.gov/search?q=safe+and+sound+RFP+book+2&btn
G=MoDOT+Search&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&output=xml_no_dtd&
client=modot&num=10&proxystylesheet=modot&sort=date:D:L:d1&
entqr=3&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=modot. Accessed March 1,
2010.
22. Missouri Department of Transportation. Request for Proposals for the
Bridge Improvements Project: Book 2Performance Requirements.
2008. http://search.mo.gov/search?q=safe+and+sound+RFP+book+2&
btnG=MoDOT+Search&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&output=xml_no_
dtd&client=modot&num=10&proxystylesheet=modot&sort=date:D:
L:d1&entqr=3&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=modot. Accessed
March 1, 2010.
23. Missouri Department of Transportation. Request for Proposals for the
Bridge Improvements Project: Instructions to Proposers. 2008. http://
search.mo.gov/search?q=safe+and+sound+RFP+book+2&btnG=MoD
OT+Search&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&output=xml_no_dtd&client=
modot&num=10&proxystylesheet=modot&sort=date:D:L:d1&entqr=
3&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&ud=1&site=modot. Accessed March 1, 2010.
24. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan 20092028. Jan. 2009. www.dot.state.mn.us/
planning/stateplan/download.html. Accessed March 1, 2010.
25. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Design Build Contract Book 1:
TH 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project. Jan. 2009. www.dot.state.
mn.us/designbuild/hastingsbridge/. Accessed March 1, 2010.
26. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Design Build Contract Book 2:
TH 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project. Jan. 2009. www.dot.state.
mn.us/designbuild/hastingsbridge/. Accessed March 1, 2010.
27. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Design Build Contract Book 3:
TH 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project. Jan. 2009. www.dot.state.
mn.us/designbuild/hastingsbridge/. Accessed March 1, 2010.
28. Minnesota Department of Transportation. Design Build Contract
Instructions to Proposers: TH 61 Hastings Bridge Design-Build Project.
Jan. 2009. www.dot.state.mn.us/designbuild/hastingsbridge/. Accessed
March 1, 2010.
The Project Delivery Methods Committee peer-reviewed this paper.