GAO Repeats Its Call for a More Transparent, Consistent Selection for INFRA Grants

GAO Repeats Its Call for a More Transparent, Consistent Selection for INFRA Grants

July 26, 2019  | Paul Lewis

This week the U.S. Department of Transportation announced $856 million in new federal grants for transportation projects through its INFRA program. The program awards went to 20 projects across the country, providing critical funding to some of the nation’s most pressing infrastructure needs. According to statute, the grants should go toward highway and freight projects that are supposed to meet federal goals and demonstrate with economic analysis that they are some of the best infrastructure projects in the country.

At least that is how the process is supposed to work. A new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) again calls into question the transparency of the USDOT process, echoing earlier findings and recommendations from GAO and Eno.

The calls for increased transparency are longstanding and cross administrations. GAO released its first report and recommendations for discretionary grant programs in 2011, calling for consistent and transparent project evaluations. Eno released a similar report evaluating the TIGER program in 2012 that called for more transparency in decision making. Other reports from Eno, GAO, and others on discretionary grant programs at DOT reached similar conclusions. In this most recent report, frustrated GAO staff recommended that Congress impose more stringent requirements for transparency and process consistency, as their calls for USDOT to do so have been unsuccessful.

GAO describes the process that USDOT used to evaluate and select projects for the 2017/2018 series of funding (see graphic below). They highlight that some of the requirements for the process are in statute, such as specifics for rural and small project set-asides and funding allocated for non-highway projects. However, the legislative language is much less specific with its direction for selection criteria. The law states that projects “will be cost-effective” and will contribute to national goals but does not specify a mechanism for calculating cost-effectiveness nor a way to evaluate how these criteria fit within the selection framework. Unfortunately, the opacity of the process does not allow for GAO or others to truly understand how the final selection occurs.

The GAO did a good job of pointing out the lack of transparency and consistency in the DOT selection process. But it is equally important to highlight why such features are so important to a federal program.

A transparent and consistent process results in better projects

Labor groups, businesses, engineers, and transportation users all call for more federal investment in infrastructure. Without substantial new revenues, the federal government, states, and localities must target their resources to the most effective projects. However, GAO found that USDOT evaluators had very low confidence in the benefit-cost ratios of 14 of the 26 awarded projects in the 2017/2018 period. Of these low-confidence projects, 11 had benefit-cost ratios between 1.0 and 1.5, meaning the projects easily could have costs greater than benefits. For example:

…a technical reviewer noted, “… we conclude that the benefits of this project are reasonably likely to exceed its costs, though the case is very marginal and highly uncertain, as even a small change in some of the key assumptions and parameters could result in a negative finding.”

In fact, two of the small projects that received awards had benefit-cost ratios of less than 1.0. Awarding millions of dollars to projects whose costs may outweigh their benefits does not mesh with the growing need for funding. GAO was not able to answer why U.S. DOT did not select another project out of the 258 applicants that were more qualified. If infrastructure is going to improve, we must target limited resources to only the best of projects.

A transparent and consistent process results in improved projects

GAO not only highlighted a sub-par process, but also noted problems with giving feedback to project sponsors to improve their current and future applications. As they found:

“… reviewers noted that additional information could help them determine whether a project met the statutory requirements (such as whether the project was cost-effective) but less than half of the projects had the chance to provide such information.”

Some proposed projects are simply bad projects and do not deserve federal funds. Others could be good projects but need to improve design or outcomes to meet clear federal criteria. Without a transparent process and full disclosure of how a project scored, project sponsors do not have the ability to assess opportunities for improvement to make their proposals worthy of federal assistance.

A transparent and consistent process builds trust in the program

The BUILD (formerly TIGER) program has lasted a remarkable 9 years since it first received  funding, and INFRA (formerly FASTLANE) is authorized for the entire 5 years of the FAST Act. These types of programs represent a significant potential for infusing analysis and data to back funding decisions at the federal level. But if project sponsors, states, and members of Congress grow frustrated with what they see as an opaque and unfair process, they will lose faith in the program and its political support will decline.

While transparency invites increased criticism from project applicants, stakeholders, and members of Congress, this criticism can be used to refine and improve the project selection process, resulting in better projects and better outcomes for limited federal dollars.

Share

Related Articles

Biden Signs Sweeping Market Competition/Concentration Order

Biden Signs Sweeping Market Competition/Concentration Order

On July 9, President Biden signed one of the widest-ranging executive orders of his Administration, EO 14036, "Promoting Competition in the...

Monje Confirmed at USDOT; White House Makes FMC Nomination

Monje Confirmed at USDOT; White House Makes FMC Nomination

Yesterday afternoon, the U.S. Senate confirmed the nomination of Carlos Monje, Jr. to be the number 3 official at the U.S. Department of...

Revised Version of House Democratic Transportation Bill to Be Marked Up Tomorrow

Revised Version of House Democratic Transportation Bill to Be Marked Up Tomorrow

Yesterday, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee released a revised version of the INVEST in America Act...

Op-Ed: Federal Transportation Policy’s Prerequisites

Op-Ed: Federal Transportation Policy’s Prerequisites

The future of the federal surface transportation program is uncertain and clouded by an ever-widening range of parallel and perhaps...

Senate Likely to Amend Buy America Bill to Exempt Aggregates and Cement

Senate Likely to Amend Buy America Bill to Exempt Aggregates and Cement

After two weeks of floor debate and many amendments, the U.S. Senate is on the edge of passing S. 1260, a bill intended to revitalize U.S....

Pending Senate Bill Would Alter Buy America Requirements

Pending Senate Bill Would Alter Buy America Requirements

The U.S. Senate is in the middle of considering the "Endless Frontier Act" (S. 1260) – an umbrella bill assembled by Majority Leader...

House Members Request $20.8 Billion in Earmarks

House Members Request $20.8 Billion in Earmarks

Now that Congress has brought back earmarking, House members have filed requests for 5,267 projects totaling $20.75 billion. House...

Fernandez Faces Senate Confirmation Hearing. (Again.)

Fernandez Faces Senate Confirmation Hearing. (Again.)

Nuria Fernandez appeared before the Senate Banking Committee on May 11 to testify at her confirmation hearing in support of her nomination...

Stakeholders Advocate Action on Biden’s Infrastructure Plan

Stakeholders Advocate Action on Biden’s Infrastructure Plan

“It’s got a chance but threading the needle in a six vote majority House and a 50-50 Senate is awfully difficult and, if they’re able...

Officials and Stakeholders React to President Biden’s American Jobs Plan

Officials and Stakeholders React to President Biden’s American Jobs Plan

On Wednesday, March 31st, President Joe Biden unveiled his "American Jobs Plan." President Biden’s latest investment proposal stands at...

Rapid Response Webinar: Biden’s American Jobs Plan and Transportation

Rapid Response Webinar: Biden’s American Jobs Plan and Transportation

The White House just released a detailed summary of President Biden's $2.3 trillion federal investment plan, the "American Jobs Plan." The...

Trottenberg Nomination Will Be First Senate Business When Easter-Passover Recess Ends

Trottenberg Nomination Will Be First Senate Business When Easter-Passover Recess Ends

Before the Senate left town yesterday for the traditional two-week Easter-Passover recess, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)...

Be Part of the Conversation
Sign up to receive news, events, publications, and course notifications.
No thanks