District of Columbia's Department of Transportation's		 
Reorganization and Use of Federal-Aid Funding (14-MAY-04,	 
GAO-04-644R).							 
                                                                 
The District of Columbia's (the District) transportation system  
is critical to the District's residents and businesses, the	 
federal government, and the millions of tourists who visit the	 
nation's capital annually. To help build and maintain its bridges
and roads, the District receives federal highway funds from the  
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). All of the District's	 
bridges and about 30 percent of its roads are eligible for these 
funds; the remaining roads are maintained under the local	 
transportation program using District funds. In 2003, the	 
District expended a total of about $242 million on its bridge and
road infrastructure, of which almost $158 million were		 
federal-aid expenditures. To better manage its transportation	 
services, the District reorganized its transportation		 
infrastructure functions, creating a stand-alone Department of	 
Transportation in 2002. According to the Volpe National 	 
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center), a lack of resources
and inadequate attention to emerging infrastructure problems	 
allowed local road conditions to decay to the point that in 1999,
nearly 50 percent of local roads were rated fair or poor by FHWA.
In addition, the District Department of Transportation's (DDOT)  
stakeholders believed that the organization was reactive, lacked 
vision, failed to communicate with citizens, and was unable to	 
quickly respond to problems. Furthermore, we noted in 2000 that  
according to FHWA, the District's average processing times for	 
transportation infrastructure design and construction contracts  
were lengthy--over 25 and 21 months, respectively, from 	 
notification of obligation ceiling to notice to proceed. To bring
enhanced attention to transportation planning and management	 
functions, as well as to improve processing times and overall	 
performance, the Department of Transportation separated from the 
Department of Public Works and adopted a project management team 
approach to improve the planning, design, and construction of	 
infrastructure projects. The reorganization is expected to	 
provide more focus and leadership on transportation services and 
increase accountability for service delivery. A Member of	 
Congress asked us to provide information on (1) the District's	 
reorganization of its transportation department, (2) the	 
department's performance measurement system, and (3) the	 
District's use of federal-aid funds, including the average time  
frames for processing design and construction contracts.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-644R					        
    ACCNO:   A10068						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia's Department of Transportation's    
Reorganization and Use of Federal-Aid Funding			 
     DATE:   05/14/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Bridges						 
	     Budget obligations 				 
	     Federal aid for highways				 
	     Federal aid to localities				 
	     Ground transportation operations			 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Public roads or highways				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Unexpended budget balances 			 
	     Urban transportation operations			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-644R

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

May 14, 2004

The Honorable Ernest J. Istook, Jr. House of Representatives

Subject: District of Columbia's Department of Transportation's
Reorganization and Use of Federal-Aid Funding

The District of Columbia's (the District) transportation system is
critical to the District's residents and businesses, the federal
government, and the millions of tourists who visit the nation's capital
annually. For example, the District's transportation system serves nearly
600,000 residents and almost 500,000 workers who commute into and out of
the city each day and is also utilized by many of the capital's nearly 20
million visitors each year. Along with the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority's mass transit system, the District's nearly 1,500 miles
of road and 213 highway bridges are important components of the District's
transportation system and are vital to the region's mobility and security.
To help build and maintain its bridges and roads, the District receives
federal highway funds from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). All
of the District's bridges and about 30 percent of its roads are eligible
for these funds; the remaining roads are maintained under the local
transportation program using District funds. In 2003, the District
expended a total of about $242 million on its bridge and road
infrastructure, of which almost $158 million were federal-aid
expenditures.

To better manage its transportation services, the District reorganized its
transportation infrastructure functions, creating a stand-alone Department
of Transportation in 2002. According to the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center (Volpe Center),1 a lack of resources and inadequate
attention to emerging infrastructure problems allowed local road
conditions to decay to the point that in 1999, nearly 50 percent of local
roads were rated fair or poor by FHWA. In addition, the District
Department of Transportation's (DDOT) stakeholders believed that the
organization was reactive, lacked vision, failed to communicate with
citizens, and was unable to quickly respond to problems. Furthermore, we
noted in 20002 that according to FHWA, the District's average processing
times for transportation

1The Volpe Center is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation's
Research and Special Programs Administration, and is known for its
transportation and logistics expertise.

2U.S. General Accounting Office, Historical Information on the District of
Columbia's Department of Public Works Federal-Aid Highways Program
(Washington, D.C.: July 7, 2000).

infrastructure design and construction contracts were lengthy-over 25 and
21 months, respectively, from notification of obligation ceiling to notice
to proceed. To bring enhanced attention to transportation planning and
management functions, as well as to improve processing times and overall
performance, the Department of Transportation separated from the
Department of Public Works and adopted a project management team approach
to improve the planning, design, and construction of infrastructure
projects. The reorganization is expected to provide more focus and
leadership on transportation services and increase accountability for
service delivery.

In 2000 and 2001,3 we provided you two reports that contained information
on the District's use of federal-aid funds and its plans to reorganize the
transportation department to improve performance. In your most recent
request, you asked us to provide information on (1) the District's
reorganization of its transportation department, (2) the department's
performance measurement system, and (3) the District's use of federal-aid
funds, including the average time frames for processing design and
construction contracts. To provide information on the reorganization, we
interviewed senior officials, including the Director of DDOT, and reviewed
documents on the establishment of the new department and its structure. To
obtain information on the performance measurement system, we spoke with
officials from DDOT and the District's Office of Deputy Mayor/City
Administrator. To obtain information on the District's use of federal-aid
funds, we interviewed DDOT and FHWA officials and obtained federal-aid
funding and contract data from DDOT officials. We determined that the
federal-aid data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
review. We conducted our work from January 2003 through March 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. This
report summarizes the information we provided to your staff during our
March 26, 2004, briefing. The briefing slides, which provide more details
about our analysis, are attached as enclosure I.

Background

The District Department of Transportation Establishment Act of 2002
created a cabinet-level agency responsible for the management of
transportation infrastructure

4

and operations. Prior to the formation of DDOT, the responsibility for
these functions was within the Department of Public Works (DPW). The
impetus for the reorganization was to bring enhanced attention to
transportation planning and management functions and elevate
transportation issues to a cabinet-level status. The District worked with
the Volpe Center to develop a plan on how to structure the new department.
On the basis of the Volpe Center's review of organizational structures and
practices in other cities and state transportation agencies of similar

3U.S. General Accounting Office, Restructuring of the District of Columbia
Department of Public
Work's Division of Transportation, GAO-01-347R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16,
2001).
4D.C. Law 14-137 (2002).

size5 and on interviews with stakeholders, DDOT adopted a project
management team approach-teams are now responsible for transportation
projects from inception to

6

completion. DDOT believes that this new approach will result in a
departmentwide change in the delivery of transportation goods and services
by providing faster delivery of services to customers and strengthening
relationships with stakeholders.

DDOT provides transportation functions for the District in its dual
capacity as a city and a state. Because DDOT is considered a state DOT, it
receives funding for roadway construction and improvement projects through
various programs collectively known as the Federal-Aid Highway Program.7
Federal funding is made available to the states and the District at the
start of each fiscal year through

8

apportionments from FHWA that are based on formulas provided in law. With
few exceptions, the funds that the federal government provides to the
states and the District for highways must be matched by funds from other
sources-in the District's case, local revenues. The funding requirement
for most federal highway programs is 80 percent federal and 20 percent
state/local funding. According to FHWA, highway construction projects may
take as few as 3 years or as many as 20 years to complete, depending on
the size and complexity of the project.

Summary

In summary, we found the following:

o  	DDOT is making significant progress with its organizational
transformation efforts. In 2003, we reported on the results of a forum to
identify and discuss useful practices and lessons learned from major
private and public sector

                                       9

organizational mergers and transformations. The result of this work was
the identification of key practices that have consistently been followed
throughout successful transformations. According to DDOT officials, the
agency is implementing many of the organizational transformational
practices, including establishing core values and a new performance
management system linked to the agency's goals. Even though DDOT is off to
a good start, several transformational challenges remain. For example,
DDOT is still in the midst of establishing a more results-oriented
culture, in essence shifting from an environment of "it's not my job" to
"how can I help you." DDOT is still in the process of aligning its
workforce to its mission and establishing more effective recruitment and
retention programs. We have reported that a change of culture is at the
heart of a successful organizational transformation. In

5The eight cities included Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis,
Jacksonville, Memphis, Milwaukee, San
Francisco, and Seattle. In addition, four state DOTs were interviewed:
Delaware, Maine, Rhode
Island, and Vermont.
6DDOT has restructured its infrastructure project management organization
around ward-based teams.
7Most of the funding for these programs is derived from highway user
taxes, such as excise taxes on
motor fuels and tires, taxes on the sale of trucks and trailers, and taxes
on the use of heavy vehicles.
8For highway programs that do not have apportionment formulas, funds are
distributed through
allocations to states with qualifying projects.
9U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation
Steps to Assist Mergers
and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).

addition, DDOT faces the challenge of updating and improving its
information systems for performance measurement, personnel recordkeeping,
and workforce planning. DDOT is planning, or has plans to address, many of
its remaining challenges; however, the agency has not developed an overall
plan to support a fully integrated and successful organizational
transformation. Because a transformation is a substantial commitment that
could take years to complete, it requires long-term planning and
leadership commitment to ensure success. We believe, and DDOT officials
agree, that DDOT could benefit from a comprehensive transformational plan
that would include implementation goals, measures, and a time line to show
progress toward its transformation.

o  	DDOT is in the process of developing a comprehensive performance
measurement system that is relevant to its organizational mission and
incorporates industry best practices. DDOT officials reported that a
number of past performance indicators were narrow in scope and difficult
to measure. For example, one measure was to identify the total number of
trips by persons on bicycles in the District. DDOT officials acknowledged
that the performance system utilized in fiscal year 2003 did not provide
its customers with an accurate measurement of how DDOT is performing in
terms of its overall goals-such as safety and mobility. (See enc. II for
additional information on DDOT's FY 2003 performance indicators.) While
DDOT officials also indicated that the quality of the performance data
varied, they also noted that the quality of some performance data was
poor. This affects the department's ability to accurately measure its
performance. According to these officials, the majority of the performance
data are entered manually and vary widely in their accuracy, completeness,
and reliability. DDOT officials recognize these problems and have sought
to remedy the situation by seeking guidance about industry best practices.
As a result, DDOT is developing a new performance measurement system to
obtain information about overall performance and to establish a connection
between strategic goals and the results of day-to-day operations. This new
performance system will contain six broad strategic goals including
safety, infrastructure, customer service, mobility, environment, and
operations, which will be supported by 60 key result measures10 such as a
reduction in the number of pothole complaints per mile. (See enc. III for
additional information on DDOT's new performance system.) Many states,
such as Maryland and Pennsylvania, have implemented similar performance
frameworks. To complement this new framework, DDOT officials are
implementing a technology plan that addresses the quality of the
performance data. This plan, which they expect to be fully implemented in
2 years, will automate data entry and update and integrate the information
systems.

10According to a DDOT official, baseline performance data for the new
performance system is still being developed. DDOT plans to produce its
first public annual report on the results of these measures in the fall of
2004. Due to the District's budget cycles, these new performance measures
will not be reflected in the agency's official performance contract until
FY 2006, but they will be tracked and published at the end of FY 2004.

o  	The District's total expenditures for transportation projects
increased from about $123 million in fiscal year 1999 to about $242
million in fiscal year 2003 (see enc. IV). For fiscal years 1989 through
2003, none of the District's federalaid highways apportionments lapsed,
and the District used all funds up to its obligation ceiling, 11 with the
exception of $2.2 million in 1994 that was not obligated because a project
was dropped from its plans (see enc. V). In addition, DDOT officials told
us that their obligated unexpended federal-aid balance decreased to $330.8
million as of June 26, 2003, down from $530.5 million as reported in our
2000 report.12 An unexpended federal-aid balance can result from bridge
projects that incur expenses over several years. Finally, our recent
review of construction contract processing times showed that average time
frames have improved from 21.6 months in fiscal year 1997 through fiscal
year 1999 to an average of 19 months in fiscal year 2000 through fiscal
year 2002.13 We did not assess processing times for design contracts
because only two design contracts were awarded in fiscal year 2000, and
none were awarded in fiscal year 2001 due to the ebb and flow of design
and construction work. A new process for design contracts was implemented
in fiscal year 2002 that utilizes open-ended contracts from which multiple
task orders can be issued. DDOT now issues task orders as needed instead
of issuing individual contracts, which involves a more lengthy process. In
addition, DDOT officials told us that they are implementing an automated
procurement system and a software system that will enhance DDOT's ability
to manage its transportation programs.

Conclusions

DDOT is in the early stages of its reorganization and is off to a good
start. It is important that DDOT fully implement its information
technology plan and apply the organizational transformation key practices
to ensure success. In addition, the agency could benefit from a
transformational strategy that effectively makes the case for what type of
organization DDOT believes it should become and provides a road map for
getting there. An effective transformation strategy would include
implementation goals, measures, and a time line to show progress made.

Recommendation

We recommend that the Mayor of the District of Columbia direct and support
the Director of the District Department of Transportation as he develops
and implements a comprehensive plan for its transformation that reflects
key practices and addresses the challenges the agency is facing. Such a
comprehensive plan should include

11Obligation limitations act as a ceiling on the obligations that can be
made in each fiscal year.
12Barney Circle project money represented $143.3 million of the previous
$530.5 balance. Barney Circle
was a multipart transportation project that was rejected by the D.C.
Council due to citizen opposition
and environmental issues.
13The average time frames for processing 40 construction contracts were
calculated from FHWA's
notification of obligation ceiling to the District's notice to proceed to
the contractor.

implementation goals, measures, and a time line to show progress toward
the agency's transformation.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DDOT and the Mayor's Office for
their review and comment. DDOT's Special Assistant for Management Support
provided us with comments from the Mayor's Office and DDOT. They generally
agreed with our findings and recommendation and provided some technical
comments, which we have incorporated into this report where appropriate.

Scope and Methodology

To provide information on the reorganization of the transportation
department, we interviewed District and federal officials, including the
Director of DDOT, on the status of and issues related to the
reorganization and reviewed documents on the establishment of the new
department and its structure. To provide information on the Department's
performance management system, we conducted interviews with officials from
DDOT, the District's Office of the Inspector General, and the District's
Office of Deputy Mayor/City Administrator on the new department's
performance indicators.

To provide information on the District's use of federal-aid funding, we
interviewed DDOT and FHWA officials and obtained federal-aid and contract
data from DDOT officials. FHWA verified figures related to the federal-aid
monies. We also interviewed DDOT officials concerning the data provided,
applied logical tests to the data, and found no obvious errors of
completion or accuracy. In addition, we reviewed DDOT's financial audits,
which did not identify any findings regarding the federal-aid monies.
Along with the corroborating evidence, we believe that the federal funding
data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.

As agreed with your staff, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 14 days from
the date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies to the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of Senate and House Subcommittees
with jurisdiction over District of Columbia matters. We are also sending
copies to the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Interim Inspector
General of the District of Columbia, the Chief Financial Officer of the
District of Columbia, and other interested parties. In addition, the
report will be

available on the GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff
have any questions about this report, please contact me at
[email protected] or at (202) 5122834. Individuals making key
contributions to this report are listed in enclosure VI.

Sincerely yours,

Mark L. Goldstein
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Enclosures

Enclosure II DDOT's FY 2003 Performance Measurement System

DDOT's New Performance Measurement System Comprises of 6 Strategic Goals and 60
                             Key Result Measures14

Strategic Goal 1: Safety: Maintain a safe transportation system

o  Combined metric

o 	Reduce total vehicle, pedestrian, and bike fatalities and injuries by 4
percent each year

o 	Maintain a relatively low ratio of fatalities per 100 million vehicle
miles traveled (VMT)

o  Vehicles: Improve vehicular safety

o Reduce the number of vehicular fatalities

o Reduce the number of vehicular crashes

o Reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes

o  Pedestrians: Improve pedestrian safety

o Reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities

o Reduce the number of crash-related pedestrian injuries

o  Bikes: Improve bicyclist safety

o Reduce the number of bicyclist fatalities

o Reduce the number of crash-related bicyclist injuries

o  	Prevention: Enhance preventive measures that result in greater safety
conditions for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists

o Percent of malfunctioning signals repaired within 24 hours (80 percent)

o 	Percent of damaged stop or yield signs responded to within 24 hours
(100 percent)

o Maintain a high level of seat belt usage within the District (87
percent)

o Reduce the number of crashes at targeted/top 10 intersections

o Number of pedestrian crosswalks improved and constructed

Strategic Goal 2: Infrastructure: Maintain a secure and high-quality
transportation infrastructure

o  Combined metric:

o Maintain acceptable level of combined Infrastructure Quality Index

o  	Streets and sidewalks: Improve the ride quality of the District's
roads and the overall quality of its sidewalks

o Increase the District's Pavement Quality Index (72 percent)

o Achieve desired percent of blocks repaved

o 	Reduce the percent of streets that have low Pavement Quality Index
scores

14DDOT's new performance measurement system is in development with its
first public annual performance report expected in fall 2004.

o Complete stated number of blocks to be paved within the year (200)

o Number of sidewalk blocks created, repaired, or repaved

o Percent of potholes filled within 72 hours (95 percent)

o  Bridges: Improve the structural security of the District's bridges

o 	Reduce the percent of bridge deck on bridges that are structurally
deficient or at risk of deficiency

o 	Reduce the number of bridges on major commuter routes that are
structurally deficient or at risk of deficiency

o  Trees: Improve the status of the District's tree population

o 	Interact with a targeted percentage of the District's urban tree
population (21 percent)

o Maintain a lower percent of empty "plantable" urban tree spaces

o Maintain a low percent of dead or diseased trees

o 	Resolve tree complaints not related to a major storm, within acceptable
time frames

o  	Streetlight / Traffic system: Maintain a reliable streetlight and
traffic infrastructure

o Number of streetlight complaints

o 	Percentage of streetlight repairs completed within established time
frame

o Level of streetlight illumination within tested areas

o Number of new streetlights installed

o Percentage of traffic signals that are Light Emitting Diode (LED)

Strategic Goal 3: Mobility and flexibility: Enhance transportation
mobility, access, and alternatives

o  Vehicle mobility: Improve traffic mobility

o Maintain an acceptable relative delay rate on tested routes

o Ratio of peak to off-peak travel time or speed on tested routes

o 	Percent of excavation permitees completing projects within 45-day time
frame (85 percent)

o  Alternatives: Promote accessible transportation options

o Increase the number of mass transit riders in the District (1 percent)

o Increase the numbers of commuters biking to work on tested routes

o Increase the percent of people who walk, bike, or transit to work

o Increase the number of miles of dedicated bikeways in the District

o Number of metrobus vehicle miles traveled

o Number of D.C. Transit Commute Benefits Program participants

o Number of School Transit Subsidy Travel Cards issued by DDOT

o  	Incident management: Reduce the impact of recurring incidences on
traffic mobility

o 	Respond to crashes and restore full traffic on (roadway operations
patrol) ROP-patrolled routes within established time frames

o 	Ensure that major roads are passable within 12 hours after a snow event
(85 percent)

Strategic Goal 4: Environmental stewardship: Manage the transportation
system in an environmentally friendly manner

o  	Air and water quality: Decrease the amount of pollutants in the
District

o Reduce the quantity of air pollutants in the District (3 percent/ year)

o 	Reduce the quantity of water pollutants on District streets (3 percent/
year)

o  Environmental policies:

o Begin implementation of "Environmental Management System"

o Complete environmental assessment for Minnesota Ave. and TR bridge

o 	Complete studies on light rail demonstration project, K & H St.
transitway, and N.Y. Ave. Intermodal Transportation

Strategic Goal 5: Customer service: Build a customer-friendly organization

o  	Customer requests: Respond to correspondence mail in a timely manner

o 	Response to correspondence from the Mayor's Customer Service Unit (MCU)
on time (95 percent)

o Respond to U.S. mail on time (100 percent)

o 	Rating of 4-5 on all four telephone service quality criteria: (1)
courtesy, (2) knowledge, (3) etiquette and (4) overall impression

o 	Resolve and close Hansen (DDOT's work order system) requests on time

o Percent of excavation permitees issued within 30 days of application

o Number of combined complaints

o  Customer perceptions: Promote positive public perceptions

o 	Percent of individuals polled, in an annual survey, who rate the
Department's services as good or better (70 percent)

o Reduction in the number of complaints per snow event

o 	Reduction in the number of pothole complaints per lane mile maintained

Strategic Goal 6: Financial and project management: Manage the District's
transportation resources responsibly

o  	Project financing: Utilize financial resources predictably and
effectively

o Percent of projects obligated on schedule (90 percent)

o Increase the amount of funds obtained from private/alternative sources

o Ratio of administrative to operational spending

o  Project delivery: Deliver projects on time and on schedule

o 	Maintain an acceptable total cost vs. estimated cost ratio, excluding
"acceptable" change orders (90 percent)

o 	Percent of projects requiring no change orders due to design
deficiencies or latent conditions (80 percent)

o 	Percent of bid responses will be within 10% of engineer's estimate (80
percent)

o 	Maintain an acceptable total time vs. estimated time for project
completion, excluding "acceptable" delays

o Maintain a high percentage of project phases authorized on time

 District's Expenditures of Federal-Aid, Matching, and Local Funds for FYs 1989
                    through 2003 for Transportation Programs

                              Dollars in millions

District Total expenditures Fiscal Federal-aid matching of federal-aid and
District local Total year expenditures expenditures matching fundsa
expenditures expenditures

2003 157.8 42.6 200.4 41.8 242.2

      2002        150.8         44.0        194.8        32.7           227.5 
      2001        179.8         47.2        227.0        25.5           252.5 
      2000        120.8         28.0        148.8        17.6           166.4 
      1999         88.4         22.3        110.7        12.0           122.7 
      1998         84.0         24.6        108.6         6.5           115.1 
      1997         68.3         23.8         92.1        0.0 b           92.1 
      1996         47.4         6.8c         54.3        0.0 b           54.3 
      1995         61.7        16.1c         77.8        0.0 b           77.8 
      1994         75.0         25.6        100.6        24.0           124.6 
      1993         47.7         15.3         63.1        23.6            86.6 
      1992         65.3         18.4         83.7        17.3           101.0 
      1991         85.0         22.4        107.4        14.7           122.1 
      1990         75.6         13.6         89.2        11.2           100.4 
      1989         60.5         15.1         75.6        12.9            88.5 

Source: GAO analysis of DPW and DDOT data.

aFigures may not add due to rounding.
bThese are the years of the District's financial crisis when limited
District monies were available.
cThe District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, P.L. 104-21
(1995), waived the District's cost
share for certain federal-aid projects in the District during fiscal years
1995 and 1996. The law further
provided repayment of the waived costs and set forth a repayment schedule.
The District repaid these
funds in 1996 and 1997.

    Apportionments, Obligations, and Obligation Ceilings for the District's
             Federal-Aid Highway Program for FYs 1989 through 2003

Dollars in millions

Fiscal

Apportionment Obligation lapseda

                               Obligation ceiling

Obligation ceiling not obligated

year Apportionment

                               ceiling obligated

      2003         103.1        0.0        105.5        105.5             0.0 
      2002         122.3        0.0        106.8        106.8             0.0 
      2001         121.0        0.0         98.5         98.5             0.0 
      2000         114.0        0.0         92.3         92.3             0.0 
      1999        101.8b        0.0         91.6         91.6             0.0 
      1998         91.8         0.0         77.3         77.3             0.0 
      1997         92.8         0.0         78.9         78.9             0.0 
      1996         81.4         0.0         81.9         81.9             0.0 
      1995         105.5        0.0         92.4         92.4             0.0 
      1994         92.9         0.0         82.5         80.3            2.2c 
      1993         98.5         0.0         81.7         81.7             0.0 
      1992         93.0         0.0         96.4         96.4             0.0 
      1991        140.9d        0.0        154.0        154.0             0.0 
      1990         94.4         0.0         97.3         97.3             0.0 
      1989         106.5        0.0        104.6        104.6             0.0 

Source: GAO analysis of DPW and DDOT data.

a

These are monies the District was apportioned but did not obligate within
the 4-year time frame. b We did not include high priority apportionments
for fiscal year 1999 because special rules apply to them, according to a
District official. Their total value was $4.7 million in apportionments
and $4.1 million in obligation ceiling.

c

DPW received an additional $2.4 million in obligation ceiling during the
August redistribution, but a project was dropped from their plans so they
could not obligate the funds. d DPW was given discretionary funding that
increased the original apportionment.

                     GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts:	Mark Goldstein (202) 512-2834 Susan Fleming (202) 512-4431

Acknowledgments:	In addition to the individuals named above, Daniel Hoy,
Ronald King, Ron La Due Lake, Norma Samuel, Lisa Wright-Solomon, and
Michael Yacura made key contributions to this report.

(543040)

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. However, 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.

                                 GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The General Accounting 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

                  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***