The Oregon Department of Transportation is beset by high staff turnover, decades-old financial software, cost overruns and delays that have eroded trust with elected leaders.
That’s according to a review of the department’s projects and organizational structure hitting the desks of lawmakers on the Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment this week.
The committee is weighing how best to fund ODOT, potentially with new taxes and fees, as the agency seeks vast sums of money to shore up a budget deficit. At the same time, it’s facing criticism for its management of increasingly expensive megaprojects.
Concern over such projects was a main reason lawmakers contracted with external transportation experts to assess how ODOT manages its staff, finances and projects.
The review portrays an agency with a variety of organization-wide problems, including a shortage of staff and a bureaucratic tangle that has caused everything from “communication barriers” to “workflow bottlenecks and accountability challenges.”
One example: the department’s contract management processes are “cumbersome and inefficient,” the review said. Sometimes, it takes up to 18 months between when the agency awards a contract and sends notification that a project can proceed.
“Projects are frequently funded or advanced before adequate scoping is complete, leading to unanticipated scope changes, budget overruns, and schedule delays downstream,” the review said.
The review, obtained by OPB, was conducted by a team from engineering organizations AtkinsRéalis and Horrocks. It involved a review of legislative hearings, reports, data and interviews with ODOT leadership, managers, and other experts and consultants.
It provides a number of recommendations for a way forward, from changing reporting structures to streamlining contracting and new procedures and training. But its findings could deepen policymakers’ skepticism over ODOT’s management of taxpayer-funded projects at a critical moment.
“Republicans are saying, ‘Hey, let’s look at this for a second and let’s see where we can stabilize ODOT before we throw billions of dollars at it,” Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis, R-Albany, who is vice chair on the transportation committee, told OPB Friday. “There’s obvious problems here. Let’s take a look at that. And I think that’s why this managerial review is so important right now.”
With about a month left in this year’s legislative session, ODOT is jockeying for a funding boost to maintain its staffing levels and Oregon’s aging roads and bridges. So are county road departments, which reportedly need an additional $834 million each year.
“ODOT accountability will be a key component of this package so we can ensure that taxpayer money is being spent wisely and efficiently and major projects get completed on time and within budget,” Senate President Rob Wagner said in a statement Thursday. “This report will help guide our accountability work as session continues.”
In a statement Thursday, an ODOT spokesman said: “We expect to formally receive the final report in the coming days. We look forward to the May 27 hearing where the committee will receive a presentation from the consultants who performed the review for the legislature.”
In the past decade, ODOT has been tasked with managing projects that have “grown considerably” in scope and complexity, the review says. Much of that was spurred by House Bill 2017, which lawmakers passed in 2017, a $5.3 billion package of taxes and fees that sought to boost the system and tackle big-ticket projects.
Among them was Portland’s Rose Quarter project, which would widen Interstate 5 and is now expected to cost more than $2 billion, far more than the the last estimate of $1.5 billion to $1.9 billion. Other major projects have included replacing the Interstate Bridge between Vancouver and Portland, and seismic upgrades to the Abernethy Bridge on Interstate 205 between Oregon City and West Linn.
Those projects “have frequently encountered delivery challenges,” the review said. Among them: “cost overruns, schedule slippage, scope uncertainty, and bureaucracy between regional execution and central oversight.” The problems stemmed partly from funding being allocated for projects “prior to adequate scoping or readiness assessments were completed.”
Overall, the review said: “Infrastructure projects that receive funding early — before 10-30% of the project is scoped — often face subsequent budgeting challenges.”
Meanwhile, ODOT faced staffing and leadership turnover that left the agency in need of deeper expertise to finish its projects. “Workforce shortages in technical and field roles, as well as recruitment and retention challenges in high-cost urban areas, are contributing to project delays, cost increases, and heavy reliance on consultants,” the review says.
ODOT has also been using financial software built in the 1990s, so old that it “contributed to significant forecasting discrepancies, undermining legislative confidence and limiting the ability to effectively plan and manage cash flow.” Taken together, these issues have been far-reaching, the review says.
“In recent years, gaps in communication, fluctuating expectations, and inconsistent project updates have strained the relationship between ODOT and legislative stakeholders,” the review said.
Boshart Davis, who co-owns a trucking company, said ODOT has expanded too quickly. Increasingly, staff have taken on tasks outside of the agency’s core mission, all while some bridges and roads fall into disrepair. She added, “It’s not all ODOT’s fault. They’re doing what the Legislature told them to do.”
“We’ve got to give them the opportunity to succeed,” she said, “to serve as a bridge or an interim plan to rebuild Oregonians’ trust in ODOT before we go to Oregonians and say you need to pay more money in order to plow roads and fill potholes.”
The Joint Committee on Transportation Reinvestment will hold its first public hearing Tuesday.
OPB’s Dirk VanderHart contributed to this report
This story comes to you from the Northwest News Network, a collaboration between public media organizations in Oregon and Washington.