Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/239

 funds; the monitorship of the interrelationship of obligations and disbursements and the development of data to control the rate of obligations within the limit of funds available in the Highway Trust Fund; the maintenance of the official project obligation records; and the management, at all levels, with interpretations and evaluations, of program progress by States, by funds, by limitations, by highway systems, by classes of projects, etc.

The records for the program analysis function are maintained by computer. Before the days of the electronic and digital computers, the scope of the information for each project was necessarily quite limited in comparison with the current data that is maintained. However, because of the sophistication and flexibility of modern computers, a vast amount of data is collected, stored in the computer and used on a day-to-day basis to monitor the progress of the program and insure compliance with all legal and administrative requirements.

The total program is implemented through individual projects throughout the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the American territories. There are nearly 40 categories of funds or programs for which records must be kept separately. The total number of active projects at any given time is approximately 30,000. For each project the physical characteristics and fiscal data must be maintained on a current basis.

This record information is not one-time data—rather, much of it is “fluid” and changes to reflect current status as the projects progress through the project steps from initial authorization to final completion.

An innovative feature of the system is the method used to obtain the computer input data. A “shuttle form” is used. When a project first enters the system at the obligation stage, a form is completed by the FHWA field division office reporting all the currently available project data, and it is sent to Washington. The data is recorded in the system and a printout confirming form is sent back to the field, reflecting the data which has been recorded. The field office holds the form until the next action, change or addition takes place at which time the form is pulled, the changes or additions are indicated on the form, and it is again sent to Washington. The new data is recorded and another printout is sent back to the field for verification and storage until the next change in status occurs. This “shuttle system” continues until the project is finally completed. Each month a summary printout reflecting the basic project data for all projects in the State is sent to each FHWA division office. This system eliminates the need for duplicate project records.

The program analysis work and the mass of detail stored in the computer are vital to the effective administration of the highway program. A case in point is the need for the operating records for budget purposes. The FHWA budget office not only serves FHWA, but serves indirectly as a budget office for all the States since it must accurately provide the budget estimates for liquidating cash for all Federal-aid highway programs. This is a unique budget responsibility, especially in view of the complex procedures used for the financial administration of the Federal-aid highway program.

The key to the economic and effective operation of FHWA’s budget office is the use of program, fiscal and personnel records which must be maintained by other offices. Following World War II, the budget process, content and format prescribed by the Bureau of the Budget became more detailed and sophisticated. The preparation of the various budget schedules, especially for “personal services,” became very time-consuming and required extensive compilation and analysis. At the time, the Public Roads Administration was already using automatic data processing (ADP) equipment to prepare its payroll and to maintain its employment and personnel records. Since the bulk of the source data required for budget purposes already existed in the ADP records in raw form, the budget office decided in 1947 to develop an ADP system which would use the same records, but supplemented with the additional data required for budget purposes. The system proved to be remarkably effective and provided practically any data or personal services which might be required with accurate statistics to support the budget statements and schedules. Significantly, no additional staffing was required in the operating offices to do the minimal amount of additional coding that was required, and the budget office today, although responsible for an annual budget of over $6 billion, operates with a total staff of 11 people.

Within the Federal Highway Administration, external audit is concerned with the means and methods used by the States to administer the Federal assistance program. The ultimate objective is to ensure FHWA management that (1) financial operations of the States are properly conducted; (2) that financial reports and claims are presented fairly; and (3) that the States are otherwise complying with applicable law, regulations and administrative requirements.

Internal audit is concerned with an intensive performance-compliance-effectiveness program audit of an organizational unit of FHWA or, perhaps, of a functional program phase through all levels of the organization. The internal audit is a management-type activity designed to evaluate operational effectiveness, and it normally involves review of some State records and files and discussions with State officials as a necessary part of the evaluation of FHWA’s own program administration.

A third functional area, investigations and special inquiry, became a part of the audit complex in more recent years and is concerned with investigations of allegations of irregularities, fraud, bribery, collusion, impropriety, etc., involving employees of FHWA, the States, their political subdivisions, contractors or others dealing with funds for FHWA administered programs.

From the inception of the Federal-aid program until 1953, the audit activities of the Bureau were confined to the external audit of State claims for reimbursement, normally at the final voucher stage. These audits were made after the engineering staff (and later also, the right-of-way specialist) had reviewed the physical aspects of the work and accepted the completed project as having been built in accordance 233