GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Subcommittee on 

Highways and Transit, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives 

PUBLIC 

TRANSPORTATION 

FTA’s Triennial 

Review Program Has 

Improved, But 

Assessments of 

Grantees’ 

Performance Could Be 

Enhanced 

June 2009 

GAO-09-603 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2009

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 

FTA's Triennial Review Program Has Improved, But 

Assessments of Grantees' Performance Could Be 

Highlights of GAO-09-603, a report to Enhanced 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives 

The Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA) oversees about $5.5 billion in 

federal funds each year to transit 

agencies serving urban areas 

(grantee), in part through its 

triennial review program, which 

evaluates grantee adherence to 

federal requirements at least once 

every 3 years. GAO recommended 

in a 1998 oversight report that FTA 

improve the program. 

The subcommittee requested that 

GAO review this program. GAO 

identified (1) the extent to which 

triennial reviews indicate that 

grantees met applicable federal 

requirements from fiscal years 2000 

through 2008; (2) the strengths and 

weaknesses of the triennial review 

process; and (3) FTA’s 

performance measures for the 

triennial review and the extent to 

which they meet key attributes of 

successful performance measures. 

GAO addressed these objectives by 

analyzing oversight data on 424 

grantees that had three triennial 

reviews, reviewing triennial review 

reports and guidance, assessing 

FTA’s performance measures; and 

interviewing FTA headquarters and 

regional officials, contractors who 

conduct the reviews, and grantees. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FTA 

analyze oversight data to enhance 

grantees’ performance, strengthen 

the triennial review process, and 

improve performance measures. 

The Department of Transportation 

reviewed a draft of this report and 

generally agreed with its contents 

and with GAO’s recommendations. 

GAO’s analysis of FTA’s triennial review oversight data found that over twothirds of the 424 grantees analyzed have not consistently improved overall 

performance in terms of meeting more federal requirements from fiscal years 

2000 through 2008. Fifty-one percent of grantees had mixed results in meeting 

requirements and 17 percent consistently met fewer requirements; while 31 

percent consistently met more requirements—one of the goals of the triennial 

review program. (See figure 3). Executives from three grantees that met most 

requirements attributed their performance to, among other things, having job 

descriptions that link employee responsibilities to the triennial review—a 

practice they said contributed to a culture of accountability. During the same 

time, grantees had the greatest number of findings in 5 of 23 triennial review 

areas, including the procurement and drug and alcohol testing areas. While 

FTA helps grantees address findings, additional efforts to identify the 

underlying causes and the severity of findings could further benefit grantees. 

FTA’s triennial review program uses some strong management practices—

having a well-defined process, using an information system to monitor 

grantees, and issuing reports timely. Still, two areas could be strengthened. 

First, while FTA is legislatively required to conduct a complete review of 

grantees’ adherence to federal requirements at least once every 3 years, GAO 

identified a few instances where documentation does not clearly show that 

FTA reviewed all requirement areas. For example, 10 triennial review reports 

for 2008 showed that the drug and alcohol program area was “not reviewed.” 

FTA’s practice is to review all areas, regardless of documentation, but 

because FTA’s guidance is not clear about how to document the review of 

areas where FTA has conducted a related special review in the prior two 

years, a few grantees may not be reviewed for 5 years. FTA plans to revise its 

guidance to avoid ambiguity. Second, FTA is aware of the burden oversight 

reviews place on grantees and works to limit this burden. However, in a 

limited number of cases, FTA did not coordinate its special oversight reviews 

with the triennial review schedule, which may place undue burden on a few 

grantees receiving multiple oversight reviews in the same fiscal year. 

FTA’s two timeliness performance measures for assessing the triennial review 

program—(1) closing 80 percent of grantees’ deficient findings within 30 days 

of their due date and (2) issuing 95 percent of the final triennial review reports 

within 30 days of completing a review—meet some, but not all key attributes 

of successful measures. (See figure 6). Although both measures link 

throughout the organization, have measurable targets, are clearly stated, and 

do not overlap, the “close findings” measure does not meet the objectivity and 

reliability attribute. For example, data inaccuracies in past “close findings” 

data raised questions about the reliability of the measure. Also, both measures 

do not assess the core program activity to evaluate grantees’ performance or 

governmentwide priorities, such as the quality of the triennial review program, 

and thus, as a whole, are not balanced, making it difficult for managers to not 

overemphasize one priority at the expense of others. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-09-603.

For more information, contact Phillip R. Herr 

at (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-603 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

FTA’s Triennial Review Data Show Many Grantees Are Not Making 

Progress Toward Meeting Federal Requirements, and FTA Could 

Do More to Improve Grantees’ Performance 10 

The Triennial Review Program Uses Some Strong Management 

Practices, but Can Be Improved in a Few Areas 17 

FTA’s Two Triennial Review Performance Measures Meet Some, 

But Not All Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measures 24 

Conclusions 30 

Recommendations for Executive Action 31 

Agency Comments 33 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34 

Appendix II Description of FTA’s 23 Triennial Review Areas 37 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39 

Tables 

Table 1: Description of FTA’s Primary Oversight Reviews 7 

Table 2: FTA Categories Used to Document Triennial Review 

Results 10 

Table 3: Nine Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measures 24 

Table 4: FTA’s Descriptions of the Requirements in Each of the 

Triennial Review Areas 37 

Figures 

Figure 1: Key Information about FTA’s 10 Regions 5 

Figure 2: Major Steps in the Triennial Review Process 8 

Figure 3: Grantees’ Performance, as Measured by the Change in the 

Number of Findings from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008 11 

Figure 4: The Range in the Average Number of Findings After 

Three Triennial Reviews for Each of the 424 Grantees 

from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008 12 

Public Transportation 
Figure 5: Percentage of Triennial Review Findings for the Top Five 

Areas, from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008 15 

Figure 6: Comparison of FTA Triennial Review Performance 

Measures to Key Attributes 25 

Abbreviations 

FTA Federal Transit Administration 

grantee recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Program grants 

OTRAK Oversight Tracking System 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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. 

Page ii GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
Page 1 GAO-09-603 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

June 30, 2009 

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio 

Chairman 

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Highways and Transit 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

Public transportation systems are playing an increasingly important role in 

the nation’s overall transportation system. Public transit increases 

mobility for millions of Americans in communities both large and small, 

provides congestion relief, promotes safe travel, and helps reduce our 

country’s dependence on foreign oil. The Department of Transportation’s 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) fosters the development and 

maintenance of bus, subway, trolley, passenger ferry boat, and other 

public transportation systems through several grant programs to transit 

agencies serving both rural (population less than 50,000) and urban 

communities (population 50,000 or more). A large portion of FTA’s grants 

are formula grants to transit agencies in urban areas across the country.1

This Urbanized Area Formula Program received 42 percent of FTA grant 

funds—about $22 billion from fiscal years 2004 through 2009.2

 In addition, 

Congress recently appropriated an additional $6 billion for the Urbanized 

Area Formula Program in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009.3

Federal law requires the Secretary of Transportation to review and 

evaluate completely the performance of each recipient of Urbanized Area 

Formula Program grants (grantee) that receives urbanized area formula 

funds under this section in complying with statutory and administrative 

requirements, at least once every 3 years.4

 This evaluation—commonly 

1

Formula grants, as the name suggests, are apportioned among urban areas by a statutory 

formula based on population data and statistics for transit service and ridership. 

2

Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Public Transit Program Issues in 

Surface Transportation Reauthorization, (Washington, D.C., 2008). 

3

Public L. No. 111-5, Title XII, 123 Stat. 115 (2009). 

4

49 U.S.C. § 5307(h)(2). 

Public Transportation 
 

known as the “triennial review”—is one of the primary means FTA uses to 

evaluate to what extent Urbanized Area Formula Program grantees are 

meeting federal requirements. Grantees must comply with a variety of 

requirements to safeguard federal funds and help ensure safe 

transportation, among other things. 

As the subcommittee prepares for the 2009 surface transportation 

reauthorization, we assessed, at your request, FTA’s triennial review 

program. Specifically, we identified (1) to what extent FTA’s triennial 

reviews indicate that grantees met applicable federal requirements from 

fiscal years 2000 through 2008, (2) the strengths and weaknesses of the 

triennial review process, and (3) FTA’s performance measures for the 

triennial review and to what extent FTA’s measures meet key attributes of 

successful performance measures. 

To identify the extent to which triennial reviews indicate that grantees are 

meeting applicable federal requirements from fiscal years 2000 through 

2008, we obtained and analyzed data from FTA’s Oversight Tracking 

System (OTRAK)—the official electronic information system used for 

tracking and monitoring oversight activities. Specifically, we conducted 

various analyses of oversight data on 424 of the approximately 600 

urbanized area formula fund grantees. These 424 grantees received exactly 

3 triennial reviews from fiscal years 2000 through 2008—the period of time 

for which OTRAK data was available.5

 We found most OTRAK data 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes, but have reliability concerns about 

closed findings data used for performance measurements, which we 

discuss later in this report. To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the 

triennial review process, we reviewed federal guidance for improving 

grant accountability, previous GAO reports on oversight, FTA’s oversight 

review order, the Triennial Review Contractors’ Guide, oversight review 

schedules, and the contents of over 200 triennial review reports for fiscal 

years 2007 and 2008.6

 We also attended FTA’s new grantee triennial review 

workshop and observed one of FTA’s 2008 triennial reviews. To identify 

performance measures for the triennial review and the extent to which 

 

5

We excluded 177 other grantees because they did not meet our criteria of having 1 

triennial review every 3 years and a total of exactly 3 triennial reviews from 2000 through 

2008. 

6

Grant Accountability Project, Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant 

Accountability, (Washington, D.C., 2005) and GAO, Mass Transit Grants: If Properly 

Implemented, FTA Initiatives Should Improve Oversight, GAO/RCED-93-8, (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 19, 1992). 

Page 2 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

they meet key attributes of successful performance measures, we 

reviewed the key attributes of successful performance measures, as 

described in our past work on the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 and FTA’s strategic and annual performance plans.7

Specifically, we compared each of FTA’s performance measures against 

each of the key attributes to determine the extent to which they fully met, 

partially met, or did not meet all key attributes. Finally, we interviewed 

FTA headquarters officials, staff in all 10 FTA regional offices, 

representatives of the four contracting firms that conduct the triennial 

reviews, and professional transportation associations. We also selected 10 

grantees and interviewed executives from these grantees to discuss their 

performance, as assessed by the triennial review. We selected these 

grantees on several factors, including their past performance, as assessed 

by triennial reviews; having both a triennial review and another FTA 

oversight review in the same fiscal year; and demographic features, such 

as size and geographic region. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2008 to June 2009 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 

standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 

obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. Further details about our objectives, scope, 

and methodology appear in appendix I. 

 

7

GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 

Page 3 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

As one of 10 administrations within the Department of Transportation, 

FTA provides financial assistance to transit agencies to develop new 

systems and improve, maintain, and operate existing systems in all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and some U.S. territories. FTA maintains 

its headquarters in Washington, D.C., with 10 regional offices throughout 

the continental United States, and employs about 500 of the approximately 

60,000 employees of the department. Figure 1 summarizes key information 

about FTA’s 10 regions, including the total amount and funds for the 

Urbanized Area Formula Program. 

Background 

Page 4 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

Figure 1: Key Information about FTA’s 10 Regions 

Alaska

Region 4

Regional offices

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

Seattle

San Francisco

Fort Worth Fort Worth

Denver

Kansas City

New York City

Boston

Atlanta

sas City

N

Chicago

Virgin Islands

Hawaii

Guam

American Samoa

Region 9

Region 10

Puerto Rico

10

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Region Number of staffa Funds for the Urbanized

Area Formula Programb

(in millions)

Total fundsb

(in millions)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

13

19

23

24

24

18

11

10

25

14

Total 181

482

2,093

1,548

1,125

1,278

690

230

309

2,110

667

$10,533

$ $

$

237

1,246

675

633

635

334

92

120

1,288

254

5,515

Note: Dollar amounts may not add to totals due to rounding. 

a

Full-time equivalents for fiscal year 2009. 

b

Funds are for fiscal year 2008 and are in total obligations (legally binding government financial 

commitments). 

Page 5 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

In 1994, FTA laid out a common framework for regional and headquarters 

staff to administer oversight reviews in FTA Order 5400.1.8

 That order, 

which remains in effect today, describes the process for conducting 

various oversight reviews and taking corrective actions. In addition, the 

order established an internal working group called the Oversight Review 

Council to develop oversight review schedules, coordinate review 

schedules to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlap, and achieve a 

comprehensive, uniform, and cohesive approach, among other things. 

The triennial review provides FTA with a valuable opportunity to routinely 

evaluate the use of federal funds for about 600 urban area grantees at least 

once every three years—or about 200 grantees each year. It covers many 

areas, such as procurement, financial management, and drug and alcohol 

programs. Appendix II contains FTA’s descriptions of all 23 triennial 

review areas. FTA also uses a similar, general review to oversee grantees 

that receive rural area formula funds—a state management review. 

In addition to the more general triennial and state management reviews, 

FTA conducts special oversight reviews with a narrowed subject matter 

focus, such as procurement system reviews, which help ensure that 

grantees (especially 30 grantees that receive large amounts of federal 

transit funds) are purchasing buses and trains using competitive bidding 

practices, as well as special civil rights reviews, which help ensure that 

grantees are, among other things, providing public transportation to the 

disabled and adhering to equal employment opportunity practices. 

Grantees also experience non-FTA reviews, such as single audits that 

examine grantees’ financial statements, inspector general audits, and 

various state audits. Table 1 describes FTA’s primary oversight reviews. 

 

8

FTA Order 5400.1, Oversight Reviews, November 1, 1994. FTA officials stated they plan to 

update the order by September 30, 2009. 

Page 6 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

Table 1: Description of FTA’s Primary Oversight Reviews 

Oversight Review Description 

General Reviews 

Triennial Review Congress mandated the triennial review in 1983. This review evaluates urbanized area 

formula grantees’ performance at least once every three years in carrying out transit 

programs, including specific reference to adhere to statutory and administrative 

requirements. 

State Management Review FTA began these reviews in fiscal year 1996. This review examines states’ 

implementation of FTA’s grants for rural areas and the elderly and disabled, typically once 

every three years. 

Selected Special Reviews 

Civil Rights Reviews Civil Rights Reviews began in the 1980s, according to officials in FTA’s Office of Civil 

Rights. They now include four discretionary oversight reviews assessing grantees’ 

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Title VI regulations, 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise requirements, and Equal Employment Opportunity 

requirements. 

Drug and Alcohol Audit Program Review The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 required the Department of 

Transportation to implement drug testing. A discretionary review of selected transit 

agencies to ensure regulations governing substance abuse management programs are 

followed through its drug and alcohol testing of safety-sensitive transit employees. 

Financial Management Oversight Review FTA began financial reviews in 1992. This review evaluates grantees’ financial 

management systems to determine whether they are sufficient to process federal funds. 

Procurement System Review Since 1992, FTA’s procurement system review examines grantees’ procurement systems 

for compliance with competitive bidding and other federal requirements. FTA conducts 

procurement reviews, primarily on the 30 largest grantees, every 3 years. 

State Safety Oversight Review FTA began these reviews in fiscal year 1996. A review in which FTA, other federal 

agencies, states, and rail transit agencies collaborate to ensure the safety and security of 

rail transit systems, such as any light and heavy rail systems, trolleys, and cable cars. 

Sources: GAO and FTA reports. 

The triennial review covers 23 triennial review areas, but given the need to 

review all of these areas, the time constraints (estimated at about 130 

hours for each review), and in order to reduce the oversight burden upon 

grantees, FTA does not conduct an in-depth document review or 

inspection. For example, FTA normally samples no more than 15 financial 

records during site visits, conducts a spot check of facility and 

maintenance records, and may only inspect a few buses and subway cars 

during the review. However, according to FTA officials, when an area of 

concern or deficiency is noted, FTA will expand the review to examine 

these areas more in-depth. Figure 2 summarizes the major steps in the 

triennial review process. 

Page 7 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

Figure 2: Major Steps in the Triennial Review Process 

Sources: FTA contractors’ guide and 2008 Booz Allen Hamilton report.

Scheduling

• Headquarters assigns contractors to all 10 regions and specific individual grantees

• Contractors schedule with regions the desk reviews and site visits to grantees

• Contractors notify regions of upcoming triennial review workshops and grantees are 

encouraged to attend

Final report

• Contractors provide regional staff with the final report detailing all deficient findings

• Regions send the final report to the grantees

Corrective action

• Contractors and regional staff sets a due date by which grantees must take corrective action

• Regions monitor the corrective action, provide technical assistance, and close out the finding

Desk reviews

• Contractors collect data on grantees from FTA information systems

• Contractors review grantee-specific documents at regional office

• Contractors interview regional office staff on issues of emphasis for each grantee

• Contractors prepare customized agenda package for each grantee

Customized agenda package

• Contractors identify questions to be asked during the site visit

• Contractors provide questions for grantee response

• Contractors identify documents needed to complete review

Site visit and draft report

• Contractors conduct entrance conference with grantee

• Contractors visit grantee facilities, inspect accounting records, and resolve issues based on 

grantee input 

• Contractors determine deficient findings

• Contractor draft report and submit to regional staff for review

• Contractors conduct exit conference with grantee and provide draft report for grantee review 

and comment

The triennial review also gives FTA an opportunity to provide technical 

assistance to individual grantees—assistance specifically aimed to help 

individual grantees resolve specific deficient findings resulting from 

triennial reviews. FTA also helps grantees prepare for the triennial review 

Page 8 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

by holding annual triennial review workshops throughout the country and 

offering formal training courses focused on specialized subject areas 

through the National Transit Institute—a training institute funded by an 

FTA grant.9

While officials from both FTA headquarters and regional offices are 

ultimately responsible for implementing the triennial reviews, they have 

increasingly relied on contractors since the program was created in the 

early 1980s. After we reported in 1992 that FTA had not fully utilized 

contractors for oversight activities, it has, since 1996, used contractors to 

conduct all triennial reviews. FTA, through its Office of Program 

Management, awarded multiple-year, firm, fixed-price contracts totaling 

about $4 million each year to four contractors to conduct the fiscal years’ 

2008 through 2012 triennial reviews. 

To assist contractors with the reviews, FTA developed the Triennial 

Review Contractors’ Guide. FTA has expanded the contractors’ guide 

from its original 29 pages to over 200 pages in 2008. The contractors’ guide 

provides the questions to ask grantees for each of the 23 triennial review 

areas, a list of grantees’ documents that contractors are to examine, and a 

method that contractors are to use for determining whether grantees are 

meeting federal requirements. 

The contractors’ guide assists contractors with the decision-making 

process about what constitutes a deficient finding by providing condition 

statements for the 23 triennial review areas. For example, according to the 

contractors’ guide, if the grantee has included the lobbying prohibitions 

clause (that is, the prohibition from using federal funds to lobby for 

additional federal funds) in its procurement solicitations, then the grantee 

is not deficient; otherwise, the grantee is deficient. The contractors’ guide 

also contains suggested corrective actions if a grantee is found deficient, 

(e.g., the grantee must certify to FTA that it will have subgrantees, 

contractors, and subcontractors comply with the lobbying prohibitions 

requirement.) In another example, if FTA conducted a special 

procurement system review (see table 1) in the prior two fiscal years or if 

one is scheduled for the year of the grantee’s triennial review, then a 

review of the procurement area is not necessary and a notation is made in 

 

9

Congress authorized the establishment of the institute under the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub.L. No. 102-240, § 6022, 105 Stat. 1914) to 

develop, promote, and deliver training and education programs for the public transit 

industry. 

Page 9 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

the triennial review report as “not reviewed.” Subsequently, contractors 

enter predetermined, deficiency codes into OTRAK that correspond to 

explanations for any deficient findings, herein called findings. Once 

entered, FTA regional offices track and monitor the finding until the 

grantee addresses it. Table 2 shows the four categories FTA uses to 

document triennial review results. 

Table 2: FTA Categories Used to Document Triennial Review Results 

Category Description 

Not Deficient Used when the contractor or FTA staff was satisfied with the information provided by the grantee. 

Deficient Findings that represent areas for which the grantee is not adhering to federal requirements. For these findings, 

the grantee must take corrective action, usually within 30, 60, 90, or 120 days after the final report is issued. 

Not Applicable Matters that do not pertain to the grantee. For example, when reviewing the maintenance requirements, if a 

grantee has no vehicles or equipment under warranty, findings pertaining to warranty claims are not applicable. 

Not Reviewed Used when the contractor did not review certain areas during the triennial review because the grantee had 

recently experienced a special oversight review in the prior two years, or was scheduled for one in the year of 

the grantee’s triennial review. 

Source: FTA’s contractors’ guide. 

From fiscal years 2000 through 2008, triennial review data show many 

grantees are not making progress toward meeting federal requirements, as 

indicated by not consistently reducing grantees’ findings with federal 

requirements. While FTA uses several tools to help grantees meet more 

requirements, especially in areas with the greatest number of findings, it 

could do more to improve grantees’ performance by identifying the 

underlying causes and by objectively noting the severity of the finding. 

FTA’s Triennial 

Review Data Show 

Many Grantees Are 

Not Making Progress 

Toward Meeting 

Federal 

Requirements, and 

FTA Could Do More 

to Improve Grantees’ 

Performance 

Page 10 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

Our analysis of OTRAK data shows that 51 percent of 424 grantees had 

mixed results in terms of meeting more triennial review requirements from 

fiscal years 2000 through 2008, as demonstrated by both increases and 

decreases in their numbers of findings over three consecutive reviews. 

Over the same time period, 17 percent of grantees consistently met fewer 

requirements from one review to the next, as indicated by a consistent 

increase in the numbers of findings in their triennial reviews.10 Thirty-one 

percent of grantees consistently met more federal requirements over 

time—one of the goals of the triennial review—as demonstrated by a 

consistent decrease in their numbers of findings over three consecutive 

reviews. Finally, 1 percent of grantees met the same number of 

requirements in all three reviews. Figure 3 summarizes the performance in 

terms of meeting federal requirements for 424 of the approximately 600 

current urban area formula fund grantees, as measured by the change in 

the number of findings in three triennial reviews from fiscal years 2000 

through 2008. 

 fiscal years 2000 

Over Two-Thirds of the 424 

Grantees We Analyzed Did 

Not Consistently Meet 

More Federal 

Requirements From Fiscal 

Years 2000 through 2008, 

But Practices Used by 

Some Grantees Could 

Improve Other Grantees’ 

Performance 

Figure 3: Grantees’ Performance, as Measured by the Change in the Number of 

Findings from Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008

17%

31%

51%

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data for 424 grantees.

1%

No increases or decreases

(6 grantees)

Increase

(71 grantees)

Decrease

(133 grantees)

Both increases and decreases

(214 grantees)

 

10In our analysis, we categorized grantees as consistently meeting fewer requirements over 

time if they had greater than or equal numbers of findings in each successive review. 

Similarly, we categorized grantees as consistently meeting more federal requirements if 

they had less than or equal numbers of findings in each successive review. 

Page 11 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

While comparing the change in the numbers of findings over time does not 

show improvement across all grantees, a different analysis of OTRAK data 

shows that some grantees averaged fewer than two findings per triennial 

review, which we identify for this analysis as high-performing grantees.11

Figure 4 illustrates the range in the average number of findings after three 

triennial reviews for each of the 424 grantees from fiscal years 2000 

through 2008. 

s 2000 

Figure 4: The Range in the Average Number of Findings After Three Triennial Reviews for Each of the 424 Grantees from 

Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

High-performing grantees

averaging fewer than 2

findings per triennial review

Average number of findings per triennial review

Grantees (424 total)

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data for 424 grantees.

This analysis of OTRAK data shows that about 31 of 424 grantees averaged 

fewer than 2 of 229 possible findings per triennial review.12 Twenty-six of 

 

11Those grantees that we identified as high performing may have had small increases in the 

numbers of findings over time. However, because they averaged fewer than 2 findings per 

review, we consider them high performing. For example, one high-performing grantee had 

0, 2, and 3 findings in three consecutive reviews, an average of 1.7 findings. 

12The 229 possible findings represent the number of deficiency codes for the fiscal year 

2008 review. The total number of deficiency codes in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 did not 

vary by more than 6. 

Page 12 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

these grantees provide transportation services to small or medium-sized 

urban communities, located in various parts of the country.13

Three of the 10 grantees we interviewed were high-performing grantees.14

Executives representing these three grantees implemented some 

management practices that they believe contributed to their high 

performances. One management practice included linking the job 

descriptions of pertinent individuals to the triennial review—a practice 

that grantee executives said contributed to a culture of accountability. 

Specifically, the controller’s and grants administrator’s job descriptions for 

the large grantee explicitly required these individuals to be responsible for 

the triennial review.15 An assistant director of public works, responsible 

for managing the transit system of a small grantee, was required to help 

implement FTA requirements, among other things. In addition, according 

to the chief executive officer of the medium grantee, the officer set verbal 

job expectations with managers of zero findings, which the officer 

believed contributed to the high performance in the triennial review. 

Another practice implemented by 2 of the 3 high-performing grantees was 

to initiate external reviews by independent consultants to assess their 

operations, which contributed to, or is expected to sustain, their high 

performance. Executives from a large grantee we interviewed attributed 

their high performance to an external review conducted several years ago 

that focused on the grantee’s readiness for the triennial review. Despite 

having zero findings in their last two consecutive triennial reviews, 

executives from the medium grantee recently completed an external 

maintenance review that they believe should help them achieve their goal 

of operating an efficient transit system and that is necessary to remain 

good stewards of public funding. 

FTA officials recognize the importance of sharing best practices among 

grantees. As such, it advocates a grantee mentoring system where regional 

 

13For the purposes of our review, we generally define small, medium, and large by the size 

of urban population that the grantee services. Small grantees serve 50,000 to 199,999 

people, medium grantees serve 200,000 to 999,999 and large grantees serve 1 million or 

more people. In addition, we found little correlation between the size of grantee and the 

total number of findings. 

14These grantees vary in size and by the FTA regions in which they are located. 

15The controller’s job description mentioned the triennial review, in general, while the 

grants administrator’s job description required the individual to prepare and coordinate 

with other agency departments any documentation required for the triennial review. 

Page 13 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

offices, within resource and budget restraints, initiate, encourage and 

direct grantees to team with recognized grantee leaders in order to 

improve grantee performance. FTA officials also indicated that they 

address mentoring during their triennial review workshops. 

FTA Helps Grantees Meet 

More Requirements, 

Especially in Five Review 

Areas with Most Findings; 

However, FTA Does Not 

Identify the Underlying 

Causes of Findings 

When we analyzed OTRAK data from fiscal years 2000 through 2008 by 

area, we found that the 424 grantees had the greatest numbers of findings 

in five review areas—procurement, drug and alcohol program, 

maintenance, technical, and satisfactory continuing control areas.16 These 

five areas accounted for about 54 percent of all findings over the last nine 

years. This may not be unexpected since we also found a positive 

relationship between the number of questions asked for certain areas and 

the number of findings. Specifically, grantees tended to have higher 

numbers of findings in those areas where the contractors’ guide requires 

contractors to ask more questions when compared to other areas. For 

example, for fiscal year 2008, contractors asked grantees 20 questions in 

the procurement area, as compared to 2 or 3 questions in other areas, such 

as school bus and half-fare, which had far fewer findings.17 Figure 5 shows 

the percentage of triennial review findings for the top 5 areas, compared to 

the other 18 areas for the same 424 grantees over the nine-year period. 

 

16The technical area requires grantees to implement the Urbanized Area Formula Grant 

Program in accordance with their grant application and agreement and applicable laws and 

regulations using sound management practices. The satisfactory continuing control area 

assesses grantees’ controls over real property, facilities, and equipment, and ensures that 

they are used in transit services. 

17FTA grantees are prohibited from providing exclusive school bus service. Grantees also 

must ensure that elderly persons, persons with disabilities, and individuals presenting a 

Medicare card will be charged during non-peak hours for transportation, not more than 50 

percent of the peak hour fare. 

Page 14 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

Figure 5: Percentage of Triennial Review Findings for the Top Five Areas, from 

Fiscal Years 2000 through 2008

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data for 424 grantees.

9%

10%

10%

11%

14%

46%

Technical

Maintenance

Satisfactory Continuing Control

Drug and Alcohol Program

Procurement

Other 18 Review Areas

FTA has also analyzed OTRAK data on past triennial reviews, identified 

similar areas with the greatest number of findings, and provided resources 

at a national level to help grantees address the findings in these areas. 

According to several end of year reports, FTA analysis of deficiency codes 

related to the procurement area showed grantees lacking justification for 

non-competitive awards, lacking open competition, having no contract 

administration system, and having no written record of procurement 

history. For the drug and alcohol area, deficiency codes pointed to 

grantees having policies that were out-of-date or lacked required elements, 

and conducting random drug and alcohol tests below the federally 

required level. To help grantees improve their performance in areas with 

the greatest number of findings, FTA has provided an increasing amount 

of technical assistance to individual grantees; workshops that focus on, 

among other things, procurement related matters; and training. In its 2003 

end of year report, FTA noted that a decline in findings from fiscal year 

2000 to 2003 indicated the effectiveness of its efforts to improve grantees’ 

performance. 

We could not definitively determine whether, or to what degree, FTA’s 

technical assistance, workshops, and training improved grantees’ 

performance because while workshops increased from 2005 to 2008, so 

Page 15 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

did the total number of findings. Other factors could have contributed to a 

reduction of grantees’ findings over the last nine years.18 The reduction in 

findings could have been caused by contractors reporting that they did not 

review certain areas for some grantees that had recently experienced a 

special oversight review or by FTA conducting a pilot study in 2005 to 

streamline the triennial review process, which also resulted in some areas 

not being completely reviewed. Further, grantees, as well as FTA 

headquarters and regional officials, cite a shift over the years in how FTA 

conducts the triennial reviews—from a “gotcha” auditing approach to a 

customer-service approach, helping grantees quickly resolve findings 

during the reviews and lessening the need to report the findings. 

Although FTA analyzes deficiency codes in OTRAK data to determine 

problem areas, these codes alone do not describe the underlying causes 

for the findings. Generally accepted government auditing standards 

recommend that federal agencies, such as FTA, identify, to the extent 

possible, the underlying cause in developing findings as this provides 

persuasive evidence on the factor(s) responsible for the problem.19

Deficiency codes pointing to grantees lacking open competition or not 

having a written record of their procurement history, for example, is not 

an underlying cause, as grantees’ ability to meet procurement 

requirements may be caused by grantees not having sufficient or 

knowledgeable staff to initiate a competitive contracting process. If FTA 

would identify these as common underlying causes, it could prescribe, as 

part of the necessary corrective action, that grantees attend specific 

procurement training courses. Knowing the common underlying causes of 

grantees’ findings could provide FTA with valuable information to help 

many grantees find solutions to correct their findings and improve 

grantees’ long-term performance. FTA officials stated that during the 

workshops, they plan to emphasize ways to identify systemic deficiencies. 

Officials expressed concern about their authority to use oversight funds 

for the purpose of undertaking additional efforts to help the grantees meet 

or exceed requirements by identifying the common underlying causes for 

less than satisfactory levels of performance. Officials told us that they 

 

18According to Baldrige Award Examiners’ Feedback, in response to FTA’s application for 

the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, FTA did not provide examiners with data 

showing that its efforts improved grantee performance. 

19GAO, Government Auditing Standards: July 2007 Revision, GAO-07-731G (Washington, 

D.C., July 2, 2007). 

Page 16 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

have the authority to use oversight funds for providing individual grantees 

with technical assistance—assistance necessary to satisfactorily address 

specific findings resulting from the grantee’s triennial review. However, 

they acknowledged that they can help grantees develop capabilities to 

improve their long-term performance in other ways, such as National 

Transit Institute courses, that do not require using oversight funds. 

FTA Plans to Improve the 

Data It Collects on the 

Severity of Findings 

While FTA collects data on the numbers, the areas, and the reasons for the 

findings by the deficiency codes in OTRAK, the information it collects on 

severity of findings is not objective. OTRAK requires that contractors and 

FTA regional staff enter a level of severity—”high,” “medium,” and “low”—

for each finding. However, individuals entering severity data into OTRAK 

labeled almost 98 percent of findings as medium, which makes it difficult 

for FTA to prioritize technical assistance in problem areas. According to 

FTA officials, contractors or regional staff made judgments about the level 

of severity because FTA has not developed definitions from which to make 

this judgment. This could mean the information on severity is not 

consistent across the country. FTA officials said that they plan to improve 

their data collection efforts for the fiscal year 2010 triennial reviews by 

establishing definitions for the three levels of severity, which could 

provide more meaningful findings data and add significant value to the 

information FTA collects to target its technical assistance for the purposes 

of improving grantees’ performance. 

Strengths of the triennial review include a well-defined process, the 

increased use of an electronic tracking system to monitor grantees’ 

performance, increased timeliness in issuing triennial review reports, and 

the willingness of FTA staff to seek out opportunities for continuous 

improvement. However, we found a few areas where FTA could improve 

the triennial review process by ensuring and documenting grantees receive 

a complete review at least once every three years and by coordinating the 

schedules of multiple oversight reviews in the same fiscal year. 

The Triennial Review 

Program Uses Some 

Strong Management 

Practices, but Can Be 

Improved in a Few 

Areas 

The Triennial Review 

Program Has A WellDefined Process and 

Continues to Improve 

One strength of the triennial review program is that the process is well 

defined. FTA Order 5400.1 and the Triennial Review Contractors’ Guide

detail the roles and responsibilities for those involved in the triennial 

review, including FTA headquarters, regional offices, contractors, and 

grantees. These documents outline the process, identify the questions that 

Page 17 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

contractors are to ask grantees, specify the types of documents that 

grantees are to provide to FTA, and describe any follow up required of 

regional staff. Preparing policies and procedures that outline individual 

responsibilities meets an important element of strong federal grant 

accountability best practices.20

Another strength is an increased use of an information system to track and 

monitor grantees. In 1998, we criticized FTA for not making full use of its 

information system because its regional staff had not been uniformly 

updating the system and its headquarters staff was not enforcing its use as 

a management tool.21 FTA upgraded OTRAK in 2003 from a local-area 

computer network to a Web-based system, which allows headquarters and 

regions to share information and track oversight activities more efficiently. 

FTA has continued to incrementally update this system. In addition, the 

contractors’ guide directs contractors to input the findings from each 

review into OTRAK and all regional staff and contractors we spoke with 

reported using OTRAK.22 Performance information, such as that recorded 

in OTRAK, helps agencies identify, prioritize, and manage potential at-risk 

grantees.23

FTA has strengthened its triennial review reporting process by issuing 

more timely triennial review reports than in previous years. In 1998, we 

criticized FTA for taking an average of 182 days after the site visit to 

process its 1995 and 1996 triennial review reports and recommended that 

FTA follow its established 90-day time frame.24 FTA subsequently 

established a performance measure in 2001 of issuing 95 percent of 

triennial review reports within 30 days of completing a review. FTA has 

significantly improved its performance in issuing reports in recent years. 

FTA reported it issued between 82 to 94 percent of triennial review reports 

 

20Grant Accountability Project, Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant 

Accountability, October 2005. 

21GAO, Mass Transit: Grants Management Oversight Improving, but Better Follow-Up 

Needed on Grantees’ Noncompliance, GAO/RCED-98-89, (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 3, 1998). 

22A 2008 Booz Allen Hamilton report noted, however, that some regions are not entering 

data into OTRAK. Further, consultants who wrote the 2008 report stated that Region 3 had 

data missing in the closed finding data element—a key element in evaluating FTA’s 

triennial review program. 

23Grant Accountability Project, Guide to Opportunities for Improving Grant 

Accountability, October 2005. 

24GAO, GAO/RCED-98-89. 

Page 18 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

within 30 days of completing the review from fiscal year 2004 through 

2008. During that same time period, only 2 of 902 reports were issued more 

than 60 days after the review. 

Finally, FTA has looked for ways to continuously improve by contracting 

with Booz Allen Hamilton to examine its oversight review processes and 

recommend ways to improve them. In January 2008, Booz Allen Hamilton 

issued its final report, outlining four areas of improvement: program 

planning, program execution, program evaluation, and change 

management.25 We found that FTA is taking steps to respond to 

recommendations in these areas, including developing a strategic 

approach for prioritizing each of the Booz Allen Hamilton 

recommendations and developing a Web-based, master calendar feature in 

OTRAK that is expected to improve the visibility of future oversight review 

schedules to assist both FTA headquarters and regional staff in 

coordinating the oversight review schedules. 

FTA Could Better Ensure 

and Document that 

Grantees Receive a 

Complete Review at Least 

Once Every Three Years 

FTA is required to conduct a complete review and evaluation of grantees’ 

adherence with statutory and administrative requirements at least once 

every three years.26 In reviewing 198 fiscal year 2008 triennial review 

reports, we identified, but could not confirm, 33 instances where FTA may 

not have completely reviewed and evaluated grantees in all areas. 

Specifically, contractors recorded in the 2008 triennial review reports that 

certain areas were “not reviewed” because FTA had conducted special 

oversight reviews on these areas in the prior two years—fiscal years 2006 

or 2007. For example, contractors recorded in the triennial review reports 

of ten grantees that the drug and alcohol program area was “not reviewed” 

during the 2008 triennial review because these grantees had received 

special drug and alcohol program reviews in fiscal year 2006. Because the 

area was not reviewed during the 2008 triennial review, these grantees 

may not be reviewed in this area for 5 years (this area was last reviewed 

during the 2006 special oversight review and will not be reviewed again 

until the 2011 triennial review). While FTA’s contractors’ guide describes 

the flexibility to not review certain areas, FTA regional office staff 

provides triennial review contractors with the approval to not review 

 

25Booz Allen Hamilton, Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of FTA Oversight Review 

Program, (Washington, D.C., 2008). 

2649 U.S.C. § 5307 (h)(2). 

Page 19 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

certain areas when a special oversight review has been conducted in the 

prior two years or is scheduled in the fiscal year of the triennial review.27 

FTA officials indicate that their practice is to update its review and 

evaluation of an area having an oversight review in the prior two years. 

However, the guidance does not always instruct contractors to document 

this update in the triennial review reports to help FTA ensure it meets the 

statutory requirement of a complete review at least once every three years. 

As an example, the contractors’ guide describes such a process for 

reviewing and evaluating the planning area, telling contractors to review 

previous planning certification review reports during the triennial review 

desk review, verify the status of any findings, and determine if corrective 

actions have been implemented on schedule.28 The contractors’ guide does 

not provide similar guidance for other areas, including the drug and 

alcohol program area, and we did not see—nor could FTA provide us 

with— any such documentation in the 2008 triennial review reports. In 

commenting on our draft report, FTA said it would revise applicable 

guidance, including the contractors’ guide for fiscal year 2010, to avoid 

ambiguity and ensure consistency within the triennial review program. 

FTA headquarters officials indicated that regional officials and contractors 

discuss all 23 areas during the triennial review process and identify 

concerns about the grantees. Specifically, headquarters officials explained 

that regional staff and contractors discuss the results of special oversight 

reviews conducted in the prior two years, such as any outstanding findings 

from the prior reviews, and reach consensus on the extent to which a 

grantee would be reviewed in the related area during the triennial review, 

ranging from an area not being reviewed at all to a more detailed review in 

the area, depending on the situation. However, officials acknowledged that 

the results of those discussions are not always documented in the triennial 

review reports, especially in regards to the extent to which areas are to be 

reviewed or not reviewed during the triennial review. Because of this lack 

of documentation, we could not confirm in the 33 instances noted above 

whether or to what extent all 23 areas were reviewed and evaluated. 

 

27For example, the contractors’ guide states that if a Drug and Alcohol Program special 

review has been conducted within the past two fiscal years or if one is scheduled for the 

fiscal year in which the triennial review is being conducted, then “a review of the Drug and 

Alcohol Program area is not necessary and a finding of ‘Not Reviewed (NR) should be 

made.” 

28Planning certification reviews are another oversight review that applies to metropolitan 

planning organizations. 

Page 20 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

By allowing flexibility in the contractors’ guide to not review certain areas, 

FTA may not be ensuring that all areas are completely reviewed and 

evaluated at least once every three years, as required by statute. In 

addition, because grantees can and do experience findings during triennial 

reviews, despite having special oversight reviews in the prior two years, 

updating previously conducted special oversight reviews is important. We 

identified seven instances where grantees had received special oversight 

reviews in the financial management and civil rights areas in fiscal years 

2006 and 2007, yet during the 2008 triennial review, findings in these areas 

resurfaced. Finally, proper evaluation and documentation provides future 

reviewers with a more transparent audit trail of findings and gives FTA 

managers the confidence that grantees were completely reviewed and 

evaluated in all 23 areas at least once every three years. Officials plan to 

refine and use OTRAK to document, among other things, the results of 

special oversight reviews that occurred in the years between triennial 

reviews, which would help ensure grantees adhere to requirements. 

Uncoordinated Scheduling 

of Multiple Oversight 

Reviews May Unduly 

Burden Some Grantees 

We found a limited number of instances in which grantees may have been 

unduly burdened by uncoordinated scheduling of multiple oversight 

reviews in the same fiscal year. We found that 23 of 198 grantees (12 

percent) receiving a triennial review in fiscal year 2008 also received one 

or more special oversight reviews in the same year. Twenty-four of 183 

grantees (13 percent) received multiple reviews in fiscal year 2007, 

including one medium sized grantee that underwent a special procurement 

system review in January 2007, a drug and alcohol program review in 

February 2007, and a triennial review in June 2007. 29 The same grantee 

also underwent two special civil rights reviews—an Americans with 

Disabilities review in October 2007 and a Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprises review in November of 2007. 

One grantee with whom we spoke said that although the triennial review is 

beneficial, the multiple oversight reviews it received in the same fiscal 

year were burdensome, redundant and delayed project schedules and cost 

the grantee about $18,000 to $20,000. Four other grantees provided 

information showing they spent about 100 to 300 hours preparing for and 

hosting 2- to 3-day triennial reviews involving sometimes over 20 

 

29The 24 grantees included large grantees such as those serving New York City and 

Chicago, as well as smaller grantees serving the Topeka, Kansas and Pueblo, Colorado 

communities. 

Page 21 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

individuals and many departments. Some grantees also said that special 

oversight reviews continue for two or more weeks and require even more 

grantee time and attention. 

Representatives from the American Public Transportation Association—an 

association that represents many grantees—also said that two or more 

FTA oversight reviews in the same year could be burdensome. According 

to the association representatives and grantees with whom we spoke, 

multiple reviews in the same year are especially burdensome for smaller 

grantees, whose employees tend to be responsible for multiple review 

areas. For example, a small grantee told us that the triennial review alone 

taxed its two employees who were responsible for addressing many of the 

areas in the triennial review. Large grantees, on the other hand, typically 

have several employees in a division responsible for one triennial review 

area, so the burden of multiple reviews may be less taxing for them than 

for small grantees. 

The decision-making body responsible for developing and coordinating 

FTA’s oversight review schedules is the Oversight Review Council; but, 

according to FTA officials, the Oversight Review Council is not fulfilling 

these responsibilities, as it was inactive on and off in recent years because 

of management changes and priorities. FTA Order 5400.1 requires the 

Oversight Review Council to develop and coordinate various oversight 

review schedules to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlap, among 

other things.30 The Council was reinstituted in 2007 after management 

changes, and continues to redefine its roles and responsibilities. Further, 

FTA is aware of the burden oversight reviews place on grantees and works 

to limit this burden. 

Without the Oversight Review Council taking responsibility for developing 

and coordinating oversight review schedules, FTA offices developed their 

own oversight processes, which, in some instances, could lead to grantees 

receiving a triennial review and a special review in the same fiscal year. 

For example: 

 

30For the purposes of this analysis, we defined overlap as a triennial review and one or 

more special reviews in the same fiscal year. Neither the FTA oversight review order nor 

the contractors’ guide defines unnecessary duplication or overlap. Further, FTA 

headquarters and regions have their own definitions. 

Page 22 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

• FTA’s goal is to conduct special procurement reviews every three years on 

the 30 grantees that receive large amounts of federal transit funds. 

• The Offices of Civil Rights and Safety and Security conduct their own 

special oversight reviews, including reviews of grantees that have had civil 

rights complaints filed against them. According to officials from the Civil 

Rights office, after notifying the regions and others of the schedules, the 

regions are to notify headquarters about any scheduling conflicts. 

• The drug and alcohol review schedules are sometimes made without 

informing regional staff because this information is sensitive.31

• Other FTA officials who conduct special oversight reviews enter their 

scheduled review date of grantees in OTRAK. However, regional staff said 

they are sometimes not aware of special review scheduling.32

In receiving urban area formula funds, grantees agree to the 

congressionally-mandated triennial review at least once every three years. 

Some grantees are subject to other FTA oversight reviews. Having an 

effective body to coordinate the strategic planning of special oversight 

reviews, in coordination with the triennial review, could help increase 

FTA’s oversight coverage of grantees, while at the same time, minimize the 

undue burden of uncoordinated multiple oversight reviews on some 

grantees. FTA’s new Web-based, master calendar feature in OTRAK is 

expected to improve the visibility of future oversight review schedules. 

 

31As we previous reported, drug and alcohol reviews include audits of grantees and employ 

unique methods for collecting samples. See GAO, Motor Carrier Safety: Improvements to 

Drug Testing Programs Could Better Identify Illegal Drug Users and Keep Them off the 

Road, GAO-08-600 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008). 

32According to FTA officials, they believe notification letters sent to the regions and 

grantees give sufficient notice of special oversight reviews scheduled for grantees. 

Page 23 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

FTA established two performance measures to assess timeliness of steps 

in the triennial review program: (1) 80 percent of triennial review findings 

are to be closed within 30 days of their due date (“Close Findings Timely”); 

and (2) 95 percent of the final triennial review reports are to be issued 

within 30 days of the completion of the review (“Issue Reports Timely”).33

While these measures meet some, they do not meet all key attributes of 

successful measures, as described in our past work on the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993.34 Further, FTA lacks performance 

measures that assess other core elements of FTA’s triennial review 

program, including the outcome and quality of the reviews. FTA officials 

recognize the limits of their current performance measures and have 

begun efforts to enhance them. Table 3 summarizes the 9 key attributes we 

used to analyze FTA’s performance measures.35

FTA’s Two Triennial 

Review Performance 

Measures Meet Some, 

But Not All Key 

Attributes of 

Successful 

Performance 

Measures 

Table 3: Nine Key Attributes of Successful Performance Measures 

Key Attributes Definitions 

Linkage Measure is aligned with division and agencywide goals and mission and is clearly communicated 

throughout the organization. 

Measurable target Measure has a numerical goal. 

Clarity Measure is clearly stated and the name and definition are consistent with the methodology used to 

calculate it. 

Limited overlap Measure should provide new information beyond that provided by other measures. 

Objectivity Measure is reasonably free from significant bias or manipulation. 

Reliability Measure produces the same result under similar conditions. 

Core program activities Measures cover the activities that an entity is expected to perform to support the intent of the 

program. 

Governmentwide priorities Measures should cover governmentwide priorities, such as quality, timeliness, and outcome. 

 

33In addition to these performance measures for the triennial review, FTA tracks several 

metrics annually, such as contract deliverables (including total reviews completed and new 

grantee workshops conducted), total findings per review, total findings per year, trends for 

most frequent findings, impact of selected findings in key areas, case studies of specific 

triennial reviews, findings per review by region, and findings per review area. However, 

these metrics are not compared to a goal or standard and we do not consider them 

performance measures. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the measures 

and goals used for the triennial review as “performance measures.” 

34GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures, GAO-03-143, (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002). 

35All attributes are not equal. Failure to have a particular attribute does not necessarily 

indicate the measure is not useful; rather, it may indicate an opportunity to strengthen or 

supplement. 

Page 24 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

Key Attributes Definitions 

Balance Balance exists when the suite of measures ensures that an organization’s various priorities are 

covered. 

Source: GAO summary. 

Note: For an expanded explanation of these key attributes, see appendix I of GAO-03-143. 

Figure 6 compares FTA’s triennial review performance measures to these 

key attributes, showing that they meet some but not all attributes. Both 

measures meet 4 of 9 attributes; that is, they link to agency goals, provide 

a measurable target, are clear, and have limited overlap with other 

measures. The Issue Reports Timely measure meets 2 additional attributes 

by demonstrating objectivity and reliability. 

Figure 6: Comparison of FTA Triennial Review Performance Measures to Key 

Attributes 

Source: GAO analysis of FTA data.

Performance

measures

Linkage

Clarity

Measurable

 target

Objectivity

Reliability

Core

 program

 

activitiesb

Limited

 overlapa

Government

 wide

 priorities

Balancea

Key attributes

Close 

findings

timely

Issue reports

timely

Key attribute met

Key attribute partially met

Key attribute not met

a

This attribute applies to the overall suite of measures, rather than to the measures individually. 

b

The core program activities of the triennial review program is to ensure grantees meet applicable 

federal requirements. 

• Linkage. We found FTA’s two triennial review performance measures link 

throughout the organization—from FTA regional offices, through 

headquarters, and to the department level. Both performance measures 

aligned with the Department of Transportation’s strategic goal of 

organizational excellence in the FTA Annual Performance Plan, FTA 

regional business and strategic plans, and individual performance 

Page 25 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

appraisals.36 In addition, FTA officials—including officials in the 

Performance Management Division, the Office of Program Management, 

and all 10 regional offices—confirmed in interviews that performance 

goals were communicated across the agency. Such communication is 

important to ensure FTA officials understand what the organization is 

trying to achieve and the goals it seeks to reach. 

• Measurable target. Both performance measures also have measurable 

numeric targets—given in percentages—that allow FTA officials to easily 

assess whether overall goals and objectives were achieved. Numeric 

targets facilitate assessments of whether objectives were achieved 

because comparisons can be easily made between projected performance 

and actual results. FTA reports meeting the Close Findings Timely 

measure in fiscal years 2004 through 2007; and in fiscal year 2008, closed 

74 percent of findings within 30 days. Although FTA reports never meeting 

the Issue Reports Timely measure in fiscal years 2004 through 2008, it has 

greatly improved the timeliness with which it issues triennial review 

reports. From fiscal years 2004 through 2008, FTA nearly met its goals in 4 

of the 5 years.37

• Clarity. We found the performance measures are clearly stated and each 

has a definition that is consistent with the methodology used to calculate 

it. The Issue Reports Timely formula is the percentage of reports issued 

within 30 days of the final conduct of the review, and the Close Findings 

Timely formula is the number of findings closed within 30 days of the due 

date, divided by the sum of the number of findings closed plus the number 

of findings open that are 30 days past the due date. Clear measures provide 

transparency and allow managers to accurately assess FTA’s performance 

in issuing triennial review reports and closing findings in a timely manner. 

• Limited overlap. Both program performance measures have unique 

names, definitions, and do not overlap. One measure evaluates the 

timeliness of issuing reports, while the other assesses the timeliness of 

closing findings. The presence of distinct performance measures prevent 

 

36The FTA annual performance plan includes a variation of the Issue Reports Timely goal 

for several FTA regional offices as a way of achieving the Department of Transportation’s 

strategic goal of organizational excellence. For example, Region 10 uses a 90 percent goal 

for issuing reports. Regions 1 and 8 amended the goal to state “30 days after site review or 

receipt of grantees’ comments to the initial draft.” 

37FTA issued reports within 30 days 94, 82, 94, 91, and 89 percent of the time from fiscal 

years 2004 through 2008, respectively. 

Page 26 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

managers from sifting through unnecessary or redundant information. 

• Objectivity. We found the Issue Reports Timely measure is objective 

because the data elements used to calculate it are free from significant 

bias. However, our analysis of the Close Findings Timely measure found 

that its objectivity is limited because decisions to close findings, establish 

due dates for when grantees must address findings, and extend, if 

necessary, any due dates, is done largely at the discretion of regional staff, 

in consultation with grantees, and, when appropriate, headquarters 

officials. This presents opportunities to influence this measure because 

regional staff may use different criteria for when to close or extend 

deadlines. While FTA officials recently met to discuss a mandatory 

process to uniformly close findings across all FTA regions, the current 

lack of criteria reduces the transparency of FTA’s performance in closing 

findings. For example, an FTA official stated that the Closing Findings 

Timely performance measure could result in the unintended consequence 

of prematurely closing findings. The annual performance appraisals and 

resulting compensation for regional staff, including the Regional 

Administrators, are based, in part, on meeting the Close Finding Timely 

performance measure. While we did not find widespread instances when 

findings were prematurely closed, an official from the civil rights office 

stated there have been cases when regional staff closed triennial review 

findings in OTRAK and requested that the civil rights office monitor the 

grantees’ progress in resolving them. 

• Reliability. We found the Issue Reports Timely measure is reliable, as FTA 

has standard procedures for collecting data, and based on our examination 

of individual triennial review reports, accurately stated the number of 

reports issued in the most recent end of year report for fiscal year 2008. 

However, our analysis of data used to calculate the Close Finding Timely 

performance measure found data inaccuracies and, therefore, the measure 

does not meet the key attribute of reliability. After examining closed 

findings data we found several instances where OTRAK reported findings 

open more than seven years after they were due for closure.38 FTA officials 

familiar with the database said that these inaccuracies resulted from FTA 

regional staff not entering data into OTRAK after the transition to the new 

Web-based information system in 2003 and said, but could not document, 

that the findings were likely closed. However, we also found OTRAK data 

entry errors from fiscal years 2005 through 2007—after FTA had 

 

38According to FTA officials, errors in the data element associated with closed findings did 

not impact other data elements, such as number of findings by grantee, region, and review 

area. 

Page 27 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

transitioned to the Web-based system—where the database showed almost 

200 findings were open more then one year after they were due for 

closure. Headquarters officials said, but could not document, that these 

findings are inaccurately listed as open in OTRAK and were likely closed 

at the regional level. Officials further stated they plan to re-examine the 

regional process for closing findings and issue guidance to improve this 

process. Finally, the 2008 Booz Allen Hamilton report noted instances of 

missing data in OTRAK because some regions were using stand alone 

spreadsheets instead of fully using the database to report closing 

findings.39 Officials acknowledged that entering closed findings data into 

the database can be problematic, especially for inexperienced regional 

staff not familiar with OTRAK. Officials believe that a 2007 decision to tie 

regional staff performance appraisals to data entered into OTRAK should 

provide an incentive to ensure future data are reliable. In addition, officials 

said they are emphasizing the importance of recording data into OTRAK to 

regional offices and contractors.40 Without reliable data, FTA managers 

cannot be confident in the extent to which performance goals have been 

achieved, including the timeliness in closing findings. 

• Core program activities. Both triennial review performance measures do 

not meet the triennial review program’s core program activity, evaluating 

whether grantees meet federal requirements over time. While FTA’s 

existing performance measure of Close Findings Timely may increase 

adherence to federal requirements by encouraging grantees to address 

findings, it does not provide an overall program level assessment of 

grantees’ performance over time. In addition, FTA measures annual 

grantee compliance information in Triennial Review Program end-of-year 

reports, but has not developed performance measures that set targets to 

evaluate progress. Therefore, FTA does not assess whether the triennial 

review program is increasing grantees’ ability to continuously meet federal 

requirements. FTA could measure the core program activity of the 

triennial review program in various ways, such as assessing grantees’ 

performance at the end of each review year or assessing grantees’ long 

term performance, as our previous analysis of findings data shows. See 

figure 3. 

• Governmentwide priorities. FTA’s current performance measures 

partially address governmentwide priorities by ensuring that FTA reports 

 

39Booz Allen Hamilton, Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of FTA Oversight Review 

Program, (Washington, D.C., 2008). 

40FTA officials noted they do no intend to correct inaccurate data from the past. 

Page 28 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

on its timeliness in conducting reviews and in addressing corrective 

actions. However, the measures do not evaluate other governmentwide 

priorities, including the outcome of the reviews—the extent to which 

grantees are meeting federal requirements, or the quality of the triennial 

reviews.41

• Outcome. The performance measures assess the output of the triennial 

review program—the closing of findings and issuing of final reports—

but, not the outcome—grantees’ ability to meet federal requirements.42

As previously stated in the discussion of core program activities, 

outcome performance measures—such as grantees’ performance over 

time, or annual progress against a measurable target—can help 

evaluate the results of the triennial review programs. Without such a 

measure, FTA is limited in the extent to which it can effectively 

ascertain and document the extent to which the triennial review 

program is improving grantees’ performance in meeting federal 

requirements and FTA managers have limited information on program 

performance, making the possibility of achieving program goals less 

likely. 

• Quality. FTA has no performance measures for assessing the quality of 

the triennial review program. FTA officials help ensure quality by 

checking triennial review reports to determine whether the 

contractors made reasonable findings for grantees, determining what 

actions grantees must take to resolve findings, and attending some site 

visits to oversee contractors. However, FTA officials are unsure how 

to develop a measure for evaluating the quality of the triennial review 

program. In addition, Booz Allen Hamilton reported that FTA 

headquarters and field staff do not have a common understanding of 

what constitutes a quality review or how it could be measured. 

Without common quality standards, FTA cannot evaluate the overall 

quality of the program nor ensure the results and objectives of the 

triennial review program are being met. Performance measures related 

to quality could assess the implementation of triennial reviews, 

including a way to oversee contractors and test the overall quality of 

 

41Booz Allen Hamilton—a consultant that recently reviewed FTA’s oversight program—also 

found that triennial review performance measures do not contain balance, noting that there 

were limited measures to evaluate quality, consistency, and the effectiveness of oversight 

activities. 

42Outputs are the direct products and services delivered by a program and outcomes are 

the results of those products and services. 

Page 29 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

reviews. Many federal agencies periodically review their programs to 

ensure they meet quality standards. FTA officials recognize the 

benefits of such performance measures and plan to enhance its current 

measures and standards to assess the quality and value added of the 

triennial review program to help ensure that the results and objectives 

of the triennial review program are being met. 

• Balance. FTA’s triennial review program performance measures address 

only one of three governmentwide priorities and, therefore, are not 

balanced—an attribute that applies to the overall suite of measures, rather 

than the measures individually. Balanced performance measures allow 

managers to understand what other triennial review aspects are working 

well and why. Adding outcome and quality performance measures will 

help balance the existing timeliness measures and could allow managers 

to better set triennial review priorities by not overemphasizing one or two 

priorities at the expense of others. FTA officials recognize current 

performance measures do not assess some aspects of the triennial review 

program and are undertaking efforts to enhance them. 

Strong FTA oversight of federal surface transportation grant programs 

helps ensure that grantees meet federal requirements, provide safe public 

transportation, and safeguard from misuse the billions of dollars that 

Congress appropriated for surface transportation programs to help 

America recover from the economic downturn and the billions more that 

Congress plans to reauthorize for surface transportation. FTA’s efforts 

over the past decade to improve the congressionally-mandated triennial 

review—the primary means for overseeing hundreds of grantees—have 

produced concrete results. For example, FTA now regularly collects 

oversight data on grantees, issues the vast majority of triennial review 

reports within 30 days of the review (a significant improvement since our 

last report in 1998), and provides grantees with technical assistance to 

address problem areas. Nonetheless, FTA should undertake additional 

efforts to further improve the triennial review program. 

Conclusions 

Although one of the goals of the triennial review program is to assist 

grantees in meeting more federal requirements over time, our analysis of 

OTRAK data shows many grantees with mixed success in reducing their 

numbers of findings over three triennial reviews from fiscal years 2000 

through 2008; and 17 percent of the grantees we reviewed met fewer 

federal requirements in their latest triennial review than they did in their 

two previous reviews. While FTA analyzes apparent problem areas, its 

analysis does not provide information on the underlying causes of findings 

Page 30 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

and information on the level of severity for each finding. Without 

conducting further analyses of its OTRAK data and better understanding 

the underlying causes of grantees’ performance in triennial reviews, FTA 

may be missing valuable opportunities to increase its effectiveness in 

helping grantees improve their performance. 

The triennial review process could be improved in two respects. First, 

when a grantee has recently received or is scheduled to receive a special 

oversight review, the flexibility currently allowed in the contractors’ guide 

could lead to confusion about how to document that all 23 triennial review 

areas are completely reviewed at least once every three years. Until FTA 

revises its guidance to remove the “not reviewed” category, require an 

updated evaluation of areas reviewed in the prior two years of the triennial 

review, and describe how to document triennial review reports with the 

updates, FTA does not provide assurance that grantees are being assessed 

equally and are receiving a complete review and evaluation at least once 

every three years, as required. Second, until the Oversight Review Council 

performs its role as oversight review coordinator or delegates this role to 

another FTA body, uncoordinated, multiple oversight reviews may not 

effectively increase FTA’s coverage of grantees and may place undue 

burden on a few grantees. 

Finally, although FTA’s two triennial review performance measures meet 

some of the key attributes we have previously reported are necessary for a 

successful program, the Close Findings Timely measure could be 

improved to minimize the possibility for manipulation and increase the 

reliability of closed finding data. Without an internal control process to 

verify whether grantees have satisfactorily resolved findings, FTA cannot 

determine the validity of reported results for the Close Findings Timely 

performance measure. Without reliable data, FTA may be unable to 

determine the validity of reported results and make appropriate decisions. 

FTA also lacks performance measures for evaluating the outcome and 

quality of the triennial review program. Such performance measures are 

essential because they can help decision makers determine areas for 

improvement and increase the likelihood of achieving program goals, such 

as increasing the number of grantees that meet federal requirements. 

To support the triennial review program’s goal of having grantees 

consistently meet more federal requirements, the Secretary of 

Transportation should direct the FTA Administrator: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Page 31 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

1. To further analyze and use OTRAK data on the triennial review to help 

grantees improve and sustain their performance. As part of this 

analysis, FTA should consider and identify, when necessary: (1) high 

performing grantees and their management practices, among other 

things; (2) the areas in which problem findings occur, and the 

underlying causes of these findings; and (3) the level of severity for 

each finding. 

2. To help ensure that a complete performance review and evaluation of 

each grantee is conducted at least once every three years, in 

accordance with the statutory requirement, revise the contractors’ 

guide to remove the “not reviewed” category, require an updated 

evaluation of areas reviewed in the prior two years of the triennial 

review, and describe how contractors should document the triennial 

review reports with updates to other reviews, such as special oversight 

reviews conducted in the prior two years. 

3. To strengthen the triennial review process by ensuring that the 

Oversight Review Council, or another body, carries out the 

responsibilities specified in FTA Order 5400.1 to be actively involved in 

coordinating oversight review schedules in order to increase FTA’s 

oversight coverage of grantees while, at the same time, minimizing the 

undue burden of multiple oversight reviews on grantees. 

4. To improve the objectivity and reliability of the “Close Findings 

Timely” performance measure by: 

• developing an internal controls process to verify grantees have 

satisfactorily resolved findings before closing them; 

• continuing to emphasize the use of OTRAK across all regions and 

developing a process to close out triennial reviews in OTRAK upon 

grantees’ completion of corrective actions. 

5. To meet standards set forth in previous GAO work, based on the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, and develop 

performance measures to assess: 

• the outcomes of the triennial review program, such as a method for 

evaluating improvements in grantee performance in meeting more 

federal requirements over time; and 

• the quality of the triennial review through improved contractor 

oversight, testing, or inspection. 

Page 32 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
 

In addition, FTA should ensure additional outcome and quality 

performance measures are balanced with the existing measures for 

assessing the timeliness of the triennial review program so that one 

priority is not emphasized at the expense of others. 

The Department of Transportation reviewed and commented on a draft of 

this report. The department generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations. It also suggested that we provide more information on 

FTA’s efforts to review grantees at least once every three years and 

coordinate its oversight reviews, which we added, as appropriate. The 

Department also provided a technical correction, which we have 

incorporated. 

Agency Comments 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional 

committees, to the Secretary of Transportation, and to appropriate FTA 

officials. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web 

site at www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or herrp@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in 

Phillip R. Herr

appendix III. 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 33 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 34 GAO-09-603 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To determine the extent to which the triennial reviews indicate grantees 

met federal requirements from fiscal years 2000 through 2008, we 

reviewed documentation on the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) 

Oversight Tracking System (OTRAK)—the official electronic information 

system for tracking and monitoring oversight activities. Documents 

included a system description, requirements, and background; reference 

guides; data entry controls and processes; data dictionary; deficiency 

codes; and the users’ manual. We requested and obtained OTRAK findings 

data by grantee and by area from fiscal years 2000 through 2008. Data prior 

to 2000 was not available. We sorted the data to, among other things, 

determine the extent to which grantees’ performance in meeting federal 

requirements increased, decreased, both increased and decreased, or 

remained constant in three triennial reviews; which grantees averaged 

fewer than two findings in their triennial reviews; and which areas 

accounted for the greatest numbers of findings. We did not have direct 

access to the OTRAK database, but took several steps to assess the 

reliability of the data. We performed electronic testing to identify missing 

data, obtained and reviewed the queries that FTA used to generate the 

data that we requested, and discussed with FTA and its OTRAK 

contractors the results of the information. Based on these tests, we 

excluded 150 grantees because they did not meet our criteria, having 

exactly three triennial reviews in the last nine years and excluded 27 other 

grantees because, according to FTA officials, they received triennial 

reviews for multiple triennial review cycles, more than 3 fiscal years, or 

both as a result of triennial reviews that were either canceled or closed 

without findings. 

To address the strengths and weaknesses of the triennial review process, 

we reviewed federal guidance for improving grant accountability, federal 

internal control standards, GAO reports on performance measures, FTA 

Order 5400.1, triennial review reports of numerous grantees, and a 2008 

Booz Allen Hamilton report of FTA’s oversight programs. We also 

reviewed and compared schedules for the triennial and other special 

oversight reviews by grantee from fiscal years 2006 through 2008 to 

determine which grantees experienced both a triennial review and at least 

one special oversight review in fiscal year 2008. In addition, we examined 

specific areas reviewed or not reviewed during fiscal years 2007 and 2008 

triennial review reports and compared the areas to completed or planned 

special oversight reviews. We attended the triennial review of the Los 

Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority in September 2008. We 

also attended a FTA triennial workshop for new grantees in Kansas City, 

Missouri in July 2008. 

Public Transportation 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

We selected 10 grantees with a range of findings, from various FTA 

regions, having special oversight reviews in fiscal years 2006, 2007, or 

2008, and from different population sizes—small (50,000-199,999), medium 

(200,000 to 999,999), or large (1 million or more) urban centers. We 

interviewed these grantees in order to understand grantees’ practices that 

contributed to them averaging fewer than 2 findings per review, 

understand the burden multiple reviews had on grantees’ operations, and 

understand if the triennial review unduly burdened grantees with different 

size operations. The following lists the 10 grantees interviewed: 

• Southwest Ohio Regional Transportation Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 

• Spokane Transit Authority, Spokane, Washington 

• St. Joseph Transit, St. Joseph, Missouri 

• Utah Transit Agency, Salt Lake City, Utah 

• Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania 

• Santa Monica Blue Bus, Santa Monica, California 

• Wichita Transit, Wichita, Kansas 

• Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, Virginia 

• City of Hattiesburg, Mississippi 

• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, California 

With respect to this and our other reporting objectives, we interviewed 

officials from the following organizations: 

• FTA’s Associate Administrator for Program Management 

• FTA’s Office of Civil Rights 

• FTA’s Office of Safety and Security 

• FTA’s Office of Program Management 

• FTA’s Office of Performance Management 

• All FTA regional offices 

• All four triennial review contractors (Reid Consulting LLC, CDI/DCI Joint 

Venture, Advanced Systems Technical and Management Inc., and 

Interactive Elements LLC) 

• Booz Allen Hamilton 

• The American Public Transportation Association 

• Community Transportation Association of America. 

To determine FTA’s performance measures for the triennial review and to 

what extent FTA’s performance measures meet nine key attributes, we 

obtained, reviewed, and analyzed, among other documents: GAO reports 

describing the importance of establishing effective performance measures, 

GAO guidance on assessing the strengths and weaknesses of federal 

agencies’ performance measures and identifying the key attributes of 

successful performance measures, FTA triennial review end-of-year 

Page 35 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

reports, and FTA performance appraisal templates. We also spoke with 

FTA management to identify the current performance measures for 

evaluating the success of the triennial review program, the reasons for 

them, and when they were established. We then compared FTA’s two 

performance measures to each of the nine key attributes in order to 

determine the extent to which and why they either fully met, partially met, 

or did not meet all attributes. 

Page 36 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
Appendix II: Description of FTA’s 23 

Triennial Review Areas 

Page 37 GAO-09-603 

Table 4: FTA’s Descriptions of the Requirements in Each of the Triennial Review Areas 

FTA Designated Areas FTA’s Description of the Requirements in Each Area 

Legal The grantee must be eligible and authorized under state and local law to request, receive, 

and dispense FTA funds and to execute and administer FTA-funded projects. The 

authority to take all necessary action and responsibility on behalf of the grantee must be 

properly delegated and executed. 

Financial The grantee must demonstrate the ability to match and manage FTA grant funds, 

maintain and operate federally-funded facilities and equipment, and conduct an annual 

independent organization-wide audit in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A133. 

Technical The grantee must be able to implement the Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program of 

Projects in accordance with the grant application, Master Agreement, and all applicable 

laws and regulations, using sound management practices. 

Satisfactory Continuing Control The grantee must maintain control over real property, facilities, and equipment and ensure 

that they are used in transit service. 

Maintenance The grantee must keep federally-funded equipment and facilities in good operating order. 

Procurement FTA grantees will use their own procurement procedures that reflect applicable state and 

local laws and regulations, provided that the process ensures competitive procurement 

and that the procedures conform to applicable federal law. 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

(DBE) 

The grantee must comply with the policy of the Department of Transportation that DBEs 

are ensured nondiscrimination in the award and administration of Department of 

Transportation-assisted contracts. Grantees also must create a level playing field on 

which DBEs can compete fairly for Department of Transportation-assisted contracts; 

ensure that only firms that fully meet eligibility standards are permitted to participate as 

DBEs; help remove barriers to the participation of DBEs; and assist the development of 

firms that can compete successfully in the marketplace outside the DBE program. 

Buy America Per “Buy America” law, federal funds may not be obligated unless steel, iron, and 

manufactured products used in FTA-funded projects are produced in the United States, 

unless FTA has granted a waiver, or the product is subject to a general waiver. Rolling 

stock must have sixty percent domestic content and final assembly must take place in the 

United States. 

Suspension/debarment To protect the public interest and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in federal transactions, 

persons or entities, which by defined events or behavior, potentially threaten the integrity 

of federally administered programs, are excluded from participating in FTA-assisted 

programs. 

Lobbying Recipients of federal grants and contracts exceeding $100,000 must certify compliance 

with restrictions on lobbying before they can receive funds. In addition, grantees are 

required to impose the lobbying restriction provisions on their contractors. 

Planning/Program of Projects The grantee must participate in the transportation planning process in accordance with 

FTA requirements; Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users requirements; and the Metropolitan and Statewide Planning 

Regulations. 

Title VI The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall, on the grounds of 

race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, 

or be subject to discrimination under any program, or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance. 

Appendix II: Description of FTA’s 23 Triennial 

Review Areas 

Public Transportation 
Appendix II: Description of FTA’s 23 

Triennial Review Areas 

FTA Designated Areas FTA’s Description of the Requirements in Each Area 

Public Comment Process The grantee is expected to have a written copy of a locally developed process to solicit 

and consider public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major reduction of 

transportation services. 

Half fare Grantees must ensure that elderly persons and persons with disabilities, or an individual 

presenting a Medicare card will be charged, during non-peak hours for transportation 

using or involving a facility or equipment of a project financed under Section 5307, not 

more than 50 percent of the peak hour fare. 

Americans with Disabilities Act Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provide that no entity shall 

discriminate against an individual with a disability in connection with the provision of 

transportation service. The law sets forth specific requirements for vehicle and facility 

accessibility and the provision of service, including complementary paratransit service. 

Charter bus FTA grantees are prohibited from using federally-funded equipment and facilities to 

provide charter service except on an incidental basis and when one or more of applicable 

exceptions set forth in the charter service regulation applies. 

School bus FTA grantees are prohibited from providing exclusive school bus service unless it qualifies 

under specified exceptions. In no case can federally-funded equipment or facilities be 

used. 

National Transit Database The grantee must collect, record, and report financial and non-financial data in 

accordance with the Uniform System of Accounts and updated with the National Transit 

Database Reporting Manual. 

Safety and Security Any recipient of Urbanized Area Formula Grant Program funds must annually certify that it 

is spending at least one percent of such funds for transit security projects or that such 

expenditures for security systems are not necessary. 

Drug-Free workplace FTA grantees are required to maintain a drug-free workplace for all employees and to 

have an ongoing drug-free awareness program. 

Drug and Alcohol Program Grantees receiving FTA funds under Capital Grant (Section 5309), Urbanized Area 

Formula Grant (Section 5307), or Non-Urbanized Area Formula Grant (Section 5311). 

Programs must have a drug and alcohol testing program in place for all safety-sensitive 

employees. 

Equal Employment Opportunity The grantee must ensure that no person in the United States shall on the grounds of race, 

color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from participating in, or 

denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination in employment under any project, 

program, or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the federal transit laws. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 

Architecture 

ITS projects funded by the Highway Trust Fund and the Mass Transit Account must 

conform to the National ITS Architecture, as well as to Department of Transportation 

adopted ITS Standards. 

Source: FTA’s contractors’ guide. 

Page 38 GAO-09-603 Public Transportation
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 39 GAO-09-603 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Phillip R. Herr, (202) 512-2834 or herrp@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Catherine A. Colwell (Assistant 

Director), Matthew A. Cook, Elizabeth H. Curda, Bert Japikse, Delwen A. 

Jones, Grant M. Mallie, Steve Martinez, Amanda K. Miller, Joshua H. 

Ormond, Kelly L. Rubin, and Sandra E. Sokol made key contributions to 

this report. 

Public Transportation 

GAO Contact: 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(546003) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper