FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation

Research Management

Process

December 2022 

© Metamorworks/AdobeStock.com.
2 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

TABLE OF CONTENTS

To navigate through the document, move the cursor over a section and click (PDF) or ctrl + click (Word).

INTRODUCTION 3

REGULATORY OVERVIEW 4

Periodic Review of State DOT’s Management Process 4

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE MANAGEMENT PROCESS 6

State DOT Is Compliant 10

State DOT Is Not Compliant 10

METHODS OF REVIEW 11

Types of Documentation 12

Who Should Be Included? 12

Frequency 13

Supporting Material for Review 13

APPENDIX: MANAGEMENT PROCESS REVIEW CHECKLIST 14
3 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

Except for any statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the 

force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is 

intended only to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law or agency. 

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to ensure consistent and efficient management of State 

Planning and Research, Subpart B (SPR-B) work programs by Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) division offices. It is intended to serve as a resource for FHWA division staff, illustrating 

how reviews of the research management processes can be flexible and open to different 

approaches. 
4 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

REGULATORY OVERVIEW 

Periodic Review of State DOT’s Management Process

One of the key responsibilities of the FHWA division office SPR-B coordinator is to ensure State 

DOT research programs are compliant with 23 CFR Part 420. Specifically, 23 CFR 420.209(d) 

requires a periodic review of the State DOT research management process, as follows:

The FHWA division administrator shall periodically review the State DOT’s research 

management process to determine if the State is compliant with the requirements of 

this subpart.

Generally, “periodically” in this sense means every 3−5 yr.1 However, this review may be 

done more frequently, depending on the division’s internal risk assessment. While there 

is no specific requirement for conducting and documenting this review, some divisions 

include this review as part of their formal program review process.

In accordance with 23 CFR 420.209(b), documentation of a State DOT’s research management 

process and procedures for selecting and implementing research, development, and technology 

(RD&T) activities must be developed by the State DOT and submitted to the FHWA division 

office for formal approval. In addition, significant changes in the research management process 

must be submitted by the State DOT to the FHWA division office for approval. The State DOT 

must also make the documentation available, as necessary, to facilitate peer exchanges. The 

documentation may include project selection processes, performance measures, and university 

evaluations; all these topics are components to consider when reviewing State DOT research 

management processes.

The SPR-B research management process review should be done in close coordination and 

collaboration with the State DOT. It is also recommended that the FHWA division office initiate 

communication and notify the State DOT early in the review process. The State DOT should be 

prepared to answer specific SPR-B work program questions, share work program

documentation, and so on. A research management process review checklist to assist with this 

effort can be found in the appendix. This checklist may be a good starting point for discussion 

with the State DOT and is a useful tool for documenting compliance with individual sections of 

the regulation.

After the management process review is completed, it is very important to clearly communicate 

your review findings with your State DOT research coordinator counterparts. This review should 

include both everything within the program that is working very well and what can be improved 

based on observations and recommendations. If improvements are needed, establish a 

reasonable time frame and follow up as necessary. The formality of the final report may 

1

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/general/spr/subpartB/index.cfm, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/spr/10048/10048.pdf
5 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

depend on the division. Some reviewers will write a very formal report that is like other division 

program reviews and share it with higher levels of management at the State DOT. Others may 

document findings informally and share them only with SPR-B program managers. This choice 

may depend on the formality of the review and your relationship with the State DOT. No matter 

the formality, ensure that you properly document the results to establish a clear history of the 

SPR-B research program’s status for future SPR-B research coordinators.
6 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE 

MANAGEMENT PROCESS

23 CFR 420.209(a)(1)-(7) identifies the required elements of a research management process. 

This list serves as the foundation of any State’s research management process; it does not 

represent the maximum, nor does it limit any innovations or variations. It outlines what FHWA 

requires a research management process to cover and offers clear instructions on how to 

determine if a process is compliant. Many State DOT management processes are documented 

in the State’s research manual, which is typically approved by the division office as part of the 

Stewardship and Oversight Agreement. A detailed breakdown of the regulations, their 

purposes, and how to approach reviewing them follows:

1. An interactive process for identification and prioritization of RD&T activities for inclusion 

in an RD&T work program—23 CFR 420.209(a)(1): 

It is recommended that State DOTs not pick research projects in a vacuum but have an 

open and competitive process that compares submitted projects against State DOT 

objectives and needs. An interactive process includes discussing projects, convening a 

group with different professional backgrounds, and implementing a selection 

mechanism that treats all projects fairly and justifies outcomes.

2. Use of all FHWA planning and research funds set aside for RD&T activities, either 

internally or for participation in transportation pooled fund studies or other cooperative 

RD&T programs, to the maximum extent possible—23 CFR 420.209(a)(2): 

Each State is provided a minimum of 25 percent of all SPR funds for research projects—

23 U.S.C.505 (b)(1). State DOTs should not be accumulating large amounts of unused 

funds for any purpose. There may be some instances of accumulated funds for planned 

future use, but those situations should be understood and reasonable. The expectation 

is that all research funds get used within their period of availability. The funds are 

allocated to the States from the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund under 

contract authority, are subject to obligation limitation, and are available as stated in 23 

U.S.C. 118(b) for a period including the current Federal fiscal year plus 3 additional 

years. 

3. Procedures for tracking program activities, schedules, accomplishments, and fiscal 

commitments—23 CFR 420.209(a)(3): 

A main component of the research management process is the tracking element. When 

projects are selected, it is important to document how a State DOT continues to 

monitor, track, and report on the project milestones and budget. The division office can 

check to see how the State DOT stores this information and makes it available. Do they 
7 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

use a website to house progress tracking methods, or is there another way to obtain this 

information? If the information is too vague in describing progress, a conversation with 

the State DOT is warranted.

4. Support and use of the Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) database for 

program development, reporting of active RD&T activities, and input of the final 

report information—23 CFR 420.209(a)(4): 

At this time, State DOTs are expected to upload reports to the Transportation Research 

International Documentation (TRID) database, which compiles the records from the 

Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) TRIS database and the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Joint Transportation Research Centre’s 

International Transport Research Documentation database. The link to the TRID website 

is https://trid.trb.org/. The website contains training materials, frequently asked 

questions, and further instructions to upload reports and navigate website materials.

Once the research is complete and a final report has been published, a best practice 

includes a State DOT-administered clearinghouse structure that can showcase reports 

and provide access to those interested. Electronic versions of the reports are preferred, 

but hard-copy versions can be distributed or housed in a State DOT library if one is 

available. Reports should not be removed or made inaccessible.

5. Procedures to determine the effectiveness of the State DOT's management process in 

implementing the RD&T program, to determine the utilization of the State DOT's RD&T 

outputs, and to facilitate peer exchanges of its RD&T Program on a periodic basis—

23 CFR 420.209(a)(5): 

Many disciplines have adopted performance-based approaches, and that extends to the 

research program. The effectiveness of a research program can be determined in 

different ways, but the key aspect is that funds are obligated (both timely and 

completely), projects get completed with published reports, and a State DOT 

cooperatively participates in national initiatives (including the National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program and TPF when appropriate). There are a variety of ways to 

monitor these procedures and agreeing on a preferred approach is left up to the FHWA 

division and the State DOT. This success can vary across State DOTs, and it is important 

to understand your State DOT’s approach and intent. A common method to track 

success is by including research targets in stewardship and oversight agreement. This 

method can be modified and altered to best reflect the current practice at the State 

DOT. 

Once research projects are complete and reports are published, how the State DOT uses 

that information to beneficially impact and support the agency is important to know. 
8 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

6. Procedures for documenting RD&T activities through the preparation of final reports: As 

a minimum, documentation must include data collected, analyses performed, 

conclusions, and recommendations. The State DOT must actively implement 

appropriate research findings and should document benefits—23 CFR 420.209(a)(6): 

This section identifies the minimum requirements for research project final reports. 

Generally, the report includes what is being tested, why it is being tested, what 

proposed benefits from the testing are expected, what happened, and how the findings 

can be implemented. If research projects are being completed and reports do not 

provide enough information on achievements and implementable findings, a 

conversation with the State DOT is appropriate. If a common theme of nonactionable 

results from research or a continuous lack of follow-through is observed, this 

observation should raise a flag. The purpose of research is to find innovative, 

cost-effective, and resource-effective approaches to transportation infrastructure, 

planning, and other areas. If the research being done is not achieving this, corrections 

must take place.

7. Participation in peer exchanges of its RD&T management process and of other State DOT 

programs on a periodic basis: To assist peer exchange teams in conducting an effective 

exchange, the State DOT must provide to them the information and documentation 

required to be collected and maintained under this subpart. Travel and other costs 

associated with the State DOT's peer exchange may be identified as a line item in the 

State DOT's work program and will be eligible for 100 percent Federal funding. The peer 

exchange team must prepare a written report of the exchange—23 CFR 420.209(a)(7): 

The peer exchange is a cornerstone of the research program and occurs on a periodic 

basis (every 3−5 yr).2 It allows State DOTs to use SPR funds at a 100-percent Federal 

share toward travel and other costs associated with the State DOT’s peer exchange. The 

peer exchange can provide an opportunity for State DOT research management staff to 

evaluate the management process. 

2

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/general/spr/subpartB/spr_subpartB.pdf
9 

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

REVIEW NOTES 

 Ensure that the State DOT has documentation that describes the State DOT’s research 

management process for the research program. The State DOT’s research management 

process for selecting and implementing RD&T activities must be developed by the State 

DOT and submitted to the FHWA division office for approval.

 Confirm that the State DOT has documented procedures to determine the 

effectiveness of its research management process in implementing the research 

program.

 Confirm that the State DOT has written procedures for documenting research activities 

through the preparation of final reports. As a minimum, the documentation must 

include data collected, analyses performed, conclusions, and recommendations. The 

State DOT must actively implement appropriate research findings and should 

document benefits.

 Ensure that the State DOT has procedures for tracking program activities, schedules, 

accomplishments, and fiscal commitments.
10

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

REVIEW OUTCOMES

State DOT Is Compliant

If a State DOT is compliant with the management process, the division office can then approve 

FHWA planning and research funds for RD&T activities. Documentation that describes the State 

DOT’s research management process and the procedures for selecting and implementing RD&T 

activities must be developed by the State DOT and submitted to the FHWA division office for 

approval. Significant changes in the research management process also must be submitted by 

the State DOT to FHWA for approval. The State DOT must make the documentation available, 

as necessary, to facilitate peer exchanges.

State DOT Is Not Compliant

If the division determines during the periodic review (or sooner) that the State DOT is not 

complying with the requirements of 23 CFR 420.209 or that it is not performing in accordance 

with its RD&T research management process, then the following applies:

1. The division administrator may grant conditional approval. A conditional approval must 

cite those areas of the State DOT’s research management process that are deficient and 

require that the deficiencies be corrected within 6 mo of conditional approval—23 CFR 

420.209(c). 

2. If the Division Administrator determines that the State is not complying with the 

requirements of 23 CFR 420.201-209 or is not performing in accordance with its RD&T 

management process, the Division Administrator shall issue a written notice of 

proposed determination of noncompliance to the State DOT—23 CFR 420.209(d): 

a. The notice will set forth the reasons for the proposed determination and inform the 

State DOT that it may reply in writing within 30 calendar days from the date of the 

notice. 

b. The State DOT’s reply should address the deficiencies cited in the notice and provide 

documentation, as necessary.

c. If the State DOT and the Division Administrator cannot resolve the differences set forth 

in the determination of nonconformity, the State DOT may appeal to the Federal 

Highway Administrator, whose action shall constitute the final decision of the FHWA. An 

adverse decision shall result in immediate withdrawal of approval of FHWA planning and 

research funds for the State DOT's RD&T activities until the State DOT is in full 

compliance.
11

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

METHODS OF REVIEW 

• Process review—Some divisions accomplish their review of the SPR-B management 

process through a standard FHWA process review. This type of review typically includes 

staff from both the division and the State DOT and is typically more formal. A process 

review consists of developing a teamwork plan, documenting findings, and tracking 

follow-up activities. Keep in mind that conducting a formal process review can be quite 

extensive and may take longer than the other methods described below.

• Research program review—Many divisions perform a research program review, which 

typically takes a general look at the entire research program, rather than a focused 

process review. The National Highway Institute offers training on “Conducting Effective 

Program Reviews.”3 A benefit of performing this type of review is that a holistic view of 

the general research program illustrates how different aspects interact with one 

another. This type of review also provides the opportunity to suggest improvements by 

understanding the research program risk. 

• Planning-review combination—Some divisions accomplish the review of the SPR-B 

management process as part of the overall statewide planning process review (Part A). 

A short summary outlining regulatory requirements is provided to the State DOT; 

subsequently, a document outlining any needed corrective actions, commendations, or 

recommendations is provided. 

• Peer exchange—Some divisions use peer exchanges to perform the review with other 

State DOTs. Other State DOTs offer different perspectives based on their own lessons 

learned and success stories. Sharing research management processes across State lines 

is a great way to generate new implementation activities or refresh programs. Peer 

exchanges are often held in person, so in many cases, the review of the research 

management process is streamlined. They also have the added value of potentially 

completing two research program requirements at the same time.

3

https://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/course-search?tab=0&key=program+reviews&sf=0&course_no=310120
12

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

Types of Documentation

• Action plan—Some divisions develop a review action plan that captures corrective 

actions, priorities, and completion goals at the conclusion of the review. This type of 

documentation is considered a best practice since it provides accountability for actions, 

sets a timeline, and provides a reporting tool for documentation and implementation.

• Spreadsheet—Some divisions provide a spreadsheet outlining how the State is 

complying with each part of the regulation. The spreadsheet includes a reference to the 

applicable regulation, a description, a “yes or no” box for compliance, and a “notes” 

field. This type of documentation is considered a best practice because it clearly conveys 

the findings from the review and the ultimate determinations if the division finds that 

the State DOT is meeting requirements.

• Annual summary—Some divisions provide a 1–2-page annual summary of the research 

program review. A bulleted list showcases how requirements for each of the regulations 

are met. Findings and suggested improvements are also noted in the summary, helping 

the State DOT improve conformity to regulations.

Who Should Be Included? 

• State DOT research staff—It greatly facilitates collecting information and providing 

recommendations when the State DOT is involved from the start. 

• Division staff from your office—Including division staff provides an opportunity for fresh 

perspectives. This approach usually works well since the research program is not highly 

technical. For example, the division administrator has the approval authority for the 

State’s research management process, so it may be worthwhile to include upper 

management in the review. Finance staff can help navigate the complexity of equipment 

purchases, administration staff can help review researcher travel authorizations, and so 

on.

• FHWA Headquarters—They can provide a national perspective on minimum 

requirements and best practices and are willing and usually available to assist as 

needed.

• Research staff—Researchers on the review team can provide behind-the-scenes 

information on how well things are working.

• Persons implementing the research/field staff—Include the beneficiaries/users of the 

actual research project deliverables if possible. Involving someone from this group can 

help close the loop for the entire research cycle.

• Neighboring State DOT and FHWA division offices—These groups usually participate in 

peer exchanges, but they can also help to serve on review teams.
13

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

Frequency

• Formal review should be completed periodically every 3−5 yr. 

• Risk assessments can be a good tool for determining if more frequent reviews are 

necessary.

• Reviews can be considered when there are major changes to the research program or 

significant changes in staff as these aspects can influence the research management 

process procedures. 

• Informal review of the State DOT research management process may occur through 

regular meetings with State DOT research staff and involvement on various research 

projects throughout the year and is highly recommended.

Supporting Material for Review

The following list includes potential supporting material to review in the State DOT 

Management process: 

• State DOT research manual.

• Annual Performance and Expenditure Report.

• SPR work plans (including amendments).

• State DOT annual research showcase publishing (if applicable).

• Sample quarterly and final reports from other research projects.

• Procedures and manuals from neighboring States.

• Previous management process review.

• Previous performance reports.

If you would like to see examples of division reviews of the management process or upload 

your State example, please see the R&T Coordinator SharePoint site.
14

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

APPENDIX: MANAGEMENT PROCESS REVIEW CHECKLIST 

The following table is an example of how a division can document the review of the management process with their State DOT. The use of this table is 

not a requirement. There is a lot of flexibility in how each division reviews their State DOT’s research management process. 

Prior to starting this worksheet, evaluate when the last division review of the State DOT’s research management process was, what its findings were, and 

what was recommended.

Required Elements Questions To Consider

Division Assessment 

of Compliance

YES/ NO

Division Comments

An interactive process for identification 

and prioritization of RD&T activities for 

inclusion in an RD&T work program

(23 CFR 420.209(a)(1))

• Does the State DOT have a well-documented and 

clearly written research management process for SPR-B 

research oversight purposes?

• Does the State DOT have a research management 

process that addresses selecting and prioritizing RD&T 

activities for division approval?

• Does the management process need to be updated 

with new staffing?

 

Use of all FHWA planning and research 

funds set aside for RD&T activities, 

either internally or for participation in 

TPF studies or other cooperative RD&T 

programs, to the maximum extent 

possible (23 CFR 420.209(a)(2))

• Does the State DOT use all the required funds set aside 

for their RD&T program? (Not less than 25 percent of 

the funds set aside by 23 USC 505(a) each fiscal year 

shall be expended for RD&T activities 

(23 CFR 420.107)). 

 
15

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

Required Elements Questions To Consider

Division Assessment 

of Compliance

YES/ NO

Division Comments

Procedures for tracking program 

activities, schedules, accomplishments, 

and fiscal commitments 

(23 CFR 420.209(a)(3))

• Does the State DOT have procedures for tracking 

program-related activities, monitoring fiscal 

expenditures, and noting accomplishments?

• As part of the research management process, are there 

documented procedures for the review and for FHWA 

approval of modifications to the SPR-B work program?

• Did the State submit an annual performance 

expenditure report within 90 d of the end of the fiscal 

year (23 CFR 420.117(b)(1))?

 

Support and use of the TRIS database 

for program development, reporting of 

active RD&T activities, and input of final 

report information 

(23 CFR 420.209(a)(4)). 

• Is the State DOT using the TRIS database for program 

development, reporting of active RD&T activities, and 

input of final report information?

 

Procedures to ascertain the 

effectiveness of the State DOT's 

management process in implementing 

the RD&T program, to determine the 

utilization of the State DOT's RD&T 

outputs, and to facilitate peer 

exchanges of its RD&T program on a 

periodic basis (23 CFR 420.209(a)(5))

• How does the State DOT measure the effectiveness of 

their management process toward the implementation 

of their research program?

• How does the State DOT determine the benefits of the 

RD&T program?

• Does the State DOT facilitate periodic peer exchanges

(every 3−5 yr)? 

 
16

FHWA Division Review of State Department of Transportation Management Process

Required Elements Questions To Consider

Division Assessment 

of Compliance

YES/ NO

Division Comments

Procedures for documenting RD&T 

activities through the preparation of 

final reports: At a minimum,

documentation must include data 

collected, analyses performed, 

conclusions, and recommendations. The 

State DOT must actively implement 

appropriate research findings and 

should document benefits 

(23 CFR 420.209 (a)(6)).

• Does the State DOT have a process for documenting 

final reports for each RD&T activity?

• Does the State DOT have documentation on how 

research projects are implemented?

• Are the benefits of the research projects clearly 

documented?

 

Participation in peer exchanges of its 

RD&T management process and of 

other State DOT programs on a periodic 

basis: To assist peer exchange teams in 

conducting an effective exchange, the 

State DOT must provide to them the 

information and documentation 

required to be collected and maintained 

under this subpart. The peer 

exchange team must prepare a written 

report of the exchange 

(23 CFR 420.209(a)(7)).

• Does the State DOT conduct a peer exchange 

periodically (every 3−5 yr)?

• How does the State DOT document the periodic peer 

exchange?

• Does the State DOT participate in other State DOT peer 

exchanges?

• When was the last peer exchange conducted?

 

The State DOT must include a 

certification that is in full compliance 

with the requirements of this subpart in 

each RD&T work program 

(23 CFR 420.209(c)).

• Does the State DOT include a certification of 

compliance in the SPR-B work program?