2

Appendix F – S&O Budget Calculation Methodologies .......................................................... 47

Appendix G – Federal Lands Access Program Project Memorandum of Agreement.............. 50

Appendix H – CAP Template ................................................................................................... 59

 I. BACKGROUND 

Congress has charged the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with the administration of 

title 23 funded programs and projects in accordance with associated laws, regulations, and 

policies. This responsibility has remained inherent to FHWA, in collaboration with Federal and 

non-Federal partners, and consistent throughout each enacted legislative act under title 23. With 

this charge, FHWA, Federal Lands Highways (FLH) is responsible for the stewardship and 

oversight (S&O), coordination and administration of highway programs as outlined in title 23, 

chapter 2, sections 201 through 204. Additionally, FLH is authorized under 23 United States 

Code (U.S.C.) 308 to perform engineering or other services on behalf of other Federal and State 

partner agencies and co-administers programs under title 23 (U.S.C.) sections 125 and 210. 

FLH partners with a host of partner agencies to include Federal Lands Management Agencies

(FLMAs), independent Federal agencies (IFAs), Tribal governments, the United States Military, 

State Departments of Transportation (SDOT), other State agencies, and local public agencies

(LPA). These partnerships also encompass projects that are delivered by partners through 

various types of agreements with FLH. This presents unique S&O considerations, challenges, 

and opportunities where FLH is held accountable. 

Unlike the Federal-aid process, FLH works routinely under a federal-to-federal arrangement with 

other Federal agencies and tribal governments. This is an important distinction and the protocols 

herein reflect this difference. Therefore, the success of this overall program is dependent on the 

collaboration, coordination, and support between partner agencies, at multiple levels, with 

unique missions and values.

II. SCOPE

This S&O Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) applies to projects delivered by FLH, FLMAs, 

States and locals under the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), under 23 U.S.C. 

Section 203, and the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), under 23 U.S.C Section 204. 

This SOP supersedes previous S&O guidance issued in 20141

, 20162 and 20183. The SOPs

entitled “Programming Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) Projects and 

Administration” and “Process and Procedures for Administering the Federal Lands Access 

Program (FLAP) for projects administered by Federal-aid [For projects programmed for 

1 Federal Lands Highway – Stewardship and Oversight Guidance, December 2, 2014. 2 Stewardship and Oversight Guidance: Supplemental Instructions for FLTP Partners, January 6, 2016.

3 Memorandum: New S&O Process for Programmatic Delivery of FLMA-Delivered Funded Projects, August 3, 2018
3

delivery by the State Departments of Transportation (SDOT) or the Local Public Agencies 

(LPAs) through the SDOTs]” are complementary to this document and referenced throughout.

III. PURPOSE

The intent of this document is to implement an effective and efficient S&O process that includes:

• Simplifying and streamlining S&O processes through agency principles and practices to 

prioritize and manage risks to support agency mission and delivery;

• Holding FLH and Partner agencies accountable for title 23 funded projects; 

• Providing clear roles and expectations for administration and selection of projects 

funded under the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP);

o Institutionalizing S&O related FLTP procedures supporting the development 

of a Program of Projects (POP).

o Memorializing S&O related FLTP procedures supporting the financial 

accountability of program funds used by FLMAs for project delivery and 

administration. 

• Leveraging the FHWA’s Federal-aid expertise and resources for implementing S&O 

under the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP); and

• Describing the POP development process and establishing the multi-year Program of 

Projects (POP) Database as FLH’s official program of projects system of record.

This SOP provides FLH staff with direction on:

1. identifying the breadth and scope of S&O for Partner delivered projects, as well as 

documentation provided for FLH delivered projects, funded under 23 U.S.C. Sections 

203 and 204; 

2. providing consistent implementation of S&O tools and processes across all FLH units; 

3. identifying the roles and responsibilities of FHWA offices and staff, particularly FLH 

Headquarters (HFL) and FLH Division staff; 

4. identifying and evaluating S&O protocols;

5. reconciling recurring questions on specific project types in the FLTP multi-year 

program of projects; 

6. providing HFL led standard framework for program and project reviews to the FLH DO 

on program administration and project delivery practices. 
4

IV. ACRONYMS

Acronyms used in this SOP include: 

AA – Associate Administrator

AoF – Authorization of Funds

AOP – Aquatic Organism Passage

BLM – Bureau of Land Management

BOR – Bureau of Reclamation

CA – Cooperative Agreement

CAP – Compliance Assessment Program

CBO – Chief of Business Operations

CE – Construction Engineering

CFL – Central Federal Lands

CN – Construction

CR – Continuing Resolution

DD – Division Director

DOT – Department of Transportation

EFL – Eastern Federal Lands

ERFO – Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

ERM – Enterprise Risk Management

FA DO – Federal-Aid Division Office

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FIRE – Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation

FLAP – Federal Lands Access Program

FLH – Federal Lands Highway

FLH DO – Federal Lands Highway Division Office 

FLMA – Federal Land Management Agency

FLPP – Federal Lands Planning Program

FLTP – Federal Lands Transportation Program

FS – Forest Service

FTA – Federal Transit Administration

FTE – Full-time Equivalent

FWS – Fish and Wildlife Service

FY – Fiscal Year

GTC – General Terms and Conditions

HFL – Headquarters Federal Lands Highway
5

HFPD – Office of Federal Lands Highway Programs Director

HQ – Headquarters

LPA – Local Public Agency

LT – Leadership Team

MOA – Memorandum of Agreement (see also PA and PMP)

NPM – National Program Manager

NPS – National Park Service

O&M – Operations and Maintenance

PA – Project Agreement, interchangeable with MOA and PMP

PCS - Permanent Change of Station

PDC – Programming Decisions Committee

PE – Preliminary Engineering

PgM – Program Manager

PMIS – Project Management Information System 

PMP – Project Management Plan – interchangeable with MOA and PA

PMR – Procurement Management Review

POC – Point of Contact

POP – Program of Projects

PP&E – Planning, Programming, and Environment

PS&E – Plans, Specifications and Estimate

PT – Presidio Trust

ROW – Right of Way

SDOT – State Department of Transportation

SES – Senior Executive Service

SOP – Standard Operating Procedure

STIP – Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

S&O – Stewardship and Oversight

TIP – Transportation Improvement Program

USACE – US Army Corps of Engineers

USBR – Bureau of Reclamation

WFL – Western Federal Lands

V. DEFINITIONS 

1. Stewardship – The efficient and effective management of the public funds that have been 

entrusted to FHWA.
6

2. Oversight – The act of ensuring that the Federal highway programs and projects are 

delivered consistent with laws, regulations, and policies. 

3. Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Levels:

a. For FLMA delivered FLTP projects:

i. Programmatic Level S&O – FLMA delivered projects whereby the S&O 

responsibility has been delegated to the FLMA. The FLMA is responsible 

for storing and maintaining S&O documentation as described in the 

General Terms and Conditions (GTC) in the allocation memorandum.

ii. Project Level S&O – FLMA delivered projects for which S&O 

responsibility is shared between FLH and the FLMA. The FLMA will be 

required to submit project documentation for FLH action per the S&O 

checklist attached to the project agreement (PA or PMP). 

b. For Partner/LPA delivered FLAP Projects:

i. Federal-aid Oversight – This applies to projects delivered by the SDOT 

or the LPA, as the sub-recipient through the SDOT, where the SDOT is 

performing S&O in accordance with the S&O Agreement executed 

between the FA DO and the SDOT.

ii. FLH Division Oversight– These projects are delivered by LPAs, not as 

SDOT sub-recipients covered in the Federal-aid S&O Agreement. Instead 

these projects are administered under a cooperative agreement (CA) 

between FLH and LPA whereby FLH has S&O responsibility per the CA. 

FLH will store and maintain project documentation in accordance with 

FLH’s records management policy and per the FHWA Record 

Management Order 1324.1B. This scenario will be phased out for LPAs

when FHWA develops overarching direct recipient S&O guidance to 

address new programs enacted in “BIL” to include where the FA DOs will 

perform S&O directly with LPAs. FLAP direct recipient projects will fall 

under the purview of this new guidance and will be administered 

accordingly. 

Note: The FLH DO may reach an understanding with the FA DO where FLH and 

the FA DO partner to provide S&O to administer these projects. In these 

instances, the FA DOs will provide S&O support to the FLH DOs. For state nonDOT agencies, the FLH DO will continue to provide S&O.

c. FLH Delivery – This includes projects that are delivered by FLH. FLH will store 

and maintain project documentation in accordance with FLH’s records 

management policy and the FHWA Record Management Order 1324.1B.
7

4. Preservation – Work that is planned and performed to improve or sustain the condition 

of the transportation facility in a state of good repair. Preservation activities generally 

do not add capacity or structural value but restores the overall condition of the 

transportation facility (see FHWA’s Guidance on Highway Preservation and 

Maintenance).

5. Bridge Preservation – Actions or strategies that prevent, delay, or reduce deterioration of 

bridges or bridge elements. Effective bridge preservation actions are intended to delay the 

need for costly rehabilitation or replacement while bridges are still in good or fair 

condition and before the onset of serious deterioration, extending their service life. 

Bridge preservation encompasses both cyclical and condition-based activities applied to 

highway structures (for specific examples see the Bridge Preservation Guide).

6. Preventative Maintenance – Cost-effective means of extending the useful life of a 

highway or bridge. This activity is title 23 eligible. Routine maintenance activities differ 

from preventive maintenance and are not eligible for federal funds. Routine maintenance 

activities require regular reoccurring attention and encompass work that is performed in 

reaction to an event, season, or over all deterioration of the transportation asset. A few 

examples of ineligible routine maintenance activities include removal of trash, litter, dead 

animals, hazardous material, and snow, application of deicing chemicals, asphalt patches 

with no membrane on concrete deck removal, and storm damage. 

7. Transit Operations and Maintenance – Transit operations and maintenance include the 

day-to-day activities necessary for transit operations and equipment to perform their 

intended function in an efficient and cost-effective manner. 

8. Engineered Surfaces – Facilities (typically roadways and trails) with an engineered 

surface, i.e., asphalt, concrete, an elevated wood/composite structure, or a well 

compacted crushed aggregate or chemically stabilized earth surface that is stable and 

firm in all weather conditions.

9. Non-engineered Surfaces – All other facilities not meeting the engineered surface

definition. Typically, these are roadway and trail facilities with a native surface.

10. Approval – Written authorization issued by the FLH Associate Administrator (AA) or 

the FLH AA’s designee, to perform a function for which prior authorization by the 

Associate Administrator is required under 23 U.S.C. Sections 201-- 204. These 

functions are specified in project agreements, regulation, or law. Without approval, 

the delivery entity cannot proceed to the next phase of the project and funds will not be 

released by FLH. Two common authorizations include FLH DO’s approval of PS&E

for partner-delivered projects and concurrence with NEPA documentation prepared by 

partners.

11. Concurrence – The agency responsible for S&O provides agreement for a specific 

action or function to allow the next work phase to be executed. The S&O agency may 

request additional information as appropriate for current or future work phases to 

continue.
8

12. Project Agreement (PA) – A signed agreement between FLH and one or more partner 

agencies that include scope, schedule, and budget for the project as well as the roles 

and responsibilities of each party. A PA is required for all projects identified in the 

FLTP Project Level S&O and FLH Delivery categories.

VI. STANDARD PROCEDURES

This SOP builds on existing SOPs that provide guidance, processes and procedures, and S&O 

roles and responsibilities for FLTP and FLAP funded projects. Along with these existing SOPs, 

it aims to further holistically clarify S&O responsibilities/activities and the assessment processes 

that will be used to evaluate compliance with key title 23 requirements.

FLHs’ official multi-year Program of Projects (POP) database coupled with the annual FY 

Obligation Plan (FY Ob Plan), jointly developed and coordinated between FLH and partner 

agencies, will serve as the official repository of approved projects. Within FLH’s POP database,

the delivery entity is identified for FLH staff’s use and awareness. For detailed instructions on 

how the POP and FY Ob Plan are developed, refer to the FLTP and FLAP SOPs links provided 

in corresponding sections.

A. FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

To promote consistency and avoid duplication, refer to the SOP entitled “Programming Federal 

Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) Projects and Administration4. For S&O information 

pertaining to FLTP Program Administration refer to Section A of the FLTP SOP. For details 

regarding project selection, coordination and approval refer to Section B. Also included in 

Section B are roles and responsibilities and how annual constrained FY Ob Plan are created and 

jointly coordinated prior to October 1st of each FY. Information impacting S&O can be found in 

the FLTP Program Implementation Guidance5.

This section and related S&O processes described are amended in this document with the intent 

to streamline the process and leverage Federal to Federal relationships, while maintaining 

oversight on Project Level S&O projects delivered by FLMAs. When an FLMA elects to deliver 

a title 23 funded project, FLH must ensure the delivery process used by the FLMA meet 

requirements of the title. To do so, FLH will take either a programmatic or a project level 

approach to S&O based on the complexity of the project and conversations between FLH DOs 

and FLMAs. 

 

A.1. S&O Level Determination

To help guide the discussion and determination on the proper S&O level and to encourage 

consistency, Table A-1 was developed to list common project components and their typical S&O 

Level. These are intended to provide typical project scenarios; it is not an all-inclusive list. After 

4 http://flhnet.fhwa.dot.gov/docs/fltp/Programming-Funding-FLTP-Projects-Administration-SOP.pdf 5 https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/docs/federal-lands/programs/federal-lands-transportation-program/8186/fltp-guidancecleared.pdf
9

joint project discussions, it may be determined that a project requires a different S&O level from 

what is suggested in Table A-1. 

FLH will coordinate with FLMA staff to determine the S&O level of the project based on

discussions and/or scoping visit reports. Additional information can be requested or gathered by 

FLH before making an S&O level determination. 

If the FLMA and FLH DO cannot come to an agreement on the appropriate S&O level, the FLH

DO and the FLMA should use the following process:

1. Collaboratively complete an FLTP Project Discussion Questionnaire (see Appendix A). 

2. The FLH DO and FLMA will use their professional judgment on how to address outlier 

projects and, where appropriate, err on the side of collaboration.

3. If agreement cannot be reached, it should be elevated internally within the FLH DO and 

the FLMA. The DD has final delegated FLH authority to discuss and reconcile 

disagreements with FLMA staff regardless if FLMA staff are located regionally or in the 

HQ office. 

4. As part of HFL’s annual review process, NPMs and the S&O Coordinator will regularly 

review the POP dbase to provide a second level tier examination of S&O levels across all 

projects. If projects cited as programmatic appear to be more aligned with project level, 

they will proactively reach-out to the applicable division office to better understand how 

they arrived at that status. This is a purposeful check and balance to ensure the Tables 

and Questionnaire are utilized in accordance with this S&O SOP. This process will aid in 

identifying efficiencies, trends and, best practices.

Table A-1 – Typical FLTP S&O Levels based on Project Components

Project 

Component

Programmatic Level S&O Project Level S&O

1 Transit Equipment

and Services (via 

Concessionaire)

Purchase of driver-led buses and shuttles 

owned by FLMA. 

Includes highway and water transit 

services, charging stations

Purchase of autonomous 

vehicles/buses/shuttles owned by the FLMA

Purchase of Ferryboats by FLMA

2 Transit related 

Capital 

Improvements

Transit Shelters / Public Stops / EV 

Charging stations

3 Docks and Boat 

Ramps

Rehabilitation or replacement of boat 

ramps

New construction, replacement, 

rehabilitation, preservation of water dock 

facilities

4 Parking Lots New construction, reconstruction, rehab. 

preventative maintenance, signing and/or 

striping

Complex parking lot and safety issues

5 Realignment and 

Widening

Trail realignment Roadway realignment or substantial 

widening

6 Design Exceptions Minor design exceptions Major design exceptions related to safety

7 Geotechnical Structural foundations that meet 

geotechnical site requirements (bridges 

without special/complex substructures)

Embankments with certain heights or soil 

conditions that have a high level of risk

Major retaining walls (cut or fill side) with 

certain heights or in soil conditions that 

have a high level of risk
10

8 Hydraulic Minor culvert replacements <48” Major hydraulic analyses

Major culvert replacements >48”

Scour analysis for bridge foundations

9 Structures/Bridges Standardized/prefabricated timber and trail 

bridges with standardized substructures

Cyclical maintenance activities

Bridge construction and replacement

Major work required to restore the 

structural integrity of a bridge, as well as 

work necessary to correct major safety 

defects.

Condition-based Maintenance Activities6 on 

bridge components in response to known 

defects

10 Paved or Gravel 

Surfaces

Paved - Preservation and preventative 

maintenance activities including; asphalt 

crack sealing, chip sealing, slurry or 

micro-surfacing, thin and ultra-thin hotmix asphalt overlay, concrete joint sealing, 

diamond grinding, dowel-bar retrofit, and 

isolated, partial and/or full-depth concrete 

repairs to restore functionality of the slab; 

e.g., edge spalls, or corner breaks only.

Gravel - Preservation, preventative 

maintenance, and rehabilitation work 

performed on the road which generally 

involving loosening of a significant 

amount of material, adding aggregate 

material, and changing part of, or much of 

the cross section of the roadway, including 

foreslopes and ditches.

Dust abatement

Stockpiling of gravel for maintenance use

is not eligible under title 23

11 Environmental Routine Categorical Exclusions or EA’s

Routine environmental mitigation

EIS

Complex environmental mitigation?

12 Right of Way Transfer or formalizing a Highway 

Easement Deed with local agency

Purchase of non-federal ROW

13 Miscellaneous Restrooms

Roadside safety hardware (guardrail, crash 

cushions, breakaway signs/lighting, etc.) 

in compliance with SDOT standards and 

details

Wildlife crossings

EV Charging Stations

Roadside safety hardware NOT in 

compliance with SDOT standards and 

details

New Emerging Technologies/Initiatives 

NOTE: In addition to the project attributes listed above that are used to determine the 

project complexity and the S&O level, the total cost of the project is also a consideration –

the higher the cost, the higher the potential risk to the program. Therefore, FLH determined 

6 Condition-based maintenance activities are performed on bridge components or elements in response to known defects. Condition-based 

maintenance improves the condition of that portion of the element but may or may not result in an increase in the component condition rating.
11

that a two-million-dollar mark will be used. The two-million-dollar mark is not to be used to 

identify delivery agency and should not automatically cause projects to be assigned to a 

higher S&O level but instead to ensure collaborative discussions regarding potential risks 

and delivery mitigation factors occur when this mark is reached. The intent is for the S&O 

level to be jointly determined based on the content of the discussion.

A.2. S&O Requirements

A.2.a Programmatic S&O Requirements

The title 23 requirements and FHWA’s expectations of the FLMA are included in FLH’s 

Allocation Memorandum GTC and reporting requirements. These provisions satisfy the S&O 

requirements. FLH staff may also elect to request project documentation on any FLMA 

delivered Programmatic S&O Level projects at any time, if desired. Moreover, this subset of 

FLMA delivered projects may be included in program and/or project reviews led by HFL

program staff. 

Projects determined to only need Programmatic level S&O typically do not require a separate 

project agreement. Project documentation should not differ from that of a Project Level S&O 

project. The only difference is that a Programmatic Level S&O project does not require FLH 

action to advance. When the FLH DD approves FLMA delivered projects and the FLTP funds 

are transferred to the FLMA, FLH transfers the project S&O responsibility to the FLMA, while 

retaining the overall program S&O responsibility. Therefore, the GTC requirements contained in 

the FHWA’s allocation memorandum apply. 

A.2.b Project Level S&O Requirements

Projects identified as Project level S&O require the development of an S&O checklist (Appendix 

B) and a project agreement (Appendix E) describing the project documentation to be submitted 

throughout the life of the project for FLH action. The FLMA is responsible for timely submittals 

of the project documentation to the applicable FLH DO at the different project phases for FLH 

action for funding allocation. Similarly, the FLH DO is responsible for concurring, reviewing 

and/or approving submittals in a timely manner so funding for the next phase of the project can 

be provided to the FLMA. The following Project Level S&O requirements apply throughout the 

life of the project. When a FLMA elects to deliver a title 23 funded project, FLH must ensure the 

delivery processes used by the FLMA meet requirements of the title. A PA will be used to 

document the specific roles of the FLH DO and the FLMA as well the deliverables, funding 

sources, project specific requirements, etc. Please note, for some agencies the term “agreement” 

carries certain legal requirements. The title of the document may be changed to make it more 

applicable for its intended use. Accordingly, the following procedures and tools described 

below:

1. The FLH DO Point of Contact (POC) will generate an S&O checklist jointly with the 

FLMA. See Appendix B. The S&O checklist includes documentation and deliverables 

expected from the FLMA, information needed for the terms of the PA, and defines 
12

actions required by both parties. The items selected on the checklist will be included as 

part of the written PA with the FLMA. The checklist will be tracked by the FLH DO

POC and the FLMA.

2. Specific items to consider for inclusion in the PA are cited in Appendix D. The FLH 

POC and the FLMA, will collaboratively determine how to leverage the items listed 

and/or amend the list based on project requirements in writing. For construction funds, a 

jointly signed PA between the FLMA and the appropriate FLH DO must be completed 

before the funds allocation occurs by the HFL NPM. The PA will reflect the FLH DO

and FLMAs’ S&O role. A sample PA can be found in Appendix E. 

3. During the life of a project, the FLH DO POC and the FLMA will co-manage the 

required actions identified in the PA. The FLMA will provide deliverables to the FLH 

DO POC and the FLH DO POC will ensure deliverables in the written PA and identified 

in the S&O checklist are being received, reviewed, concurred upon, and/or approved as 

necessary. 

• The following documents must be approved (*not just reviewed) by FLH DOs 

before the next phase of project development commences: NEPA document, 

design exceptions, ROW/utility certification, Plans, Specifications, and Estimates 

(95%). 

4. Funding for projects will be allocated by phase (PE, CE/CN) once the FLH DO approves 

the respective documentation provided by the FLMA per the PA. The HFL NPM will 

allocate funds to the FLMA after the FLH DOs POC provides confirmation of approval 

of the appropriate deliverables from the FLMA.

• If the project deliverables are not received in accordance with the timeline 

outlined in the PA, the FLH DO will follow the escalation process/conflict 

resolution matrix in the PA to obtain project documentation and/or deliverables 

from an FLMA. If attempts are not successful, the request should be elevated 

internally between the FLH DO and the FLMA counterpart to achieve resolution.

5. All FLMA delivered, Project Level S&O project documentation, including the executed 

PA, will be stored and maintained by FLH in a single location accessible by all FLH 

staff. The single location will be the official FLH repository for conducting S&O 

assessments. The project documentation stored in this location must be kept current by 

the FLH DOs. This practice supports efficient business practices and easy access to 

project information to support S&O activities by HFL NPMs and potential auditors. The 

FLH DOs will store these files on their respective servers as official records. 

6. It is the discretion of the FLH DOs to visit FLMA delivered project sites and observe the 

delivery practices of Project Level S&O projects. Any planned project visits at the DD 

level will be coordinated with the appropriate FLMA HQ office and communicated to the 

applicable HFL NPMs for their situational awareness. The subset of visit findings and/or 

recommendations that relate to the FLMA HQ must be coordinated through the HFL 

NPM.
13

A.4. FLH Delivered Project Requirements

Projects delivered by FLH DOs will follow the roles and responsibilities established in the PA 

between FLMA and FLH. These roles and responsibilities include similar requirements to the 

FLMA delivered Project Level S&O requirements described above. The FLH DO and the 

FLMA will collaboratively define their roles, responsibilities, terms and actions required by both 

parties in the PA. Although the complexity level of the project may vary, all project 

documentation is required to be shared and reviewed with the FLMA facility owner throughout 

the life of the project, including detailed design information upon request from the FLMA. 

A.5. Agency Force Account7

Per 23 USC 203 (a)(5), FLTP projects are to be performed by contracts awarded by competitive 

bidding. As an exception, agency force account can be used only when the DOT Secretary or the 

Secretary of the appropriate Federal land management agency affirmatively finds that, under the 

circumstances relating to the project, a different method is in the public interest. A “public 

interest” finding (PIF) must be approved by the Secretary (or official designee) of the appropriate 

FLMA, and FLMAs shall provide the PIF and Secretarial approval to FLH. Please note, 

delegation letters are not required. Elements and factors of the PIF may include but are not 

limited to the following:

i. Availability of commercial sources, including small businesses, in the project area,

ii. Effect on the Small and Disadvantage Business Utilization Goals, 

iii. Whether the agency typically has federal employees performing the work,

iv. Estimated cost of federal employee performance versus contractor performance,

v. Project Complexity,

vi. Size of the project,

vii. Location of the project,

viii. Urgency of the need for the project, 

ix. Benefits to the agency for using agency force account,

x. Other internal Federal agency considerations/requirements used to justify use of 

agency force account.

FLH does not approve FLMA agency force account requests. Upon receipt of the PIF and 

Secretary-approval from the FLMA, the FLH DD (or delegated designee) has the 

responsibility to determine that the PIF has addressed the agency force account request 

satisfactorily. FLTP project funds will be made available by HFL to FLMAs only after 

agency force account documentation has been received, reviewed, and concurred on by the 

FLH DD. 

B. FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

To promote consistency and avoid duplication, an existing SOP entitled “Process and Procedures 

for Administering the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) [For projects programmed for 

delivery by the State Departments of Transportation (SDOT) or the Local Public Agencies 

7 The term “agency force account” shall mean the direct performance of transportation construction work by using federal labor, equipment, 

materials, and supplies, in place of a construction contract awarded by competitive bidding. The term shall also include other non-competitive 

bid scenarios for transportation construction projects funded in whole and/or in part with FLTP resources
14

(LPAs) through the SDOTs]” is referred to often throughout the body of this SOP. They are 

complementary and this related SOP can be found at FLAP SOP. 

To promote alignment and leverage FA DO expertise, the S&O responsibilities for projects, 

funded under FLAP, and programmed for delivery by the SDOT and/or LPAs as sub-recipients 

of the SDOT, collectively referred to as “SDOT/LPA-delivered projects” are governed by 

existing Federal-aid S&O protocols and agreements used for 23 U.S.C. Chapter 1 programs. The 

complementary SOP describes the process and roles of all relevant offices for SDOT/LPA 

delivered projects. 

In cases where the Federal-aid/SDOT S&O agreement does not address or apply (e.g. project(s)

where the LPA is a direct recipient of FLAP funds), the FLH DOs will have S&O responsibility

until such time when FHWA develops overarching direct recipient S&O guidance where the FA 

DOs will perform S&O directly with LPAs. Once this new guidance is released, FLAP direct 

recipient projects will fall under its purview and will be administered accordingly. In the 

interim, the following describes S&O requirements for situations where the FLH DO provide 

S&O of the FLAP projects being delivered by direct recipients:

• During the call-for-projects an application is submitted by an LPA proposing to deliver

the project as a direct recipient.

• If the FLAP project is being considered for programming by the PDC and the SDOT 

will not provide S&O through the Federal-aid/SDOT S&O agreement:

o The FLAP Program Manager performs a capabilities assessment of the 

delivery agency (e.g., county, borough, city, town or state non-DOT agency)

to make the determination that the direct recipient can deliver a federally 

funded project;

o The PDC and the FLH DO will need to coordinate the capabilities assessment

with the FA DO for their input.

o DD approves the capability assessment for the delivery agency in consultation 

with the Federal-aid Division Administrator;

o PDC programs the project and notifies the applicant of project selection only 

after approval of the delivery agent.

• The FLH DO may reach an understanding with the FA DO where FLH and the FA DOs 

partner to provide S&O to administer these projects. In these instances, the FA DOs 

will provide S&O support to the FLH DOs.

o In cases where a non-certified LPA is the delivery entity, it is important to 

involve the FA DO both during programming and during the S&O.

• A project MOA is executed between the FLH DO and the direct recipient outlining 

scope, schedule, budget, and roles and responsibilities.

• SDOT will not provide S&O through the Federal-aid FHWA/SDOT Agreement and is 

not a party to the project MOA;
15

• Once the project MOA is executed, the FLH DO, through their Acquisitions Branch, 

will execute a CA with the direct recipient following the guidelines of Acquisition 

Procedural Memorandum (APM-41) and the CA Template.

• Funds are made available directly from FHWA to the direct recipient by means of the 

CA. 

• The FLH DO assumes the S&O responsibilities of the project in lieu of the SDOT.

This project delivery scenario is permissible on a case-by-case basis within existing law and 

guidance. The applicable FLH DO, in consultation with the FA DO, retains the authority to 

ascertain if the delivery entity possesses the technical and financial capability and capacity to 

deliver a title 23 funded project and comply with all related requirements. The FLH DO will 

collect information from the delivery agency, SDOT, and/or other sources to conduct a risk

assessment and capabilities assessment on the delivery agency. Additionally, the FLH DO may 

work with the PDC members to coordinate the completion of the assessments. The information 

and assessments will be used to inform the DD’s final decision of the agency’s capability to 

deliver. Prior to giving final approval, the DD shall discuss the decision with the Federal-aid 

Division Administrator to ensure the FA DO is in agreement. If the delivery decision is

approved by the DD, the full breadth of S&O activities cited in Appendix C will apply to the 

project regardless of its complexity or estimated cost. Additionally, the sample project 

agreement elements cited in Appendix E should be referenced in the project MOA (see Appendix 

G for FLAP project MOA template). The approval decision and delegation apply solely with the 

DD’s. 

B.1. FLAP Project Agreement/MOA

The FLH DO Program Manager (PM) will communicate with the applicable parties to coordinate 

the development of the project MOA. Depending on the type of funds provided for the project, 

coordination to develop other agreements (i.e. match agreement), transfers, or obligating 

documents may be required. The development of the project MOA is a higher-level document 

with possible multiple signatories and the CA is a one-on-one project specific document between 

FLH and delivery agency. We need both documents. The project MOA and obligating 

documents are considered project activities and can be billed directly to the project. Appendix C

lists the FLH DOs S&O role and the S&O checklist. These items should be incorporated into the 

project MOA (template in Appendix G), executed for all FLAP projects delivered by LPAs or 

state non-DOT agencies where the SDOT assumes no S&O responsibilities, under the 

Stewardship & Oversight Activities section. 

The project MOA should include a statement that 2 CFR 200 requirements or the “Uniform 

Requirements” and 23 CFR 630.112(c)(2), Agreement Provisions, must be followed. During the 

life of a project, the FLH POC will receive documents from the delivery agency and coordinate 

FLH required actions in the project MOA. The FLH POC will approve documents or actions 

when received or completed. The following documents must be reviewed and approved (*not 

just reviewed) by the FLH POC before the next phase of project development commences: 

NEPA document, design (including exceptions), ROW/utility/railroad certifications, Plans, 
16

Specifications, and Estimates (95%), advertisement, award, and contract modifications. In their 

oversight role, the FLH DO will use their professional judgement to decide if the project 

warrants one or more site visits. They should also reserve the right to do one or more inspection 

of the construction project. 

The FLH DO may reach an understanding with the FA DO where FLH and the Federal-aid DOs 

partner to provide S&O to administer these FLAP projects. In these instances, the Federal-aid 

DOs provide S&O support to the FLH DOs on an as-needed basis. This support could include, 

but is not limited to, taking the lead on NEPA, conducting site visits, or performing final 

inspection. 

With the executed project MOA, the CA, and proof that the project is on a Transportation 

Improvement Program (TIP), funds for preliminary engineering will be obligated by the FLH 

DO. For CA’s which are executed by phase, a CA amendment will be required before funds can 

be obligated for construction and construction engineering. The FLH DO will initiate the CA 

amendment following the receipt and approval of appropriate S&O documents as noted in the 

project MOA.

C. FUNDING S&O ACTIVITIES FOR FLTP AND FLAP

The first choice for funding of FLH S&O activities is with GOE funded staff. However, there are 

situations when GOE-funded staff is not available to perform these tasks. The following 

addresses how to fund these cases:

• S&O activities on FLTP FLMA delivered projects and FLAP LPA delivered projects not 

funded with GOE will be directly charged to the project. 

• The PDC shall program a project S&O budget, funded through FLAP, to cover S&O costs 

incurred on direct recipient FLAP projects.

There should be no FLH S&O activities associated with SDOT/LPA delivered projects where the 

S&O is performed by the SDOT and/or administered by the FA DO.

C.1. Permissible Uses of FLTP and FLAP for S&O on Partner delivered projects

The following items are eligible S&O related tasks:

• Establish budgetary processes to track and bill for project specific S&O activities. This 

activity includes the development of the project budget.; 

• Identify the S&O level of FLTP projects needing a joint discussion;

• Determine the S&O deliverables required for the S&O level;

• Coordinate the development of the PA/MOA and obligating documents (including the 

FLAP CA);
17

• Coordinate submission, review, and/or approval of documents stemming from the S&O 

Check List and documented in the PA/MOA;

• Create and maintain project files for partner-delivered projects;

• Participate in HFL Annual Assessments on Programs and/or projects

• Participate in all activities related to project specific S&O meetings; and

• Participate in final inspections, as needed.

C.2. FLH Division offices’ S&O Budget Calculation

Once the project is programmed as project level S&O, the S&O budget needs to be calculated.

S&O budget calculation methods are in Appendix F. The FLH POC will work with the Partner to 

establish a budget for S&O activities by project. Communication between the FLH POC and the 

FLMA/PDC is crucial because the S&O budget increases the overall budget. The S&O budget 

will be included in the project total and will be reflected in the PA/MOA and included in the 

POP database. For FLTP, the HFL NPMs will extract the yearly budget from the POP database 

to coordinate the allocation of the total required funding to the FLH DOs including the S&O 

funds. If additional funding becomes necessary, the FLH POC will coordinate the new budget 

with the Partner and request an additional allocation from the HFL NPM. For FLAP, funds will 

be authorized to the FLH DOs by State. The Divisions will be responsible for making FLAP 

funds available for S&O activities by project based on the executed project MOA. At the end of 

the FY, unobligated S&O funds are either returned during August redistribution or pulled back 

as carryover as part of the normal year-end activities. For FLTP, the FLH DOs will request new 

S&O funds for the following FY. For FLAP the funds are reinstated by State.

C.3. Tracking S&O Activities 

The FLH POCs will ensure that all S&O activities are entered in the Project Management 

Information System (PMIS) and charged appropriately. Non-GOE funded employees should use 

the 700-task activity code to track actual S&O cost in DELPHI. The costs will be posted with 

the S&O Administration (SA) for the phase code and corresponding fund code. Reconciliation 

by the FLH DOs between the DELPHI project accounts, and the approved budgets is necessary 

to ensure the appropriate use of S&O funds. Note: For FLAP S&O costs should only be incurred 

for projects not transitioning to the FA DO. 

The example below includes the S&O accounting strings (one for FLTP and one for FLAP) for a 

Partner delivered project. Please note: Fund codes will be determined per instructions from the 

Office of Budget.:
18

The following table summarizes the early programming steps Program FHWA FLH Division office State Project Number Activity Code Phase Code Fund

StateFLH Division officeStateDivision CodeNPS or FWS Code

FLAP 15 16 49 461002 700. SA. TBD. 49 16 49 00 0000

FLTP 15 16 49 461002 700. SA. TBD. 49 16 49 00 0000

Project Number Task Number Organization Number
19

S&O SOP

Program FLTP FLAP

Coordination of State TIP report The State TIP report is to be 

generated using the POP Database 

with the work approved by the 

DDs. Revisions to the State TIP 

report will be charged to FLPP.

Once the Programming Decision 

Committee (PDC) selects the 

projects, the FLH DO evaluates 

the delivery Agency. These 

activities are charged to GOE 

and/or overhead. For a list of 

activities or additional details, 

refer to "SOP- Use of Planning 

Funds for the Federal Lands 

Access Program". 

A detailed selection letter is 

prepared by the FLH DO for 

those projects transitioning to 

the Federal aid. This activity is 

charged to GOE and/or 

overhead.

Once the project is selected, an account is set up in Delphi

Codes FLH 

Delivered

FLMA

Delivered

FLH 

Delivered

Partner 

Delivered (Not 

transitioning 

to Federal-aid)

S&O Activity code Varies 700 Varies 700

S&O administration Phase code Varies SA Varies SA

Program Fund code1 TBD TBD TBD TBD

S&O Eligible Activities

Project Risk Assessment related to S&O N/A 700.SA N/A 700.SA

Development of Project Agreements 510.PE 700.SA 510.PE 700.SA

S&O - Monitor PS&E, NEPA, Permits,

ROW, etc.

510.PE

520.CE 700.SA 510.PE520.CE 700.SA

S&O - Coordinate the receipt, review 

and approval of documents

510.PE

520.CE 700.SA 510.PE520.CE 700.SA

Create and maintain project files for 

CAP reviews N/A 700.SA N/A 700.SA

Participate at S&O meetings N/A 700.SA N/A 700.SA

Participate at final inspections for S&O 520.CE 700.SA 520.CE 700.SA

CAP reviews N/A 700.SA N/A 700.SA

Release of funds

Allocation of funds to the FLH 

Divisions

Per the jointly approved FY 

Obligation Plan

Funds allocated by formula once 

received from Budget. Funds 

are allocated to Divisions.

Fund Release timing for project 

agreement development

Once project approved by the DD 

and included in the POP Database 

and accounted in the FY Ob 

Plan2,3. 

After PDC approval

Fund Release timing for PE After project 

agreement is 

signed3,4

After project 

agreement is 

signed 3,4

After project 

agreement is 

signed by all 

parties

After project 

agreement signed 

by all parties
20

Funds released for CN & CE

(A signed project agreement is 

required)

For partner delivered projects, after the FLH DO receives, reviews, 

concurs and or approves the project documentation to proceed with the 

construction phase per the project agreement between the FLH 

Division and the partner.

Notes:

1. The “XX” is to represent all variations of the program fund code.

2. For FLH delivered FLTP projects, the HFL holds the FLTP funds. After partner's approval of the FY Ob Plan, 

the FLH Divisions requests NPM funds for their expected annual obligations.

3. For FLTP FLMA delivered projects, the HFL allocates the funds once the project agreement is signed for 

project level S&O. The project needs to be included in the State TIP report and the FY Obligation Plan. The 

State TIP report and FY Obligation Plan are extracted from the POP Database by the NPM and certified by the 

FLH Divisions before the funds are released.

4. The FLMA initiates the contact with FLH Divisions. The FLH Division drafts the project agreement.

VII. COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (CAP) REVIEWS 

The purpose is to provide reasonable assurance that projects funded with FLTP and FLAP funds 

comply with key title 23 federal requirements.

1. The bi-annual review will be performed on FLH and FLMA Delivered projects by HFL 

NPMs, in collaboration and coordination with FLH DO’s and FLMA’s. 

2. At the beginning of May every other FY, the HFL NPMs will randomly select up to four 

(4) projects from the POP for each program. The project sample will consist of up to 2 

projects each per FLMA, per FLH DO that have gone to construction during the previous 

12 months. There may be cases where more projects may be reviewed if the program 

size warrants an increased review. The project file information for both FLTP and FLAP, 

stored in a TBD location, will be reviewed for compliance by the HFL NPMs. 

3. The HFL NPMs will use the template located in Appendix H to conduct the CAP review. 

These reviews consist of checking documentation against the S&O check list and 

PA/PMP/MOA to ensure the federal requirements (e.g., 2 CFR 200 or uniform 

requirements for FLAP) have been met. No travel or site visits are needed for these 

recurring, bi-annual CAP reviews by HFL NPMs. FLH (headquarters and DOs) reserves 

the right for a more detailed program or partner delivery review on site. To reiterate, it is 

important all project file information is stored in the single repository. This is the 

responsibility of FLH DOs. 

4. If a selected project falls within the Programmatic S&O level category, the HFL NPM 

will request the project documentation to the FLMA HQ.

5. For FLMA Delivered projects, the HFL NPM will compile the information into a single 

report and provide a draft report to the FLMA HQ for comment. If needed, the FLMA 

will develop a Plan of Corrective Action (PCA).

6. After FLMA comments are incorporated and PCA developed (as appropriate), the HFL 

NPM will brief the FLH CBO and PP&E Branch Chiefs on the results. Thereafter, the 

information will be shared with the FLH SES LT.
21

7. The HFL NPMs will finalize the CAP review results and PCA and transmit to the FLMA 

HQ.

8. For FLH Delivered projects, the HFL NPMs will compile the information into a single 

report and brief the FLH DOs CBOs and PP&E Branch Chiefs on the results. Thereafter, 

the information will be shared with the SES LT.

9. For FLAP, the sample of projects for CAP review will be identified based on the project 

risk at the discretion of the HFL NPM. The size of the sample will be representative of 

the universe of projects being administered by FLH DOs. At the request of the HFL 

NPM, the FLH POC will provide the required information for the CAP review.

All CAP review results will be stored and maintained in the single file repository, along with 

project file information, location TBD. Any follow-on actions associated with the review will be 

tracked and monitored accordingly by the HFL NPMs. All information will be accessible to 

FLH DOs. FLMA-specific information will be shared, as appropriate

VIII. ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS ON PROGRAMS, PROJECTS, AND PROJECT 

ENGINEERING FUNCTIONS

FLH will perform annual assessments and will continue to apply agency’s principles and 

practices to the program office’s evaluation of S&O activities. The assessment tools and 

practices included in this SOP align with the agency’s structure to ensure internal program and/or 

project assessments are aligned with the agency’s efforts. This SOP complements, but does not 

duplicate, the Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) or Procurement Management 

Review(s) (PMR). The FIRE and PMR reviews are separate from the review guidelines of this 

document. The annual assessments are intended to generate cross-unit discussions and analyses 

on business operations and document notable practices for wider FLH program use, including 

FLH and partner delivery areas. 

The following are the oversight protocols which apply to the FLTP and FLAP:

1. The scope of 1- 2 annual assessment(s), led by HFL Office of Programs, will be informed by a 

range of considerations including but not limited to: 

a) Administration’s/agency’s priorities,

b) feedback from FLH program staff and Business Council, 

c) dashboard metrics/program data,

d) eligible partners,

e) external audits, 

f) funding availability, and

g) SES LT’s final approval. 
22

2. HFL will coordinate annually with FLMA HQ on the analysis of data and information, solicit 

feedback from internal and external stakeholders, discuss potential review areas during the 

Annual Business Meeting, and develop one or more proposed review areas for the FLH SES 

LT’s approval. The HFL S&O Coordinator will be responsible for the generation and vetting of 

candidate program assessment topics and/or project delivery engineering practices with staff and 

leadership. 

3. The proposed review assessment area(s), for the following FY, will be coordinated and align 

with the agency’s program assessment area selection process which generally occurs in July of 

the current FY. The scope of the review/assessment may vary, e.g. it may look at only specific 

phases such as environmental compliance or transportation planning or it could be more 

overarching e.g. focus on holistic view of program. 

4. The approved review area(s)/topics will inform the composition of the assessment review team

(aka review team or assessment team). The HFPD in coordination with the FLH SES LT with 

the FLH SES LT will determine who will be the leading the different assessment review teams. 

The HFL S&O Coordinator can assist with coordinating the development of assessment teams 

and participate on the review teams as warranted. 

5. The assessment team may be comprised of HFL and FLH DO staff; other FHWA offices; 

and/or partner agencies to ensure the proper expertise and experience of team members exists. 

The team will seek opportunities to leverage resources that promote independence and unbiased 

review. 

6. The review team will develop a review plan and submit to the HFPD for approval. The HFPD 

will coordinate with the FLH SES LT, FLH CBO and FLMA HQ Leadership as applicable.

7. The review team will conduct Entrance and Exit meetings with the host offices/organizations 

(e.g. FLH DOs, and/or FLMA leadership). The scope and target timeline of a typical assessment 

is approximately 1-2-week period but could span longer if field reviews are needed. Information 

will be requested and collected based upon the assessment focus area. Host offices/organizations

of assessment review team representatives should plan for 80 business hours, including any 

travel. 

8. The assessment review team will generate an initial report to help improve processes, ensure 

compliance and to provide consistency. The audience of assessment reports are the FLH SES LT, 

FLH CBO and FLMA HQ Leadership. 

9. The initial draft report will be shared with the FLH DO and agency within 30 days from the 

initiation of assessment and/or the last site visit/virtual outreach to clarify information before the 

team finalizes it. The FLH DO and/or Partner agency will have 10 business days to provide 

clarifying comments to the team. In the absence of comments, the team will move forward to 

finalize the report. 

10. Within 60 days following the assessment initiation, a final report will be generated and 

presented directly to the FLH CBO, FLH Chief of Engineering and/or FLMA with a courtesy 

copy provided to the FLH SES LT, Directors of Finance/Data Integrity and A&E/Construction 
23

Acquisitions and Special Assistant. The assessment team leader will coordinate a final briefing 

with both FLH and/or FLMA leadership. 

11. Once the report is finalized, the approval authority to share report results outside FLH (for 

privacy purposes) resides solely with the FLH AA. One predictable exception may be an 

external auditor’s request for past program assessment information. In this case, relevant 

assessment report materials will be provided to an auditor by the HFPD. In consideration of this 

scenario, the authors of future, annual assessment reports will be instructed to draft their team 

findings and recommendations in a constructive and professional manner. Meaning, the written 

narrative will describe notable practices and improvement opportunities thoughtfully and 

judiciously. In the unlikely event that serious compliance issues are observed during the 

assessment review, they will be communicated by the assessment team leader to the HFPD 

before the final report is drafted. Further instructions to the team will be forthcoming by the 

HFPD following consultation with applicable FLH business council members and executive 

leaders.

12. If the assessment finds opportunities for improvements and/or corrective actions, a process 

improvement/corrective action plan will be generated by the host division/office and/or Partner 

within 45 days of the final report date. The FLH CBO, FLH Chief of Engineering and/or FLMA 

will identify which findings and recommendations will be acted upon. Follow through will be 

monitored by the FLH DO’s leadership first and foremost followed by the appropriate HFL NPM 

and/or FLMA HQ program manager(s) (if applicable) and HFL S&O Coordinator.

13. As this process develops fully, the HFL S&O Coordinator will perform an analysis of report 

findings, approved recommendations, and follow-up actions to help the program office and 

partners ascertain if progress is being made and/or if trends are starting to appear that require 

closer examination. Analysis will also assist in defining subsequent scope(s) of reviews. 

14. Review reports and corresponding process improvement/corrective action plans, will be 

posted on an FLH server. This internal FLH site will serve as a central repository. 

 IX. RECORDS

The manuals, procedures, instructions, forms and templates will be kept in a common location 

with the master log for future modifications. A copy of the document in PDF format will be 

posted at the Policy and Guidance Center on the intranet. Once a new document is approved by 

Headquarters, the process owner will send an email with a hyperlink to the document following 

normal distribution procedures. 

Note: These are internal documents. Any further distribution must be approved by the Associate 

Administrator or his/her designee(s).

X. REFERENCES

Programming Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) Projects and Administration
24

Process and Procedures for Administering the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) for 

projects administered by Federal aid [For projects programmed for delivery by the State 

Departments of Transportation (SDOT) or the Local Public Agencies (LPAs) through the 

SDOTs]

FLH’s records management policy

FHWA Record Management Order 1324.1B

Bridge Preservation Guide

FHWA Order 5020.1A on Repayment of Preliminary Engineering Costs
25

XI. APPENDICES

Appendix A – FLTP Project Discussion Questionnaire Template 

Appendix B – FLTP Stewardship and Oversight Check List – FLMA Delivered Project 

Level S&O Projects

Appendix C – FLAP Stewardship and Oversight Check List – LPA delivered projects 

administered by Federal Lands Division through a Cooperative Agreement

Appendix D – Sample Project Agreement Elements

Appendix E - Project Agreement (Template) with Stewardship and Oversight 

Appendix F - S&O Budget Calculation Methodologies

Appendix G – Federal Lands Access Program Project Memorandum of Agreement

Appendix H – CAP Template
Appendix A – FLTP Collaborative Project Selection Discussion Questionnaire Template

FLTP Collaborative Project Selection Discussion Questionnaire 

FLMA tracking ID: Date:

Project Name: FLH Project ID:

Project Description:

Project Location:

Latitude Longitude

State Congressional District

FLMA Project POC:

Line 11 Pre-screening Project Identification (High level scope, budget and FLMA priority)

Line 12 Is the project eligible per 23 U.S.C. Section 203 (a)(1)? 

Line13 Is this a study directly related to a project? 

Line 14 Factor Project details & information Discussion notes Resolution
27

Line 15 Project objective

Line 16 Improvement type

Line 17 What are the project 

components? 

Line 18

What's the anticipated level of 

NEPA Documentation? 

(Environmental complexity)

Line 19 What is the estimated project 

cost?

Line 20

Does the project include other 

funding sources that require 

match or other requirements?

Line 21

How does the proposed project 

advance the statutorily defined

program goals?

Line 22 Delivery Agency Determination - Select one below

Line 23 Based on the project pre-screening discussion, both parties have jointly agreed that FLH will deliver. 

Line 24 Based on the project pre-screening discussion, both parties have jointly agreed that the FLMA will deliver. Complete Complexity Assessment below to 

determine complexity and S&O requirements.

Line 25 The delivery agency is undecided. Complete Complexity Assessment below to recommended the complexity and S&O/Documentation requirements. 
28

Line 26

Line 27

Initials of FLMA Representative Initials of FLH Representative

Line 28 Complexity Assessment (Additional project information; Refined scope, schedule and budget; Stakeholders and political interest; project complexity level 

and project delivery agency considerations)

Line 29 Factor Project details & information Discussion notes Resolution

Line 30

Is this project included on the 

FLMA asset management plan? 

preventive maintenance plan? 

or other improvement plan?

Line 31 ROW required

Line 32 Utility easements

Line 33 Railroad involvement

Line 34 Safety

implications/ design exceptions

Line 35

Complex scheduling

(Construction season 

limitations, FLMA events)

Line 36 Complex engineering

features

Line 37 Complex geological features
29

Line 38 Remote location / 

access limitations

Line 39

Multiple construction sites 

(bundle projects into one 

contract)

Line 40

Is this project dependent on 

another project (partially or 

fully) for sequencing? 

Line 41

Are there environmental 

mitigation components (like 

wildlife-vehicle mortality) to 

track?

Line 42 Project urgency

Line 43

Are there state and local 

stakeholders? 

What is the stakeholder level of 

interest? 

Line 44 Political interest

Line 45 Tribal involvement - delivery, 

funding, oversight, etc.
30

Line 46 Partnering complexity

Line 47 What public communication 

protocols are needed?

Line 48 What is the proposed 

contracting method?

Line 49

How will NEPA be handled? 

-Roles, and responsibilities, 

payment, level of involvement 

with one Federal decision

Line 50 Is the right contracting method 

being proposed? 

Line 51

Does the delivery agency 

understand Title 23 contracting 

requirements?

Line 52

Does the delivery agency has

expertise delivering Title 23 

projects?

Line 53

Does the delivery agency have 

the capacity and technical 

expertise to complete the 

project?

Line 54 Other criteria at FLH discretion 

(what questions would be?)

Line 55 Final determination
31

Line 56 S&O Level

Line 57 Recommended delivery agency

Line 58

Line 59 We certify that the FLTP Collaborative Project Decision Discussion questionnaire was jointly completed and agreed upon the results:

Line 60

Line 61

Line 63 Initials of FLMA Representative Initials of FLH Representative 
32

INSTRUCTIONS:

Questions for FLMA and FLH to discuss project at different stages of the programming lifecycle. There is not a quantitative assessment. The objective is to identify 

project considerations. The outcome is a mutual understanding of the project’s complexity to inform the appropriate project oversight, to be documented in the project 

agreement as applicable. The questionnaire is divided in three sections: Pre-screening, Complexity Assessment and Final Determination. 

S&O levels:

Programmatic S&O – FLMA delivered Low complexity projects whereby the S&O responsibility has been delegated to the FLMA. The FLMA is responsible for 

storing and maintaining S&O documentation. 

Project level S&O – FLMA delivered high complexity projects. The FLMA will be required to submit project documentation for FLH action per the S&O checklist 

attached to the project agreement or project management plan.

FLH Delivery – Projects delivered by FLH. The project complexity may vary, but FLH will maintain and request FLMA action as required per the comprehensive 

project agreement or project management plan throughout the life of the project.

Project complexity is defined as:

Low complexity project - clear requirements, relatively low costs, preservation/preventative maintenance type projects.

High complexity project - larger project, or unclear requirements, and/or FLMA has limited expertise (or lack of resources) for this type of project. It can also be a 

project with clear requirements but with nuances that require mitigation. (Note: the determination can be based on one or a combination of factors previously 

described).

Project Name: It can be the Recreation Area Name, Bridge Name or general name. Use the same project name in the Project List.

FLH Project ID: Identifier to be used in the POP. Can be updated later once known.

FLMA tracking ID: Number or code used by the FLMA to identify the project. Can be updated later once known.

Project Description: High level description indicating the type and size of asset, treatment, and degree of complexity. 

Project Location: Road number, mile post, etc.

FLMA Project POC: Please provide name, title, office, phone and e-mail.

Additional Clarifications

Line 11 Pre-screening discussion is not sufficient to add the project into the FLH "State" TIP report.

Line 12 Yes No

No - no need to discuss further. Project rejected

Line13 Yes No

No - no need to discuss further. Project should be funded with 

planning funds (FLPP)

Line 14 Low Complexity High Complexity Resolution - include the outcome of the concerns raised 

during the discussion.

Line 15 What do we want to accomplish with this project? 

e.g. safety concerns, improve mobility, improve rideability
33

Line 16 Pavement preservation, trail, 

rehabilitation, transit

Bridge, 3R, New construction 

(structures), replacement

Line 17 e.g. pavement preservation, bridge, retention wall, slope stabilization, safety 

improvements, AOP, etc.?

Line 18 Cat. Ex. E.A or E.I.S. For NPS only: NEPA classification determined first by NPS and then 

FHWA

Line 19 <$2M >$2M

Line 20 No Yes Different funds may have restricted uses, tracking/reporting 

requirements, and availability to be combined with other sources. 

Line 21

⸰ a state of good repair of transportation facilities;

⸰ a reduction of bridge deficiencies; 

⸰ an improvement of safety;

⸰ high-use Federal recreational sites or Federal economic generators; and

⸰ the resource and asset management goals of the Secretary of the respective FLMA. 

Line 22

Line 23

Agreement is reached for FLH delivery, therefore no need to continue. The additional project information will be gathered following FLH processes (example project 

agreement development). If delivery agency is undecided, then continue with the discussion to obtain additional project details. Line 24

Line 25

Line 26 Please initial here to indicate that there has been a joint decision on FLH delivery and that there is no need to continue filling out the questionnaire.

Line 27
34

Line 28 Do we have sufficient information to continue the assessment? If no, then stop here? If the discussion stops here, the project won’t be

submitted for FLH DD approval.

Line 29 Low Complexity High Complexity Resolution - include the outcome of the concerns raised 

during the discussion.

Line 30

Line 31 None, or only a small number of 

landowners involved 

Many landowners involved, possible 

condemnation

Includes consideration of temporary construction easements.

Line 32

Above ground phone & power, only 

temporary

relocation needed

Main trunk fiber optic line buried 

within construction limits

Determination by FHWA and FLMA if major effort is required; may 

involve multiple phases of construction to complete utility work and 

then transportation component.

Line 33 None Crossing or building above an active 

line

Complicated overlap of other transportation systems may require 

special consultation and cooperative solutions.

Line 34 Minor Will require

design exceptions

Line 35 Single season Overlapping

work window restrictions expected

Multiple construction seasons can mean more complex mobilization 

and/or demobilization and multiple projects contracted in same 

geographic area can complicate management.

Line 36 Nothing unusual Customized components or 

specialized work effort required.

Material or supply source may be limited or costly, there may be a 

limited pool of contractors who can do the work, or the construction 

is extremely unique.

Line 37 Nothing unusual

Area has slide challenges, unstable 

slopes, riverine or coastal flooding, 

or wetlands or permafrost are present 

that will require specialized work

Line 38

Have public or legal access without 

any legal obstacles.

For transit: Typical multimodal 

access 

Limited access - Isolated road or 

geographically remote where 

mobilization by air or barge is 

required.

For transit: Isolated road or 

geographically remote where special 

access or operation is required.

Advance scheduling and construction timing critical; adds complexity 

to scheduling deliveries; may require special knowledge of FLMA 

unit staff.

For transit: purchase timing adds complexity to scheduling start up or 

revised operations; may require special knowledge of FLMA unit 

staff
35

Line 39 No Yes

Line 40 No Yes

Line 41 No Yes

Line 42 Normal project

timelines

Pressure to

have the

project expedited

Two types of circumstances contribute to urgency:

a) external pressure by others to complete a project or 

b) an imminent environmental or public use impact that requires 

immediate attention.

Line 43 Low interest High interest

Line 44 Local interest only

Statewide,

regional, and/or Congressional 

interest

A project that transcends state and Federal boundaries or that affects a 

nationally significant landmark or feature could pose interest.

Line 45 Tribal entity not involved Tribal entity - involved, explain 

involvement.

Line 46 None or

one transit partner

Multiple or multiple

transit partners with possible 

complex negotiations

For transit projects: State, regional, or local systems with their own 

operational requirements or needs may pose challenges in coordinated 

interface.

Line 47 Not required Required
36

Line 48 Sealed bids Has elements of cost reimbursement

(e.g. Force Account)

Design build or selection of contractor is more involved than sealed 

bids. Has the FLMA successfully completed this contracting method? 

Line 49

Line 50

Line 51 Yes No

Line 52 Has delivered projects of similar 

size/complexity successfully

First time or

previously had problems Determination of expertise mutually decided by FHWA and FLMA.

Line 53 Yes No

Line 54

Line 55

Line 56 FHWA and FLMA program managers make recommendation to FHWA FLH Division Director and FLMA leadership on project complexity level: 

Low, medium or high complexity.

Line 57 FLMA and FLH based on complexity level propose a delivery agency. The final delivery agency determination will be included with the FLH DD 

approval determination.

Line 58
37

Line 59

Line 60

Line 61 Please initial here once the discussion is complete.

Line 62
Appendix B – FLTP Stewardship and Oversight Check List – FLMA Delivered Project Level 

S&O Projects

Notes: Phases or Activities marked with an asterisk (*) must be included in every Project Level 

S&O check list and project agreement.

FLH’s role is not to perform regular, in-depth technical/engineering review to critique the 

FLMAs work. It is an S&O review to ensure the requirements of title 23 are being met. 

For Programmatic S&O level projects, FLMAs should store and maintain all applicable S&O 

checklist list items. 

For Project level S&O projects, FLMAs should store, maintain, and submit all applicable S&O

checklist items.

Phase or Activity Project 

Level 

S&O 

Projects

Partner

Role

FLH 

Role

Comments

Planning & Programs

Evidence that project 

is on an approved 

program of projects

X Provide Review/concur For funds disbursed by 

a division, they may 

know this already

*Evidence of being on 

a TIP or STIP

X Provide Review/concur 

Design 

Standards/Geometric

s to be used identified

X Provide Review/concur Generally, standards 

used by transportation 

agencies will be 

acceptable.

Design exception 

approval agency 

identified

Provide Review/concur If the partner is a State 

DOT, they would 

follow their process, 

no FLH involvement

Evidence of funding 

allocation

X Provide File copy

Project agreement 

with scope, schedule, 

& budget

X Provide Approve FLH would be a 

signatory. Would be 

involved in the drafting 

to define what S&O 

deliverables it will 

receive

Maintaining agency 

identified

X Provide File copy Many times, the entity 

doing the work is also 

the maintainer
39

Phase or Activity Project 

Level 

S&O 

Projects

Partner

Role

FLH 

Role

Comments

Identify when funds 

will be de-obligated 

and returned (x days 

from project closeout)

X Provide File copy

Environment

Lead Federal agency 

identified

X Provide concur FHWA must be a colead agency on an EIS

Anticipated NEPA 

action

Copy of/review of 

Draft documents

X Provide Review/concur FLH should review to 

insure they can be 

adopted by FLH 

Copy of proposed 

level of NEPA 

documentation

X Provide File copy (CE, EA, or EIS)

Evidence of permits X Provide File copy

Review of Public 

Notices

X Provide File copy 

Attend public 

meetings

Schedule, 

invite

Attend FLH should attend if 

serving as a co-lead on 

an EIS regardless of 

project risk designation

* NEPA document X Provide Adopt or develop 

parallel 

document

FHWA approval 

needed

Design

Review 30% PS&E Provide Review/concur

Review 70% PS&E X Provide Review/concur

Review 95% PS&E X Provide Review/approve Are required contract 

provisions included –

Common Rule or Fed 

Aid?

Review or approve 

design exceptions

X Provide Review/approve If the partner is a 

State DOT, they would 

follow their process
40

Phase or Activity Project 

Level 

S&O 

Projects

Partner

Role

FLH 

Role

Comments

*Review ROW 

certifications

X Provide Review/approve If ROW is acquired, it 

must follow Uniform 

Federal Relocation Act

*Utility/Railroad 

Agreements

X Provide Review/approve FLH needs certification

Acquisitions

Approval of 

proprietary products

X Provide Review/approve State DOT’s already 

have approved lists. 

FLMA have to follow 

FARs

*Review contract 

package for required 

clauses (Civil Rights, 

Davis-Bacon, Buy 

America/American, 

etc.)

Provide Review/approve Would not need to do 

this if the partner is 

another federal agency 

or State DOT following 

Fed Aid procedures.

*Concur in award of 

contract

Provide Review/concur Generally would only 

get involved if 

additional funds 

required

Receive copy of 

award package

X Provide File copy FLH should have a copy 

of the package in its 

files in case inquiries 

are received 

Review or approve 

contract 

modifications

Provide Review depends 

upon nature of 

CM

Need to assure noneligible work is not 

being paid for with 

program funds

Construction

Attend PreConstruction meetingSchedule Attend on-caseby-case basis

Project Inspections Schedule Attend on-caseby-case basisDefine which ones you 

will be doing.

• Monthly Is there a full time 

employed public 

employee in 

responsible charge for 

administering the 

project?
41

Phase or Activity Project 

Level 

S&O 

Projects

Partner

Role

FLH 

Role

Comments

• Mid-construction X

• Final X Projects above $xxx or 

type FLH should attend 

the final regardless of 

risk level. Final could 

be done electronically 

with photos.

Copy of As built Provide File copy Generally only request 

these if project 

adjacent to or along a 

corridor FLH is working 

on or if FLH does asset 

management. Used 

for updating system 

info

Materials Testing 

QA/QC Plan

X Provide Review/concur If doing a field review, 

be sure to verify it is 

being followed.

Copy of final voucher Provide File copy

Contract Dispute 

(Claim)

Notify Provide 

assistance if 

requested

Need to be aware if 

additional funds are 

needed
42

Appendix C – FLAP Stewardship and Oversight Check List – LPA delivered projects 

administered by Federal Lands Division through a Cooperative Agreement

CATEGORY ACTION FLH DIVISION ROLE

PLANNING 1 Evidence of being on a TIP Review/Concur

2 Maintaining agency identified Maintain File Copy

FINANCIAL AND 

PROJECT MANAGEMENT 3 Project agreement, modifications, and project 

closures Approve

4

Cooperative agreement

• Obligate funds

• Approve payments

Execute/Approve

5 Final Voucher Maintain File Copy

6 Utilizing a consultant to act in a management 

support role for the delivery agency. Approve

ENVIRONMENT 7

All CE/EA/FONSI, EIS/ROD, 4(f), 106, 6(f) 

and other approval actions required by Federal 

environmental laws and regulations.

Approve

8 Evidence of Permits Maintain File Copy

PRELIMINARY DESIGN 9 noncompetitive procurement method for 

engineering and design-related services Approve

10 Design Standards/Geometrics to be used Review/Concur

11 Exceptions to design standards Approve

12 30% and 70% PS&E Review/Concur

13 Site visits Attend

FINAL DESIGN, PS&E 

AND ADVERTISING 14 ROW certifications Review/Approve

15 Utility/Railroad Agreements Review/Approve

16 Final PS&E Review/Approve

17 Approval of proprietary products Review/Approve

18

Contract package for required

clauses (Civil Rights, Davis‐Bacon, Buy

America, etc.)

Review/Approve

CONTRACT 

ADVERTISEMENT AND 

AWARD

19

Cost-effectiveness determinations for 

construction work performed by contract 

awarded by other than competitive bidding or 

by force account. 

Review/Approve

20 Award of contract or rejection of all bids Concur

CONSTRUCTION 21 Pre‐Construction meeting Attend

22 Project Inspections (mid-construction and final) Attend

23 Changes and extra work Approve

24 Contract time extensions Approve

25 Copy of As-built Maintain File Copy

26 Materials Testing QA/QC Plan Review/Concur

27 Settlement of contract claims Concur

28 Termination of construction contracts Concur
43

Appendix D – Sample Project Agreement Elements

(Elements required will vary depending upon project scope.)

• Project name(s) • Other project nomenclature

• Who is a party to the agreement • Design standards/geometrics

• Signature/date block • ROW/railroad/utilities

• Project background/description • Construction

• Authority for agreement • Roles/responsibilities of participants

• Purpose of agreement • Maintenance of facility

• Scope • Agreement amendment process

• Schedule/milestones • Identify points of contact

• Deliverables • Dispute resolution/escalation process

• Budget(PL, PE, CE, CN) • Any agency standard provisions

• Funding sources identified • Agreement duration

• Funding match type (Access Program) • Project closeout process & timeframes
44

Appendix E – FLTP Project Agreement (Template) with Stewardship and Oversight 

(This template is designed for a FLTP project)

Project Name: (may have several names)

Project Route: (may have several route #)

State:

Park, Forest, Refuge, County: (where is the work being done)

Type of Work: (repair/rehabilitation, 4R, Category 1, 3R ...)

Length: (overall length of the work)

Parties to this Agreement: (list Division office, county, state, refuge, park, forest, FLMA, 

DSC, road district, ... who owns the road or is involved in delivering, funding, or maintaining of 

the project of the project)

This agreement describes specific project requirements to be fulfilled and duties to be performed 

by all parties to produce or supply the services and products as agreed to below. 

AGREED:

Federal Land Management Agency Date

(may have multiple lines, signatories)

Division Director or Chief, Business Operations (FLH Division) Date

(may be their acting “For” if they are out of the office)

PROJECT AGREEMENT AUTHORITY

By what authority are we allowed to enter into this agreement?

PROJECT BACKGROUND

Short history of the road or why is the project being done? 

OVERALL PROJECT SCOPE

The purpose of this project is to do what? Better define project location, - mileposts, intersection 

to intersection... Should expand upon the description on the signatory page.

The scope of this project consists of: (can insert a table with a preliminary listing of quantities 

and cost estimate if available– see example below. Want to get a feel for the major items and 

project estimate. Entity doing the work will provide this information. This could be provided 

separately as part of the documentation requested in the last section of this document.)
45

DESIGN STANDARDS

Criteria Comments

Standard Ex. AASHTO Very 

Low Volume

Add if needed

Functional Classification

Surface Type

Design Volume vpd

FUNDING 

Fund Source Amount Comments

Title 23 program funds-what type? Add if needed

Other funds-type? May not have any

Other funds-type?

TOTAL 

POINTS OF CONTACT

The following table provides the points of contact for this project. They are to be the first 

persons to deal with any issues or questions that arise over the implementation of each parties 

role and responsibility for this agreement. (this table would list the representatives of the entities 

that signed the agreement. It may not be the same individuals who signed the agreement.)
46

Organization Name / Phone Number

FLMA

FLH Division Office This is the person who will receive the 

requested documents and do/ensure the FLH 

role.
47

Appendix F – S&O Budget Calculation Methodologies

1. Federal Lands Highway - S&O Cost Calculator - Tailored by Project

Project 

Name

Delivery 

FY FLMA Unit Region State

Short S&O 

Activity 

Description

Estimated

Salary 

Cost

Estimated

Travel 

Cost

Total

This spreadsheet can be used to request the total amount of S&O funding required for each

FLTP project per FY from HFL.
48 

1. EXCEL Tool 

The FLH Divisions can develop their own S&O calculators to determine their S&O costs 

based on their specific needs.

Example

Project Info

Agency Type State

Project MOA Yes

Funds Transfer Method

Cooperative 

Agreement

Division making FHWA Environmental Decision WFLHD

Environmental Decision Type Cat Ex

Potential WFLHD travel Low

Project Specific Costs 0 

Factors

Project Duration 1 Year

Project Complexity Low

Calculation

MOA Preparation $1,000 

Basic document and invoice review $2,000 

Environmental Decision $1,000 

Potential WFLHD travel $500 

Subtotal $4,500 

Multiplier 1

Subtotal $4,500 

Project Specific Cost $0 

Total $ 4,500

Select the Agency delivering the project, funding mechanism, project complexity; will the 

environmental document be a Cat Ex, EA, or EIS?; what is the duration of the project?; will a 

site visit be required?, etc. Based on these different factors, a multiplier is assigned and an 

estimate is derived.

Agency Type County, State, Federal, Other

Project MOA Yes, No

Funds Transfer Method Direct, RASPS, RA

Division making FHWA Environmental Decision WFLHD, Fed Aid, None

Environmental Decision Type Cat Ex, EA, EIS

Potential WFLHD travel None, low, med, high

Project Specific Costs Dollar Amount

Project Duration 1,2,3,4,5

Project Complexity Low, Med, High
49 

Division making FHWA Environmental Decision

None $0

Federal Aid $500

WFLHD below

WFLHD Environmental Decision Type

Cat Ex EA EIS Note

Other $3,000 $0 $0 Assumes if an EA or EIS is warranted for a County or Other 

project that it will be done by WFLHD at a project specific cost

County $3,000 $0 $0 Assumes if an EA or EIS is warranted for a County or Other 

project that it will be done by WFLHD at a project specific cost

State $1,000 $2,000 $10,000

Federal $1,000 $2,000 $2,000

Potential WFLHD Travel

None $0

Low $500

Med $2,000

High $5,000

Project Duration Factor

1 Year 1

2 Years 1

3 years 1.2

4 years 1.5

5 years 2

Project Complexity

Low 1

Med 1.1

High 1.2

2. Estimated Lump Sum Figure(s) for Low and High-Risk Projects: 

$5,000 for project-level S&O

Basic document and invoice review $2,000 Funds Transfer Method

Direct $500

RASPS $500

Funds Transfer Agreement $1,000

RA $4,000

MOA

Yes $1,000

No $0
50 

Appendix G – Federal Lands Access Program Project Memorandum of Agreement

(Note: Project MOA template for use on all projects not transferred to the Federal-aid Division 

for administration)

Project / Facility Name: (may have several names)

Project Route: (may have several route #’s)

State:

County(ies): (or Parish, Township, Borough, etc.; place where the project is physically located)

Owner of Federal Lands to which the Project Provides Access: 

Entity with Title or Maintenance Responsibility for Facility: 

Type of Work: (short description of project, e.g.) 

ROW

Utilities

NEPA

Preliminary Eng.

Repair, Rehabilitation, 

Reconstruction 

Construction

Construction Eng.

This Agreement does not obligate (commit to) the expenditure of Federal funds nor does it 

commit the parties to complete the project. Rather, this Agreement sets forth the respective 

responsibilities as the project proceeds through the project development process. 

Parties to this Agreement: (list Division office, county, state, road district, ...who owns the 

facility or is cooperating in delivering, funding, or maintaining the project)

The Program Decision Committee approved this project on ________(date).

 

AGREED:

State Department of Transportation, Title Date

(May not be needed)

 

Facility Owner Date

(County, parish, road district, etc., may not be needed or may have multiple signatures)
51 

Division Director or Chief of Business Operations, FLHD Date

(May be their acting “For” if they are out of the office)

(Include any other agency or tribe who will be listed in the roles and responsibilities section of 

this Agreement)

A. PURPOSE OF THIS AGREEMENT

This Agreement documents the intent of the parties and sets forth the anticipated 

responsibilities of each party in the development, construction, and future maintenance 

of the subject project. The purpose of the Agreement is to identify and assign 

responsibilities for the environmental analysis, design, right-of-way, utilities, 

acquisition and construction as appropriate for this programmed project, and to ensure 

maintenance of the facility for public use if improvements are made. The parties 

understand that any final decision as to design or construction will not be made until 

after the environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) is completed (this does not prevent the parties from assigning proposed 

design criteria to be studied in the NEPA process.) Any decision to proceed with the 

design and construction of the project will depend on the availability of appropriations 

at the time of obligation and other factors such as issues raised during the NEPA 

process, a natural disaster that changes the need for the project, a change in 

Congressional direction, or other relevant factors. 

If Federal Lands Access Program funds are used for the development or construction 

of this project, the [INSERT THE STATE / AGENCY(CIES) PROVIDING THE 

MATCH] agrees to provide a matching share equal to [INSERT THE APPLICABLE 

PERCENTAGE PER 23 USC 120] of the total cost of the project, as detailed more 

fully in Section J below. (If an agency (or agencies) other than FHWA will be 

expending Access funds, INSERT THE FOLLOWING: Before the expenditure of any 

funds for which reimbursement will be sought from FHWA, the parties agree to 

execute a separate obligating document. No reimbursement will be made for 

expenditures made prior to having an obligating document in place.) 

(There may be supplemental agreements in addition to this agreement, such as a separate 

agreement addressing the matching share, or agreements addressing different phases of the 

project as appropriate.)

B. AUTHORITY (By what authority are the parties allowed to enter into this 

agreement? May include what authority the other parties are invoking.)

This Agreement is entered into between the signatory parties pursuant to the 

provisions of 23 U.S.C. 204 and [INSERT THE STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITY 

AS APPROPRIATE].
52 

C. JURISDICTION AND MAINTENANCE COMMITMENT

The [INSERT “STATE” and/or “LOCAL JURISDICTION”] has jurisdictional 

authority to operate and maintain the existing facility and will operate and maintain the 

completed project at its expense.

D. FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY COORDINATION

The [INSERT EITHER THE STATE, THE LOCAL AGENCY, OR BOTH] has 

coordinated project development with the [INSERT THE APPLICABLE FLMA]. 

The [INSERT THE APPLICABLE FLMA] support of the project is documented 

[INSERT THE APPLICABLE REFERENCE]. Each party to this agreement who has 

a primary role in NEPA, design, or construction shall coordinate their activities with 

the [INSERT THE APPLICABLE FLMA]. 

E. PROJECT BACKGROUND/SCOPE (Note: To the extent that some or all of the 

material required in Sections D. through L. are contained in an Application 

Document, a Work Plan, Contracts, or some other document, such document(s) 

may be incorporated into this document by reference and attached hereto in lieu of 

repeating the information in this document. Clear language incorporating 

relevant material must be included in this document whenever this approach is 

taken. Care should be taken to avoid incorporating material that may represent 

proffers or commitments to which FHWA does not agree.) 

(Provide short history of the purpose and need for the project. Better define project location, -

mileposts, intersection to intersection... Should expand upon the type of work listed on the 

signatory page. What will the end product look like?)

(Preliminary purpose and need to be stated here.) 

F. PROJECT BUDGET (This section may be abbreviated with only a tentative 

project cost based on the application pending a more in-depth scoping of the 

proposed project. If so, a more detailed budget thereafter should be developed 

and approved by the parties or the Programming Decisions Committee, as 

appropriate.)

Item Estimate ($) Comments

ROW

Utilities

NEPA

Preliminary Eng. Could be split

Construction

Construction Eng.

Contingency
53 

Item Estimate ($) Comments

Total Should equal the 

programmed amount

G. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (Keep the roles and responsibilities at the 

agency or entity level. The project team member representing the agency/entity is 

responsible for ensuring that it meets its commitments. The Roles and 

Responsibility Table should include all signatory entities to the agreement. Can 

list the individual’s roles and responsibilities in the table listing the team 

members.) The following is an example of what the roles and responsibilities may 

look like.

Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments

FLH Division Insert FHWA’s role. What is FHWA 

responsible to deliver? Include 

mention of S&O if FHWA is not doing 

the PE, CN, and CE. Use bullet listing, 

e.g.

• Prepare environmental 

documents and make project 

decisions based on the NEPA 

documents

• Subject to the NEPA decision, 

o Obtain permits required 

for Federally 

constructed projects

o Prepare right-of-way 

plans and legal 

descriptions of parcels 

to be acquired.

o Prepare the PS&E

o Construct the project

State DOT Insert State’s role. What is the State 

responsible to deliver? e.g.,

• Attend reviews and meetings

• Provide available data

• Review plans and specifications
54 

Responsible Party Product/Service/Role Comments

Local Public 

Agency/Tribe

Insert the local public agency’s role. 

What is the local agency responsible to 

deliver? e.g., 

• Obtain permits other than those 

required for Federal 

constructed projects

• Coordination and costs 

associated with utilities

• Acquire right of way

• Attend reviews and meetings

• Provide data on traffic, 

accidents, material sources, etc. 

• Review plans and specifications 

at each phase of the design 

• Assume responsibility of the 

NPDES permit after project 

completion

• Provide long term maintenance 

and operation of the facility

Only include another 

agency or Tribe if they 

are signatories to this 

Agreement

If another agency will have a role or 

responsibility, list it here. Ex. If a 

FLMA or a Tribe will contribute 

toward the match requirement, they 

should be signatories to this Agreement 

and their role listed here. 

H. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – SCHEDULE (This section may be 

abbreviated with only a tentative project schedule based on the application 

pending a more in-depth scoping of the proposed project. If so, a more detailed 

schedule thereafter should be developed and approved by the parties or the 

Programming Decisions Committee, as appropriate.)

Responsible

Lead

Product/Service/R

ole

Schedule

Start-Finish

Comments

List the responsible entity, 

not individuals

Insert tasks 

appropriate for the 

project. List major 

milestones. This is 

not a detailed work 

plan. Schedule may 

change due to 

environmental 

process

May break down into 

several phases such 

as preliminary, 

intermediate, and 

final design
55 

Responsible

Lead

Product/Service/R

ole

Schedule

Start-Finish

Comments

Ex: FHWA NEPA

Ex: Local or state ROW Acquisition

I. PROPOSED DESIGN STANDARDS

Final design standards will be determined through the NEPA process.

Criteria Comments

Standard Ex. AASHTO Very 

Low Volume

Add if needed

May have other standards 

depending on type of 

facility

Functional Classification

Surface Type

Design Volume

J. FUNDING 

Fund Source Amount Comments

Title 23 program funds-what type? May have multiple lines.

Local Matching Share – which entity? 

May have more than one entity 

providing funds or other in-kind 

contribution

Cash or in-Kind 

Contribution

What is the source of the matching 

funds?

Besides funds from the State, funds 

authorized for the Tribal 

Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 

202) and the Federal Lands 

Transportation Program (23 U.S.C. 

203) may be used to meet the match 

requirement. Also, other Federal 

funds not authorized under titles 23 

or 49, may be used toward the match 

requirement.

Other funds-type? Are additional funds being 

provided for non-eligible 

items?

TOTAL Should match programmed 

amount
56 

K. MATCHING SHARE REQUIREMENTS

Matching or cost sharing requirements may be satisfied following the obligation of 

funds to the project by: allowable costs incurred by the State or local government, cash 

donations, the fair and reasonable value of third party in-kind contributions (but only 

to the extent that the value of the costs would be allowable if paid for by the party 

responsible for meeting the matching share), including materials or services; however 

no costs or value of third party contributions may count towards satisfying the 

matching share requirements under this agreement if they have or will be counted 

towards meeting the matching share requirements under another federal award.

Costs and third-party contributions counting toward satisfying a cost sharing or 

matching requirement must be verifiable from the records of the party responsible for 

meeting the matching requirements. The records must demonstrate how the value of 

third-party in-kind contributions was derived. Voluntary services sought to be applied 

to the matching share will be supported by the same methods that the party to this 

agreement uses to support allocability of personnel costs. Any donated services 

provided by a third party will be valued at rates consistent with those ordinarily paid 

by employers for similar work in the same labor market. Supplies furnished will be 

valued at their market value at the time of donation. Donated equipment or space will 

be valued at fair rental rate of the equipment or space. All records associated with 

valuations or costs under section K shall be accessible and be maintained for three 

years following project close-out.

(When FHWA is delivering the project, include also in this section how and when the 

local matching share will be provided. Cover the strategy for tracking the local 

matching share, including documentation and recordkeeping associated with in-kind 

contributions. Address the need for or incorporate a commitment to cover additional 

matching amount that may be required if there are cost increases due to contract 

modifications or claims, including FHWA administrative costs for the CMs or claim. 

If FLH is not delivering, then the tracking strategy and requirements would be 

included in the S&O Section of the agreement.)

L. PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS - POINTS OF CONTACT

The following table provides the points of contact for this project. They are to be the 

first persons to deal with any issues or questions that arise over the implementation of 

each party’s role and responsibility for this agreement. (This table would list the 

representatives of the entities that signed the agreement. It may not be the same 

individuals who signed the agreement. The individuals will be the ones doing the dayto-day tasks to develop the project. Some entities may have more than one member on 

the team.)

Name/Title Organization Address/Phone Number/Email

Local public 

agency

Can add another column to detail the individual’s 

project related responsibilities.

State

Others
57 

(May have a PM, 

lead designer, ...)

FHWA Division This is the person who will receive the requested 

documents and perform/oversee the FHWA role. 

This would be the project manager & others if 

FHWA is developing the project. It may be some 

other position if one of the signatory entities is 

doing the project development.

M. CHANGES/AMENDMENTS/ADDENDUMS

The agreement may be modified, amended, or have addendums added by mutual 

agreement of all parties. The change, amendment, or addendum must be in writing 

and executed by all of the parties.

The types of changes envisioned include, but are not limited to, changes that significantly impact 

scope, schedule, or budget; changes to the local match, either in type or responsibility; changes 

that alter the level of effort or responsibilities of a party. The parties commit to consider 

suggested changes in good faith. Failure to reach agreement on changes may be cause for 

termination of this agreement.

A change in the composition of the project team members does not require the agreement to be 

amended.

It is the responsibility of the project team members to recognize when changes are needed and to 

make timely notification to their management in order to avoid project delivery delays. 

N. ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCEDURES MATRIX

Issues should be resolved at the lowest level possible. The issue should be clearly 

defined in writing and understood by all parties. Escalating to the next level can be 

requested by any party. When an issue is resolved, the decision will be communicated 

to all levels below.

FHWA (partner 1) (partner 2) Time

Project Manager or POC

Name, title, contact info

This line should most likely 

be the project team 

members

X days

Branch Chief

Director

Division Engineer

O. TERMINATION

This agreement may be terminated by mutual written consent of all parties. This agreement may 

also be terminated if either the NEPA process or funding availability requires a change and the 

parties are not able to agree to the change. Any termination of this agreement shall not prejudice 

any rights or obligations accrued to the parties prior to termination. If Federal Access funds have 

been expended prior to termination, the party responsible for the match agrees to provide a match 

in the applicable percentage of the total amount expended on the project prior to the termination.
58 

P. STEWARDHIP & OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES

Item Responsible Party FLH 

Role

If FLH is not responsible for the project delivery, 

tracking & reporting the local match and other 

Stewardship and Oversight requirements must be 

accounted for in this section

(Based upon the risk assessment (complexity of the undertaking and capabilities and past 

performance of the entity who is the delivery partner), the FLH POC would fill in this table with 

the items that they feel are necessary for S&O. They would pull items from the Oversight 

Checklist – Partner Delivered Title 23 table. (Source: Federal Lands Highway Program 

Oversight Guidance, September 7, 2012). The FLH role is not to perform a technical review of 

the delivery agency’s work, but rather to ensure Title 23 compliance (or other laws as

applicable). If items are not delivered timely or in such poor condition that it brings into 

question the ability to deliver, the issue needs to be elevated to all participants to the agreement.

If FLH is responsible for the development and delivery, and a partner is providing only the local 

match funding in cash, with no ROW or utilities issues, this section may not be needed.)
59 

Appendix H – CAP Template

FLH Compliance Assessment 

Program (CAP) Questionnaire 

FLH DIVISION ID# DATE OF 

REVIEW

FEDERAL PROJECT # 

STATE PROJECT #

 FLTP

 FLAP

 If FLAP, State________________

 STATE ADMINISTERED

 LOCALLY ADMINISTERED

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

INDIVIDUAL (S) CONDUCTING REVIEW

SUPERVISOR REVIEW

NAME: 

DATE: 

ADDITIONAL CAP REVIEW GUIDE(S) USED ON THIS REVIEW (LIST ALL)

Instructions

1. Complete all questions in the CAP Core Question Form for all CAP reviews. Do not modify questions.

2. Provide comments for each of the NO, N/A or Don’t Know answers.

3. Directly verify all answers with source documentation.

4. Ensure source documentation is retained by the Division or State and available as necessary for quality assurance 

reviews or audits.

# CORE QUESTIONS CITATION ANSWER COMMENT

CQ1 Was the project included 

in the Transportation 

Improvement Plan (TIP) 

prior to the obligation of 

funds? 

23 CFR 

450.220(d)

Yes, the project was included in the 

FLH approved TIP prior to the 

obligation of funds 

No, the project was not included in 

the FLH approved TIP prior to the 

obligation of funds. (comment 

required)
60 

N/A, requirement does not apply

(comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)

CQ2 Was the appropriate 

NEPA action completed 

within appropriate 

timeframes via USC23, 

i.e. Record of Decision 

(ROD), Finding of No 

Significant Impact 

(FONSI), or Categorical 

Exclusion (CE) 

determination?

23 CFR 771 Yes, the appropriate NEPA action 

was completed within required 

timeframes, i.e. ROD, FONSI, or CE 

determination

No, the appropriate NEPA action 

was not completed within required 

timeframes, i.e. ROD, FONSI, or CE 

determination (comment required)

N/A, requirement does not apply

(comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)

CQ3 Did the partner provide a 

statement regarding the 

status of all ROW, utility, 

and railroad work and 

provides copies of 

include all applicable 

permits?

23 CFR 635.309 

(b)

Yes, the partner provided a 

statement that all right-of-way 

clearance, utility, and railroad work 

has been completed prior to the date 

of authorization and applicable 

permits. 

Yes, the partner provided a 

conditional statement for right-ofway clearance, utility, and railroad 

work that necessary arrangements 

have been made for it to be 

undertaken and completed for 

proper coordination with the physical 

construction 

No, the partner did not provide a 

statement that all right-of-way 

clearance, utility, and railroad work 

has been completed prior to the date 

of authorization and/or applicable 

permits. (comment required)

N/A, requirement does not apply

(comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required) 

CQ4 Were the Plans, 

Specifications and 

Estimates (PS&E) 

submitted and approved 

at 95% by FLH? 

23 CFR 

630.1012(b) 

23 CFR 

630.1012(c)

Yes, the PS&E were submitted by 

the partner and approved by FLH. 

No, the PS&E were not submitted by 

the partner and/or approved by FLH. 

N/A, requirement does not apply

(comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)

CQ5 Is there a full-time public 

employee administering 

the project?

23 CFR 635.105

FHWA Guidance 

Memo

Yes, a full time employed State 

engineer is in charge
61 

Yes, a full time employed Local 

Public Agency employee is 

administering the project

No, there is no full-time public 

employee responsible for 

administering the project (comment 

required)

N/A, requirement does not apply 

(comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)

CQ6 If applicable, did the 

project require a contract 

change order or extra 

work order and if so, was 

a cost analysis 

performed and submitted 

to FLH for approval? 

23 CFR 635.120 Yes, the partner followed the 

contract modification process 

properly and secured FLH’s 

approval. 

No, the partner did not follow 

contract modification processes 

properly and/or did not secure FLH’s 

approval. 

N/A, requirement does not apply

(comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)

CQ7 For FLAP projects: 

Was the match required

provided? 

Was the match for S&O 

activities provided?

23 CFR 120 Yes, the match was provided.

No, there is a tapered match 

agreement. Match will be provided 

by the end of the project. (comment 

required)

No, the match for S&O activities was 

not provided. (comment required)

CQ8 Was the project delivered 

within the project 

agreement’s scope? 

Citation or policy Yes, the project was delivered within 

the project agreement’s scope.

No, the project was not delivered 

within the project agreement’s 

scope. (Comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)

CQ9 Was the project delivered 

within the schedule? 

Citation or policy Yes, the project was delivered within 

schedule.

No, the project was not delivered 

within schedule. (Comment 

required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)
62 

CQ10 Was the project delivered 

within budget? 

Citation or policy Yes, the project was delivered within 

budget.

No, the project was not delivered 

within budget. (Comment required)

Don’t Know, could not be verified at 

the time of review (comment 

required)