These officials used worksheets to aid in assessing application  completeness and determining whether applicants and proposed projects  were eligible to receive funds. On January 28, 2010, DOT announced the selections. However, its rationales for selecting projects  were typically too general to determine how it applied the additional  selection criteria. When asked for more information on certain  applications, FRA provided specific reasons for its selection decisions,  but, in our opinion, creating a detailed, comprehensive record alongside  the final selections is preferable. FRA Applied Its Established Criteria to Determine Eligibility and Assess Technical Merit

We found that FRA applied eligibility criteria established in its funding  announcement when determining whether applications were eligible. This level of information, which provides some insight into  the merits of projects, was not included in the department’s record of its  decisions. Other  descriptions were similar. Documentation of agency activities is a key part of accountability for  decisions. This application was later recommended for selection. FRA substantially  followed these practices, including communicating key information to  applicants, planning for the competition, using a technical merit review  panel with desirable characteristics, assessing applicants’ ability to  account for funds, and notifying applicants of awards decisions. FRA  issued a funding announcement that included information on the $8 billion  in available funding, key dates, the competition rules, the funding  priorities and relative importance for each one, and the types of projects  FRA would consider for federal grants. For example, officials  from several states indicated that FRA officials participated in biweekly  conference calls, which were helpful in understanding the technical  aspects of how to apply. Document rationale for awards decisions. According to FRA, officials used lessons from a number of other  government programs when developing the method for evaluating and  selecting projects. FRA Publicly Communicated at Least as Much Outcome Information as Other Competitively Awarded Recovery Act Grant Programs

FRA publicly communicated outcome information, such as a list of awards  and the award amounts, at a level similar to or greater than most other  Recovery Act competitive grant programs that we examined. Only one of the programs that we examined—the  Department of Education’s State Innovation grants (known as Race to the  Top)—publicly communicated the results of its technical review, which  include technical scores and comments; however, this program used a  much different approach for selecting awardees than the HSIPR program. We also did not find  any non-Recovery Act requirement or guidance instructing federal  programs to publicly disclose the reasons for their selection decisions. FRA publicly communicated at least as much outcome information as all  but one Recovery Act competitive grant programs we reviewed. According to FRA officials, the results of the technical review were not  communicated because department officials were concerned that  associating technical review scores and comments with a specific  reviewer could discourage reviewers from participating in future  department competitive grant evaluations. Recommendation for Executive Action

To help ensure accountability over federal funds, we recommend that the  Secretary of Transportation direct the Administrator of the Federal  Railroad Administration to create additional records that document the  rationales for award decisions in future HSIPR funding rounds, including  substantive reasons (1) why individual projects are selected or not  selected and (2) for changes made to requested funding amounts. Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for  its review and comment. The department also offered technical  comments which we incorporated as appropriate. Appendix I: Extent to Which Recovery Act Projects Align with Statutory and Other Goals

We examined the extent to which American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) projects selected by the Federal Railroad  Administration (FRA) align with legislative and the administration’s goals  to develop high speed and conventional rail networks. Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

	Criteria Used to Select Projects

To determine the extent to which FRA applied its established criteria to  select projects, we identified the criteria that it planned to use from its  June 23, 2009, funding announcement outlining its evaluation and selection  approach. Specifically, we identified six  recommended practices relating to (1) communicating with potential  applicants prior to the competition, (2) planning for administering the  review of applications, (3) developing a technical review panel with  certain characteristics, (4) assessing applicants’ abilities to manage grant  funds, (5) notifying applicants of decisions, and (6) documenting reasons  for award decisions.
Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) appropriated $8 billion for high and conventional speed passenger rail. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), within the Department of Transportation (the department), was responsible for soliciting applications, evaluating them to determine program eligibility and technical merits, and selecting awards, which were announced in January 2010. This report examines the extent to which FRA (1) applied its established criteria to select projects, (2) followed recommended practices for awarding discretionary grants, and (3) communicated outcomes to the public, compared with selected other Recovery Act competitive grant programs. To address these topics GAO reviewed federal legislation, FRA documents, and guidance for other competitive grant programs using Recovery Act funds. GAO also analyzed data resulting from the evaluation and selection process and interviewed a cross-section of FRA officials and applicants.

What GAO Found

FRA applied its established criteria during the eligibility and technical reviews, but GAO could not verify whether it applied its final selection criteria because the documented rationales for selecting projects were typically vague. Specifically, FRA used worksheets and guidebooks that included the criteria outlined in the funding announcement to aid in assessing the eligibility and technical merit of applications. FRA also recorded general reasons for selecting applications and publicly posted broad descriptions of the selected projects. However, the documented reasons for these selection decisions were typically vague or restated the criteria listed in the funding announcement. In addition, there were only general reasons given for the applications not selected or for adjusting applicants' requested funding amounts. FRA subsequently provided GAO with more detailed reasons for several of its selection decisions, but this information was not included in the department's record of its decisions. Documentation on the rationales for selection decisions is a key part of ensuring accountability and is recommended by the department as well as other federal agencies. Without a detailed record of selection decisions, FRA leaves itself vulnerable to criticism over the integrity of those decisions--an important consideration, given that passenger rail investments have a very public profile. FRA also substantially followed recommended practices when awarding grants, including communicating key information to applicants prior to the competition, planning for the competition, using a merit review panel with certain characteristics, assessing whether applicants were likely to be able to account for grant funds, notifying applicants of awards decisions, and documenting the rationale for awards decisions (albeit generally). For example, FRA issued a funding announcement that communicated key pieces of information, such as eligibility, technical review, and selection criteria. FRA officials also conducted extensive outreach to potential applicants, including participating in biweekly conference calls, providing several public presentations on the program, and conducting one-on-one site visits with potential applicants. According to FRA, officials used lessons from a number of other grant programs when developing its approach to reviewing and selecting projects. FRA publicly communicated outcome information similar to other Recovery Act competitive grant programs we examined, including projects selected, how much money they were to receive, and a general description of projects and their intended benefits. Only one of the programs GAO examined communicated more outcome information on technical scores and comments; however, this program used a much different approach to select awards than FRA used to select intercity passenger rail awards. According to officials, FRA did not disclose outcome information from the technical reviews because officials were concerned that releasing reviewers' names and associated scores could discourage them from participating in future grant application reviews.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that FRA create additional records to document the substantive reasons behind award decisions to better ensure accountability for its use of federal funds. In commenting on a draft of this report, the department agreed to consider our recommendation. The department also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.