SB 78 directs the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to prepare a focused, data-based report that evaluates how the department delivers safety enhancement projects on the state highway system and where those processes can be streamlined. The bill lists specific review tasks — from identifying administrative and regulatory timing drivers to evaluating alternative delivery models and whether Caltrans has the statutory authority to use them for safety-specific work.
The report must recommend procurement and interagency coordination changes, summarize current and planned streamlining initiatives, and be submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2027. The statute explicitly limits the report to available data, forbids project-specific findings or creation of new duties, and sunsets on January 1, 2031.
For stakeholders across procurement, legal, and program teams, the deliverable is a concise inventory of bottlenecks and potential legal or procedural fixes that could precede regulatory or statutory changes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires Caltrans to produce an evaluative report on processes, regulations, and procedures that affect the timing of safety enhancement projects; to assess the feasibility of alternative delivery methods; and to identify where additional statutory authority may be required. The report must include recommendations for procurement and interagency coordination and a summary of existing and planned initiatives. It must be submitted to the Legislature by January 1, 2027, and the statute repeals on January 1, 2031.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties include Caltrans program and procurement staff, state legal counsel, local transportation agencies that coordinate work on state highways, and construction industry participants (prime contractors and specialty firms) who bid on safety projects. Legislative committees and oversight agencies will also use the report to consider any follow-up policy or statutory changes. Consultants and data teams will be engaged to assemble the data-based analysis required.
Why It Matters
The report is a diagnostic tool that can clarify where procedural, regulatory, or statutory barriers slow safety work and set the agenda for future procurement reforms. Because the bill names specific delivery methods to evaluate, it could lead to broader adoption or legislative authorization of delivery models (or targeted limits) for safety projects. Although the report creates no new legal duties, its findings can inform near-term operational changes and legislative proposals affecting project timelines and procurement practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 78 requires Caltrans to take a systematic look at how safety enhancement projects move from concept to construction and where delays occur. The department must review administrative, regulatory, and procedural factors that affect timing — for example, permitting workflows, interagency approvals, procurement timelines, environmental or right-of-way processes, and internal project controls — and describe how those factors currently influence delivery schedules.
The bill instructs Caltrans to evaluate the use and feasibility of alternative project delivery methods, explicitly naming design-build, progressive design-build, job order contracting, and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC), while leaving room to consider other innovative approaches. For each method the department examines, it must assess practical feasibility for safety-specific projects and whether existing statutes give Caltrans the authority needed to deploy those methods; where authority is insufficient, the report must identify specific gaps.Caltrans must also recommend changes that would enhance interagency coordination and procurement strategy to speed delivery without compromising safety or transparency, and it must summarize current and planned internal initiatives aimed at streamlining delivery.
The bill constrains the report in two meaningful ways: it must be based only on available data and it cannot include project-specific findings or imply causality between delivery timelines and safety outcomes, nor can it create a new duty or standard of care for the department.The department must submit the completed report to the Legislature by January 1, 2027, following Government Code transmittal rules, and the statutory requirement expires on January 1, 2031. Because the measure is explicitly informational and data-limited, its immediate legal effects are limited; its practical impact will come from how the Legislature, Caltrans, and stakeholders use the analysis to consider operational or statutory changes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires Caltrans to submit a single report evaluating timing drivers and streamlining opportunities for safety enhancement projects on the state highway system by January 1, 2027.
The report must evaluate alternative delivery methods — specifically design‑build, progressive design‑build, job order contracting, and construction manager/general contractor — and may consider other innovative approaches.
Caltrans must assess whether it currently has statutory authority to use the delivery methods for safety-specific projects and must identify any precise areas where additional authority would be needed.
The statute prohibits the report from containing project-specific findings or implying causality between delivery timelines and safety outcomes, and it forbids creating any new duty, right, or standard of care for the department.
The reporting requirement is limited to analysis based on available data, and the section is set to automatically repeal on January 1, 2031 (four years after the report deadline).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Review administrative, regulatory, and procedural timing drivers
This clause directs Caltrans to inventory and analyze the administrative and regulatory processes that influence how quickly safety enhancement projects move forward. Practically, that means mapping approvals, environmental reviews, right-of-way clearances, and internal project controls to identify bottlenecks and quantify impacts on schedule. The emphasis on timing drivers positions the report as an operational audit rather than a legal adjudication of causes.
Evaluate alternative project delivery methods
Caltrans must evaluate the feasibility and use of specified alternative delivery approaches — design‑build, progressive design‑build, job order contracting, and CM/GC — and may consider other models. The practical takeaway is that the department must compare these methods against current practices for safety projects, assessing trade-offs such as procurement time, contractor risk allocation, cost predictability, and suitability for small-scale or rapidly deployed safety work.
Assess statutory authority to use methods for safety projects
This provision requires a legal review tied to delivery methods: does existing law permit Caltrans to deploy those approaches specifically for safety-only projects, and where does the department lack clear authority? The deliverable should identify statutory language that constrains use, recommend narrow clarifications or new authority where necessary, and flag legal or administrative hurdles that would need legislative or rulemaking fixes.
Recommend interagency coordination and procurement strategies
The bill asks for actionable procurement- and coordination-focused recommendations designed to speed delivery without sacrificing safety or transparency. Expect the report to propose changes to procurement timelines, prequalification, contract packaging, and interagency memorandum of understanding templates; it should also discuss how to maintain public accountability while accelerating procurement.
Data limits, prohibition on project-specific findings, submission, and sunset
Subsection (b) confines the analysis to available data, which frames the report as a descriptive assessment rather than an investigatory audit. Subsection (c) forbids project-specific findings and bars the report from creating new duties or standards; that limits both legal exposure and the report's prescriptive force. Subsection (d) sets the statutory deadline for submission (Jan 1, 2027), requires compliance with Government Code transmittal rules, and creates a repeal date of Jan 1, 2031, so the mandate exists for a finite window.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Caltrans program and procurement teams — receive a prioritized, department-specific analysis of timing bottlenecks and a menu of delivery methods and legal gaps to consider, which can inform internal process changes and requests for legislative authority.
- Local transportation agencies and regional planning partners — get a state-level assessment that can harmonize procedures and reduce duplicative approvals when projects cross jurisdictions, potentially shortening coordination timelines.
- Construction firms and contractors — can benefit if recommendations increase the use of alternative delivery models (like design‑build or CM/GC), opening new contract forms and potentially more streamlined bid processes.
- Highway users and communities — stand to gain indirectly if the report leads to faster implementation of safety enhancements that reduce exposure to hazardous conditions on state highways.
Who Bears the Cost
- Caltrans (staff time and data work) — the department must assemble the analysis without an appropriation in the bill, so producing a multi-part report and legal assessment will absorb staff time and potentially consultant costs.
- State legal and procurement offices — will need to analyze statutory gaps and participate in drafting recommended changes or new contracting templates, increasing workload.
- Smaller contractors and specialty vendors — could face competitive pressure if procurement shifts toward delivery methods that favor larger integrated teams, unless recommendations include equity or small-business safeguards.
- Local agencies and partner permitting entities — may need to adjust processes and invest staff time to implement coordination recommendations, which could strain capacity absent funding.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus safeguards: the bill pushes to accelerate delivery of safety enhancements by removing procedural and statutory bottlenecks, but measures that accelerate procurement and contracting often reduce time for oversight, public transparency, and careful risk allocation — so policymakers must choose between getting safety projects built faster and preserving the checks that limit cost, legal exposure, and unequal access to contracting opportunities.
The bill narrowly bounds the report’s utility and introduces predictable implementation challenges. Limiting the analysis to "available data" avoids new investigative powers but also risks undercounting causes that are not well-documented in existing datasets (informal delays, ad hoc interagency practices, or undocumented scope changes).
That data constraint can lead to recommendations that emphasize process redesign over deeper causal investigation.
Prohibiting project-specific findings and any creation of new duties reduces legal exposure for the department but weakens the report’s ability to direct remediation on high-risk, high-delay projects. Assessing statutory authority and recommending new powers is necessary if Caltrans cannot legally use alternative delivery models for safety-only projects, but any proposal to broaden procurement authority raises accountability trade-offs: faster contracting can shift risk and reduce checks that protect transparency, labor standards, and small-business participation.
Finally, the lack of an appropriation and the four-year sunset mean the mandate may produce useful diagnosis but leave follow-through (training, systems changes, legislation) under-resourced, creating a gap between analysis and implementation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.