Fairfax committee cites SmartScale scoring and cost normalization as main reasons Northern Virginia won few state awards

Fairfax County officials told the Board of Supervisors’ Transportation Committee on June 3 that the state’s SmartScale scoring process has left the Northern Virginia region with very limited recommended funding in the most recent cycle, and they offered possible short‑ and long‑term responses.

Noel Dominguez of the Fairfax County Department of Transportation told the committee that Northern Virginia received recommendations for only a small fraction of its SmartScale applications in the most recent round and that cost is the primary factor hurting the region. “Most of our projects have high benefit scores, but then you act factor in the cost and they all drop,” Dominguez said.

SmartScale evaluates projects on measures such as congestion mitigation, safety, accessibility, environmental quality and economic development. In line with state law, Northern Virginia (classified as a Category A region) has its highest weighted factor on congestion mitigation. After projects are scored on benefits, the score is divided by cost to produce a cost‑adjusted ranking that determines funding recommendations.

Dominguez told the committee the process advantages smaller, lower‑cost projects: in the county and around the state, projects with lower total cost often produced higher rankings because the SmartScale process uses a cost denominator. He added that cost estimates are prepared in coordination with VDOT, but the state central office routinely revises those estimates upward during review and staff have only a short window to respond.

County staff identified operational and policy responses the board could pursue: submit more projects through metropolitan planning organizations or regional entities (rather than localities alone) to access categories of the program that favored MPO‑submitted projects in other districts; submit smaller, lower‑cost projects where appropriate; and press for legislative changes to normalize project cost calculations across regions.

Chairman McKay and other supervisors urged a two‑track approach: pursue a legislative fix — which would be a longer effort aimed at making costs more comparable statewide — and test operational workarounds in the short term. McKay said the county should “test a couple things” while continuing to push for a legislative remedy. Several supervisors asked staff to model what would have happened to Fairfax applications if projects had been submitted by an MPO or the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) and for staff to return with that modeling.

Dominguez also noted programmatic constraints: SmartScale divides funding into district and high‑priority statewide programs, has differing eligibility rules by program and requires full funding commitment or demonstrated local matching capacity for projects. Staff highlighted timing and readiness issues, noting that SmartScale awards often fund projects several years hence and require documentation that may need to be updated before funds are obligated.

No formal vote or policy change was taken at the meeting. Staff said they would pursue further analysis, including modeling the MPO‑submitter strategy, examining the relative success rates by submitter type, and continuing advocacy for legislative adjustments to the SmartScale cost treatment.

Less critical details: staff noted that in the recent recommendation scenario Northern Virginia initially had four recommended projects but ended with three after later adjustments; in comparison, other districts received considerably larger recommended totals. Dominguez recommended improved state communication and more lead time when state staff change scoring rules or data inputs.