MAPPING OF STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES PRACTICES TO 1

CONSULTANT OVERSIGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND 2 INSPECTION SERVICES 3

4 5 Valerie Carrasco Torres 6 Graduate Research Assistant 7 Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering 8 University of Colorado, Boulder 9

ECOT 515, Boulder, CO 80309-0428 10 Email: Valerie.CarrascoTorres@colorado.edu 11 12 Mohammad Moin Uddin, Ph.D., P.E. (Corresponding Author) 13

Assistant Professor 14 East Tennessee State University 15

203E Wilson Wallis Hall, Johnson City, TN 37614 16 Tel: 423 439 4264; Fax: 423 439 7031; Email: uddinm@etsu.edu 17

18 Paul M. Goodrum, Ph.D., P.E. 19 Nicholas R. Petry Professor of Construction Engineering and Management 20

Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering 21 University of Colorado, Boulder 22

ECOT 515, Boulder, CO 80309-0428 23 Tel: 303 492 0475; Email: paul.goodrum@colorado.edu 24 25

Keith R. Molenaar, Ph.D. 26

K. Stanton Lewis Professor of Construction Engineering and Management 27 Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering 28 University of Colorado, Boulder 29

ECOT 444, Boulder, CO 80309-0428 30 Tel: 303 735 4276; Email: keith.molenaar@colorado.edu 31

32 Word Counts: 33

Abstract 247 34 Text 3404 35 References 567 36 No of Tables (1250) 250 37 No of Figures (12250) 3000 38

Total 7468 39

mailto:Valerie.CarrascoTorres@colorado.edumailto:uddinm@etsu.edumailto:paul.goodrum@colorado.edumailto:keith.molenaar@colorado.edu

Torres, Uddin, Goodrum, and Molenaar 2

MAPPING OF STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES PRACTICES TO 40

CONSULTANT OVERSIGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND 41 INSPECTION SERVICES 42

43 Abstract 44

45 Over the past couple of decades, State transportation agencies (STAs) have outsourced various 46 functional activities traditionally performed by in-house personnel in reaction to increasing 47 workloads and diminishing number of staff. In order to cope with the situation, STAs have 48

developed and implemented various tools and practices for the management and oversight of 49 Construction Engineering and Inspection (CEI) services. A national CEI survey was conducted 50 by the authors, which provided a detail mapping of various tools and practices used for CEI 51 services and the understanding of the primary advantages and disadvantages of using CEI 52

consultants. The survey found that a wide variety of tools and practices are used by STAs for 53 defining the scope of work for CEI services to consultant selection and administration of CEI 54

consultant contracts. Statistical analyses (ANOVA analysis) estimate that CEI consultant 55 management and oversight practices vary significantly among STAs, which may imply various 56

underlying factors of choosing one practice over another. One of the most important findings of 57 this survey is the value of CEI consultant services as realized by the STAs. The survey found that 58 the CEI consultant services provide STAs the improved ability to handle peak workloads, 59

provide the flexibility of adding or reducing staff quickly, and bring special expertise that may 60 not otherwise be available in-house. However, reported challenges of working with CEI 61

consultants include developing and maintaining CEI consultants familiarity with in-house 62 processes and procedures, assuring CEI qualifications, and the relative cost of CEI consultants 63 compared to in-house staff. 64

65

66

Torres, Uddin, Goodrum, and Molenaar 3

INTRODUCTION 67 During recent years, most state highway agencies have reduced the total number of permanent 68 employees (1). That statement is just as true today as when it was first stated 25 years ago as 69 part of the 1989 NCHRP Synthesis study by Newman on Use of Consultants for Construction 70

Engineering and Inspection. Today, adequate construction staffing remains one of the most 71 critical resources for successful performance of highway construction projects, since state 72 transportation agencies (STAs) across the country continue to face a lack of sufficient in-house 73 personnel. STAs are doing more work with fewer agency employees than they were 10 years ago 74 (2). As STAs capital improvement expenditures and work volume increased over these same 75

years, outsourcing many functional activities through public-private partnership has become a 76 common practice in many STAs (3, 4). Construction engineering and inspection (CEI) 77 consultants serve as an adjunct to STAs and offer a flexible strategy to reduce their workloads 78 while also leveraging specialty expertise through competitive pricing. CEI consultants provide 79

efficient and cost effective services in various levels of STAs operations. These include but not 80 limited to construction, documentation, training, work zone safety, concrete testing, asphalt 81

inspection, traffic control, constructability reviews, scheduling, geotechnical services, temporary 82 staffing, and more. 83

84 Many transportation projects come to fruition through the collaborative efforts of STAs, 85 governmental agencies and private owners working closely with consultants. Numerous studies 86

have been conducted that reviewed trends of CEI consultant services, arguments for and against 87 outsourcing, drawbacks in the present systems, and ways in which they can be overcome. 88

Wilmot (2013) reported that between 1950 and 2000, new STAs activities outsourcing increased 89 more than 300% (5). A 2003 NCHRP study found that the rate of outsourcing grew or stayed at 90 the same high levels for the 95% of all STAs activities sampled (6). The same study reported 91

that staff constraints, schedules, skill requirements, and workload were the main reason for the 92

decision to outsource. Some studies claim that contracting outside agencies for key services 93 improves governments efficiency and is cost effective (7,8). Another study argues that private 94 sector firms can be penalized for poor services, which is an incentive to perform better (9). No 95

such penalty exists for government. Governments can benefit from innovation generated by the 96 private sector as they try to complete a project in the most cost-effective manner (10, 11, 12). 97

Outsourcing strategies are not free from limitations, however. An NCHRP web document 59 98 reported that cost savings in outsourcing are comparable to those of traditional methods, and it 99

may require a specialized contract and program management staff, which could be more costly 100 than their current staff (13). Other challenges identified are: ensuring that private firms work 101 with the best interest of the public, ensuring that consultants are well qualified and familiar with 102 STAs procedures, and maintaining the control in providing key services to outside stakeholders 103 (5). In order to overcome these drawbacks, and with the evolution of new project delivery 104

methods, enactment of new legislatures and regulations, numerous outsourcing practices have 105 emerged for consultant services management. STAs outsourcing continues to be a part of STAs 106

efforts to deliver effective and successful projects and services to the people. 107 108 Over the years, STAs have developed and implemented various tools and practices for the 109 management and oversight of CEI contract services. However, little has been done to summarize 110 CEI tools and practices and evaluate their usage among STAs. This paper presents a mapping of 111 the functions and/or activities performed by CEI consultants - the tools and/or functions being 112

Torres, Uddin, Goodrum, and Molenaar 4

used, the level of use and frequency usage of the tools among STAs, and the primary advantage 113

and disadvantage of using CEI consultants. The paper also presents how CEI consultant practices 114 has changed in the last few decades, since previously related studies were completed, and how 115 CEI tools and practices vary among STAs. 116 117

CEI FUNCTION TABLE 118 A table was developed to show the functions and tasks that different STAs consider to be CEI 119 services (Table 1). The table was developed after a thorough review of drafts of scope of works 120 from different STAs, requests for proposals, consultant services manuals, and pamphlets 121 describing their understanding of the scope for CEI services (14 - 22). A Mississippi 122

transportation agency report was used as guidelines to establish CEI main functional categories 123 (23). All similar tasks were then group together under the most suitable functional category 124 based on the documents mentioned above. 125

126

SURVEY INSTRUMENT 127 In order to understand various tools and practices that are used by STAs for the management and 128

oversight of CEI services, an electronic survey was developed and distributed to all 50 states 129 transportation agencies. The survey collected information on topics such as STAs CEI program 130

characteristics, tools for the selection of consultants, contract administration and closeout 131 processes, payment procedures, insurance, routine contact with CEI consultants, and impact of 132 CEI consultant services on STAs operations. The survey was organized based on the CEI 133

functions described in Table 1. 134 135 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 136 The national CEI survey was conducted from January to March, 2014. A total of 44 complete 137

re