�������������� �����������������������������������

What Public Officials Need to Know About...

��������������������

� ������������������

�������������� ��

��������������������

� ������������������

�������������� ��

Planning And Delivering

Public Works Projects

In The 21st Century

What Public Officials Need to Know About

The effective selection and use of engineering and architectural consultants by public agencies presents a major professional challenge for public works officials, chief administrative officials and governing bodies. The manner in which this responsibility is carried out can affect the public’s confidence in the agency and its officials either positively or negatively.

American Public Works Association

Texas Council of Engineering Companies

1001 Congress Ave., Suite 200Austin, Texas 78701

Phone: (512) 474-1474www.cectexas.org

1

INTRODUCTION

The planning and construction of public works projects is a major part of the mission of cities, counties, school districts, water districts and other public agencies. Taxpayers and ratepayers expect to see projects completed expeditiously. Elected officials are often much more involved in public works decision-making than they were 20 years ago, and the pressure on public works officials to deliver projects efficiently is significantly greater. Recent events, such as the devastating hurricanes along the Gulf Coast in 2005, have heightened public demand for effective and safe infrastructure.

This manual is intended to provide a general overview of the public works project planning and delivery process, with a focus on tips for good decision making and case studies of successful projects.

2

Texas

Council of

Engineering

Companies

www.cectexas.org

Table of Contents

I. The Role of Consulting Engineers in Public Works Projects................................... 4Types of Engineering ServicesEngineering Effort vs. Project Cost

II. Selecting an Engineer................................................................................................... 7Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS)Why Qualifications-Based Selection Yields ValueSteps in the Engineering Selection Process

III. Negotiating Engineering Fees and Contracts.......................................................... 11The Scope of WorkFee Structures Owner-Generated Fee CurvesNegotiating Engineering FeesInsurance Issues and RiskStandard Contracts Expediting Negotiation and Approval

IV. The Importance of Planning...................................................................................... 19

V. Geotechnical and Materials Testing Issues.............................................................. 21

VI. Special Issues for Building Projects.......................................................................... 23

VII. Project Delivery Options.............................................................................................. 24Competitive Sealed Bid Proposals for Construction ServicesConstruction Manager-At RiskDesign-BuildGuide to Project Delivery Options

Appendix A Types of Engineering Services........................................................................ 27

3

he delivery of public works projects and the structure of organizations responsi-ble for them have both changed significantly in recent years. Twenty years ago, governmental public works agencies often had large engineering design staffs. Now, public works leaders are pushed to do more with less staff and to respond quickly to shifting revenue streams, changing conditions, and the need for special-ized expertise. As a result, agencies have had to rely heavily on consulting engi-neering firms to supplement their staff resources and to team with them in the delivery of projects. Some organizations, such as toll road authorities and major counties, have become almost exclusively managers of service providers, deliver-ing hundreds of millions of dollars of projects with very limited in-house staff.

As public works organi-zations have changed, the role of engi-neering firms has evolved and broadened as well. In the past, engineer-ing firms may have focused

solely on design work, developing plans and specifications for public works staff to approve and implement. Now, consulting engineers are increasingly retained by owners to implement complete programs from beginning to end. This involves a wider range of services, such as capital project planning and scheduling, develop-ment of design standards, management of consultant teams and administration of construction activities.

Engineering firms are brought in to assist agencies for many reasons. Special tech-nical capabilities may be needed for a particular project, or a project may be con-troversial or politically sensitive. Staffing flexibility may be a reason to use an engineering firm, since public works programs rarely require the same level of engineering effort from year to year and in-house staff cannot be hired and fired to

I. THE ROLE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS IN

PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

T

4

In a public works project, the engineer is the owner’s agent -- the eyes and ears and trained mind that exclusively repre-sents the owner throughout the process of conceiving, design-ing, and constructing the project. The engineer’s skill, expe-rience, and independent judgment provide the owner the best assurance of project integrity and true value. That assur-ance, in turn, helps meet the public trust in expending tax-payer funds.

EXAMPLE: Because consulting engineers usually work for multiple clients and across a geographic area, they may have a better understanding of regional facilities and can help clients find solutions that extend beyond their boundaries. For example, the City of Midlothian retained a consulting firm to plan and design a new wastewater treatment plant. But because the firm was knowledgeable about other regional systems in the area, it suggested that the city investigate hooking up to a regional system. In the end, this proved to be a more cost-effective alternative.

match production needs. Other considerations often cited by owners include the cost-effectiveness of private sector services, the innovation and ideas brought in through the competitive selection process and the clear lines of responsibility for schedule and quality in an outsourced project.

The roles of consulting engineering firms can vary widely. The services typically provided to public agencies relate to planning, design and construction of capital projects. An engineering firm might serve as a city’s flood plain manager, deal with state and regional agencies on the city’s behalf and help educate the city coun-cil on flooding issues. A firm might have an operational role in dealing with water line breaks, treatment plants or traffic signals. In the regulatory area, a firm might provide plan and plat review, help develop and modify codes or provide long-range community planning. In the area of capi-tal project implementation, a firm might perform design or manage other design teams and perform construction adminis-tration services.

Obviously, all of these services can be per-formed by in-house staff. The value of a consulting firm is that it can provide per-sonnel with diverse expertise on a less than full-time basis, bringing the best-in-class skills to bear on particular problems.

Just as the needs for engineering services vary, the firms that meet these needs also vary in organizational structure, size and capability. Many engineering firms provide comprehensive, diversified services to owners. Other firms provide specialized services, such as geotechnical, civil, struc-tural, mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) or environmental engineering. These firms can provide their services directly to an owner or through a prime firm in a subconsultant relationship. On large, multi-disciplinary projects, it is customary to retain a prime firm with subconsultant professionals providing specialized services under the direction of the prime.

TYPES OF ENGINEERING SERVICES The services offered by consulting engineers can be grouped into two broad catego-ries

• Planning and consulting studies• Services related to construction projects

Money invested in quality design at the front end of a project often can save significantly on overall project costs.

DFW Airport’s 4.81-mile Skylink is the world’s largest airport train.

5

6

Engineering consulting studies can include feasibility reports for a capital project, comparisons of design alternatives, environmental impact analyses, master plans, land development plans and regional plans, operational studies for a capital facility, rate studies, assistance in financial analysis, equipment tests, forensic engineering to investigate causes of a failure and many other kinds of investigations and reports. Construction projects typically follow engineering investigations and reports. At the outset, a study and report phase looks at the owner’s needs and feasible alterna-tives and determines project scope. Engineering firms also help owners understand various project delivery options and assess which is best for their project. During a preliminary design phase, an engineer could conduct geotechnical and soil investi-gations, define project requirements and general scheduling, and deal with regula-tory agencies and affected utilities. After the preliminary design approval, the engi-neer develops construction plans and contract documents and provides an opinion regarding probable costs. A consulting engineer usually assists owners in advertis-ing for bids or obtaining proposals, issues addenda and interpretations to plans, helps the owner assess the acceptability of contractors and evaluate bids. In the construction phase, engineers can provide a variety of services from periodic obser-vation to full administration. (A more detailed list of types of engineering services is provided in Appendix A.)

In consulting services and in the design and construction of projects, consulting engi-neers are an owner’s agent in solving problems and accomplishing the owner’s goals.

ENGINEERING EFFORT VS. PROJECT COST

Engineering decisions, whether delivered by public works employees or private sector consultants, are the key factors in the initial cost and long-term value in pub-lic works projects. Engineering costs are typically less than 15 percent of a proj-ect’s construction costs and no more than 2 percent of life cycle costs. But the decisions that are made during the engineering phase regarding the layout, design, materials, size, equipment and other facets of a project are critical to how long a facility lasts, how much it costs to maintain and how well it addresses the problem it was intended to solve. Money invested in quality design at the front end of a project often can save significantly on overall project costs.

Engineering costs are typically no more than 2 percent of

life cycle costs.

Engineering Costs vs. Project Costs

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%15% 2%

Con

stru

ctio

n

Life

Cyc

le

QUALIFICATIONS-BASED SELECTION (QBS)

Both federal and Texas law provide for a specific process that must be followed when governmental entities retain engineers. This process is referred to as qualifications-based selection, or QBS. QBS is a two-step competitivecontracting process based on the evaluation of a firm’s capabilities, experienceand technical skills in relation to the needs of a particular project.

Professional Services Procurement Act (Section 2254.004, Government Code):In procuring architectural or engineering services, a governmental entity shall (1) first select the most highly qualified provider of those services on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications; and (2) then attempt to negotiate with that provider a contract at a fair and reasonable price.

Under Texas law, the failure to follow a QBS process in selecting an engineer can result in a contract being voided. The law may also be enforced through injunctive or declaratory relief. So doing it right saves time and money.

The typical QBS process has two phases:

Phase I (Selection): The first phase involves the selection of the firm most quali-fied to do the work. Initially, the owner publicly solicits services for a particular project. In response, interested firms submit statements of their qualifications and ability to design the project, including the qualifications of the project manager and other staff that will be working on the project. The owner evaluates the respon-dents only on the basis of experience and qualifications – cost is not a factor – and typically develops a short list of three competing firms. Usually interviews are held with the short-listed firms. Finally, the firms are ranked in order of most qual-ified.

Phase II (Negotiation): The second phase involves the negotiation of the fee. The owner and the highest-ranked firm define the scope of services and negotiate a fair and reasonable fee for the services to be per-formed. If negotiations are not successful, discussions are terminated and the owner contacts the next most highly rated firm, with the process continuing until a contract is signed. A subsequent chapter will provide more information on fees and negotiation.

This process can be shortened. If an owner has extensive experience with a firm and is

II. selecting an engineer

QBSSelection of Firm

Negotiation of Fee

1.

An aggressive and innovative design approach improved overall streetscape aesthetics while supporting a friendlier environment for pedestrian and traffic access in Longview.

7

satisfied that the firm is the best for the upcoming work, a public request for quali-fications from other firms is not required by law. Similarly, an owner can make a selection after receiving statements of qualifications, without conducting inter-views. The more complicated the project, the more an extensive selection process is advisable. The success or failure of a project can depend on such factors as the ease of communication between an owner and the consultant’s project manager.

The primary prohibition in the QBS process is that competitive bidding is not allowed.

WHY QUALIFICATIONS-BASED SELECTION YIELDS VALUE

QBS is the law, but why is that the case? After all, competitive bidding procedures apply to most procurement decisions by governmental entities. Why not profes-sional design services?

■ Bidding is appropriate, but only when detailed specifications or a detailed scope of services are known. When commodities are procured by a governmen-tal entity through competitive bidding, one of the requirements is that each bidder is bidding on the same commodity. Detailed specifications ensure that bidders have equal opportunities. Engineering services are procured before the scope of work for a project is highly defined; in fact, engineers are retained to develop the scope of work. Since the owner cannot know the precise services to be provided before the project is designed, fair competitive bidding is impossible.

■ QBS encourages technical excellence and innovation. A system that simply

seeks the cheapest service will produce lower quality design and therefore more expensive projects. When fee becomes a major criterion for selection, a design firm’s approach has to change. Applying higher standards or technical excel-lence could render a response noncompetitive if another respondent applies lower standards. Advanced technologies or new features that could save money over the life of the project may not be added because another firm, not including these features, may offer a lower upfront price. Instead, systems that are easy to design are selected. Less experienced personnel are used and few options are evaluated. QBS, on the other hand, encourages collaboration with the client to find the best solutions within budget constraints.

QBS is the law,

but why is that the case?

8

EXAMPLE: A 12,000-foot long, $36 million outfall tunnel was needed to drain North Central Expressway in Dallas. During a qualifications-based selection process, an engineering firm won the project with a radical new idea – an under-ground detention vault mined deep under a city park to completely eliminate the need for the outfall tunnel. The city hired the firm and subsequently built the Cole Park Detention Vault, saving around $8 million in construction.

■ Quality design is the biggest factor in long-term cost. As noted above, design costs are typically a very small percentage of life cycle costs. However, the skills, experience and judgment provided by engi-neers during design are the biggest factors in determining life cycle costs. Shortcuts in design may be cheaper in the near term, but it almost inevitably costs more in terms of maintenance, rehabilitation and operational costs. QBS promotes a long-term focus.

■ Quality design affects construction costs. Shortcuts in design are penny-wise and pound-foolish. Firms competing on the basis of price rather than value can develop plans without evaluating options or with minimal details that often require much decision making in the field by the contractor. On a structural project, an engineer could design only the most heavily loaded members, then repeat the conservative design throughout the structure, resulting in oversizing and higher construction costs. Since construction costs are typically 85-90 per-cent of project costs, expansion of these costs is much more significant than the cost of full design services.

■ The essence of the design process is a collaboration between engineer and owner. The critical element in the design process is collaboration between the owner and the engineer. To a real extent, work on a project begins when an owner and the most qualified firm enter negotiations. To arrive at a price, the owner and engineer must jointly establish goals and project scope, eliminate ambiguities, clarify assumptions and set realistic expectations about schedule and budget. Bidding tends to eliminate this dialogue and gives professionals an incentive to work against their client from the beginning in order to gain an advantage on the competition for a low price.

■ No two design solutions are the same. People often believe that engineers practice an exact science, learning formulas and applying them similarly. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Engineering is based on the application of education, experience, opinion and judgment. Not all engineers have the same level of experience in every specialty or project type, and not all can bring that experience to bear on a project in a timely manner. Not all engineers apply the same level of creativity and ingenuity and not all have the same level of communication skills. Doctors, lawyers and accountants often differ in the appli-cation of their professional judgment; engineers and architects are no different.

■ QBS is cost-effective. Although it is not a low-bid process, QBS does consider cost. An owner is under no requirement to accept the proposed compensation of the highest-ranked firm. Owners can and do proceed to negotiate with other firms. At the same time, to get the best value owners should expect to pay rea-sonable fees for the services required.

STEPS IN THE ENGINEERING SELECTION PROCESS

The use of pipe loop studies for a new treatment facility was an innovative approach utilized by engineers to plan a new storage and recovery project for the San Antonio Water System.

9

Some of the important objectives in selecting a consultant are:

■ Participation by a sufficient number of consultants to ensure selection of a quali-fied firm.

■ Fair competition, with due respect for not unduly burdening the consultant com-munity. This means ensuring that the demands on agency staff and consultants is proportionate to the size of the project.

■ Objective comparison of agency needs and goals with the capabilities of the firms considered.

■ Involvement of stakeholders whose satisfaction with the end project is critical.

With these objectives in mind, the typical process of selecting an engineering consultant includes:

■ Deciding to use an engineering consultant.■ Development of a basic information packet and issuance of a request for qualifi-

cations (RFQ). Often, the RFQ will include a listing of the criteria that the agen-cy will use to evaluate proposers.

■ Receipt of consultant responses.■ Review of responses and identification of a short list of firms to interview.

Typically, a short list will be no more than 3-5 firms; an invitation for an inter-view will often include additional information on the project.

■ Interviews.■ Evaluation of interviews and determination of most qualified firm. A score sheet

or evaluation form can be used to assist interviewers with a set number of points awarded for specific areas. Evaluation factors can include experience of the firm on similar projects, experience of the project manager on similar projects, expe-rience of the team, project approach, innovative ideas, special capabilities, pre-vious experience with the agency and similar factors that are related to experi-ence and qualifications.

■ Notification of most qualified firm, negotiation of scope, fee and contract terms.

A qualifications-based selection can move expeditiously. For example, there is no requirement under Texas law for agencies to advertise if they have a satisfactory relationship with a firm or if they feel they can select an appropriate group of invit-ed respondents. Of course, this option must be balanced against the need for any public process to be perceived as fair. Furthermore, the evaluation of respondents and the selection of the most qualified firm can and should happen within days of the interview process.

EXAMPLE: A Texas water supply district was faced with construction of a 156-mile raw water pipeline through a rural area. The construction costs of a cookie-cutter design were estimated at more than $150 million. However, the district retained an engineering firm with experience in many large pipeline projects. Because of this experience, the consultant was able to design a system that was constructed for $105 million, generating savings through custom engineered piping products, innovative construction techniques, use of native materials and innovative project sequencing.

10

THE SCOPE OF WORK

Any contracting process is about defining what each party is looking for in an agreement. The absolute key to a good engineering contract is a clearly defined scope of work for the project – what the engineer will study and deliver. This agreement comes out of significant discussion between the selected firm and the owner about options, goals, schedule, budget and other project parameters.

An engineering scope of work is typically developed collaboratively between the owner’s professional staff and the engineer. The outcome is a definition of the nature and geographic limits of the project, the various tasks to be accom-plished, the options to be explored, the standards to be employed, the range of deliverables and the schedule for com-pletion.

Defining the scope of services on an engineering project is mostly about defining expectations. Too often, project per-formance elements are not communicated in sufficient detail early on. Instead, each party makes assumptions based on their experience with past projects. This usually leads to two sets of assumptions that do not match.

Some of the key items that should be defined and discussed between client and engineer include:

■ The most important aspect of the project to the client (e.g., schedule, cost public relations, quality, innovation, etc.).■ Previous studies and planning documents that relate to the project.■ Standards to be used and additional standards and specifications that apply.■ Reviewing agencies that will be involved and departments within the own-er’s organization that will be involved.■ Required deliverables, including frequency with which preliminary work will be submitted.■ The time required for reviews by the owner.■ The format for deliverables.■ The level of subsurface utility engineering to be performed.■ The level of right-of-way services to be performed, such as number of ease-ments, right-of-entry and easement acquisition services.■ Permit requirements and who is responsible for obtaining them.■ The level of effort to be expended in the study phase of the project, such as type and number of alternatives to be considered.■ The schedule for each phase of the project.■ The number of separate bid packages to be prepared.■ The level of construction phase services to be performed along with the roles and responsibilities of each party.

III. NEGOTIATING ENGINEERING FEES AND CONTRACTS

The absolute key to a good engineering contract is a clearly defined scope of work for the project.

11

■ The level of effort associated with environmental investigations.■ The level of effort for archeological investigations.■ The level of geotechnical investigation and who is to perform.■ The topographic and boundary survey requirements for the project and identify any previous survey work to be incorporated into the project.■ The survey control network to be used as a basis for the project.

FEE STRUCTURES

There are various fee structures in common use in engineering contracts, depending on the type of work involved.

■ Lump Sum: All work within a defined scope is to be completed for a set fee. This type of contract is commonly used when the scope of work can be clearly defined. Lump sum contracts minimize paperwork burdens on both sides during the billing process, since payment is usually based on a percent-complete basis.

■ Hourly Rates: All of the work in a defined scope is to be completed at agreed-on hourly rates. This type of agreement is typical where scope is more undefined, such as in a planning contract. For contracts that extend over several years of work, it is common for escalators to be included that recognize inflationary cost factors.

■ Cost Plus Fixed Fee: All of the work in a defined scope is to be completed for a sum equal to the cost (including overhead costs) accumulated in performing the work, plus an additional fixed fee sum, up to a maximum amount. The total fixed fee portion is paid regardless of the actual cost of the work per-formed. This type of contract is used for complex projects that may have somewhat unpredictbable workloads, such as public involvement processes.

■ Monthly Retainer: A range of work will be performed for one lump sum divided equally into monthly fees, over the life of the project or contract. This is basically a lump sum fee type project, with the exception that it is billed in fixed monthly amounts. It can apply to repetitive projects such as field inspec-tion services.

■ Schedule of Rates: All work within a defined scope is to be completed for established rates based on completed work, regardless of hours expended. This type of contract is best applied to field services, such as geotechnical ser-vices which may be paid for based on completed tests or feet of borings. Subsurface utility engineering is also commonly paid for based on length of underground utilities located.

12

Engineers working with the City of Killeen and Fort Hood

designed an expansion of the existing airfield to meet both

military and civilian standards, resulting in substantial savings.

The selection of the fee structure can be made collaboratively between the owner and the engineering firm. However, for optimum results, either a single individual or a closely-knit contract team must understand the links between contract scope, fee and terms. Problems can sometimes arise when contracts are negotiated by legal or accounting staff without the involvement of tech-nical or project management staff. Technical staff must understand the limitations and conditions of a contract. And in any professional services contract, fees cannot be separated from scope of work.

OWNER–GENERATED FEE CURVES

Some entities with high volumes of similar work develop fee curves, which estimate average engineering fees based on construction cost. Fee curves have some value in cer-tain situations, but they have many limitations as well. First, they typically address only basic engineering servic-es for a project. Many other services such as environmental assessment, geotechni-cal investigations, stormwater planning, traffic studies, hydraulic and hydrology studies, topographic and boundary surveys, appraisal services, right-of-way acquisi-tion services, regulatory permitting, grant applications and public involvement all bear little relationship to construction costs and must be estimated differently. The cost of these so-called “extra services” is never included in fee curves.

Also, fee curves must be constantly updated. They address a correlation between engineering costs and con-struction costs at a given point in time, but these two sets of costs do not have a static relationship and have different inflationary and deflationary pressures over time. Some agencies have been known to use fee curves from the 1970s and 80s to develop fees, even though these curves are completely outdated and have been formally withdrawn by organizations that developed them.

Similar to fee curves, fee tables are sometimes used in the design of new buildings. The fees for these types of services are defined by industry standards. Some public agencies publish a fee table which lists construction cost ranges for typical projects and a corresponding architectural engineering (A/E) percentage fee. Like any fee determination, the level of services above or below industry standard would have an impact on the fee percentage.

NEGOTIATING ENGINEERING FEES

Probably the most common method of negotiating engineering fees is through the development of a spreadsheet with a breakdown of tasks on the vertical axis and a breakdown of types of personnel on the horizontal axis, with the fee developed by

Task

s

Personnel

Owners must appreciate the uniqueness of each project location, utilities, traffic control, safety issues, construction sequencing and construction methods available to the contractor.

13

estimating the number of hours of effort required for each task for each level of employee. For example, for the drainage aspects of a roadway project the detailed breakdown of the engineering tasks might include hours for project management, determining drainage area boundaries, obtaining storm sewer maps, hydraulic com-putations, layouts for channel improvements, etc. For each of these tasks, the hours required by the project manager, senior engineer, senior structural engineer, civil engineer, CADD operator and others can be estimated. These hours can then be multiplied by the billing rate for each position to determine the total fees. The table below illustrates this example:

There are ways to assess the fairness and reasonableness of a fee estimate - such as averages (dollars per linear foot on certain types of projects) or dollars per sheet of plans. However, there is no magic bullet or golden curve that yields an automatic, perfect answer to fee negotiation.

Owners must appreciate the uniqueness of each project. Engineering projects have many variables – location, utilities, traffic control, safety issues, construction sequencing, construction methods available to the contractor and so forth. In a civil engineering project, an added variable is that many of the unknowns are under-ground and unseen, and not identifiable through available imaging tools.

Even for a relatively simple project such as widening a road from two to four lanes, consider the issues that must be addressed. There are utility relocation issues, including determining whether there is an opportunity to upgrade and relocate the utilities; signing, signalization and traffic control issues; where to mobilize equip-ment; whether there are alternatives that minimize needed right-of-way; drainage issues; life cycle issues related to pavement; and many more.

In many cases, projects with similar construction costs can involve very different

14

EXAMPLE: ROADWAY DRAINAGE PROJECT

SUBTOTAL (HOURS)

TASKProject Manager

Senior Civil

Senior Structural

Civil Eng

Survey Crew

CADD Total Hours

Materials & Supplies

Per Diem & Travel

1. Project Management

2. Drainage Area Boundaries

3. Obtain Storm Sewer Maps

4. Hydraulic Computations

5. Layouts for Improvements

6. Other

7. Other

8. Other

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0 $ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

$ 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

engineering and planning efforts. Consider a project that involves replacing a water line along a residential street as opposed to a new water line in open country. Some of the engineering issues that would have to be resolved in the residential area but not in the open country include: where is the existing water line, what other utilities are under the street, what is the condition of the line, where are the service lat-erals, how to maintain service during the project, what was the land use in the past, what will development be in the future, are there schools nearby, can service be shut down during construction, how to maintain fire protection, how to best provide for repair in the future with the least disruption, will additional right-of-way be needed and should pavement be repaired or substantially reconstruct-ed.

The point is that a contract for engineering services is not about purchasing a set of lines on a sheet. Rather it is accessing trusted advice based on judgment about what is the most cost-effective way for an owner to approach a project where the construction and life-cycle costs dwarf the engineering costs.

It also is important for owners to understand the diversity of specialties that can be required for even a small project. Services required can include not only civil engi-neering but also surveying, environmental services, public involvement, hydrology and hydraulics, electrical engineering, structural engineering, process engineering, corrosion assessment, instrumentation and others. On all but the simplest jobs, the engineer is bringing together a unique set of specialists and managing the interface between them. For an owner, the value of using private sector providers is the abili-ty of those providers to marshal the appropriate skills for each job without main-taining these skilled employees or staff between jobs.

INSURANCE ISSUES AND RISK

Engineering firms typically carry two types of insurance:■ General liability insurance, which covers work site accidents, automobiles, etc.■ Professional liability insurance, which covers the results of professional negligence.

Negligence on the part of a design professional means the failure to meet a custom-ary standard of care, which is defined as the duty to have a degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable engineers practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances.

What the relevant standard of care is and what is meant by negligence by design professionals is commonly misunderstood. The standard of care is not and can never be perfection. Any engineer — and any knowledgeable owner — will tell you there is no perfect set of plans.

Whether the job is rehabilitation of an existing facility or a brand new facility on a

15

greenfields site, engineering projects always involve some level of unknown infor-mation. As-built plans for a pre-existing facility may not be available. Subsurface conditions can be particularly problematic. Geotechnical investigations can pro-vide knowledge of soil conditions, but that knowledge is never perfect. The exis-tence of underground utilities is another unknown, to the point that an entirely new discipline known as subsurface utility engineering (SUE) has developed in recent years.

An investment in front-end site assessment activities is always a trade-off. It costs money, but can uncover problems that would cost more to correct at a later date. On the other hand, it is rarely worth the expenditure to develop a “perfect” knowl-edge of site conditions.

Nor can a design professional guarantee costs or price. Design of a facility often commences 12 to 18 months ahead of construction and no engineer can predict the bidding climate that far into the future. Commodity prices can go up and down rap-idly, as steel and oil have done in recent years. The timing of other projects, which can drastically affect the number of bidders, cannot be controlled.

Some owners seem to think that a contract, once executed, transfers all risk to their engineer and contractor. However, knowledgeable

owners recognize that any construction project involves risk, that the contracting process involves risk-sharing, and that some responsibility for unknowns simply must be assumed by the owner and cannot be shifted away. An engineer’s job is to minimize that risk within the limits of cost-ef-fectiveness but it is impossible, within average fees, for all risks to be absorbed by an engineer or for that engineer to guarantee a risk-free proj-ect.

The best way to deal with these eventualities is through a contingency fund to pay for both engineering and construction changes due to unforeseen conditions, with the size of the fund established on a case-by-case basis driven by anticipated project risks.

Other mechanisms for managing risk include:■ Escrowing bid documents in case of

later dispute.■ Establishing a dispute resolution pro-

cess.■ Appointing a knowledgeable owner’s

representative to facilitate decision-making.

16

n

n

Insurance

Policy

17

STANDARD CONTRACTS

Many agencies develop their own standard forms of agreement for use on profes-sional services contracts for engineers. These vary widely in form and content, and in some cases may be inappropriate to a specific assignment or may need signifi-cant modification before use. Owners should note that there are industry-accepted engineering services contracts, and standard terms and conditions that can be obtained through the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) and other professional societies. These documents were prepared through the joint efforts of NSPE, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and others, and are com-monly referred to as the Engineers’ Joint Contract Documents Committee (EJCDC) family of documents. In addition to these EJCDC documents, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) has prepared a family of documents. However, these are targeted towards buildings, and their use on traditional public works and other predominantly engineering projects is not advised.

When a design professional enters into an agreement to perform services, whether the services are provided as part of a Prime Agreement or in the role of a subcon-sultant, it is advisable to retain the services of an attorney familiar with contract law. In those circumstances when an attorney is not retained, it is advisable to have a risk management specialist or a person intimately familiar with risk to review, provide comments, and assist in negotiating equitable and reasonable contract terms.

Some of the key components to effective contracting and risk management include:

■ A well written and concise Payment clause.■ Scope of work, with fee, schedule and exclusions.■ Indemnification provisions that properly distribute the risk to the party most able to control the risk (See additional discussion below).■ Insurance limits and coverages that are fair and appropriate for the type of project that is envisioned.■ Limitations of liability language that may limit the design professional’s lia-bility for those projects that are highly complicated or risky, or that have a compressed schedule.■ Communications with client (an important aspect of subconsultant agreements).■ Other topics such as taxation and consequential damages.

One method of risk-shifting is contractual provisions under which owners some-times attempt to have contractors or consultants indemnify the owner against an owner’s negligence. These provisions are sometimes used in construction con-tracts, where some elements of transferred risk, such as site safety, are insurable.

As to design contracts, however, Texas law prohibits owners from requiring engineers and architects to indemnify an owner for the owner’s negligence. Furthermore, a public owner may get indemnity from an engineer or architect only for certain specific things - the design professional's negligent acts, inten-tional torts, infringement of intellectual property, and failure to pay a subcon-sultant. All other contractual indemnities are prohibited.

18

Such provisions are void and unenforceable, even in private contracts.* The poli-cy reason behind this law is that professional liability policies carried by design professionals cover only the actions of an employee or subconsultant of the design professional. Any contractual provision intending to cover the negligence of others would void the policy. Furthermore, since engineering firms typically have few assets other than smart people and computers, such provisions would have little real utility. The preferred approach is for the owner to be responsible for the own-er’s negligence, the engineer to be responsible for the engineer’s negligence, and areas in between to be apportioned based on degrees of responsibility.

EXPEDITING NEGOTIATION AND APPROVAL

It is not uncommon in the governmental arena for contract approval and finaliza-tion to take far longer than it should because of departmental approvals or sequen-tial approvals by the governing body. It makes sense to expedite this process. When contract terms are agreed to, there is usually excitement on the part of the project team – both on the owner’s side and the engineer’s side – to get started. Discussions as to scope are fresh and the project team ready to go. If final check-offs don’t happen for one, two or three months (or more) there can be a loss of momentum.

Development of a master plan utilizing a video surveillance system enabled the Uptown Houston Development Authority to improve mobility and to address increasing traffic volume and changing traffic patterns.

* See Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, Sec. 130.002 (b): “A covenant or promise in, in connection with, or collateral to a construction contract other than a contract for a single family or multifamily residence is void and unenforceable if the covenant or promise provides for a registered architect or licensed engineer whose engineering or architectural design ser-vices are the subject of the construction contract to indemnify or hold harmless an owner or owner's agent or employee from liability for damage that is caused by or results from the negli-gence of an owner or an owner's agent or employee.

19

ublic works planning is not solely a technical exercise. It begins with policy decisions made by elected officials and citizens. What is their vision for their city or county? What do they want it to look like in the future?

Planning implements this vision. It defines capital facility needs based on policy decisions about growth and includes implementation plans with the associated codes, ordinances and financial plans that are required.

There are many levels and types of planning. For example, master planning may focus on long-term water and wastewater system needs or the develop-ment of a long-range thoroughfare plan. It involves an inventory of assets and some predictive stan-dards for maintenance, replacement, repair and res-toration. Increasingly, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database is an essential tool in the municipal planning process.

A capital improvement plan (CIP) implements the vision. A CIP is necessarily more reactive and responsive to constituent groups in various parts of a city, county or special district, but it should be based on the life cycles of capital assets and the management program for these assets. Otherwise, each project can become a “political football.” A financially unconstrained plan is worth an initial review, since it shows a true picture of what must be accomplished, whether financed by cash or debt. The CIP must then be divided into construction packages based on deficiencies. Many engineering firms have the capability to assist public works departments in tasks such as programming, scoping, prioritizing and defining of real estate requirements.

Finally, project-level planning is an essential part of a successful project, since it deals directly with the demands and needs of stakeholders and constituents that may be affected and defines their expectations. Good planning could involve mini-mizing neighborhood and business impacts, communicating clearly what the impacts will be, proper scheduling and rapid communications when deviations from the schedule occur.

IV. THE IMPORTANCE OF PLANNING

P

Public officials are often asked, “What is your vision for the future?” Planning implements this vision.

20

EXAMPLE: Prior bond programs of the City of San Antonio had been plagued by poor cost estimates, leading to delays when not enough money was available to complete projects as advertised. A consultant team developed better estimates of probable cost and narrowed down utility and environmental problems before the program went to voters, increasing the odds that the program could be deliv-ered on time and on budget.

Proper planning also can yield results at the level of individual bond programs. Anyone involved in public works has seen situations where, because of inaccurate cost estimates, far more projects are crammed into a bond package than can be built with available funds. In the end, promised projects do not get built or only pieces of projects are built. Citizens, elected officials and staff are all frustrated. Good planning in this instance is political insurance for elected officials.

A “roll-in” technique minimized down time for a railroad bridge replacement project in Alvarado.

21

eotechnical engineering and construction materials engineering and testing (CoMET) are critical to the success of almost any construction project, yet each is too often taken for granted.

Geotechnical engineering deals with site subsurface conditions, foundations, and the interface between the two. Construction claims and litigation often stem from problems associated with engineered construction beneath the surface of the earth. But many times, these problems could have been avoided through effective geotechnical engineer-ing practices. Good project planning should not focus on social, cultural and environmental considerations alone. It makes little sense to route a proposed pipeline around a wetland or a cemetery and not consider sub-surface conditions that might make one alternative eas-ier and less costly to construct than another.

Construction materials testing and engineering is often associated with geotechnical engineering, because effective geotechnical engineering requires the geo-technical engineer of record to observe excavation to compare actual subsurface conditions to those the engineer predicted based on test borings. CoMET services involve more than soil, rock, and other subsurface materials, however; they also involve steel, asphaltic concrete, aggregates, polymers, fill, and a variety of other materials. These services are vital for verifying that the constructed elements com-ply with plans and specifications for the project. For that reason, under Texas law, construction materials testing for acceptance and verification purposes is an engineering activity and must be under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer.

Engineering firms that offer geotechnical engineering and construction materials testing and engineering services typically have their own laboratories accredited by one or more independent accrediting bodies, such as the American Association of

G

(ASTM E-329)

Following Tropical Storm Allison, engineers working for the Harris County Flood Control District updated flood hazard information, helping set the standards for FEMA’s new national multi-hazard flood map modernization initiative.

V. GEOTECHNICAL AND MATERIALS TESTING ISSUES

22

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA), or others. The firms also employ field per-sonnel who, typically, are certified by organizations such as the National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies (NICET), the American Concrete Institute (ACI), or the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT).

Laboratory accreditation documents a laboratory’s commitment to quality assur-ance, standard operating procedures, personnel training, audits, and record keeping. Although some testing laboratories operate without the direct supervision of licensed engineers, the most widely accepted laboratory standard – ASTM E-329 – requires engineering supervision of the laboratory, laboratory staff, and field staff. The success of a project can be enhanced by relying on a geotechnical engineering and/or CoMET firm whose laboratory complies with ASTM E-329 and is accredit-ed by one or more recognized programs, and whose field personnel have had their capabilities certified by one or more recognized programs.

In the past, geotechnical engineers often served as subconsultants to civil engineers. Increasingly, owners are choosing to contract directly with geotechnical engineers who are experienced with the type of construction involved and who are familiar with local conditions. This approach helps ensure that critical risk factors are con-sidered, and that they are considered sooner rather than later. At the same time, the entity that contracts with the geotechnical engineer, be it an owner or design con-sultant, needs to be experienced enough to manage the impact of geotechnical deci-sions on construction cost. For example, the interpretation of geotechnical reports prepared for a roadway project could drive decisions about materials used in pave-ment thickness that could significantly affect the cost and quality of construction.

Similarly, construction materials engineering and testing services should be con-tracted directly by the owner. For certain types of project delivery processes, this is a legal requirement. (Texas Local Government Code Sec. 271.116(c) and Texas Education Code Sec. 44.038(d) are examples of this requirement.) Occasionally, owners or design engineers working for owners attempt to include testing services as part of a contractor’s bid. Depending on how the contractor procures these ser-vices, this approach can be illegal and, in any event, is inappropriate in appearance if not fact. Owners engage CoMET firms to help ensure that contractors achieve specified conditions. Contractors that control CoMET services can easily schedule tests to their advantage, but to the detriment of the owner.

The Harris Substation, which pro-vides electrical power to the University of Texas at Austin cam-pus, is likely the most compact sub-station in the world and the most reliable for a research institution.

23

any public works initiatives are civil engineering projects – water, wastewater, roadways and similar projects – in which most of the specialties required are engi-neering disciplines. However, when a public entity plans, designs and constructs a building project such as an office building, fire station or convention center, there is a need for both engineering and architectural expertise.

Generally, either an architect or engineer can act as prime professional on a building project. In considering which discipline should act as the prime, an owner should consider the nature of the project. If a project is comprehensive and involves a con-siderable amount of space planning and other architectural work, an architect is usu-ally the prime. In this case, it is important to remember that the architect’s fee will include a significant percentage for managing the overall multidisciplinary team. The scope of services (and the fee) of the consulting engineer, in turn, will be limit-ed to only those services that support the architect’s effort and generally will exclude time for overall project management, coordination and communication with the owner, presentations and program development. Often, public officials do not understand this arrangement and are disappointed when they perceive that engineers acting as subconsultants are unwilling to assume extensive communication and pro-gramming responsibilities. If these services are desired from subconsultants, they should be included in the fee.

Many engineers are also skilled at serving in the role of prime consultants. When the scope of work is primarily engineering, an owner should consider retaining an engineer as the prime consultant. For example, if the primary task in a project is the replacement of mechanical and electrical systems, an engineer should be considered as prime professional even if minor structural or architectural modifications are required.

Renovation work is generally hard to quantify, especially as it applies to building systems such as mechanical, heating and cooling and control systems. Often this is due to the complexity and interdependence between the systems. The best way to achieve maximum value is to conduct a system evaluation study prior to establishing a fee. The engineer can perform an engineering evaluation, quantify unknown areas and develop a comprehensive scope of work definition. In addition, construction costs can be also estimated to make sure that the public agency has sufficient funds and reasonable expectations as to what can be accomplished with those funds. At that time, a reasonable fee can be established. Generally, renovation fees are as much as 40 to 50 percent higher than design fees for new construction.

For regional areas within Texas where the International Building Code is the stan-dard, the selection of a firm to perform special inspections must be made by the owner or his professional representative. The contractor may not select and employ a firm to perform special inspections.

VI. SPECIAL ISSUES FOR BUILDING PROJECTS

M

24

he term “project delivery” is used in the construction industry to describe dif-ferent ways of structuring and contracting for the services required for a project. Until the last decade, the most common method of project delivery was one com-monly referred to as “design-bid-build,” a term that represents the most common sequence of activities in a project. In this system, an owner retains an engineer or other design professional to develop detailed plans and specifications for a project, then puts these out for competitive bids from contractors, and contracts with the winning bidder to build the project. In this approach, an owner has a contract with the engineer and a separate agreement with the constructor.

Beginning in 1995, the Texas Legislature began to authorize alternative procedures, often referred to collectively as "alternative project delivery." For many years, these procedures were, for the most part, limited to vertical construction, or building projects. However, in 2007, the Legislature extended certain of the options to the infrastructure area.

The most common alternative project delivery processes are:

■ Competitive sealed proposals for construction services (also called negotiated contracting). Fundamentally, this is a method that allows an owner to select a contractor based on considerations other than strict low-bid. For example, an owner can consider a contractor’s reputation, the quality of the services, utiliza-tion of historically underutilized businesses, the owner’s past relationship with the contractor, long-term cost, schedule or other factors that are spelled out in the request for proposals. Under the competitive proposal method, the design of a facility is the same as under a traditional process. That is, an owner retains an engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications prior to advertising for

proposals. The only difference is the method of selection of the constructor. Under current Texas law, competitive sealed proposals can be used for all kinds of projects, including building projects and infrastructure.

■ Construction manager-at risk (sometimes called “design-contract-build”). CM-at risk is probably the most widely utilized alternative to design-bid-build in Texas. In the CM-at risk method, an owner has a separate contract with an engi-neer who retains full responsibility for design of the facility. The term “con-struction manager-at risk” is simply another term for the constructor, who is in this model selected differently and at an earlier stage in the process.

In the CM-at risk model, the contractor is typically selected earlier in the pro-cess, typically on the basis of experience and qualifications. Although the engi-neer/designer maintains final responsibility for the design, the contractor/CM can have input into constructability issues. At some point in the process, the contrac-tor/CM provides a guaranteed maximum price for the facility, which the owner can accept or negotiate.

VII. PROJECT DELIVERY OPTIONS

T

The consulting engineer is

traditionally the owner’s

agent.

25

In many ways, the CM-at risk approach offers the advantages of design-build without the disadvantages of that process. The owner maintains a contractual relationship with engineer/designer, who remains the agent of the owner looking out for his or her interests. At the same time, this approach fosters a less adver-sarial, more cooperative relationship between the engineer and the contractor, which enhances constructability and reduces claims.

CM-at risk has been predominantly used in building construction, but legislative changes in 2007 permit its use in the infrastructure area as well.

■ Design-build. Design-build is a method of construction procurement under which design and construction services are contracted through one entity, either a joint venture between an engineer/design and a constructor or from a single entity that has both capabilities. Design-build is often oversold as a panacea for project delivery problems. Since an owner has a single point of responsibility and does not have to manage the interface between the designer and the constructor, sup-posedly this process can offer fewer hassles.

However, these advantages are often more theoretical than actual and there are downsides to design-build. For example, the owner’s contractual relationship with and ability to rely on the design professional is fundamentally different. In a traditional project, the engineer is the owner’s agent and is charged with protect-ing the owner’s interest. By contrast, in a design-build project, the engineer or design professional is often a subcontractor to the contractor and vulnerable to pressures to compromise quality.

Design-build projects can succeed, but owners must take care to define their needs precisely and to assemble or select a team that understands the design-build process. Also owners using design-build procedures must be more sophisticated about the construction process in order to protect their interests.

Under Texas law, there are actually two separate sets of procedural rules for design-build, depending on whether the project is a building project or a civil engineering, or infrastructure, project. All governmental entities can use design-build for buildings. However, the use of design-build for infrastructure is limited to local government entities above 500,000 population until September 1, 2009 and after that date is limited to local government entities above 100,000 in popu-lation.

In addition to these delivery methods, Texas law also authorized the use of con-struction manager-agents, but this concept is not, in the strictest sense, a construc-tion project delivery method. Rather, it is an option for adding an additional layer to the traditional project. Owners occasionally retain a construction manager-agent in an advisory, fiduciary capacity to perform some of the owner’s administrative responsibilities such as invoicing and payment. However, the CM-agent does not supplant or replace the services of an engineer/design professional or a constructor.

In summary, project delivery options are complex and many more resources are available through Texas CEC and other organizations. The key issue is to fit the needs of a given project to the appropriate delivery system. An engineer/design professional can be a guide in this process.

26

Co

mp

etit

ive

Bid

din

gC

om

pet

itiv

e S

eale

d P

rop

osa

lsD

esig

n/B

uild

erC

onst

ruct

ion

Man

ager

-at

Ris

k

A d

eliv

ery

met

hod

whe

rein

the

G

over

nmen

tal E

ntity

sel

ects

an

arch

i-te

ct/e

ngin

eer

to d

esig

n an

d de

velo

p co

nstr

uctio

n do

cum

ents

fro

m w

hich

the

G

over

nmen

tal E

ntity

sol

icits

lum

p su

m

bids

. S

elec

tion

is b

ased

on

the

low

est

resp

onsi

ble

bid

and

the

cont

ract

or

serv

es a

s a

sing

le p

oint

of

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r co

nstr

uctio

n.

A d

eliv

ery

met

hod

sim

ilar

to c

ompe

titiv

e bi

ddin

g. T

he G

over

nmen

tal E

ntity

se

lect

s an

arc

hite

ct/e

ngin

eer

to d

esig

n an

d de

velo

p co

nstr

uctio

n do

cum

ents

. O

nce

docu

men

ts a

re fu

lly c

ompl

ete

the

Gov

ernm

enta

l Ent

ity s

olic

its s

eale

d pr

o-po

sals

. Sel

ectio

n is

bas

ed o

n a

com

bi-

natio

n of

pric

e an

d ot

her

fact

ors

that

the

Gov

ernm

enta

l Ent

ity d

eem

s pr

ovid

e be

st v

alue

.

A m

etho

d w

here

the

con

stru

ctio

n m

an-

ager

ser

ves

as t

he g

ener

al c

ontr

acto

r pr

ovid

ing

pre-

cons

truc

tion

and

con-

stru

ctio

n se

rvic

es. T

he C

onst

ruct

ion

Man

ager

-at

Ris

k pr

ovid

es d

esig

n ph

ase

cons

ulta

tion

in e

valu

atin

g co

sts,

sc

hedu

le,

impl

icat

ions

of

alte

rnat

ive

desi

gns,

sys

tem

s an

d m

ater

ials

dur

ing

desi

gn a

nd s

erve

s as

a s

ingl

e po

int

of

resp

onsi

bilit

y co

ntra

ctin

g di

rect

ly w

ith

the

subc

ontr

acto

rs d

urin

g co

nstr

uctio

n.

A m

etho

d w

here

a s

ingl

e en

tity

is c

on-

trac

ted

to p

rovi

de b

oth

desi

gn a

nd c

on-

stru

ctio

n. T

he D

esig

n/B

uild

tea

m c

on-

sist

s of

con

trac

tor,

arch

itect

and

eng

i-ne

er. T

he D

esig

n/B

uild

er c

ontr

acts

di

rect

ly w

ith t

he s

ubco

ntra

ctor

s an

d is

re

spon

sibl

e fo

r de

liver

y of

the

pro

ject

. S

elec

tion

is b

ased

on

the

prop

osal

of

ferin

g th

e be

st v

alue

to

the

Gov

ernm

enta

l Ent

ity.

• F

amili

ar d

eliv

ery

met

hod

• D

efin

ed p

roje

ct s

cope

• S

ingl

e po

int

of r

espo

nsib

ility

fo

r co

nstr

uctio

n•

Ope

n, a

ggre

ssiv

e bi

ddin

g

• S

elec

tion

flexi

bilit

y•

Def

ined

pro

ject

sco

pe•

Sin

gle

poin

t of

res

pons

ibili

ty f

or

cons

truc

tion

• N

o de

sign

pha

se a

ssis

tanc

e

• S

elec

tion

flexi

bilit

y•

Des

ign

phas

e as

sist

ance

• S

ingl

e po

int

of r

espo

nsib

ility

for

cons

truc

tion

• Te

am c

once

pt•

Cha

nge

flexi

bilit

y

• S

elec

tion

flexi

bilit

y•

Sin

gle

poin

t of

res

pons

ibili

ty f

or

desi

gn a

nd c

onst

ruct

ion

• Te

am c

once

pt

• Lo

ss o

f ch

eck

and

bala

nce

• M

ore

diffi

cult

for

Gov

ernm

enta

l Ent

ity

to

man

age

• P

oten

tial a

dver

saria

l rel

atio

nshi

p

betw

een

Gov

ernm

enta

l Ent

ity a

nd

Des

ign/

Bui

lder

• P

rice

not

esta

blis

hed

until

des

ign

co

mpl

ete

• A

dver

saria

l rel

atio

nshi

p

• A

dver

saria

l rel

atio

nshi

p re

duce

d•

Diff

icul

t fo

r G

over

nmen

tal E

ntity

to

eval

uate

GM

P

• N

o de

sign

pha

se a

ssis

tanc

e•

Long

er s

ched

ule

dura

tion

• P

rice

not

esta

blis

hed

until

bid

ding

is

com

plet

e•

Pot

entia

lly a

dver

saria

l rel

atio

nshi

p•

Lack

of

flexi

bilit

y fo

r ch

ange

New

pro

ject

s th

at a

re n

ot s

ched

ule

sens

itive

nor

sub

ject

to p

oten

tial c

hang

e.N

ew p

roje

cts

that

are

not

sch

edul

ese

nsiti

ve n

or s

ubje

ct t

o po

tent

ial c

hang

e.

Sm

alle

r pr

ojec

ts

Larg

er n

ew o

r re

nova

tion

proj

ects

that

are

sch

edul

e se

nsiti

ve,

diffi

cult

to d

efin

e, o

r su

bjec

t to

cha

nge.

New

or

reno

vatio

n pr

ojec

ts t

hat

are

sche

dule

sen

sitiv

e.

Pro

ject

s th

at a

re d

iffic

ult

to d

efin

e,an

d ar

e le

ss s

ched

ule

sens

itive

.C

ompl

ex p

roje

cts

that

are

seq

uenc

eor

sch

edul

e se

nsiti

ve.

Pro

ject

ssu

bjec

t to

pot

entia

l cha

nge.

Com

plex

pro

ject

s th

at a

re s

eque

nce

or s

ched

ule

sens

itive

. P

roje

cts

subj

ect

to p

oten

tial c

hang

e.

Leg

isla

tive

Ter

m

Def

init

ion

Pro

s

Co

ns

Bes

t S

uit

ed

Lea

st S

uit

ed

GU

IDE

TO

PR

OJE

CT

DE

LIV

ER

Y O

PT

ION

S

Go

vern

men

tal

En

tity

A/E

Gen

eral

Co

ntr

acto

r

Go

vern

men

tal

En

tity

A/E

Gen

eral

Co

ntr

acto

r

Sub

cont

ract

ors

Sub

cont

ract

ors

Go

vern

men

tal

En

tity

Arc

hit

ect/

En

gin

eer

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Man

ager

Sub

cont

ract

ors

Go

vern

men

tal

En

tity

Des

ign

/B

uild

er

Sub

cont

ract

ors

Man

agem

ent

Str

uct

ure

27

Appendix A

Types of Engineering Services

The following is a more detailed discussion of the types of engineering services described in Section I.

CONSULTATION SERVICES, INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS

These services deal primarily with collecting, interpreting and reporting information, together with formulating conclusions and making recommendations in order to assist the owner in formulating a preliminary scope of work for design and construction phases to follow. Services in this category include:

■ Preliminary and Feasibility Investigations and Reports. These services precede the authoriza-tion of a capital project and may involve extensive investigations, analyses of conditions and com-parisons of several possible design alternatives. These studies may include the impact of a project upon the environment, operating costs, life-cycle costs, financing considerations and expected reve-nues as bases for conclusions and recommendations regarding the advisability of undertaking a project.

■ Planning Studies. These services may include the broad areas of developing master plans for long-range capital improvement programs; preparation of land development plans, urban plans and regional plans; and the investigation of environmental conditions and preparation of environmental impact statements, with subsequent planning to improve or maintain existing conditions. Such planning often requires coordination of the work of many engineering and nonengineering disci-plines.

■ Appraisals, Valuations and Rate Studies. These services may include investigations and analyses of existing conditions, capital and operating costs, overhead, costs of financing and revenues as needed to evaluate property or to recommend establishment of prospective rates.

■ Assistance in Financial Matters. The consulting engineer may be engaged by an owner who is planning to issue bonds, particularly revenue bonds, to finance a capital project. The scope of ser-vices may include an evaluation of capabilities of existing and proposed facilities to meet present and projected future needs, opinion of probable construction costs, and an estimate of annual reve-nue requirements and a determination of appropriate rates to provide this income. The consulting engineer also may act as responsible agent to certify that certain terms and conditions of the bond issues are carried out.

■ Materials Engineering and Equipment Tests. These services include tests of materials and equip-ment under established codes and standards, specialized examination of equipment and materials used in construction and industry, and other inspections and monitoring required by an owner.

■ Direct Personal Service. This includes services such as assistance in preparation for legal proceed-ings, appearances before courts or commissions to render opinions and conclusions, and investiga-tions of technical matters where specialized engineering knowledge, experience and judgment are required.

■ Other Services. These services can vary to suit special needs of the owner and can include such

28

diverse activities as:

Environmental evaluationForensic engineering for structural and other failuresGeotechnical engineering Operational assistanceProcess design, pilot studies, computer modelingSafety engineering Surveying engineeringToxic and hazardous waste evaluationsRepresenting municipal or private entities in projects proposed for privatization

SERVICES FOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Consulting engineering services are required for each phase of a construction project. All essential or basic services preferably are furnished by the same consulting engineer or consulting engineer team, although at times services in various phases are furnished by different engineers or by the owner. The basic services are supplemented by additional services which may be provided by the owner, a spe-cialized engineer or the consulting engineer.

Basic Services for Construction Projects

Basic services furnished in support of a construction project may include:

■ Study and Report Phase: This phase involves analysis of owner's needs, economic and technical evaluation of feasible alternatives, determination of project scope, conceptual design and initial opinions of probable construction cost. Services during this phase may include:

• Reviewing available data and consulting with the owner to clarify and define the owner's requirements for the project.• Advising the owner as to the necessity of providing or obtaining from others additional data or services. These additional services may include photogrammetry, reconnaissance surveys, prop-erty surveys, topographic surveys, geotechnical investigations and consultations, compilation of hydrological data, traffic studies, materials engineering, assembly of zoning, deed and other restrictive land use information and environmental assessments and impact statements.• Identifying and analyzing requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve the design of the project, and participating in consultations with such authorities.• Providing analyses of the owner's needs, planning surveys and comparative evaluations of pro-spective sites and solutions.• Generating a general economic analysis of the owner's requirements applicable to various alternatives.• Preparing a report presenting alternative solutions available to the owner with the consulting engineer's findings and recommendations. The report may contain schematic layouts, sketches, conceptual design criteria with appropriate exhibits to indicate clearly the considerations involved (including applicable requirements of governmental authorities having jurisdiction), and the consulting engineer's conceptual opinion of probable costs for the project. The number and distribution of report copies will be as stipulated in the agreement with the owner.

■ Preliminary Design Phase: This phase involves the establishment of the general size and scope of the project and its location on the selected site. Services may include:

• Consulting with the owner, reviewing preliminary reports, clarifying and defining the project requirements, reviewing available data and discussing general scheduling. Conferences may also be required with approving and regulatory governmental agencies and affected utilities.

29

• Advising the owner as to whether additional data or services of the type described in the Study and Report Phase are required and assisting the owner in obtaining such data and services.• Preparing preliminary design documents consisting of final design criteria, preliminary draw-ings, outline of specifications, and written descriptions of the project. The number and distribu-tion of copies will be as stipulated in the agreement with the owner.• Preparing revised opinions of probable total project costs.

■ Final Design Phase: This phase of project development is usually undertaken only after the owner has approved the preliminary design phase material. The basic services for the final design phase may include:

• Preparing construction drawings and specifications showing the character and extent of the project based on the accepted preliminary design documents.• Preparing and furnishing to the owner a revised opinion of probable total project costs based on the final drawings and specifications.• Furnishing the necessary engineering data required to apply for regulatory permits from local, state or federal authorities. This is distinguished from and does not include detailed applications and supporting documents for government grant-in-aid or planning grants that would be furnished as additional services described later in this section.• Preparing basic documents related to construction contracts for review and approval by the owner (and the owner's legal and other advisors). These may include contract agreement forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, invitations to bid, instructions to bidders, insurance and bonding requirements, and preparation of other contract-related documents.• Furnishing to the owner the specified number of copies of drawings, specifications and other contract documents.

■ Bidding or Negotiating Phase: Services under this phase may include:• Assisting the owner in advertising for and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals for each sep-arate prime construction contract, maintaining a record of prospective bidders to whom bidding documents have been issued, attending pre-bid conferences, and receiving and processing depos-its for bidding documents.• Issuing addenda as appropriate to interpret, clarify or expand the bidding documents.• Assisting the owner in determining the qualifications and acceptability of prospective construc-tors, subcontractors and suppliers.• When substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the bidding documents, con-sulting with and advising the owner as to the acceptability of alternate materials and equipment proposed by the prospective constructors.• Attending the bid openings, preparing bid tabulation sheets, and providing assistance to the owner in evaluating bids or proposals and in assembling and awarding contracts for construc-tion, materials, equipment and services.

■ Construction Phase: Services under this phase involve consulting with and advising the owner during construction and are limited to those services associated with performing as the owner's rep-resentative. Such services may be included as a basic service and may comprise:

• Preparing for and conducting a preconstruction conference and issuing a Notice to Proceed on behalf of the owner.• Reviewing shop and erection drawings submitted by the constructors for compliance with design concepts.• Reviewing laboratory, shop and mill test reports on materials and equipment.• Visiting the project site at appropriate intervals as construction proceeds to observe and report on the progress and the quality of the executed work.• Issuing instructions from the owner to the constructors, issuing necessary interpretations and clarifications of contract documents, preparing change orders requiring special inspections and testing of the work, and making recommendations as to the acceptability of the work.• Preparing sketches required to resolve problems due to actual field conditions encountered.

30

• Determining amounts of progress payments due, based on degree of completion of the work, and recommending issuance of such payments by the owner.• Observing and assisting performance tests and initial operation of the project.• Preparing record drawings from information submitted by the contractor.• Making a final inspection and reporting on completion of the project, including recommendations concerning final payments to constructors and release of retained percentages.

Additional Services for Construction Projects

Additional services required during the study, design, bidding, construction and operation phases of a construction project may include investigations, reports and activities beyond the scope of the basic services. These services, many of which are previously listed in this section under the category "Consultation Services, Investigations and Reports," may relate to the owner's decisions as to the fea-sibility, scope and location of the project. The research, compilation of engineering data and acquisi-tion of property may involve professional specialists in engineering and other fields.

Additional services not provided by the consulting engineer often are negotiated with other firms or individuals by the consulting engineer acting on behalf of the owner. Examples of these services may include:

• Geotechnical engineering - including test borings, sampling and analysis, and recommendations.• Studies, tests and process determination to establish design criteria for water and wastewater treatment facilities.• Land surveys, establishment of boundaries and monuments, preparation of easement descriptions and related computations and drawings.• Engineering and topographic surveys for design and construction.• Mill, shop or laboratory inspections of the materials and equipment.• Furnishing additional copies of reports, construction drawings, specifications, and other docu-ments as required for bidding and construction beyond the number specified in the basic services agreement.• Extra travel and subsistence as defined by the agreement for engineering services.• Value engineering - including reviewing the work of other engineers, either within the same orga-nization or in other firms, to determine whether a proposed solution is optimum and, if not, to sug-gest a better approach for meeting the project's functional and financial criteria.• Redesign to reflect project scope changes requested by the owner, required to address changed conditions or change in direction previously approved by owner, mandated by changing govern-mental laws, or necessitated by the owner's acceptance of substitutions proposed by the constructor.• Services during construction by a resident project representative, and by supporting staff as required, to provide more assurance that the construction is accomplished in general conformance to the design drawings, specifications and other contract documents.• Quality control inspection and testing of materials used in the construction of a project.• Assistance to the owner as an expert witness in litigation in connection with the project or in hearings before approving and regulatory agencies.• Final investigations involving detailed consideration of operation, maintenance and overhead expenses; preparation of final rate schedules and earning and expense statements; or appraisals, valuations, and material audits or inventories required for certification of force account construc-tion performed by the owner or for extra work done by the constructor.• Preparation of detailed applications and supporting documentation for government grants, advances for public works projects or permits.• Plotting, computing, and filing of subdivision plats, staking of lots and other land planning and partitioning activities.• Preparation of environmental assessment and impact statements and other assistance to the owner in connection with public hearings.• Extra design effort to meet special conditions such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes or blasts, or to satisfy abnormal tolerances, along with associated dynamic analysis or testing.

31

• Assistance in managing a project by acting as the direct representative of the owner in the selec-tion, engagement, observation, and approvals of the work of architects, other engineers, construc-tors and subcontractors; contacts with governmental agencies to obtain permits and documents; and other services related to project development.• Assessment of the completed project's ability to meet its design intent relative to capacity, main-tainability, operability or reliability.• Project peer review.• Copies of reports or construction documents to the owner in number exceeding that stipulated in the agreement for services.• Services beyond scheduled completion dates, particularly with regard to Construction Phase Services.

At the completion of construction, the consulting engineer may assist in the start-up of project opera-tions. The consulting engineer may be commissioned to prepare a manual for both operation and maintenance requirements, providing assistance for adjusting and balancing equipment, identifying deficiencies and assisting in obtaining corrections, and performing inspection prior to the end of the project warranty period. The consulting engineer may assist in operator training, setting up job classi-fications and salaries, organizing the purchase of supplies, developing charts for recording operational data, and observing and reporting on project operations.ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES

The consulting services described above frequently require engineering support services. Geotechnical engineering, for example, frequently requires services such as taking soil and rock borings, excavat-ing test pits, sampling and identifying soil and earth materials, field and laboratory tests, and geo-physical measurements and observations. Support services may involve data gathering activities for specialized purposes. Although some of these tasks are normally accomplished by persons who are not engineers, the procurement of adequate and correct data usually requires professional judgment and guidance. Since soundness of any engineering decision is dependent upon the accuracy and suit-ability of data obtained in field and laboratory investigations, these supporting services must be under the guidance of the consulting engineer whose decisions will be based on that data.

32

ABOUT THE TEXAS COUNCIL OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES

Established in 1966, the Texas Council of Engineering Companies, Inc. is the only statewide organization committed to the business of consulting engineering. Consulting Engineers’ specialties encompass the spectrum of engineering technology including fields of: Architectural, Acoustical, Environmental, Industrial, Civil, Electrical, Structural, Mechanical, Chemical, Metallurgical, Geotechnical, Petroleum and Energy Engineering. The Texas Council of Engineering Companies is devoted to the advancement of the practice of consulting engineering, to the promotion of private enterprise, the protection of public welfare and to the improve-ment of the economic status of professional engineers engaged in the practice of consulting engineering. It is the forum for interchange of thought and experience among consulting engineers, for mutual under-standing, and for improvement for engineering, business practices and professional procedures. Texas CEC is the source for information and cooperative services for common purposes and benefits to all mem-bers in the various branches throughout Texas, and disseminates information explaining the services and value of consulting engineers to other professional organizations, businesses, government entities and to the general public. Headquartered in Austin, Texas, the Council is comprised of 300 member firms that vary in size from large staffs with diversified practices to individuals practicing in specialized branches of the profession. Local and regional chapters include:

Austin Corpus Christi Dallas East Texas El Paso

Houston San Antonio South Texas Tarrant County West Texas

The Texas Council of Engineering Companies is deeply grateful to the following members, professional colleagues and friends who have contributed voluntarily and generously of their time and expertise to help develop the authoritative content of this manual: Jeff Ross, Steve Bonnette, Joe Campos, Ken Haney, Bill Hindman, Keith Jackson, Greg Janes, Martin Molloy, Bob Pence, Dev Rastogi, Bob Reach, Orval Rhoads, Brian Rice, Thomas Stroh, Ken Thomas and the members of the Texas Council of Engineering Laboratories.

For information on how to contact a chapter or consulting engineer in your area, call Texas CEC at 512/474-1474 or visit www.cectexas.org.

Texas

Council of

Engineering

Companies

Public Works Manual-2007 Edition

�����

��!"#$%��&

"'$"��($"'

��)*�"$��

����������������