Forecasting Highway Construction Staffing Requirements (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

45 APPENDIX B Survey Data 1. General Information Response ID State Population 2000 2005 2010 2000–2010 Net Increase % Increase 5 Louisiana 4,471,885 4,576,628 4,544,228 72,343 1.62% 9 Idaho 1,299,430 1,428,241 1,571,450 272,020 20.93% 11 Maine 1,277,072 1,318,787 1,327,567 50,495 3.95% 12 Virginia 7,105,817 7,577,105 8,024,617 918,800 12.93% 13 Wyoming 494,300 514,157 564,460 70,160 14.19% 15 Rhode Island 1,050,268 1,067,916 1,052,886 2,618 0.25% 18 New Jersey 8,430,621 8,651,974 8,801,624 371,003 4.40% 19 Pennsylvania 12,284,173 12,449,990 12,709,630 425,457 3.46% 21 Iowa 2,929,067 2,964,454 3,049,883 120,816 4.12% 26 Colorado 4,326,921 4,631,888 5,049,071 722,150 16.69% 27 Oklahoma 3,454,365 3,548,597 3,761,702 307,337 8.90% 30 Tennessee 5,703,719 5,991,057 6,356,897 653,178 11.45% 31 Delaware 786,373 845,150 899,769 113,396 14.42% 32 Illinois 12,434,161 12,609,903 12,843,166 409,005 3.29% 33 North Dakota 642,023 646,089 674,499 32,476 5.06% 35 Kansas 2,693,681 2,745,299 2,859,169 165,488 6.14% 36 Michigan 9,952,450 10,051,137 9,877,574 (74,876) - 0.75% 37 North Carolina 8,081,614 8,705,407 9,561,558 1,479,944 18.31% 39 Vermont 609,618 621,215 625,960 16,342 2.68% 40 Oregon 3,429,708 3,613,202 3,838,957 409,249 11.93% 41 Nebraska 1,713,820 1,761,497 1,830,429 116,609 6.80% 43 Kentucky 4,049,021 4,182,742 4,346,266 297,245 7.34% 45 Georgia 8,227,303 8,925,922 9,712,587 1,485,284 18.05% 48 New Hampshire 1,239,882 1,298,492 1,316,759 76,877 6.20% 49 Minnesota 4,933,692 5,119,598 5,310,584 376,892 7.64% 52 Connecticut 3,411,777 3,506,956 3,577,073 165,296 4.84% 56 Montana 903,773 940,102 990,898 87,125 9.64% 57 West Virginia 1,807,021 1,820,492 1,853,973 46,952 2.60% 58 Missouri 5,607,285 5,790,300 5,996,231 388,946 6.94% 59 Washington 5,910,512 6,257,305 6,744,496 833,984 14.11% 65 Hawaii 1,213,519 1,292,729 1,363,621 150,102 12.37%

46 66 Utah 2,244,502 2,457,719 2,776,469 531,967 23.70% 67 Nevada 2,018,741 2,432,143 2,704,642 685,901 33.98% 69 California 33,987,977 35,827,943 37,349,363 3,361,386 9.89% 71 New York 19,001,780 19,132,610 19,392,283 390,503 2.06% 73 Florida 16,047,515 17,842,038 18,843,326 2,795,811 17.42% 75 Wisconsin 5,373,999 5,546,166 5,691,047 317,048 5.90% 78 Massachusetts 6,361,104 6,403,290 6,557,254 196,150 3.08% 80 New Mexico 1,821,204 1,932,274 2,065,932 244,728 13.44% 81 Maryland 5,311,034 5,592,379 5,785,982 474,948 8.94% Average 5,566,068 5,815,522 6,055,097 489,029 9.47% Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, Intercensal Estimates . . . . Total Lane-miles Response ID State 2000 2005 2010 2000–2010 Net Increase % Increase 5 Louisiana 127,883 128,194 129,003 1,120 0.88% 9 Idaho 95,180 96,703 99,860 4,680 4.92% 11 Maine 46,345 46,652 47,102 757 1.63% 12 Virginia 152,329 156,034 161,305 8,976 5.89% 13 Wyoming 56,781 57,525 58,387 1,606 2.83% 15 Rhode Island 12,813 13,682 13,702 889 6.93% 18 New Jersey 78,164 83,876 85,279 7,115 9.10% 19 Pennsylvania 249,170 251,431 249,815 645 0.26% 21 Iowa 232,921 234,726 234,497 1,576 0.68% 26 Colorado 176,995 181,982 183,740 6,745 3.81% 27 Oklahoma 232,712 233,816 234,296 1,584 0.68% 30 Tennessee 183,642 190,758 199,059 15,417 8.39% 31 Delaware 12,559 13,222 13,717 1,158 9.22% 32 Illinois 288,878 290,519 293,049 4,171 1.44% 33 North Dakota 175,348 175,716 175,974 626 0.36% 35 Kansas 274,015 276,115 286,820 12,805 4.67% 36 Michigan 256,156 255,354 256,503 347 0.14% 37 North Carolina 209,335 216,937 263,471 54,136 25.86% 39 Vermont 29,358 29,596 29,552 194 0.66% 40 Oregon 136,866 132,949 122,246 (14,620) –10.68% 41 Nebraska 188,273 189,645 190,462 2,189 1.16% 43 Kentucky 164,232 162,056 165,008 776 0.47% 45 Georgia 241,086 248,137 259,875 18,789 7.79% 48 New Hampshire 31,364 32,112 33,093 1,729 5.51% 49 Minnesota 271,177 271,244 283,813 12,636 4.66% 52 Connecticut 44,474 45,206 45,590 1,116 2.51%

47 56 Montana 141,977 141,554 152,572 10,595 7.46% 57 West Virginia 76,672 76,220 79,561 2,889 3.77% 58 Missouri 251,209 259,597 270,902 19,693 7.84% 59 Washington 167,210 173,965 173,658 6,448 3.86% 65 Hawaii 9,255 9,411 9,604 349 3.78% 66 Utah 87,434 91,010 94,843 7,409 8.47% 67 Nevada 79,050 72,617 75,164 (3,886) –4.92% 69 California 371,689 379,357 383,645 11,956 3.22% 71 New York 239,033 240,167 242,660 3,627 1.52% 73 Florida 253,348 264,087 269,295 15,947 6.29% 75 Wisconsin 231,340 235,477 237,484 6,144 2.66% 78 Massachusetts 74,506 75,815 76,576 2,070 2.78% 80 New Mexico 124,839 133,634 142,612 17,773 14.24% 81 Maryland 67,019 67,990 69,222 2,203 3.29% Average 153,566 155,877 159,825 6,260 4.10% Data source: U.S.DOT, FHWA Highway Statistics. Note: Decreases in lane-miles may be due to differences in reporting requirements among states. Highway Bridge Count Response ID State 2000 2005 2010 2000–2010 Net Increase % Increase 5 Louisiana 13,399 13,334 13,361 (38) –0.28% 9 Idaho 4,032 4,060 4,132 100 2.48% 11 Maine 2,360 2,370 2,393 33 1.40% 12 Virginia 12,710 13,249 13,522 812 6.39% 13 Wyoming 3,110 3,027 3,059 (51) –1.64% 15 Rhode Island 747 749 757 10 1.34% 18 New Jersey 6,350 6,445 6,520 170 2.68% 19 Pennsylvania 22,052 22,291 22,357 305 1.38% 21 Iowa 24,632 24,846 24,731 99 0.40% 26 Colorado 7,977 8,260 8,506 529 6.63% 27 Oklahoma 22,799 23,387 23,692 893 3.92% 30 Tennessee 19,404 19,763 19,875 471 2.43% 31 Delaware 824 849 861 37 4.49% 32 Illinois 25,457 25,777 26,309 852 3.35% 33 North Dakota 4,517 4,477 4,418 (99) –2.19% 35 Kansas 25,720 25,513 25,329 (391) –1.52% 36 Michigan 10,567 10,879 10,928 361 3.42% 37 North Carolina 16,814 17,509 18,096 1,282 7.62% 39 Vermont 2,703 2,701 2,712 9 0.33% 40 Oregon 7,255 7,238 7,255 0 0.00% 41 Nebraska 15,507 15,457 15,376 (131) –0.84%

48 43 Kentucky 13,374 13,519 13,842 468 3.50% 45 Georgia 14,382 14,490 14,670 288 2.00% 48 New Hampshire 2,344 2,359 2,409 65 2.77% 49 Minnesota 12,811 13,014 13,108 297 2.32% 52 Connecticut 4,178 4,168 4,191 13 0.31% 56 Montana 4,980 4,923 5,119 139 2.79% 57 West Virginia 6,730 6,919 7,069 339 5.04% 58 Missouri 23,388 23,883 24,245 857 3.66% 59 Washington 7,867 7,634 7,755 (112) –1.42% 65 Hawaii 1,066 1,106 1,137 71 6.66% 66 Utah 2,741 2,815 2,911 170 6.20% 67 Nevada 1,423 1,632 1,753 330 23.19% 69 California 23,665 24,007 24,556 891 3.77% 71 New York 17,387 17,338 17,365 (22) –0.13% 73 Florida 11,187 11,536 11,912 725 6.48% 75 Wisconsin 13,418 13,687 13,982 564 4.20% 78 Massachusetts 4,953 4,920 5,113 160 3.23% 80 New Mexico 3,694 3,835 3,902 208 5.63% 81 Maryland 4,964 5,071 5,195 231 4.65% Average 10,587 10,726 10,861 273 3.17% Data source: U.S.DOT, Deficient Bridges by State and Highway Systems. Annual Vehicle-miles Traveled (Million) Response ID State 2000 2005 2010 2000–2010 Net Increase % Increase 5 Louisiana 40,849 44,979 45,439 4,590 11.24% 9 Idaho 13,534 14,866 15,801 2,267 16.75% 11 Maine 14,190 14,925 14,549 359 2.53% 12 Virginia 74,801 80,337 82,171 7,370 9.85% 13 Wyoming 8,090 9,058 9,568 1,478 18.27% 15 Rhode Island 8,359 8,300 8,280 (79) –0.94% 18 New Jersey 67,446 73,819 73,028 5,582 8.28% 19 Pennsylvania 102,337 108,042 100,329 (2,008) –1.96% 21 Iowa 29,433 31,060 31,389 1,956 6.64% 26 Colorado 41,771 47,962 46,940 5,169 12.37% 27 Oklahoma 43,355 47,019 47,746 4,391 10.13% 30 Tennessee 65,732 70,814 70,439 4,707 7.16% 31 Delaware 8,240 9,508 8,948 708 8.59% 32 Illinois 102,866 107,706 105,788 2,922 2.84% 33 North Dakota 7,217 7,570 8,263 1,046 14.49% 35 Kansas 28,130 29,621 29,900 1,770 6.29%

49 36 Michigan 97,792 104,052 97,567 (225) –0.23% 37 North Carolina 89,504 101,268 102,385 12,881 14.39% 39 Vermont 6,811 7,713 7,248 437 6.41% 40 Oregon 35,010 35,282 33,774 (1,236) –3.53% 41 Nebraska 18,081 19,291 19,438 1,357 7.50% 43 Kentucky 46,803 47,466 48,007 1,204 2.57% 45 Georgia 105,010 113,509 111,722 6,712 6.39% 48 New Hampshire 12,021 13,429 13,065 1,044 8.69% 49 Minnesota 52,601 56,904 56,632 4,031 7.66% 52 Connecticut 30,756 31,675 31,294 538 1.75% 56 Montana 9,882 11,126 11,190 1,308 13.23% 57 West Virginia 19,242 20,523 19,203 (39) –0.20% 58 Missouri 67,083 68,754 70,864 3,781 5.64% 59 Washington 53,330 55,476 57,190 3,860 7.24% 65 Hawaii 8,543 10,083 9,995 1,452 16.99% 66 Utah 22,597 25,158 26,585 3,988 17.65% 67 Nevada 17,639 20,776 21,119 3,480 19.73% 69 California 306,649 329,267 322,849 16,200 5.28% 71 New York 129057 137521 131252 2,195 1.70% 73 Florida 152136 201531 195755 43,619 28.67% 75 Wisconsin 57266 60017 59420 2,154 3.76% 78 Massachusetts 52796 55458 54362 1,566 2.97% 80 New Mexico 22760 23966 25325 2,565 11.27% 81 Maryland 50174 56319 56126 5,952 11.86% Average 52997.325 57803.75 57023.625 4026.3 8.25% Data source: U.S.DOT, FHWA Highway Statistics. Disbursement on Capital Outlay (Thousand Dollars) Response ID State 2000 2005 2010 2000–2010 Net Increase % Increase 5 Louisiana 767,993 962,512 1,773,985 1,005,992 130.99% 9 Idaho 236,204 321,519 515,630 279,426 118.30% 11 Maine 215,597 256,544 351,451 135,854 63.01% 12 Virginia 1,270,665 1,117,012 1,024,147 (246,518) –19.40% 13 Wyoming 236,615 267,525 413,103 176,488 74.59% 15 Rhode Island 109,947 184,844 258,958 149,011 135.53% 18 New Jersey 1,857,191 1,743,540 2,499,863 642,672 34.60% 19 Pennsylvania 2,323,646 2,122,168 4,383,427 2,059,781 88.64% 21 Iowa 696,081 528,933 763,931 67,850 9.75% 26 Colorado 702,660 603,948 626,143 (76,517) –10.89% 27 Oklahoma 779,750 478,244 1,303,943 524,193 67.23% 30 Tennessee 803,504 897,193 1,212,747 409,243 50.93%

50 31 Delaware 297,648 357,736 452,803 155,155 52.13% 32 Illinois 1,613,768 1,943,765 2,852,653 1,238,885 76.77% 33 North Dakota 157,014 284,581 353,808 196,794 125.34% 35 Kansas 589,171 707,018 639,070 49,899 8.47% 36 Michigan 1,142,434 1,316,860 1,446,347 303,913 26.60% 37 North Carolina 1,464,209 2,075,266 2,111,677 647,468 44.22% 39 Vermont 116,640 124,562 217,828 101,188 86.75% 40 Oregon 357,751 723,430 799,910 442,159 123.59% 41 Nebraska 382,069 386,604 408,559 26,490 6.93% 43 Kentucky 911,249 847,748 1,338,098 426,849 46.84% 45 Georgia 982,582 1,159,180 1,673,095 690,513 70.28% 48 New Hampshire 163,572 85,484 319,550 155,978 95.36% 49 Minnesota 600,841 856,449 973,934 373,093 62.10% 52 Connecticut 552,254 555,676 817,795 265,541 48.08% 56 Montana 300,018 360,763 513,614 213,596 71.19% 57 West Virginia 673,882 673,472 793,051 119,169 17.68% 58 Missouri 959,378 940,764 1,409,407 450,029 46.91% 59 Washington 691,572 1,118,922 1,792,834 1,101,262 159.24% 65 Hawaii 148,304 209,440 249,537 101,233 68.26% 66 Utah 689,455 478,668 1,250,471 561,016 81.37% 67 Nevada 424,280 519,456 565,371 141,091 33.25% 69 California 2,576,376 2,865,105 5,924,164 3,347,788 129.94% 71 New York 2,247,825 2,309,108 2,953,432 705,607 31.39% 73 Florida 2,420,787 4,063,856 4,603,339 2,182,552 90.16% 75 Wisconsin 716,077 946,906 1,315,867 599,790 83.76% 78 Massachusetts 2,089,620 1,151,518 1,064,039 (1,025,581) –49.08% 80 New Mexico 439,998 293,521 486,543 46,545 10.58% 81 Maryland 568,270 983,356 1,005,289 437,019 76.90% Average 856,922 945,580 1,336,485 479,563 61.71% Data source: U.S.DOT, Disbursements by States . . . . Disbursement on Capital Outlay—Adjusted for Inflation (Thousand Dollars, Base Year 2000) Response ID State 2000 2005 2010 2000–2010 Net Increase % Increase 5 Louisiana 767,993 816,518 1,670,891 902,898 117.57% 9 Idaho 236,204 272,751 485,665 249,461 105.61% 11 Maine 215,597 217,631 331,027 115,430 53.54% 12 Virginia 1,270,665 947,584 964,629 (306,036) –24.08% 13 Wyoming 236,615 226,947 389,096 152,481 64.44% 15 Rhode Island 109,947 156,807 243,909 133,962 121.84% 18 New Jersey 1,857,191 1,479,080 2,354,585 497,394 26.78% 19 Pennsylvania 2,323,646 1,800,278 4,128,687 1,805,041 77.68%

51 21 Iowa 696,081 448,705 719,536 23,455 3.37% 26 Colorado 702,660 512,341 589,755 (112,905) –16.07% 27 Oklahoma 779,750 405,704 1,228,165 448,415 57.51% 30 Tennessee 803,504 761,107 1,142,269 338,765 42.16% 31 Delaware 297,648 303,475 426,489 128,841 43.29% 32 Illinois 1,613,768 1,648,935 2,686,873 1,073,105 66.50% 33 North Dakota 157,014 241,416 333,247 176,233 112.24% 35 Kansas 589,171 599,778 601,931 12,760 2.17% 36 Michigan 1,142,434 1,117,119 1,362,293 219,859 19.24% 37 North Carolina 1,464,209 1,760,490 1,988,958 524,749 35.84% 39 Vermont 116,640 105,668 205,169 88,529 75.90% 40 Oregon 357,751 613,700 753,424 395,673 110.60% 41 Nebraska 382,069 327,964 384,816 2,747 0.72% 43 Kentucky 911,249 719,162 1,260,335 349,086 38.31% 45 Georgia 982,582 983,356 1,575,864 593,282 60.38% 48 New Hampshire 163,572 72,518 300,980 137,408 84.00% 49 Minnesota 600,841 726,543 917,334 316,493 52.68% 52 Connecticut 552,254 471,391 770,269 218,015 39.48% 56 Montana 300,018 306,043 483,766 183,748 61.25% 57 West Virginia 673,882 571,320 746,963 73,081 10.84% 58 Missouri 959,378 798,069 1,327,500 368,122 38.37% 59 Washington 691,572 949,204 1,688,645 997,073 144.17% 65 Hawaii 148,304 177,672 235,035 86,731 58.48% 66 Utah 689,455 406,064 1,177,801 488,346 70.83% 67 Nevada 424,280 440,665 532,515 108,235 25.51% 69 California 2,576,376 2,430,527 5,579,885 3,003,509 116.58% 71 New York 2,247,825 1,958,863 2,781,795 533,970 23.75% 73 Florida 2,420,787 3,447,452 4,335,819 1,915,032 79.11% 75 Wisconsin 716,077 803,280 1,239,396 523,319 73.08% 78 Massachusetts 2,089,620 976,856 1,002,203 (1,087,417) –52.04% 80 New Mexico 439,998 249,000 458,268 18,270 4.15% 81 Maryland 568,270 834,201 946,867 378,597 66.62% Average 856,922 802,155 1,258,816 401,894 52.31% Note: FHWA’s National Highway Construction Cost Index (NHCCI) (U.S.DOT) is used to adjust disbursements for inflation. For complete table of NHCCI, go to http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/nhcci/pt1.cfm.

52 Full-Time Equivalent Positions Response ID State 2000 2005 2010 2010– 2000 Increase % Increase 2000 FTE/Million Dollars of Capital Outlay 2005 FTE/Million Dollars of Capital Outlay 2010 FTE/Million Dollars of Capital Outlay % change 5 Louisiana 9 Idaho 11 Maine 2,396 2,390 2,260 –136 –5.68 11.11 10.98 6.83 –38.52 12 Virginia 7,000 7.26 13 Wyoming 2,000 2,000 2,000 0 0.00 8.45 8.81 5.14 –39.17 15 Rhode Island 200 230 1.28 0.94 18 New Jersey 3,973 2.69 19 Pennsylvania 11,000 2.66 21 Iowa 26 Colorado 27 Oklahoma 2,350 2,350 2,350 0 0.00 3.01 5.79 1.91 –36.54 30 Tennessee 4,800 4.20 31 Delaware 32 Illinois 8,000 5,750 5,270 –2,730 –34.13 4.96 3.49 1.96 –60.48 33 North Dakota 1,040 1,044 1,055 15 1.44 6.62 4.32 3.17 –52.11 35 Kansas 3,304 3,247 2,916 –388 –11.74 5.61 5.41 4.84 –13.73 36 Michigan 3,244 2,872 2,863 –381 –11.74 2.84 2.57 2.10 –26.06 37 North Carolina 14,457 14,544 13,957 –500 –3.46 9.87 8.26 7.02 –28.88 39 Vermont 1,200 5.85 40 Oregon 4,727 4,559 4,550 –177 –3.74 13.21 7.43 6.04 –54.28 41 Nebraska 2,200 2,200 2,200 0 0.00 5.76 6.71 5.72 –0.70 43 Kentucky 5,972 5,108 4,814 –1,158 –19.39 6.55 7.10 3.82 –41.68 45 Georgia 5,895 5,807 4,950 –945 –16.03 6.00 5.91 3.14 –47.67 48 New Hampshire 49 Minnesota 52 Connecticut 56 Montana 1,377 2.85 57 West Virginia 5,100 5,000 4,900 –200 –3.92 7.57 8.75 6.56 –13.34 58 Missouri 6,000 4.52 59 Washington 7,000 4.15 65 Hawaii 66 Utah 1,920 1,820 1,753 –167 –8.70 2.78 4.48 1.49 –46.40 67 Nevada 62 California 23,444 21,035 20,796 9.10 8.65 3.73 71 New York 9,000 3.24 73 Florida 10,354 7,579 7,443 –2911 –28.11 4.28 2.20 1.72 –59.81 75 Wisconsin 78 Massachusetts

53 80 New Mexico 81 Maryland 3,181 3.36 Average 6.73 5.82 4.01 –37.26 2. Which of the following ranges best describes the average age of your construction staff? Value Count Percent 30–40 15 39.5 40–50 23 60.5 50–60 0 0 60–70 0 0 3. Which of the following ranges best describes the average experience level of your construction staff? Value Count Percent 1–5 years 0 0 5–10 years 10 27 10–15 years 16 43.2 15–20 years 8 21.6 20–25 years 3 8.1 25–30 years 0 0 30+ years 0 0 4. Does your agency have a method for forecasting construction staffing requirements? Value Count Percent Yes 9 23.7 No 29 76.3 6. Are employees of your agency represented by a union? Value Count Percent Yes 24 63.2 No 14 36.8 7. Does the union contract specify minimum staffing levels for a project? Value Count Percent Yes 0 0 No 24 100 9. Does your agency utilize public–private partnerships (PPP) for highway construction projects? Value Count Percent Yes 7 19.4 No 29 80.6 10. If “Yes,” what is the impact on your construction staffing requirements for a PPP project? Value Count Percent Less construction staff is required 5 71.4 There is no difference in construction staffing requirements 2 28.6 More construction staff is required 0 0

54 11. Over the next 10 years, do you predict that the volume of PPP projects in your agency will: Value Count Percent Increase 5 71.4 Remain constant at current level 2 28.6 Decrease 0 0 12. Does your agency utilize design-build delivery systems for highway construction projects? Value Count Percent Yes 27 75 No 9 25 13. If “Yes,” what is the impact on your construction staffing requirements for a design-build project? Value Count Percent Less construction staff is required 12 44.4 There is no difference in construction staffing requirements 14 51.9 More construction staff is required 1 3.7 14. Over the next 10 years, do you predict that the volume of design-build projects in your agency will: Value Count Percent Increase 16 59.3 Remain constant at current level 10 37 Decrease 1 3.7 15. Does your agency undertake projects involving warranties? Value Count Percent Yes 14 38.9 No 22 61.1 16. What is the impact on your construction staffing requirements for a warranty project? Value Count Percent Less construction staff is required 1 7.1 There is no difference in construction staffing requirements 12 85.7 More construction staff is required 1 7.1 17. Function Yes No Avg. Responses % # % # # Construction Administration 71.4 10 28.6 4 0.0 14 Construction Engineering 57.1 8 42.9 6 0.0 14 Construction Inspection 71.4 10 28.6 4 0.0 14 Average 66.7 33.3 0.0 42 Others resources: Please identify: Count Response 1 Maintenance 1 Maintenance personnel

55 1 Maintenance and operations staff 1 We use maintenance forces in some cases to manage the warranty. 1 FDOT established performance measures for its warranty work (Value Added Features) that utilized existing evaluation systems. 18. In the past five years, as a part of the FHWA independent oversight agreement inspection, have FHWA inspectors stated that projects were understaffed in construction resources? Value Count Percent No FHWA communications/notices 26 72.2 FHWA communications/notices on fewer than 5 projects 8 22.2 FHWA communications/notices on 5–10 projects .8 FHWA communications/notices on more than 10 projects 1 2.8 19. Does your agency have staffing metrics for Construction Administration? A staffing metric can be stated as “Placement of asphalt mixtures and aggregate: At least one inspector should be on the project to collect weigh tickets and inspect placement of these materials at all times.” Value Count Percent Yes 7 19.4 No 29 80.6 21. Does your agency have staffing metrics for Construction Engineering? Value Count Percent Yes 5 13.9 No 31 86.1 23. Does your agency have staffing metrics for Construction Inspection? Value Count Percent Yes 8 22.9 No 27 77.1 25. Does your agency have staffing metrics for other functional groups? Value Count Percent Yes 1 1 2 6.7 No 14 93.3 28. For each of the project types defined below, indicate the size (in $) of the average size project and the number of Full-Time Equivalent construction staff positions that would be assigned in each function on that project: Size (Million $) Administration Engineering Inspection Other Specify “other” Reconstruction Limited Access 17.53 (50,3) 1.8 (7,0.3) 2.01 (8,1) 4.43 (12,1) 8 (20,0) This would be support from other areas of the department such as Structures, Materials, etc. There also may be contract employees to help in the areas of testing and inspection. Reconstruction Open Access 15.28 (40,0.5) 1.16 (3,0.2) 1.01 (2,0) 3.7 (6,1) 7 (20,0) New Route 20.88 (50,3) 2.07 (6,0.4) 2.01 (6,1) 9.74 (40,1) 11.33 (30,0) This would be support from

56 Relocation 10.85 (39.4,0.4) 1.36 (3,0.5) 1.17 (2,1) 3.71 (12,1) 3.67 (10,0) other areas of the department such as Structures, Materials, etc. Also on larger projects, this may involve a dedicated financial employee and PI employees. Bridge Rehabilitation 2.95 (10, 0.25) 0.79 (3,0) 0.69 (1,0) 1.94 (4.5,1) 2.67 (7,0) Bridge Replacement 8.16 (34.9,1) 1.06 (3,0) 1.01 (1,0.5) 2.8 (6,1) 2.67 (7,0) *Numbers in each cell are: average (maximum, minimum) If other, please explain: County Response 1 This would be support from other areas of the department such as Structures, Materials, etc. Also on larger projects, this may involve a dedicated financial employee and PI employees. 1 Numbers are typical, but not average (we combine Admin., Engineering, and Inspection into one category). 1 This would be support from other areas of the department such as Structures, Materials, etc. There also may be contract employees to help in the areas of testing and inspection. All of these projects would be DB, so there would be and IQF to do the inspection, thus fewer inspectors needed from Staff.

29. For a typical project for your agency: if the factors shown in each row differ materially from that encountered in the average project, please indicate whether the level of staff in each function (columns) will decrease (–), increase, (+), or remain unchanged (0). Factor No. Administration Engineering Inspection Other Specify "Other" – 0 + – 0 + – 0 + – 0 + Accelerated schedules 1 0% 46.7% 53.3% 0% 50% 50% 6.3% 18.8% 75% 0% 100% 0% Expected increase in contractor quality 2 12.5% 87.5% 0% 18.8% 75% 6.3% 33.3% 60% 6.7% 0% 100% 0% Expected poor Plan, Specifications and Estimate quality 3 0% 50% 50% 0% 37.5% 62.5% 0% 50% 50% 0% 50% 50% Inclement weather 4 0% 87.5% 12.5% 0% 87.5% 12.5% 6.3% 62.5% 31.3% 0% 66.7% 33.3% Increased ADT count 5 0% 82.4% 17.6% 0% 87.5% 12.5% 0% 50% 50% 0% 33.3% 66.7% Traffic Control Increased Environmental Mitigation 6 0% 70.6% 29.4% 0% 56.3% 43.8% 0% 31.3% 68.8% 0% 25% 75% Increased Utility Relocation/Coordination Requirements 7 0% 43.8% 56.3% 0% 43.8% 56.3% 0% 53.3% 46.7% 0% 33.3% 66.7% Increased construction staff experience 8 13.3% 86.7% 0% 33.3% 66.7% 0% 62.5% 37.5% 0% 33.3 % 66.7% 0% Increased contractor experience 9 12.5% 81.3% 6.3% 12.5% 81.3% 6.3% 37.5% 56.3% 6.3% 0% 100% 0% Increased coordination with other agencies 10 0% 41.2% 58.8% 0% 62.5% 37.5% 0% 87.5% 12.5% 0% 50% 50% Increased funding 11 0% 68.8% 31.3% 0% 75% 25% 0% 56.3% 43.8% 0% 100% 0% Limited material availability 12 0% 87.5% 12.5% 0% 87.5% 12.5% 6.3% 93.8% 0% 0% 66.7% 33.3% Project located in a large metropolitan area 13 0% 58.8% 41.2% 0% 50% 50% 0% 37.5% 62.5% 0% 33.3% 66.7% Traffic Management Project located in a rural area 14 11.8% 82.4% 5.9% 12.5% 87.5% 0% 12.5% 81.3% 6.3% 50% 50% 0%

58 If other, please explain: Count Response 1 Not the need for as much of the support functions. 1 Public Information Officer 1 Support from Traffic Engineering, Utility Engineering, Public Involvement, ROW, etc. 1 Traffic Control 30. If there are factors not listed that significantly impact construction staffing needs please list and briefly explain here: Count Response 1 3rd party agreements—utility, railroad, right of way, env 1 Basic state funded maintenance projects are managed with fewer staff 1 Increase complexity 1 Late 20th Century Birth Rates. 1 Night work, Contract Restrictions on Work Times 1 In the table above, there may be instances where we would have liked to increase inspection levels but we do not have the personnel to do so. We would like to have more inspection staff when more operations are concurrent. 1 Small contracts of similar scope; for instance having 5 sign projects each of $150,000 creates more administrative work. 31. How does a decision to expedite a project (i.e. a project that receives more attention due to its negative impact on the surrounding) impact construction staffing requirements? Value Count Percent Less construction staff is required 0 0 There is no difference in construction staffing requirements 11 30.6 More construction staff is required 25 69.4 32. Does your agency have separate divisions for construction and maintenance activities or are they handled as part of a single, integrated department? Value Count Percent Separate Divisions 26 72.2 Integrated Divisions 6 16.7 Other (Please specify): 4 11.1 33. In times of limited construction staff availability, which of the following strategies has your agency used in the recent past to address staff shortfall (please check all that apply): Value Count Percent Reduce inspection requirements 7 20.6 Outsource consulting duties 30 88.2 Reduce work volume 1 2.9 Place existing staff on overtime 26 76.5 Assign non-construction personnel to construction duties 12 35.3 Hire additional staff 7 20.6 Transfer staff among districts 9 26.5 Other (Please identify): 3 8.8 34. In each of the project phases listed below, please indicate in which functions your construction staff participates by checking the appropriate box? Design Phase Bid Phase Contract Award Phase Construction Phase Project Close- Out Phase Administration 37.00% 73.30% 81.30% 82.40% 93.30% Engineering 63.00% 33.30% 25.00% 94.10% 73.30%

59 Inspection 7.40% 0% 0% 58.80% 53.30% Other 3.70% 0% 0% 2.90% 0% If other, please explain. Count Response 1 Review plans 35. Does your agency perform construction with its own workforce? Value Count Percent Yes 11 30.6 No 25 69.4 36. Function Own workforce uses fewer positions/lower manning levels Own workforce uses more positions/higher manning levels Avg. Responses % # % # # Construction Administration 87.5 7 12.5 1 0.0 8 Construction Engineering 87.5 7 12.5 1 0.0 8 Construction Inspection 87.5 7 12.5 1 0.0 8 Average 87.5 12.5 0.0 24 Other: Please identify: Count Response 1 We integrate consultants into our staff—i.e., staff augmentation 1 Some paving work; lot of bridge maintenance work 1 No difference in “manning” levels (complement) 37. Do you do anything differently on projects built with your own forces (e.g., reduced inspection requirements, reduced construction supervision)? Value Count Percent Value Count Percent Yes 6 54.5 No 5 45.5 38. If “Yes,” what? Count Response 1 No inspection activity 1 Self-inspection 1 Generally the work done with our own forces are very small projects. We have less testing overall, but the workers doing the work are all certified testers/inspectors and have done some of the testing. 1 Reduced construction supervision/inspection; there is not the same need as our own work force polices themselves. 1 I don’t believe we test all the materials placed by our maintenance folks as we do for contract work. 39. In meeting your construction staffing requirements, do you use contract personnel (e.g., outsourced construction inspectors)? Yes 32 97 No 1 3

60 40. For which functions do you use contract construction personnel? Please check all that apply. Value Count Percent Construction Administration 18 56.3 Construction Engineering 26 81.3 Construction Inspection 30 93.8 Other: Please identify: 3 9.4 41. Which factors do you consider in making the outsourcing decision? Please check all that apply. Value Count Percent Lack of availability of in-house personnel 31 96.9 Cost 12 37.5 Qualifications lacking in-house 22 68.8 Other: Please identify: 2 6.3 42. How are these factors considered? Count Response 1 Do not understand the question. 1 I don’t understand this question. 1 Man power projections 1 By doing annual workplans and selecting engineering firms based on qualifications 1 On a project basis 1 A review of the construction work program is done, in-house staffing levels & qualifications considered, then jobs not able to be managed by in-house staff is outsourced. 1 Regional Engineer staff the projects based on the scope of work, experience of staff available and decides what skills are needed to cover the work. Mostly experientially based decisions. 1 Use of consultant inspectors is generally considered if the need for additional inspectors is deemed to be a temporary need. 1 Not sure what you are asking. We hire consultants if we are short staffed or are lacking specialized qualifications 1 When our manpower projections exceed available resources we consider using consultant inspectors. We do consider cost in hiring a consultant versus bringing back a former DOT employee as a temporary employee. 1 As inspector availability is reduced. WSDOT is looking to technology to help offset inspectors. By looking to after-the-face nondestructive testing (MIT on concrete pavement, MOBA on paving), WSDOT is working to reduce the required number of inspectors in the field while ensuring the Finished quality meets or exceeds our contractual requirements. 43. Are construction personnel using any of the following information technologies? Construction Administration Construction Engineering Construction Inspection Smart Phone 25.0% 27.5% 17.5% Tablet Computer 15.0% 10.0% 15.0% Other Count Response 1 Some trials of iPads and iPhones are underway. 1 Notebooks 1 We don’t use them.

61 44. If these technologies are being used, please check the tasks for which they are being used: Communication Inspection Plans & Specs Daily Work Report Change Orders Other Smart Phone 32.5% 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 5.0% 2.5% Tablet Computer 12.5% 12.5% 15.0% 15.0% 12.5% 0% Other: Please identify: Count Response 1 Road Condition survey inspections 1 laptops by inspectors used for some functions 45. The productivity of the individuals using this technology has: Value Count Percent Increased 14 38.9 Stayed unchanged 22 61.1 Decreased 0 0 46. If increased, by approximately how much (percentage)? Count Response 1 ±10% 1 1% 2 10 2 10% 1 15 1 25 1 5 1 Increased efficiencies gained by technology but not measured 1 Not evaluated 1 Not measured 1 don't know 2 unknown 48. Has the increased productivity allowed you to reduce the number of people in these positions? Value Count Percent Yes 4 28.6 No 10 71.4 49. Are you doing more with the same number of people as you were 10 years ago? Value Count Percent Yes 14 38.9 No 22 61.1 50. Are you doing more with fewer people than you were 10 years ago? Value Count Percent Yes 31 86.1 No 5 13.9