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.
3 chapter one INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In recent years, state transportation agencies (STAs) have expe- rienced evolutions in their traditional business models for the development of highway construction projects. These evolu- tions have been driven by several influences including fluc- tuations in funding levels (e.g., lean periods of state funding followed by the influx of federal stimulus funding), dynamic sources of funding (i.e., changes in how projects are funded) across STA project portfolios (e.g., local vs. state vs. national, publicâprivate partnerships, or any combination of funding agencies), alternative contracting methods [e.g., design-build, quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) practices, and war- rantee contracts], changes in traditional job responsibilities (e.g., integration of construction and maintenance departments), increased use of consultant services to augment in-house per- sonnel (e.g., design outsourcing, construction inspection out- sourcing), changes in project requirements (e.g., increased environmental mitigation requirements for planning and con- struction), and advances in design and construction technol- ogy [e.g., Global Positioning System (GPS) machine control, three-dimensional (3D) design] among others. This evolution also comes at a time when STAs are experiencing staff turn- over. Experienced personnel are leaving STAs through retire- ment and are being replaced by less-experienced individuals who are encountering more rapid increases in responsibility earlier in their careers than their predecessors. These changes have affected all divisions of STA personnel, particularly those tasked with the construction of highway infrastructure. The current work aggregates staffing for highway con- struction into three main categories; construction administra- tion, construction engineering, and construction inspection. ⢠Construction administration is the day-to-day plan- ning, scheduling, and oversight of construction project operations. This would involve budget management, contract management, change order initiation, precon- struction meetings, project closeout, etc. ⢠Construction engineering entails the functions of estima- tion, site design, falsework design, conflict resolution, site issue resolution, traffic control design, etc. ⢠Construction inspection is overseeing the work for con- formance to plans, specifications, and material require- ments; erosion control and environmental conformance; safety standard conformance; traffic control confor- mance, etc. The aggregation of construction functions into these categories does not imply that overlap does not exist between them nor does it imply that a single person could not perform two or more of the categories. In most STAs, construction personnel are concentrated in field offices throughout the state, with construction support staff located in central or regional offices. STAs are tasked not only with ensuring that construction staffing levels are adequate to meet the stateâs current construction needs but also forecast- ing future construction personnel staffing levels. Forecasting construction personnel needs is challenging as a result of many factors primarily related to the dynamic nature of highway infrastructure construction. Total state construction volume can vary from year to year, which adds uncertainty to person- nel requirements at the central and field office level. However, construction volume within state districts can also fluctuate from year to year, which can require adjustments to field per- sonnel. Construction staff forecasting is further complicated by variations in personnel experience levels in identical posi- tions across the state, variations in construction staff productiv- ity, variations in contractor quality, variations in project type and complexity, variations in local government requirements, changes in construction technology, and changes in construc- tion staff responsibilities. PROJECT SCOPE For the current work, construction will be defined as those activities performed by construction personnel related to the physical construction of highway infrastructure (e.g., construc- tion supervision, construction inspection), contract adminis- tration (e.g., payment approval, change order management), construction planning (e.g., constructability reviews, pre-bid meetings), and project closeout (e.g., organizing final inspec- tions, final documentation). Activities that support highway construction but are not typically performed by construc- tion personnel and are therefore not considered within the scope of this project include highway infrastructure design, payment processing, specialized final inspections (e.g., traf- fic signals, trees, and seeding), off-site material testing, and disadvantaged business entity administration. For the current work, construction personnel will be defined as those per- sons in both field, regional, and central offices assigned to the administration and inspection of construction of highway infrastructure. This definition would include positions such as project engineer, project inspector, and construction techni- cian, but would not include positions such as design engineer,
4 ⢠Kentucky ⢠Louisiana ⢠Maine ⢠Maryland ⢠Massachusetts ⢠Michigan ⢠Minnesota ⢠Missouri ⢠Montana ⢠Nebraska ⢠Nevada ⢠New Hampshire ⢠New Jersey ⢠New Mexico ⢠New York ⢠North Carolina ⢠North Dakota ⢠Oklahoma ⢠Oregon ⢠Pennsylvania ⢠Rhode Island ⢠Tennessee ⢠Utah ⢠Vermont ⢠Virginia ⢠Washington ⢠West Virginia ⢠Wisconsin ⢠Wyoming. The raw data and descriptive statistics collected from the survey are included in Appendix B. Site visits were conducted with construction personnel at the following organizations: ⢠SANDAG, ⢠Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, ⢠San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and ⢠San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Finally, a review of construction staffing policies and pro- cedures was performed by searching STA websites for pub- lished information. The remainder of the report presents the findings from the study effort. Chapter two presents the results of the general construction staffing data analysis. Chapter three provides the data related to the factors that impact construction staffing requirements for projects. Chapter four presents construction staffing forecasting systems that are currently in place at STA and non-STA transportation agencies. Chapter five draws conclusions from the current work, identifies commonalities between construction staff forecasting systems used within STAs, and identifies potential areas of future research. offsite materials testing technician, and maintenance inspec- tor. Although specific positions for materials testing techni- cian and maintenance inspector are outside the scope of the report, it is acknowledged that staff within included positions (e.g., project inspector) may sometimes perform the duties of positions considered outside the scope of the project (e.g., materials testing). Finally, some STAs are integrating construction and maintenance divisions at the field level, which can lead to a blurring of the lines between construction and maintenance operations. The current work will distinguish between construction and maintenance operations by defin- ing construction activities as those that are procured through a formal bidding and selection process. However, the impact of assigned maintenance responsibilities on construction person- nel is considered within the scope of the project. STUDY METHODOLOGY This synthesis used a combination of an on-line survey, site visits, and literature reviews to collect data on construction per- sonnel demographics and staffing forecasting models currently in place at STAs. The survey tool was developed with input from the topic panel and was designed to collect information on the demographics of the construction staffing at STAs, factors that affect construction staffing needs for transportation infra- structure construction, and to identify tools used by STAs to forecast future construction staffing needs. A copy of the survey tool is included in Appendix A. The survey was distributed to members of the AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction from all 50 STAs and the District of Columbia. In addition, the survey was distributed to transportation construction elements within the following non-STA transportation organizations, selected with input from the topic panel: ⢠San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), ⢠City of Atlanta, ⢠City of New York, ⢠Central Federal Lands Highway Division, and ⢠Florida Turnpike Authority. The survey was administered using an online survey tool. Responses to the survey were received from STAs from the following 40 states of the 51 surveyed: ⢠California ⢠Colorado ⢠Connecticut ⢠Delaware ⢠Florida ⢠Georgia ⢠Hawaii ⢠Idaho ⢠Illinois ⢠Iowa ⢠Kansas
