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.

14 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet construction projects, one of the high risk causes of change orders was design errors and omissions (Taylor et al. 2012). Another work on analyzing the causes of change orders at the Kentucky Trans- portation Cabinet identified guardrails as a high change order risk work item (Goodrum et al. 2010). Research in the Austra- lian construction industry found that design errors increased project cost between 6.9% and 7.4% (Lopez and Love 2012). These studies indicate that increased agency personnel require- ments for projects with high levels of change orders could also be attributed (at least in some part) to design errors. Table 9 also shows a noticeable difference between the types of factors that tend to affect administration and engi- neering (early project development activities) and those that affect inspection (construction phase activities). Figures 10 and 11 show little support for factors that can decrease construction administration and construction engi- neering staffing requirements. However, Figure 12 shows that increases in construction staff experience can reduce construction inspection personnel requirements. It is impor- tant to note that the list of factors shown in Table 8 focus heavily on factors that would be expected to increase staff- ing requirements and does not include factors that would be expected to decrease staffing requirements. IMPACT OF PROJECT DELIVERY AND FUNDING SYSTEMS ON STAFFING REQUIREMENTS As described in chapter two, Project Delivery Methods, a majority of STAs are utilizing design-build project deliv- ery systems on some projects, whereas PPPs and warranty projects are less common. Of the states using design-build contracts, 12 (44.4%) reported that less construction staff is required, 14 (51.9%) reported no change in staffing require- ments, and one (3.7%) reported that more construction staff is required for these types of contracts. Of the seven states using PPPs, five (71.4%) reported that PPPs require less con- struction staff and two (28.6%) that there is no difference in construction staffing requirements for these types of proj- ects. Of the 14 states that have used warranties for highway construction, 12 (85.7%) reported no change in construction staffing requirements, one (7.1%) reported a decrease in staffing requirements, and one (7.1%) reported an increase in staffing requirements for warranty projects. This chapter focuses on identifying the factors that influence construction staffing requirements for highway construction projects. The data for this chapter are from the survey responses. SELECTED FACTOR IMPACT ON STAFFING NEEDS FOR A TYPICAL PROJECT The study team and the topic panel developed the list of fac- tors shown in Table 8 that could influence STA staffing require- ments for highway construction projects. The intent of the list was to succinctly describe condi- tions that could be encountered on a project to allow the STA respondents to report their opinions on how each factor would affect staffing requirements. The purpose of the list is to identify factors that influence staffing requirements, not to quantify the magnitude of the impact for each factor. To this end, the respondents were asked to note whether the specific factor would tend to “increase staff requirements,” “decrease staff requirements,” or result in “no change” in staff requirements for a typical project for construction administration, engineering, and inspection staff. Thirteen STAs provided their estimates on the impact of each factor on construction staffing. The following figures display the per- centages of the STAs that selected each category for each fac- tor (vertical axis) for construction administration (Figure 10), construction engineering (Figure 11), and construction inspec- tion staff (Figure 12). The factor number shown along the hori- zontal axis corresponds to the factor number in Table 8. Figures 10–12 identify several key factors that require increased construction staffing needs. Table 9 shows the rank order of identified factors that tend to increase construction staffing requirements for highway construction work. This table shows that the expectation of a poor set of plans, sched- ules, and estimates is the top ranked factor for increasing staffing requirements for construction engineering and is the fourth ranked factor for construction administration and con- struction inspection. Expected poor plans, specifications, and estimates, and an accelerated construction schedule are the only factors that appear in the top four reported factors across the construction staffing type. The assertion by the survey respondents that poor quality plans, schedules, and estimates can increase construction staffing needs is consistent with previous research related to the impact of design errors on construction. In a statistical analysis of change orders on chapter three FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CONSTRUCTION STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR PROJECTS

15 Factor Number Factor Description 1 Accelerated construction schedule 2 Expected increase in contractor quality 3 Expected poor plan, specifications, and estimate quality 4 Inclement weather 5 Increased average daily traffic count 6 Increased environmental mitigation 7 Increased utility relocation/coordination requirements 8 Increased construction staff experience 9 Increased contractor experience 10 Increased coordination with other agencies 11 Increased funding 12 Limited material availability 13 Project located in a large metropolitan area 14 Project located in a rural area TABLE 8 FACTORS THAT COULD INFLUENCE STA STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 % R ep or ti ng Im pa ct Factor Number Increase Staffing Requirements No Change Decrease Staffing Requirements FIGURE 10 Impact of selected factors on construction administration staffing requirements. IMPACT OF PROJECT EXPEDITING ON STAFFING REQUIREMENTS The decision to expedite a project (i.e., a project that receives more attention because of external circumstances that drive the project to a faster completion) increases the overall construction staffing requirements for a project. Of the 36 STAs that provided data on expedited projects, 25 (69.4%) indicated that these types of projects increase con- struction staffing requirements, while 11 (30.6%) indicated that expedited projects resulted in no change in staffing requirements. IMPACT OF FHWA OVERSIGHT INSPECTIONS ON STAFFING REQUIREMENTS As part of FHWA’s oversight agreement on highway construc- tion projects with federal funding, the agency can provide input on construction staffing levels to STAs. The STAs surveyed were asked for information on the number of FHWA com- munications on issues related to staffing on their projects over the past five years because of understaffing (Figure 13). Of the 36 respondents to the question, only 10 indicated that they had communication with FHWA because of understaffed projects. Discussions with several officials from these states revealed

16 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 % R ep or ti ng Im pa ct Factor Number Increase Staffing Requirements No Change Decrease Staffing Requirements FIGURE 11 Impact of selected factors on construction engineering staffing requirements. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 % R ep or ti ng Im pa ct Factor Number Increasing Staffing Requirements No Change Decreasing Staffing Requirements FIGURE 12 Impact of selected factors on construction inspection staffing requirements. that FHWA minimum staffing requirements are subject to the interpretation of the FHWA inspector. STA staffing require- ments during construction are specified in United States Fed- eral Code 23 CFR 635.105(a) that states: The STD [State Transportation Department] has responsibility for the construction of all Federal-aid projects, and is not relieved of such responsibility by authorizing performance of the work by a local public agency or other Federal agency. The STD shall be responsible for insuring that such projects receive adequate supervision and inspection to insure that projects are completed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. CHAPTER SUMMARY The data presented in this chapter demonstrate that expected poor quality plans, specifications, and estimates, and accel- erated construction schedules tend to increase construction staffing requirements across administration, engineering,

17 Rank Construction Administration Engineering Inspection 1 Increased coordination with other agencies (#10) Expected poor plan, specifications, and estimate quality (#3) Accelerated construction schedule (#1) 2 Increased utility relocation/coordination requirements (#7) Increased utility relocation/coordination requirements (#7) Increased environmental mitigation (#6) 3 Accelerated construction schedule (#1) Project located in a large metropolitan area (#13) Project located in a large metropolitan area (#13) 4 Expected poor plan, specifications, and estimate quality (#3) Accelerated construction schedule (#1) Expected poor plan, specifications, and estimate quality (#3) and Increased ADT count (#5) ADT = average daily traffic. TABLE 9 FACTORS THAT TEND TO INCREASE CONSTRUCTION STAFFING REQUIREMENTS No FHWA communicaons 72% FHWA communicaons on fewer than 5 projects 22% FHWA communicaons on 5-10 projects 3% FHWA communicaons on more than 10 projects 3% FIGURE 13 FHWA communications due to understaffing in the past 5 years. and inspection. Increased coordination among utilities and other agencies can lead to increased staff requirements for construction engineering and construction administration, respectively. Construction inspection staffing requirements can be reduced through increased construction staff experi- ence, increased contractor experience, and increased con- tractor quality. Alternative project delivery systems appear to have some reported reductions in STA construction staff- ing as demonstrated by the 44.4% reporting reduced staff- ing requirements for design-build projects and the 71.4% reporting reduced staffing requirements for PPPs. Expedit- ing projects tends to increase construction staffing require- ments for projects while the impact of FHWA oversight is minimal.