HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7310 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No7310 P. 1
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council August 16, 1988
0 OL
Subject: Comparison of Costs for In-House Design Services vs. Private
Consultants for Public Works Facilities.
At the July 12, 1988, City Council meeting, Councilman Lancaster raised several
questions regarding the cost of using Transportation and Public Works In-House
design engineers as compared to the cost of using private consultants to design
street and storm drainage construction projects. The questions came up prior
to approval of M&C G-7641 which authorized the T&PW Department to begin
design work on reconstructing Northside Drive from Cold Springs Road to 1-35W
and Northside Drive from Jacksboro Highway to Grand Avenue. These questions
are both appropriate and timely as City Council considers the upcoming 1988-89
City Budget. The information provided below will hopefully be of assistance
in this matter.
Our research indicates that most large cities throughout the country utilize
a combination of staff engineers and private consultants to perform project
design of streets, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water facilities, bridges,
airports, etc. The City of Fort Worth in recent years has utilized a rather small
In-House Design section in the Transportation and Public Works Dept. consisting
of 19 employees including 8 engineers. With bond programs emphasizing the
reconstruction of residential streets such as was passed in 1986, emergency
design work resulting from water main breaks, and Council's desire to contract
ell out much of our Street Maintenance work, the In-House Design Section has
a very steady or level workload throughout the year. These type design projects
are tailor made for staff engineers and it would not be practical or recommended
to let these type projects out to private consultants.
Major arterial streets, large and complex storm drain facilities, new airports,
dams, etc. require the assistance of private consultants who can hire additional
staff and gear up for an extensive design effort. Of course, once the project
is complete, private consultants can then reduce their design staff accordingly.
Experience of current T & PW administrators and other Public Works officials
across the country indicates that the City of Fort Worth is prudent in maintaining
In-House Design groups in both the T & PW and Water Departments to perform
those design services that they can perform best. Private consultants can then
be utilized to meet the varying or fluctuating work loads caused by the need
to design major and complex public works facilities.
As can be seen on the attachments, the In-House Design group completed design
projects from January 1, 1987 thru June 30, 1988 with a subsequent construction
cost of $17,831,199. Private consultants completed much fewer projects but
the construction cost totaled $28,623,884.83. Average construction cost of
staff designed projects was $218,942. Average construction cost of consultant
designed projects was $2,862,388.
As a percentage of construction cost, In-House design services averaged 5.9%
as compared to 7.5% for private consultants.
-ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No 7310 P. 2
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
S August 16, 1988
• X Subject: Comparison of Costs for In-House Design Services vs. Private
Consultants for Public Works Facilities.
The 5.9% In-House design cost was based on actual salary expenses for staff
personnel plus fringe benefits, materials, rentals, equipment, printing, etc.
for the 18 month period but does not include overhead items such as building,
management, legal fees, etc. Private consultants would have all of these expenses
plus profit. Thus, the average difference between cost for In-House design
services and private consultants is somewhat less than the difference between
5.9% and 7.5% due to overhead costs.
The Texas State Professional Engineers manual's curves for engineering fees
(Curve A) clearly indicates that as construction cost for a project increases,
the design fee percentage should decrease. For comparison purposes only, the
TSPE Curve A indicates that private consultants would be entitled to 8.5%
for an average project costing $218,942 whereas City staff cost actually averaged
5.9%. The cost for private consultants should be increased about 1% to cover
contract administration including plan review. The lower percentage for In-House
costs is reflective of the following items:
1. It does not include overhead costs.
r. 2. Consultants are typically awarded the more technologically complex
projects which frequently require preliminary feasibility studies, and
geotechnical investigation.
3. The ability of the In-House group to reduce design costs by using simplified
contract documents and plans on routine reconstruction jobs.
Although cost for design services, whether it be In-House staff or private
consultants, is a major consideration, it is certainly not the only consideration.
When bond programs are approved by the voters, those projects specified in
the Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) need to be scheduled appropriately
over the life of the C.I.P., normally 3 to 4 years. Certainly all projects could
be designed at one time, heavily utilizing private consultants. If these projects
all went to construction immediately after design, the effect on the debt service
of the City would be traumatic. If, on the other hand, the projects were spread
out over a number of years, some of the designs would be out of date by the
time we were ready to go to construction and some redesign or modification
of the plans would probably be necessary.
Therefore, it is advisable to establish a schedule, or work program soon after
approval of the bond election that keeps a fairly constant rate for both design
and construction work over the life of the bond program. This procedure also
prevents our Construction Inspection Division from being swamped with
construction projects with too few inspectors to provide adequate inspection.
One final consideration is the need for maintaining a competent and professional
In-House design group. Currently, this section provides other vital functions
—ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No_ 310 p. 3
top), To the Mayor and Members of the City Council August 16, 1988
B
C, Subject: Comparison of Costs for In-House Design Services vs. Private
1#7 Consultants for Public Works Facilities.
in addition to design services. Staff engineers prepare cost estimates for future
bond programs, perform storm drainage studies, investigate citizen complaints
of flooding, research new construction materials and techniques, review plans
from other departments, and serve as an information resource for current bid
prices for a variety of construction items involved in public works construction.
Staff engineers are thus cross trained broadly and experience in one area of
activity greatly assists them in other areas.
In summary, utilizing In-House Design engineers for certain type projects is
both prudent and less expensive to the City. Private consultants should continue
to be utilized on larger and more complex projects where extensive manpower
is required. It is most important to maintain a proper balance between In-House
staff engineers and private consultants. This is analagous to the balance that
has recently been created between private contractors and Street Division forces
in maintaining our City Streets. Also, projects should be carefully scheduled
over the life of a Capital Improvement Program to minimize debt service and
ensure the City's ability to adequately inspect the construction work.
If additional information is required in this matter, it will be supplied upon
request.
ougla s Harm
an
City g Ma n age r
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
August 16, 1988
STREET & STORM DRAIN PROJECTS
DESIGNED BY CONSULTANTS
JAN. 1, 1987 TO JUNE 30, 1988
PROJECT CONTRACT AMOUNT DESIGN CONTRACT
Northside Dr. Bridge $2,002,884.00 $68,900.00
S. FW Airport (6 contracts) 5,435,838.95 482,400.00
Paddock Viaduct (Temporary Repair) 199,082.90 61,860.67
Paddock Viaduct (Permanent Repairs) 3,136,832.90 190,000.00
Reconstruction of Luther Lake Dam 830,066.67 175,082.00
N. Beach St. Assessment Paving
(Fossil Creek Blvd. to Western Center Blvd.) 2,365,097.59 167,580.00
A.P. of Sycamore School Rd. Units 1 & 2
(McCart Ave. to Crowley Rd.) 1,653,689.00 158,300.00
A.P. of McCart Avenue, Unit 1, 11 & 111 1,273,547.66 63,000.00
TCU/Colonial Storm Drain 1,875,600.73 105,500.00
A.P. of Handley-Ederville Rd./Randol Mill Rd. 9,851,244.43 672,376.00
GRAND TOTAL-CONSULTANTS $28,623,884.83 $2,144,998.67
August 16, 1988
STREET & STORM DRAIN PROJECTS DESIGNED
BY IN-HOUSE FORCES
JAN. 1, 1987 TO JUNE 30, 1988
PROJECT CONTRACT AMOUNT
Pavement Repair I at Various Locations $92,381.60
Resurfacing of Westcreek
(1-20 to Southgate Dr.) 77,477.66
Joint & Crack Sealing at Different Locations 143,000.00
Resurfacing E. Stella St.
(Tennessee Ave. to Virginia Ave.) 15,674.00
Const. of Concrete Valley Gutters 95,000.00
Storm Drain Improvements at Chateau Dr. 23,500.00
Resurfacing of Downtown Streets 369,100.00
Water and S. Sewer Main Replacement &
Reconstruction of Binkley Ave. 439,143.91
Resurfacing of Genoa Rd.
(Ems Rd. W. to Ridgmar Blvd.) 25,858.00
A.P. of Old Benbrook & Replacement of Water Main 836,467.42
Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Permanent Patching 95,000.00
Repair of Sycamore Central Industrial Park
Drainage Channel 39,362.50
Trench Repair & 211 H.M.A.C. Overlay of
Saunders Road 32,915.00
Single Surface Treatment (Seal Coat)
at Different Locations 475,000.00
Reconstruction of Fuel Farm Roads "A" & "By'
Meacham Airport 32,864.50
Reconstruction of Wedgmont Circle N.
(Trail Lake to Wilkie Way) 401,435.90
Storm Drain Improvements on Park Ridge Blvd.
at Cockrell Ave. 13,979.00
Resurfacing of Miller Ave. (Railroad to Burton) 155,989.07
Pavement Repair at Trinity Blvd. between
Post Oak Blvd. and American Blvd. 21,920.00
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, IV 619,996.80
Reconstruction of Lubbock Ave.
(Creston Ave. to Boyce Ave.) 114,646.20
Resurfacing of E. Berry St.
(Candace to Loop 820) 65,192.76
Reconstruction of Diaz Ave.
(Hulen St. to Ashland Ave.) 126,467.30
Street Paving Repair for Utility Cuts V,
Northeast Area 378,254.55
Street Paving Repair for Utility Cuts VI,
Southwest Area 542,043.00
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, 111 608,052.50
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, II 449,705.50
Storm Drain Improvements at 5800 Block
of E. Berry Street 20,915.00
Resurfacing of Oakland Blvd.
(1-30 South to R.R.) 192,647.47
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, 1 483,529.30
Streetscape of Magnolia Ave.
(Alston Ave. to 5th Ave.) 382,690.12
August 16, 1988
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, V 429,874.40
Resurfacing of E. Berry
(Mitchell Blvd. to U.S. 287) 106,904.50
Reconstruction of Sandy Lane
(Brentwood Stair Rd. to 5101 North) 40,610.10
Construction of Collard St. (Ave. I to Ave. H) 34,443.79
Resurfacing of Ranchview Rd.
(Bellaire Dr. to Overton Pk. West) 35,332.40
North Beach St. Assessment Paving
(Summerfields Blvd. to 1161 South of Thompson Rd.) 195,819.93
Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete Permanent Patching 11 129,590.00
Trench Repair and Overlay of Kaltenbrun Rd.
Cameron East to Dead End 36,791.95
Reconstruction of Druid Lane
Morrison Dr. to 2001 East 21,171.25
Alley Construction in 400 Blk. of S. Main St.
to Bryan Street 22,524.25
Pavement Repair on N. Bellaire Drive, 3500 Blk. 18,856.77
Resurfacing of Miller Ave.
(Ramey Ave. to Burton St.) 81,708.54
Reconstruction of Castleman St.
(Martin Luther King Fwy. to Reed St.) 208,030.00
Resurfacing of W. Seminary Dr.
(Trail Lake Dr. to AT & SF RR) 228,111.00
Reconstruction of Stephen Lee Dr.
(Old Mansfield Rd. to Glen Garden Dr.) 69,189.00
Reconstruction of Mobile Dr.
(Leamside Dr. to Melody Hills Dr.) 133,189.05
Bus Pads at Various Locations 29,578.95
op", Storm Drain Improvements at Ryan Place Drive 159,334.85
Reconstruction of Carlock St.
(5th Ave. to S. Henderson St.) 65,590.90
Water Main & Sanitary Sewer Main Replacement &
Reconst. of Refugio Ave. 157,422.80
Resurfacing of Kemzey St. (Rutledge to Locke) 45,352.00
Pavement Repair @ 1200 Block of S. Riverside Dr. 18,900.88
Water Main Replacement in Ash Crescent &
E. Maddox Ave. & Reconst. E. Maddox 64,954.12
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling 1, 1988 566,618.00
Reconstruction of Ash Crescent St.
(Murphy St. to Maddox Ave.) 33,910.00
Water System Improvements and Reconst.
of Paradise St. from Chenault to R.R. 159,741.41
Blue Smoke Ct. Channel Lining 7,777.00
Rickenbacker Place (Farrell to Carverly) 95,765.50
Timberview Court (Boca Raton to Cul-de-sac) 59,790.91
Storm Drain Improvements at 2200 Blk. Scott St. 16,326.20
Western Center Currency Facility Storm Drainage System 458,078.00
Reconst. of Andrew Ave.
(Elgin Street to Willie Street) 95,827.96
Reconst. of South Meadow Dr. E.
(Sycamore School Rd. to Meadow Ridge) 64,571.80
Intersection Improvements at Allen and Evans 60,007.00
Reconst. of Chapman Ave. (Amanda to Liberty) 121,402.30
0■"1
-2-
August 16, 1988
6" Water Main Replacement & Reconst. of
Birchman Avenue 418,250.84
Reconstruction of Camp Bowie from
Hillcrest to Hulen 783,307.20
Misc. Curb, Gutter & Driveway Replace. 88-2 72,875.80
Misc. Curb, Gutter & Driveway Replace. 88-4 71,675.85
Misc. Curb, Gutter & Driveway Replace. 88-1 67,373.60
Misc. Curb, Gutter & Driveway Replace. 88-3 64,531.80
Concrete Restoration, Long Ave...Hulen, Hulen 682,383.00
Award of Contract for Concrete Valley Gutters, 88-1 41,040.00
Rescession of City Secretary Contract No. 16343 &
Award of Contract for Resurf. of Andrew Ave. 93,375.25
H.M.A.C. Resurfacing, 88-1, (CBD) 699,250.00
H.M.A.C. Recycling, 88-2 of Hemphill St. 450,420.00
H.M.A.C. Resurfacing, 88-2, at Various Locations 473,553.10
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, 88-3 453,948.19
H.M.A.C. Resurfacing, 88-3 682,540.90
H.M.A.C. Surface Recycling, 88-4 392,828.00
Int. Improve. on Meadowbrook Dr. at Sandy Ln. 51,010.18
Drainage Improvements at 6200 Block of S. Fwy. 43,433.70
Reconst. of Portions of Pearl, Market & Gould & 21st 575,255.30
Drainage Imp. at Marine Creek &
NE 22nd Street 138,890.23
Lancaster Avenue Bridge, Currie to Summit 80,950.00
GRAND TOTAL-IN HOUSE $17,831,199.51
OP.
-3-
T S. P. E,
Curves of Media-i-i Conip,.-,nsai,:i,-),t-,,
CURVES A AND B
0
00,
Z t:
0
-- tp in
Q
c z
c
FL
.0 cr
mj
46 CL
w
Oi % 9 Ju. lab M"
v do
79
1 wk- E C7 V3
m
ME w
it A
0
c 8 L a
.2 m V CL t U-
1 -2 cm W;'o, 06,
m Uj 3:
X z 79
r
E
-W x 10 r_ (n
C
oe M 9 .0
z
C CL
4; E
E
O 4'
Ec
W.E FA rl
40 E 7j; *0 c m
4) c La
4L
E cj/
E-
m
c;
0 0= ci
0-1
� CL F-
m 0, = 0
'MI -a 0 0
0 = to
c :R
m 0 el"001K
xvNE'. 2 1 0 C)
1= -W E
44
C 0
03 ME m 0
c
o
L
O lot cc C-
E W CL
0 0`9
N ii M
m
21,
c w
c m
cc
O
E
0 00
IN3DH3c!-398VH3 OIS48
15