1	Evaluation of Current Capital Improvement Program Project Delivery System (In-house vs. Consultant) City Council Briefing February 1, 2006
2	Background Briefing Memo to Council May 28, 2004 Analysis of design costs performed by 4 departments: Dallas Water Utilities (DWU), Equipment Building Services (EBS), Park and Recreation Department (PARD) and Public Works and Transportation (PWT)
3	Recommendations from the May 28, 2004 briefing Utilize private sector design for all major facilities projects in all departments Evaluate less specialized projects on a case-by-case basis for complexity of work and in-service requirements
4	Recommendations from the May 28, 2004 briefing (cont’d) Utilize a combination of private sector design and in-house design on standard projects in DWU, PARD and PWT Maintain current use of private sector design in EBS due to uncertainties in project funding and project type
5	Recommendations from the May 28, 2004 briefing (cont’d) Increase staffing in DWU, PARD, and PWT to design more of the standard projects in-house Four-year phase-in for DWU (26 additional staff) One-year phase-in for PARD (3 additional staff) One-year phase-in for PWT (11 additional staff) Bond programs every 3 to 4 years (no gap year) to utilize proposed additional staff efficiently Continually re-evaluate apportionment of in-house design vs. private sector design
6	Status Recommendations implemented in FY 04-05 Additional staff requested was budgeted in FY 04-05 DWU – 4 of 26 FTE 2 gained, 2 lost due to attrition PARD – 3 FTE Unable to fill vacancy PWT – 11 FTE 11 gained; 12 lost due to attrition Net loss 1 FTE
7	Challenges Experienced Limited pool of qualified candidates Cumbersome and limited flexibility in City hiring process Salary not competitive with current market Lack of civil engineering graduates and strong competition from consultants and other agencies
8	Capital Program Delivery May 28, 2004 briefing focused only on design for in-house vs. private sector A more comprehensive approach would be to look at total capital program delivery
9	How the Program is Structured Annual work plan identifies planned projects for each year of the bond program Annual bond sales provide financing for bond program
10	Capital Program Delivery Components
11	Goal of Capital Program Delivery Effective, timely, cost-effective design and construction of needed infrastructure improvements
12	CASE STUDY Streets/Flood Program - PWT 40 firms representing 70-75 projects Average design time one year On average, seven persons per design team Representing 280 staff available at any given time to implement design Significant boost to resources used to implement design of projects
13	CASE STUDY Streets/Flood Program - PWT Consultant staff not assigned exclusively to City projects Consultant has multiple clients and projects Approach allows for significant projects to be bid in a shorter period of time Allows implementation of bond program within our scheduled timeframe
14	Alternate Method Utilizing staff to perform design currently outsourced would require an additional 91 FTE 163 FTE (91 plus the existing 72 FTE) represents number required to produce same volume of work for the City of Dallas Approach results in uniform work output Results in additional time for implementation
15	Design Delivery Method Comparison
16	In-House Design PROS Lower design costs Higher efficiency and quality for standard projects Greater ability to respond quickly to small, critical new work Ensures staff training and meets long-term succession planning goals CONS Staffing levels would be dependent on regular bond programs and sales Reduces utilization of small/emerging and M/WBE firms Greater difficulty finding and hiring qualified technical applicants More training, additional office space, and equipment required May not be suitable for complex projects We assume risk for our designs
17	Private Sector Design PROS Greater ability to quickly mobilize additional staff when needed Experience in large and complex projects Multi-disciplined staff, can address specialized issues Assume risk for problems or failure of designs Allows utilization of small/emerging and M/WBE firms CONS Higher design costs Performance and quality may vary
18	Recommendations Continue current project delivery method Assess capacity to deliver future bond programs and make recommendations accordingly Annually review adequate staffing levels required to ensure timely program delivery