Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06272000 - SD4 -D. T Ti: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS C L UU}� y r' FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR,COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Costa DATE: June 27,2000 County SUBJECT: REPORT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS CHARGED TO CAPITAL ITAL PROJECTS SPECIFIC REGUEST{S)OR RECOMMENDATION{S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION 612MEHMION: ACCEPT the report "Analysis of Overhead Charges and Other Administrative Costs Charged to Capital Projects",prepared by the staff of the CAO In Conjunction with staff of the Department of General Services. ACCEPT the policy recommendations in the report,as amended by the Finance Committee: Direct the Department of General Services to: • Enhance the authority of Project Managers.(Implementation Measures 1 and 2) • Improve cost estimating and construction management services.(Implementation Measures 3 through 6). • Supplement training opportunities for existing architectural staff and continue an ongoing internal evaluation process. (Implementation Measures 7 and 8). • Institute management controls as specified In the attached report.(Implementation Measure 9) • Develop retainer contracts with architectural and other Consultants of up to $250,000. (Implementation Measure 11) Direct the CAO,in cooperation with the Department of Human Resources,to: • Further evaluate workload and staffing levels and supervisory relationships within the Division of Architectural Services. (Implementation Measure 10) • Develop an annual capital program to be presented to the Board of Supervisors In cxsn ncdon with the County Budget. (Implementation Measure 13) • Prepare a matrix of facility needs,costs and available funding sources over a five year period. This matrix report will be referred back to the Finance Committee for review prior to December,2000. (Added by the Finance Committee). CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: __X YES SIGNATUR —RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE —OTHER SIGHATUREiSIc ACTfON OF BOARD ON e— ;�'2 r 01311 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED t9ffiriR FINANCIAL IMPACT: None of the recommended actions will have a direct fiscal impact. Taken as a whole, the recommendations of the study can be expected to reduce project management costs while enhancing service to County departments. BACKGROUND: The attached report was prepared in response to a request from the Board of Supervisors during the FY 1999-2000 budget hearings. The starting point for this analysis was the overhead rate charged by the Department of General Services on capital projects, however the study also considered broader questions regarding cost and schedule of capital projects. The attached report presents conclusions based on quantitative comparisons of various measures of overhead. It also includes recommendations based on interviews with architectural staff at the counties of Alameda, Sonoma and Santa Clara. On June I e, the Finance Committee reviewed this study with staff and approved the report with some additional recommendations. 5` DRAFT ANALYSIS OF OVERHEAD CHARGES AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS CHARGED TO CAPITAL PROJECTS June 19,2000 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the FY 1999/00 Budget hearings, the Board of Supervisors directed the County Administrator's Office to analyze the overhead rate charged by the Department of General Services Department (GSD). This focus on overhead rates reflects a broader concern: why do capital projects, even seemingly simple ones,cost so much and take so long to complete? The study team compared quantitative measures of project cost and also interviewed staff at other counties. Capital projects,like a lot of government activities, follow a complex and highly regulated process. Even fairly simple projects can involve numerous departments and contractors. Both of these factors contribute to the cost and time involved in completing many projects. Comparisons of Project Overhead The study team looked at three measures of project overhead: overhead rates, charge out rates, and soft costs or project control costs. This quantitative analysis suggests that while there are certain projects,in particular small projects,where GSD charges are a high percentage of project costs,on average GSD costs are comparable to those of other agencies surveyed. Investigation of Architectural Best Practices The central recommendation of this study concerns the role of the Project Manager. The mission of the Project Manager is to deliver a project on budget and within the approved time schedule. Project Managers need to be vested with the authority to control projects by GSD.Management and CACI staff. Other recommendations involve the development of specialized expertise in cost estimating and construction management, either through training of existing staff,hiring new staff, or through contractors. Changes to contracting and budgeting procedures will also help to rationalize the process of accomplishing capital projects and reduce administrative costs. Next Steps Proposed next steps include: e` 2. INTRODUCTION At the FY 1999/00 Budget hearings,the Board of Supervisors directed the County Administrator's Office to analyze the overhead rate charged by the Department of General Services Department (GSD). This focus on overhead rates reflects a broader concern: why do capital projects, even seemingly simple ones, cost so much and take so long to complete? A team consisting of staff from the County Administrators Office and GSD compared the County's costs to administer projects with three counties and with one private firm. The study team looked at three different measures of overhead,the overhead rate,charge-out rates for GSD staff, and soft cost,or project control costs. To supplement the quantitative results, the study team also conducted in-depth interviews with architectural staff at other counties. Background One reason that capital projects cost so much and take so long to complete is that the process currently in place is complicated and it involves many people. The County's projects are also subject to a number of regulations which increase administrative cost. Finally,it is important to recognize that the County manages projects in a variety of ways, outsourcing one or more management functions. Process and People Attachment A is a flowchart which illustrates the course of a variety of types of capital projects. For projects over$25,000, the process becomes quite complex. Projects that follow a typical bid process require a minimum of four Board approvals. The flowchart also gives some indication of the number of people involved in even a simple capital project. County Departments that must collaborate in order to accomplish a capital project include the client department {Doth administrative and program staff),the County Administrators Office, GSD Divisions of Architecture and sometimes Lease Management, Office of the County Counsel,and for larger projects the Departments of Building Inspection and Community Development. In addition,contractors such as the design architect and the contractor are crucial to the project. The County may also contract for construction management or project management services, as well as environmental, financial or other consulting services. The more people involved in a project,the greater the challenge to coordinate the project and minimize administrative Other governmental regulations—State and local requirements,primarily regarding bidding, further goals of affirmative action and fairness in government,however they also add to the administrative cost of a project. Alternative Structures for Project Management Most of the County's capital projects are managed by CSD. There are some projects, however,that outsource one of more management functions. The fallowing diagram shows four ways that Contra Costa,and other counties, structure project administration. Contractors are indicated with italics. 1 2 3 4 Project Mgr- GSD Project Mgr- CSD Contract Project Mgr CSD--oversight only Design.Architect Design Architect Design Arrbiteet Owner/Developer Construction Mgr Project Manager Design Architect Constme ion Mgr Column 1 represents the most common management structure in use by the County, where GSD manages the project and contracts for design services. On some larger projects,the construction management function is also contracted out, shown in Column 2. Los Medanos Hospital is one example of this management structure. In Column 3,Project Management,design and sometimes Construction Management are all contracted out. The firm of O'Brien Kreitzberg has managed the construction of the West County.Detention Facility,the Contra Costa County Regional Medical Center and other projects for the County. When an outside firm manages the project,GSD has a consultative role as regards County standards,maintenance and landscaping issues. Column 4 shows a variation on design/build where the owner/developer of a property develops it to the County's specifications and then leases it to the County. This structure is frequently used for Employment and Human Services facilities,such as 151 Linus Pauling Drive. Both divisions of Architecture and Lease Management have important -1- -A-+1- tl.M1Y0'Y1Yi 3. COMPARISONS OF PROJECT OVERHEAD Results of the quantitative comparison of overhead measures are detailed in Attachment B. The quantitative analysis suggests that while there are certain projects,in particular small projects,where GSD charges are a high percentage of project costs,on average GSD costs are comparable to those of other agencies surveyed. 4. INVESTIGATION OF ARCHITECTURAL BEST PRACTICES Summaries of the study team's interviews are attached to this report as Attachment C. The comparison counties did offer some ways to improve our current processes and reduce costs. While these recommendations are divided into six general areas,the most significant change that is proposed concerns the role of the Project Manager(PM). Many of the other recommendations are secondary to a critical change in how PMs lead the capital project development process. Role of Project Manager The primary mission of the PM is to deliver a project on budget and within the approved time schedule. PMs need to be vested with the authority to control projects by GSD Management and CAO Capital Facilities staff. Implementation Measure 1: PMs need to accept accountability for project budget and schedule. This means determining the critical path of the project,anticipating and solving problems that arise, and directing communication with other players (i.e. calling project meetings, setting the agendas for those meetings,etc.) Implementation Meg=2: When a project is formally approved, develop an agreement signed by both the County Architect/PM,the Department Head, and CAO Capital Facilities Staff which specifies the scope of a project and the available budget. Development of Specialized Areas within the Division of Architecture Division has already begun to develop some areas of specialization, for example the majority of Office Landscape Partition installation projects are assigned to a single PM. Cost Estimating. When the initial cost estimate of a project is too low,the job of the PM (maintaining the budget and schedule) is made more difficult,if not impossible. Cost estimating requires a unique set of skills. Impleme talion Measure 3. Develop specific expertise in cost estimation either by assigning responsibility for cost estimating to a single PM on staff (and providing training), filling a vacant PM positions with someone who has experience in cost estimation, or contracting with a professional cost estimator. IM12lementation Mcas= 4: Before initiating a project for a client department,a small budget should be provided to validate the program and the scope,allowing for a reliable cost estimate. Construction M'snargement. Like cost estimating, Construction Management requires a different set of skills from either Project Management or design. Any additional cost that may result from increased use of CMs should be offset by reduced change orders, negotiation of disputes to avoid claims against the County, and maintaining construction schedules. cementation Measure 5: Develop expertise in CM either through contracting with CM firms for specific projects,providing training to existing staff, or hiring new staff with CM backgrounds. Implementation Measu e 6: Apply an increased level of effort towards construction management on projects with a total budget of$250,000 or more. Training Training has slipped in priority as funding levels have declined and workload has increased. In order to implement specialization in cost estimating or construction management,additional training may be required. More importantly, an internal evaluation process will be required to truly empower PMs to successfully manage projects that come in on time and on budget. Architectural Division Management There are two areas where Architectural Division Management could be restructured to improve its ability to complete projects on time and within budget. One of these is to establish formal management controls. The second is a re-evaluation of the Division's management structure. Management Controls: The following Implementation Measures are intended to strengthen the ability of Division management to do their job. Implementation Measure 9: Initiate the following management controls: 1. Monthly reviews of project status (budget and schedule) in a standardized format with each PM by County Architect or other supervisor. 2. Implement client satisfaction surveys at the end of each project and incorporate client satisfaction measures as a performance indicator in the Annual Performance Report. Client satisfaction can also be tested during the course of longer projects. Management Structure. currently all of the PMs report directly to the County Architect who is also responsible for project work. This management structure limits the ability of the County Architect to focus on management issues, such as quality control. It also is less than optimal for line PMs, because they are unable to access the support and consultation of immediate supervisors. I,gaplr.mentatin Measure 10: Create mid-management supervisory position(s). 1. Reorganize existing senior level positions,per the memo to Tony Enea from Mickey Davis dated January 15, 1999. 2. The CAO's Office will conduct an analysis of Architecture Division workload to evaluate the adequacy of current staffing levels. Role of CACI Staff Contracting and Budgeting Administrative tasks (the bid process,preparing agenda items,contract administration, etc.) represent a significant part of the cost of managing capital projects. To the extent that administrative burdens can be reduced,the Architectural Division will be able to improve its ability to complete projects on time and on budget. Contracting Procedures To a large extent, contracting procedures are set in State law. The Board of Supervisors does have some discretion over contracting procedures, however, and the following implementation measures are intended to streamline the project development process,ultimately reducing project costs. Implementation Measure 12: Develop retainer contracts with architectural, CM and other firms for up to $250,000 with a maximum allowable fee per job of$50,000. In keeping with Board policy, conduct outreach effort towards small businesses in Contra Costa County. Implementa�on Measure 13: Increase the limit for informal bidding of construction contracts to the maximum allowable under State law, $75,000. Also, seek State legislation to increase this maximum. Budgeting. The administration of capital budgets, a responsibility of CAO Staff, could be improved. For example, the County's entire capital program should be presented to the Board of Supervisors at some point in the budget process. In addition, frequent appropriation adjustments to project budgets throughout the year reinforce the perception that budget limits are flexible. Implementation Measure 14: Initiate the following budget controls. 1. Develop an annual Capital Program, similar to the Capital Facilities Master Plan,which describes all capital projects to be funded in that year. 2. Increases in project budgets must be requested and approved at budget time,not throughout the year (with exceptions for major unforeseen cost increases or new grant opportunities). Attachment A f In t j s s � s t t z �► r ,r � r � CL 0 ... m•; 'p. 0 7�W wo� o o► .r LL. co �. .• � ��- til. �"�i ♦ �ry n � mm 0 j stu I U d ��,c r Attachment B Analysis of Overhead Measures: Overhead Rates, Charge Out Rates and Project Control Costs To an accountant, overhead is a technical term that is clearly defined. Non-accountants may use overhead in a more general way. For purposes of clarification, the following definitions apply in this study: Overhead: indirect costs that are allocated across some form of direct cost, in this case the cost of capital projects. Charge out rates a per hour fee for professional services. Overhead is typically one of several components that make up charge out rates. Project control costs the total cost to manage projects or"soft costs"including architectural charges,legal services, construction management,overhead charges, etc. Overhead Rate The Division of Architecture, GSD, charges an overhead rate of 58.1 percent. This is a combined rate based on both the Division of Architecture and the Division of Lease Management. This overhead rate is "fully-loaded,"in other words it captures all of the indirect costs relating to providing architectural services, as well as the costs of general department administration and operations. Table 1 identifies the components of GSD overhead for FY 1998-99 in more detail. There are three types of indirect costs that make up the total overhead rate. They are: Indirect Salaries and Benefits: or the salary and benefits costs of clerical and management staff. This category also includes training costs. Services and Supplies includes rent,vehicles, and general office supplies. Administration Expense: refers to the cost of departmental overhead which is allocated across all GSD divisions. Table B-1 FY 1998-99 Overhead Rates for GSD Divisions of Architecture and Lease Management Lease Architecture Man=ment Combine Division Indirect Salary&Benefits $91,473 $61,227 $152,699 Overhead Services & Supplies 147,611 79,561 227,172 Total Division Overhead 239,084 140,788 379,871 Net Direct Labor Total S670,848 S470,10 Unit Overhead Rate 35.64% 29.9% 33.3% Department Administration Expense 184,508 98,308 282,816 Overhead Net Direct Labor Total S670,848S470,108 S1 4 Department Overhead Rate 27.50% 20.9% 24.8% Total 1998-99 Overhead Rate 0 0 0 Charge-Out Rates GSD charge out rates range from$65 per hour for an Assistant Architectural Engineer (which has been reclassified to Project Manager) to$99 per hour for a Supervising Architectural Engineer (which has been reclassified to Senior Project Manager). The overhead rate is one component of the charge-out rates for GSI)project managers. Charge-out rates also take into account time that is not attributable to projects, such as vacation, sick leave, floating holidays, training,etc. The Division of Architecture surveyed other California counties to form a comparison of overhead and charge-out rates. Twelve counties returned the survey and provided a broad range of responses to the questions about how and what departments were charged for ❑ Santa Clara County. Charge-out rates ranging from$135/hour for Project Manager II to$172/ hour for the Capital Programs Manager. Base salary and benefits,division overhead,department overhead,agency overhead, County overhead, and non-salary and benefit costs are all included in the charge-out rate. The total overhead rate was calculated to be 233%. ❑ San Mateo County: $75.09/hour for the Building Division Project Manager, calculated as the hourly rate plus a non-productive rate,benefits,division overhead,and department overhead. Total overhead rate is calculated to be 58%. ❑ Sacramento County: Charge-out rates range from $64 for an Assistant Architect to $87.19 for a Senior Engineer/Architect. All direct and indirect costs are added to salary including benefits,division overhead,agency overhead,and countywide overhead. The total overhead rate factor was calculated to be 43%. See Attachment B-1 for a chart of the rates charged by the counties surveyed,as well as the rates charged by two private firms retained by the County. Project Control Costs In total, GSD's charges to manage capital projects are about 24 percent of the project budget. Project control costs,or"soft costs", include all project costs other than construction, furnishings and equipment.The California Counties Architects and Engineers Association defines project control costs as costs relating to: Architect, Engineer, Construction Management, Project Management,Testing,Inspections,Special Consultants or Services (Kitchen,Acoustic, Security, Hazardous Materials), EIR, Programming,Space Planning,Models,Presentations, Surveys, Soils and Geological Reports,Master Planning,Separate Cost Opinion, Legal Cost and Administrative Services. In 1999, the California Counties Architects and Engineers Association conducted a survey of 15 California counties and two other public agencies regarding the costs of capital projects. Because the survey was designed and completed by architects,it provides the best available comparison of project control costs. In making comparisons of capital projects,however,it is important to recognize that there licensing for child care facilities or OSHPD,will demand a higher investment in project management. Litigation increases legal and other administrative costs and also contributes to delays in completing the project which tend to increase project control costs. Project schedule affects overall project management costs. In construction,as in many other activities,time is money. Those projects that are delayed,either because of funding, neighborhood concerns, or other political processes will incur higher project management costs. Si.Ze of a project. Smaller projects have many of the same fixed costs as larger ones, such as requirements for public bidding,meetings with the client department, and contract administration. Because the overall budget is smaller,however,project control costs represent a larger percentage of the total project budget. New construction vs. remodeling. Remodeling existing space involves a myriad of unknowns including the need to remediate toxic substances (primarily asbestos and lead) and existing deficiencies of the building. Tables 2 and 3 compare project control costs for Contra Costa County GSD with other counties based on data from the California Counties Architects and Engineers Association survey. The consulting firm of O'Brien Kreitzberg,which manages some capital projects for the County,is also shown as a comparison. Conclusions Capital projects are complex endeavors that involve staff from a minimum of three County departments. Circumstances of almost every project are unique. This complexity and diversity make quantitative comparisons a challenge. Overhead rater The overhead rates charged by GSD appear to be well within the range of rates charged by other counties. This comparison is qualified by the fact that counties do not calculate overhead in a uniform way. Some architecture programs subsidize non- productive time or overhead with General Fund dollars. Others may include only division overhead, and not department or countywide overhead. Charge-out rater while GSD charge-out rates are not the lowest in the comparison group, they are also nowhere near the highest. Again,this comparison is qualified by the Table B-2 Comparison of Project Control Costs Projects under$1,000,000 Project Remodel/ Square Project Project Control as% DeEjjpuga New Const ES DudW Of Project Budget CCC Court comp Room Remodel 485 $105,964 17.8% CCC Modular @JVHaU New 960 106,239 15.5% CCC 1020 Ward Fire alarm Remodel 149,285 22.3% CCC Animal Control Addition Remodel 156,242 40.1% CCC 45 Civic Dr Holding Remodel 241,238 32.9% CCC 10 Douglas Remodel 4,462 594,676 22.3% CCC 1111 Ward St Remodel 7,506 883,204 17.6% CCCAnerage 24.1% CCC-OK Pride House Remodel 2,200 315,346 19.7% San Diego Agriculture Remodel 2,840 97,600 9.8% San Diego Crime Lab Remodel 64,000 935,040 20.1% Sonoma Detention Shower Remodel 239,148 21.1% Sonoma Agriculture Warehouse New 2,592 262,268 17.7% Sonoma Fire Station New 3,500 338,197 20.8% Otber CoamtierAverage 17.9% Project control costr. GSD's project control percentage appears high in comparison with other counties and with O'Brien Kreitzberg. The differences shown in both Tables 2 and 3, however, are not statistically significant. 1n other words,based on the variability in project control cost across all of the projects studied, the differences between the Contra Costa County GSD and the other groups are not unusual. Table B-3 Comparison of Project Control Costs Projects over$1,000,000 Project Remodel/ Square Project Project Control as% Couni Desc ' tion New Const EW Budge Of Project Bud= CCC 40 Glacier,Dispatch Remodel 6,500 $1,162,242 29.4% CCC 1501 3rd Street,Rich New 1,962,000 24.9% CCC Headstart Classrooms New 3,959,421 16.7% CCCAwage 23.7% CCC-OK Chris Adams Remodel 11,000 1,355,996 19.5% CCC-OK OAYRF Dorm Addition New 8,300 1,787,043 23.8% CCC-OK CCRMC New 154,006 85,774,219 18.7% CCC-OKAwage 20.7010 Riverside Criminal Justice Building Remodel 74,015 4,353,614 16.1% San Diego Evidence Storage New 36,000 1,344,000 13.6% San Diego Jail to office Remodel 7,800,000 19.4% San Diego Jail New 400,000 82,625,000 17.7% Santa Clara Berger Dr Remodel 159,000 9,000,000 17.8% San Francisco Fire Station Remodel 9,403 2,127,874 19.2% San Francisco Historic Bandshell Remodel 5,569 2,932,931 28.6% San Francisco Fire Station New 14,044 3,534,293 20.9% San Francisco Playground New 18,384 4,470,344 23.8% Sonoma Administration Bldg Remodel 39,880 2,852,209 16.6% Sonoma Permit Center Remodel 32,560 3,455,297 16.9% Sonoma Adult Detention New 72,420 21,559,506 19.6% Vilest Sacramento Police Station Remodel 23,819 1,702,740 12.3% Other CoantierAverage 18.7% ------------ -----------� 6 4 ° -- ------ - ° ----------------------- � � � v-, Irl 11, eJ " 94 � cn 4q tq � p v9 �r �ies ; C rA au 8 $ $$ i � � 8 449, q AOD� 6440q fA V464�1 1-4 U rz V1 x ► ra 0v, qtF Attachment C Summary of Interviews with County Architects In February and March of 2000,the project team traveled to Oakland,Santa Rosa and San Jose to interview County Architects and other Capital Projects staff. In Alameda County, the team met with Jim Kachik, County Architect. In Sonoma County,the team interviewed both Rob Kambak (County Architect) and Ed Buonacorsi (Director, Facilities Operations). The team also met with Rob MacMahon, County Architect of Santa Clara County. The following summarizes the interviews with the subjects listed above, sorted by topic. 1 Total number f facilities square feet:total exp it per,year Alameda: They are responsible for approximately 200 buildings, 8,000,000 square feet. Budget of$800K per year for major maintenance projects. Sonoma:The County owns 50 to 60 buildings for General Government, 1,500,000 square feet. The County leases between 200,000 and 300,000 SF. Facilities are centralized around Santa Rosa.They have three sources of funds for projects: 1) projects in capital budget (ranges from$3 to $6 million per year),2) department funded projects, 3) local project budget for projects under$25K mainly for deferred maintenance. This pot of$500K is also used for planning and feasibility studies and other pre-project costs. Maintenance gets $1m to do projects. Santa Clara: Capital program this year is $212 million. Building stock is 1,100 buildings and 2,500,000 square feet not including Valley Medical Center. 2. Role of Project Manager (PM) Alameda: The County Architect sees the function of his staff as controlling costs, scope/budget/schedule. Role of the PM is to control projects, set meetings,take the minutes,give direction. They do not contract out project management because it is hard to convey all of the County protocols. They see the PM as in the role of disciplining the client. Another important skill is scoping the project beforehand. The best time to instill limits is at the very beginning of the process. scoping document which identifies any unknowns. He and the Department Head sign it and the document gets refined as they go along. Called a SMAD. 3. Construction Management Alameda: On projects of more than a few$100K they would look for a contract CM or work with the county CM division. The Technical Services division of GSA has architecture,Construction management (4 total CMs) and environmental engineering services that deals with asbestos and underground tanks (5 total). Sonoma: Project specialists are PMs,some are architects,but others are ex-contractors or CMs. They assign projects based on the expertise of individuals. Santa Clara: line PMs have varied background, some carne from CM companies. PMs are divided into two sections,design and construction. He is hiring a manger for each division. Complex projects or big projects will be transferred from one division to another. Some projects can stay with the same PM all the way through. 4. Budget Issues Alameda:When a project is overbudget,a lot of time it is because the project budget began at too low of a level and was pushed ahead before everything was known.At times the Board has approved a budget and then given Direction of GSA authority to approve change orders and contracts as long as they don't exceed the budget. Sonoma:They first establish a planning/feasibility budget to develop a really good estimate. If the budget is exceeded,they get approval from the department for more money or they work down the scope of the project. For projects funded by CAO,they do everything possible to avoid going over budget. If they need additional funds,they will try to do it at budget time and put it in the 5 year Capital Plan. This does not happen very often. Santa Clara: Projects are generated from the Annual Budget process. Departments send requests in to the County Architect,and his office prioritizes and develops budgets in priority order. The CEO just decides how far down the list to fund. They also have projects that pop up from BOS. Building Maintenance does their own budgeting,but he administers the projects. When there is a budget problem they can move money from other project savings or they go through the regular budget process. Occasionally they will go to the Board with a request for additional funding during the year. Sonoma: Architect selection procedure is established by Board resolution. if a project is less than$300K construction cost, they select off of a Master List of architects. Projects of more than$300K go through a formal selection process. Anyone who has shown interest gets put on the Master List. They try to use different firms to see how they do. They also have some open contracts for$25K or less that they can use for undefined small projects. For arch contracts over$25K they generally follow a competitive process. Santa Clara: He can just pick someone if the contract is less than$50K. Any contract over $50K goes through an RFQ. He also has retainer for smaller contracts;each retainer can be up to$250K but each job has to be LT$50K. He uses them a lot. For certain projects the retainers can go up to $500K, but each agreement can only be for$250K. The Board policy is to use local firms and to spread out the work. They only go to the Board with a contract if it is over$100K. 6. Long Term Planning; Building Evaluations (BERs) Alameda: They use BERs on a spot basis. He would like to have a countywide BER and put it into a computerized database with CAD drawings of each building. County doesn't have a 20 year plan. Sonoma:Their office has done long range planning for adult detention. They also plan and program for leased facilities and manage the moves. They are also doing a long range plan and BER for Health Services. They are now looking at the entire Health Services complex and a BER is one component of long range strategies. They use consultants such as a structural engineer but basically do BERs in-house. Santa Clara:They commissioned four studies for all facility needs: courts and related space, 24 hour care and custody,health and hospital system,all office space. The 20 year strategic Plan for all County facilities will cost$2.1 billion. Building Operations has now evaluated every building. The four Strategic Plans also had facility assessments which were pretty complete,looked at Code issues, structural,and space deficiencies. He wants to establish a database using this info. 7. Project Budget Monitoring Alameda: His staff generates a monthly report on all projects showing the budget status. They also do a budget projection on a monthly basis. u Santa Clara: He has monthly one-on-one meetings with each PM and an analyst to talk about project budgets. They have a computer program to maintain schedule and status reports for each project. He is requesting a Project Management software package. 8. 'Training Alameda: Do not have much in the way of training for PMs,although they have been doing a lot of autoCAD training. Sonoma: Don't have any regular training for PMs. Santa Clara: They have hired a vendor to come in to assess staff and do a training project for all PMs. They are working on processes/procedures and accountability documents to be able to measure performance. The training company is Kitchell CEM in Sacramento,at a cost of$250,000. He wants PMs to have 40 to 60 hours of training per year. 9. Client Satisfaction Surveys Alameda: They do not do anything formal in the way of satisfaction surveys. The County Architect attends kick off meetings for projects and explains the role of the PM. He encourages the department to call him if there are any problems. Sonoma:They try to send a form at the end of smaller projects. For larger jobs,the associate architect will call and ask how the PM did. The County Architect wants to make client satisfaction surveys a little more formal and consistent. Santa Clara:They have developed a form but now primarily do satisfaction surveys informally. 10. CACI Role in Capital Projects Alameda: It is the County Architect's understanding that departments have CACI approval for projects before they come to the Architect's Office. Sonoma:They have weekly planning meetings with the CAO analyst. Santa Clara:The CECT is removed from the process after budget decisions are made. The Alameda: Limit for informal bidding is$75K for construction contracts but they are trying to keep professional services contracts out of that area.They need Board approval for consultant contracts of more than$25K. Sonoma:Their limit for Informal bidding of projects limit is $75K. Santa Mara: Construction limit for informal bidding is$75K