IN THIS ISSUE
** CECO Board of Directors Update
** Legislative Task Force Studies Design/Build
** Oklahoma Corporation Commission Sides with CECO
** ACEC Government Affairs Report
** Bonuses Skyrocketing for Many A/E/P Managers
** New Element Discovered
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CECO BOARD OF DIRECTORS UPDATE
The CECO Board of Directors met on Thursday, November 18th. Here's a brief outline of what was discussed:
** Treasurer Chuck Darr presented the current financial report for the four months ending October 31, 1999. He noted that Dues income for the period was approximately 66% of budget, which expenses were running under budget.
** Executive Vice President Jim Sullins presented the current membership report. He reported that half of the member firms had already paid dues "in full" for the 1999-2000 fiscal year and another 25% had paid through the 2nd quarter, which was a very positive sign.
** Vice President of Education Don Vick reported that 26 people were signed up for the seminar which would follow today's membership meeting and that additional seminars would be schedule after the first of the year.
** ACEC National Director Ron White reported on the recent ACEC Fall Conference in Traverse City, MI. He reported that the ACEC Board had approved a $100,000 expenditure for California's campaign to secure a constitutional amendment specifically allowing "contracting out". He also reported on roundtable discussions concerned the ACEC Dues Structure and expanding the Membership criteria. He said that further discussions were being held regarding these issues, and that he expected at least one of these issues to be a voting issue at the May, 2000, Board meeting. He also reported on the individuals nominated to the ACEC Executive Committee for the years 2000-2002.
** President Tony Dark presented a proposal to the Board for CECO to begin discussions with related organizations to develop Partnering Agreements with the organizations. Possible partnering organizations could include: Oklahoma Department of Transportation, AGC (heavy, building, and municipal), AIA, OML, Asphalt Pavers, Concrete Pavers, Good Roads/Transportation Association, and others. He briefly outlined benefits to CECO member firms, which could come from formal partnering with one or more of these groups. The Board agreed to move forward with the partnering process, and decided that the first three efforts should be with ODOT, AIA, and AGC, with ODOT being the priority.
** Sullins provided a brief legislative/regulatory update regarding two issues: Design/Build and UST/AST Consultant certification requirements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE STUDIES DESIGN/BUILD
While the Oklahoma Legislature doesn't return to Oklahoma City until mid-January, things are busy around the Capitol Building. There are numerous interim and special committees which have been meeting, and there is one which is of very special interest to CECO.
As a follow-up to legislation introduced last session regarding Design/Build, the "Task Force on Public Construction" was created by the legislature to fully study allowing the design/build delivery system to be used by state agencies.
Two representatives of the A/E community and CECO member firms were appointed to the Task Force by Governor Keating: Lance Benham, The Benham Group, representing engineers, and, Pat Carroll, C. H. Guernsey & Company, representing architects. The balance of the Task Force is comprised of six legislators, representatives of the construction industry, a representative of the Department of Central Services, and a representative of the public employees association.
The Task Force began meeting in early November, at which time CECO gave a detailed presentation on the procurement of professional services.
First and foremost, CECO reiterated unyielding support of the current qualifications-based selection process used by the state. CECO stated that it was a time-proven system which provided state agencies quality design at a fair and reasonable negotiated fee. CECO urged the Task Force to maintain the current QBS (design-bid-build) system as the "preferred" procurement system. Under CECO's recommendation, the traditional design-bid-build system would be the primary delivery system for state projects, and alternative systems could only be used if the owner, using specific criteria, determines the project is better suited for a different delivery system.
Regarding design/build or other delivery systems, CECO does not opposed allowing the use of alternative systems, as long as those delivery systems incorporate safeguards for the client/owner of the project. Specific to Design/Build, CECO recommended adoption of ACEC's Model Design/Build Procurement law, which incorporates a two-step procurement process. At the first step, the client would procure design services though the traditional QBS system. The selected design team would provide the client services and design to the 35% completion level. At that point, the client would evaluate and shortlist design/build teams based on their qualifications, past performance, capability to perform, and specialized expertise. Shortlisted D/B teams would then present a competitive proposal to be evaluated based on technical submissions, cost, price, and other evaluation factors. A D/B team would then be hired to complete the design and construct the project. Throughout the second phase of the project, the phase-one design team would or could be the client's representative, i.e., eyes and ears, for the project.
As the Task Force continues their work, one of the biggest hurdles they will face is developing the criteria through which a client can determine which of the deliver systems should be used for a specific project. For example, how does the owner determine if a project is best suited for the traditional design-bid-build, design/build, or construction management?
CECO urged the Task Force to use foundation principles of ACEC's "Value Based Delivery Systems" as the cornerstone in the criteria for choosing a delivery system for a project.
The ACEC Foundation Principles state, " The Design Professional community recognizes the need for Owners to investigate and evaluate from an increasing number of delivery methods, and for design professionals and other stakeholders to participate in the process as long as the method promotes the quality of the delivered project. The most successful solution is achieved when Owners, relying upon the design professional, develop a plan, assess needs, develop requirements, all of which leads to the formulation of an acquisition plan. Successful execution of the acquisition plan requires a careful match with the appropriate delivery methods. Stakeholders can best succeed in a process that embodies: Trust and Communication, Responsiveness, Quality, and Integrity."
"The foundation principles of a value based delivery process allow stakeholders to evaluate the risk and benefits of a delivery method. Based on the principles, Owners can determine the most appropriate delivery method for a particular project."
The Task Force still has much work to do, but is hopeful of being able to develop recommendations and legislative language which can be presented to the 2000 Legislature.
CECO will continue to monitor the Task Force's progress, and will be an active participant in their deliberations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OKLAHOMA CORPORATION COMMISSION SIDES WITH CECO
CECO scored a victory for engineers who practice in the underground storage tank (UST) and above ground storage tank (AST) arena in late November when the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) sided with the profession regarding proposed rules drafted by a Commission's Advisory Council.
As background, some 10 years ago the OCC was given the authority
to regulate the "consultants" who provide investigation
and remediation services for UST/AST sites. These "consultants"
include not only engineers, but also biologist, hydrologists,
chemists, geologists, and others. In developing the certification
requirement rules, education and hand-on experience standards
were set, as well as testing requirements to receive certification.
At that time, CECO, the State Board of Registration, and OSPE
successfully excluded registered professional engineers from the
testing requirement, as well as from some of the educational and
experience requirement.
This past May, following some legislative revisions to the enabling statutes, an Advisory Council began a redrafting of these rules. In their initial draft, the Advisory Council removed the testing "exemption" for professional engineers, and added specific degree requirements. For example, the original rules only require a degree in a "...physical, natural, biological science or engineering..." Under the proposed rules, applicants would have had to have a specific degree in "...geology, hydrology, environmental engineering, civil engineering, petroleum engineering, or geologic engineering..."
CECO opposed the removal of the testing "exemption" due simply to the fact that professional engineers have already gone through four years of college and an additional 16 hours of testing just to become licensed. CECO believed that an additional certification testing was simply unnecessary given all of the statutory requirements to become a professional engineer.
CECO also opposed the requiring of specific degrees for certification for two reasons. First, from the engineering perspective, only four specific degrees were names, which meant that anyone holding an engineering degree other than those four (biological engineering, for example) would be precluded from certification. Second, regarding the other scientific degrees, employees of member firms that hold degrees in chemistry, biology, or other sciences would be precluded as the proposed rules specified "geology" and "hydrology".
CECO, the State Board and OSPE objected before the Advisory Council to these changes, but the Council moved forward with the changes and forwarded the rules to the full Corporation Commission for approval.
In early November the Commission scheduled formal hearings on the proposed rule changes. Prior to the rulemaking hearing, CECO wrote each of the three Commissioners outlining our objections to the changes proposed by the Advisory Council. On the day of the hearing, the lone engineer on the Advisory Council (who was not present at the May Advisory Council meeting) went before the Commissioners and recommended changes to the proposed rules which mirrored the exact changes which CECO, the State Board, and OSPE had requested. With his comments, coupled with the comments CECO and the others provided, the Commissioners revised the rules to reflect our position.
This is a big victory for CECO and the engineers who practice in this area. Additionally, CECO gained exposure and credibility with the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which may serve the consulting community well in the future.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ACEC GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS REPORT
* ACEC protest 4,900 commercial positions at the Departments of Energy and Interior - As part of the continuing FAIR Act process, ACEC has protested over 4,900 positions at the Department's of Energy (DOE) and Interior (DOI) that appear to be engaged in government competition. To view full text of the article visit www.acec.org/programs/wr120299.htm#protest
* Liability Survey Responses Almost Doubled from 1998 - Responses
to ACEC's annual liability survey have far exceeded last year's
participation. To view full text of the article visit www.acec.org/programs/wr120299.htm#liability
* Downloading EJCDC Contracts . . . Coming Soon! - EJCDC contract
documents will soon have the capability to be downloaded right
from ACEC's website. To view full text of the article visit www.acec.org/programs/wr120299.htm#ejcdc
For all of the latest on all ACEC activities, check out their web site at www.acec.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BONUSES SKYROCKETING FOR MANY A/E/P MANAGERS
Bonus amounts are up for most managers in A/E/P and environmental consulting firms, especially for principals and satellite office managers.
According to Zweig White & Associates' new publication, the 2000 MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION SURVEY OF A/E/P & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRMS, project managers, marketing directors, information technology managers, satellite office managers, and principals have all experienced a rise in median bonus amounts over the past two years. However, principals and satellite office managers- in addition to being more likely to receive a bonus than other managers- are seeing the largest increase in median bonus amounts.
Source: 2000 Management Compensation Survey of A/E/P & Environmental Consulting Firms (Zweig White & Associates, Inc.)
The percentage of principals who received a bonus increased from 75% reported in last year's survey to 83% reported this year. Over that same period, median bonus amounts for principals increased by $10,000- from a median of $20,000 reported in last year's survey to $30,000 this year. Similarly, the percentage of satellite office managers who received a bonus has increased from 79% in last year's survey to 85% this year, while office manager bonuses rose $5,000- from a median of $5,000 reported in last year's survey to $10,000 reported this year.
"I think the increase is due to the fact that most bonuses are tied to unit profitability. With so many firms inundated with work and charging higher fees, profits have gone up," says Kathryn Sprankle, Senior Vice President at Zweig White & Associates. "At the same time, more subjective, discretionary bonuses have gone up simply because in a tight labor market, firms don't want to lose valued people to competitors."
The new 2000 MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION SURVEY OF A/E/P & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRMS provides annual base salary, bonus, and total compensation data for project managers, financial managers, information technology managers, human resources directors, marketing directors, satellite office managers, and principals. The report breaks out data by firm type, staff size, region, growth rate, and profit.
The survey is available from the publisher for $275, plus $4 shipping and handling. For more information, or to order, contact Zweig White & Associates, P.O. Box 8325, One Apple Hill Drive, Natick, MA 01760, tel: (508) 651-1559, fax: (508) 653-6522, e-mail: mailto:info@zwa.com. Or visit us at: www.zwa.com/cgi-bin/SoftCart.cgi/bookstore/1svcom.html?E+aa0019820.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NEW ELEMENT DISCOVERED
AMES, IA--The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by materials researchers at IPRT/ISU. The new element, tentatively named "Administratium", has no protons or electrons, and thus has an atomic weight of 0. However, it does have one neuron, 125 assistant neutrons, 75 vice neutrons, and 111 assistant vice neutrons. This gives it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together in a nucleus by a force that involves the continuous exchange of particles called morons.
Since it has no electrons, Administratium is totally inert. However, it can be detected chemically, since it impedes every reaction it comes into contact with. According to its discoverers, a tiny amount of Administratium caused one reaction to take over four days to complete; the normal reaction time is less than one second.
Administratium has a normal half life of approximately three years, at which time it does not actually decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which neutrons, vice neutrons, and assistant vice neutrons exchange places. Studies have shown that the atomic mass usually increases after each reorganization.
Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratium occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points, such as governmental agencies, large corporations, and universities. It is always found in the newest, best appointed and best maintained buildings.
Scientists point out that Administratium is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reactions where it is allowed to accumulate. Attempts are being made to determine how Administratium can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.