BENCHMARKING 2014

Presented by: David Canales (Student Intern II)

City of Houston

Public Works and Engineering Department

Engineering and Construction Division 1

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this benchmarking assignment is to gather comparable data from other major cities in the nation, in order to determine how well the City of Houston compares in efficiency of these cities’ Engineering and Construction Divisions.

The goal is to determine best practices used nationwide, in order to improve the responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the Engineering and Construction Division.

Data from FY 2011 through FY 2014 is included in this analysis.

2

Cities of Comparison

Support Services Branch

Miami-Dade, FL Santa Barbara, CA Phoenix, AZ Jacksonville, FL Dallas, TX San Francisco, CA Boston, MA Kansas City, MI Oklahoma City, OK

Engineering, Construction, Management Branch

San Antonio, TX Dallas, TX Arlington, TX Austin, TX Charlotte, NC Miami-Dade, FL Long Beach, CA San Diego, CA San Jose, CA

3

Engineering and Construction Division Benchmarking Cost Center

Excluded from Benchmarking: CIP Programming (2000070006) Geo-Environmental Services (2000070005)

4

Support Services Branch (2000070001)

Measure: The percentage of 3-1-1 service request calls completed on time (CIP related)

November 2014 COH mandated from a 21 to 7 day turnaround for service request calls.

Both Miami and Santa Barbara use 30 day turnaround for service request calls.

5

3-1-1 Service Requisition Comparison from FY 12-14

Houston FY 12-14 ECD: 94% passed under the old standard of 21 day turn around.

Average of other Cities: 88% passed.

Houston Average after November 2014: 91% passed during FY 2014

If the new standard was effective FY 2012: only 46% would pass.

6

Housto

n

Miam

i-Dad

e

Santa

Bar

bara

Phoenix

Jack

sonvil

le

Dallas

San F

ancis

co

Bosto

n

Kansa

s City

Oklahom

a City

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%94.80% 97.63% 97.00% 95.00% 93.00% 91.30%

83.00% 79.80% 78.60% 77.69%

Cities of Comparison

Per

cen

tage

of

Tim

e

Engineering Branch (2000070002)Construction Branch (2000070003)ECD Management Branch (200070004)

Benchmarking Study 2014Houston San Antonio Dallas Arlington Austin Charlotte Miami Long Beach San Diego San Jose07/1-6/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 7/1-6/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 07/1-6/30 07/1-6/30

Engineering and Construction1. Timeliness of Delivery by Project Completion (Avg. %) FY (2011-2014) 97.1% 91.4% 89.9% 62.3% 99.8% 79.2% 82.3%

a. Most Recent (FY 2014) 97.0% 91.1% 91.7% 76.7% 99.1% 79.1% 82.1%b. (FY 2013) 102% 96.3% 84.6% 66.0% 100% 72.6% 87.0%c. (FY 2012) 97.8% 94.0% 83.3% 83.6% 100% 86.9% 85.0%d. (FY 2011) 91.7% 84.0% 100.0% 22.8% 100% 78.0% 75.0%

2. Final Design to NTP Average Work Weeks for FY (2013-2014) 34.9 12.9 32.0 13.2 38.3 17.0 15.5 17.5A. Sign Plans (Mylar) to Bid Opening 13.9 4.2 10.8 6.4 23.1 7.0 7.4 4.1B. Bid Opening to Contract Awarded 11.0 5.9 7.9 5.0 8.4 5.0 5.1 5.6C. Contract Awarded to Notice to Proceed 10.0 2.8 13.3 1.8 6.8 5.0 3.0 7.8

3. Cost of Construction (Avg. Final Cost as a % of Bid) FY(2011-2014) 94.1% 92.7% 98.5% 89.7% 85.0% 99.7%a. Most Recent (FY 2014) 91.0% 93.8% 98.3% 92.1% 99.3%b. (FY 2013) 95.5% 93.6% 97.6% 92.6% 98.6%c. (FY 2012) 93.4% 91.0% 99.7% 89.4% 101.1%d. (FY 2011) 96.3% 92.5% 84.8% 99.7%

Unit of AnalysisDates of Comparison

Capital Improvement Projects Closed FY 2011-2014

7

Timeliness of Project Delivery (Construction Branch)

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

97.1%91.4% 89.9%

62.3%

99.8%

79.1% 82.3%

Cities of Comparison

Per

cent

age

On

Tim

e

Houston Average: 97.1% Average of Other Cities: 84.1%

Measures: Total number of projects completed on time from estimated completion date including change orders.

8

Final Cost of Construction (Engineering Branch)

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

90.0%

95.0%

100.0%

105.0%

94.1%92.7%

98.5%

89.7%

85.0%

99.7%

Cities of Comparison

Per

cent

age

on T

ime

Measure: Final cost of construction as a percentage of the contract bid amount including change orders.

Average Houston: 94.1% Average Other Cities: 93.2%9

Timeliness from Final Design to Notice to Proceed(Engineering and Construction Management Branch )

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

34.9

12.9

32.0

13.2

38.3

17.0 15.517.5

Cities of Comparison

Ave

rage

Wee

ks

Average Houston: 34.9 Weeks Average Other Cities: 20.9 Weeks

10

Timeliness Breakdown: Sign Plans To Bid Opening

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

13.9

4.2

10.8

6.4

23.1

7.0 7.4

4.1

Cities of Cmparison

Ave

rage

Wee

ks

Houston Average: 13.9 Weeks Average Other Cities: 10.5 Weeks 11

Timeliness Breakdown: Bid Opening To Council Award

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0 11.0

5.9

7.9

5.0

8.4

5.0 5.15.6

Cities of Comparison

Ave

rage

Wee

ks

Houston Average: 11 Weeks Average other Cities: 6.1 Weeks 12

Timeliness Breakdown: Council Approval To Notice To Proceed

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

10.0

2.8

13.3

1.8

6.8

5.0

3.0

7.8

Cities Of Comparison

Ave

rage

Wee

ks

Houston Average: 10 Weeks Average Other Cities: 5.8 Weeks 13

Recommendations

14

In State Comprehensive CIP Benchmarking Study

Instate comprehensive Benchmarking analysis expected

results:

Improve the accuracy of the data.

Eliminates the alignment of measures issue.

Better communication between agencies.

Build a long term relationship with nearby cities.

15

Electronic Signatures E - Signatures will result in:

Reduced cycle time: from Bid Opening to Contract Award by approximately one week.

Lower costs: Paper, printing, stamping, signing, scanning, faxing, shipping, posting, and processing time.

Save Money: Larger firms save hundreds of thousands a year after adopting E - signatures.

16

Create Position:Contract Administrator

Adding this position will result in:

Improve quality: Less errors and more accurate contracts.

Reduced cycle time: from Bid Opening to Contract Award by approximately three weeks.

Relieve: the Project Manager from contract duties.

EFFICIENCY

Contract focused position will allow for time and accuracy resulting in

overall efficiency.

17

Challenges

Consistency: Determining and collecting comparable data.

Cooperation: Getting comparable cities to understand and respond.

Availability: Cities stopped tracking certain measurements. Budget cuts resulted in the removal of the

position that track this data. 18

Reasons for Excluding the CIP Programming Branch

The CIP Programming Branch is not a core service.

A viable measure to compare performance has not been found, but the quantification of CIP programs will provide a baseline for comparing processes.

Because CIP programming is not a core service, other cities seldom track it for benchmarking purposes.

Differences in organizational structure limit the potential to compare CIP programming functions.

19

Reasons for Excluding the Geo-Environmental Services Branch

The Geo-Environmental Branch provides technical support to the Engineering and Design Branch and the Construction Management Branch, but the branch neither directs nor controls any of the processes that it supports.

Because technical support is not a core service, other cities seldom, if ever, track those functions for benchmarking purposes.

Differences in organizational structure limit the potential to compare technical support functions.

The Geo-Environmental Branch’s performance is counted indirectly in the timeliness measure being utilized for the Engineering and Design Branch.

20