The California Chapter of the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) and the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) recently joined together to bestow a Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) Award of Merit for 2009 on Ventura County, Calif. The award is meant to recognize the County’s dedication to the QBS process and represents a very high degree of achievement in the pursuit of Qualifications-Based Selection for design professional services.
QBS is a procurement process used by government agencies to aid selection of architectural and engineering services for public construction projects. The QBS Awards program is a joint initiative of ACEC and NSPE which recognizes public and private entities that effectively use and promote QBS methods to procure professional services of consulting engineers at the state and local levels.
The QBS procedure has been required by law in all federal projects since passage of the Brooks Act in 1972. Chapter 10 of the California Government Code, Sections 4526-4529 also mandates that local agencies in the state select applicable professional consultant services on the basis of demonstrated competence and professional qualifications through a QBS process.
In our opinion, the significance of Ventura County’s decision to use the QBS process to insure that their service needs are provided by both public and private entities went beyond just following the letter of the law. These local administrators have eschewed the admittedly easier rubber stamp approach in favor of going the extra mile for their taxpayers, by enhancing the spirit of competition required to deliver services on time and on budget. In these times of bureaucracy building, any effort made to recognize the expertise and employ private firms deserves recognition.
Tom Blackburn
ACEC California President
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
We Are A Force of History
We are a force of history.
November 9th, 2009 was the official launch of UnplugthePoliticalMachine.org and the Citizen Power Campaign. Citizen Power vs. Union Power is what their campaign is all about. As this organization states, “The public employee unions run this state, and are running it right into the ground. Everyone in politics knows it, and increasingly everyone else is figuring it out. Conventional wisdom is that the unions are too powerful to take on. Remember when people said the same thing about the Soviet Union, another tyrannical power that fell 20 years ago when the Berlin wall came crashing down.”
I remember as well. The Soviet Union was just too powerful, or so it seemed. The day the wall began to fall, the East German military were still officially under orders to shoot anyone who came near the wall. But the world had completely changed, even though no one had yet made it official. But many people were oblivious to fear. All they knew was they wanted pieces of the wall – simple souvenirs. So by the thousands they brought sledgehammers and chisels to hack away at that wall. It worked, the DDR quickly backed down in the face of what even they realized was a force of history.
We have seen firsthand the oppression of tyranny here in California. In fact the citizens of this state of California are suffering a similar tyranny right now. But we also have more power than we realize. This time we are the force of history and it is time to chip away at our wall and take this state back.
Thirty years ago, then Governor Jerry Brown created public employee unions in California, now the most powerful special interest by far in California. How powerful? Ask any politician – nothing happens in Sacramento without their permission. They get their power because the government collects their political war chests right off the top of public employee salaries.
The government collects dues for the unions, and the unions give as much as 1/3 right back to the politicians who gave them that right in the first place. It’s a sweet deal for the politicians and the unions. Jerry Brown himself started all this in California. Ironically, he will most certainly receive tens of millions from the public employee unions next year in his run for governor.
How much money is involved? Let’s look at round numbers for just one union – the California Teachers Association. There are 340,000 teachers, who pay approximately $1000 per year in union dues. $300 per year, per teacher, goes toward politics. That’s $100 million per year, right off the top of teachers’ salaries, collected by the government, given to the CTA and its affiliates, and then funneled right back into the political campaigns of the politicians who do their bidding -- which usually means voting for more spending and higher taxes on you and me.
In short – our taxes, being used to make us pay more taxes. As the organizers of Citizen Power put it: It’s a rigged game that is destroying California, and it is well past time we take down that wall to progress and prosperity for all of us, unions and non-unions alike.
I believe the chiseling and hacking has begun. If thousands of us join in, the Citizen Power Initiative can put an end to this travesty in November, 2010.
Tom Blackburn
Blackburn Consulting
ACEC California President
November 9th, 2009 was the official launch of UnplugthePoliticalMachine.org and the Citizen Power Campaign. Citizen Power vs. Union Power is what their campaign is all about. As this organization states, “The public employee unions run this state, and are running it right into the ground. Everyone in politics knows it, and increasingly everyone else is figuring it out. Conventional wisdom is that the unions are too powerful to take on. Remember when people said the same thing about the Soviet Union, another tyrannical power that fell 20 years ago when the Berlin wall came crashing down.”
I remember as well. The Soviet Union was just too powerful, or so it seemed. The day the wall began to fall, the East German military were still officially under orders to shoot anyone who came near the wall. But the world had completely changed, even though no one had yet made it official. But many people were oblivious to fear. All they knew was they wanted pieces of the wall – simple souvenirs. So by the thousands they brought sledgehammers and chisels to hack away at that wall. It worked, the DDR quickly backed down in the face of what even they realized was a force of history.
We have seen firsthand the oppression of tyranny here in California. In fact the citizens of this state of California are suffering a similar tyranny right now. But we also have more power than we realize. This time we are the force of history and it is time to chip away at our wall and take this state back.
Thirty years ago, then Governor Jerry Brown created public employee unions in California, now the most powerful special interest by far in California. How powerful? Ask any politician – nothing happens in Sacramento without their permission. They get their power because the government collects their political war chests right off the top of public employee salaries.
The government collects dues for the unions, and the unions give as much as 1/3 right back to the politicians who gave them that right in the first place. It’s a sweet deal for the politicians and the unions. Jerry Brown himself started all this in California. Ironically, he will most certainly receive tens of millions from the public employee unions next year in his run for governor.
How much money is involved? Let’s look at round numbers for just one union – the California Teachers Association. There are 340,000 teachers, who pay approximately $1000 per year in union dues. $300 per year, per teacher, goes toward politics. That’s $100 million per year, right off the top of teachers’ salaries, collected by the government, given to the CTA and its affiliates, and then funneled right back into the political campaigns of the politicians who do their bidding -- which usually means voting for more spending and higher taxes on you and me.
In short – our taxes, being used to make us pay more taxes. As the organizers of Citizen Power put it: It’s a rigged game that is destroying California, and it is well past time we take down that wall to progress and prosperity for all of us, unions and non-unions alike.
I believe the chiseling and hacking has begun. If thousands of us join in, the Citizen Power Initiative can put an end to this travesty in November, 2010.
Tom Blackburn
Blackburn Consulting
ACEC California President
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Finally, a Realist in the Public Sector
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but an interesting and healthy debate is taking place in the pages of the Yuba City Appeal Democrat these days. It’s a debate that many more Californians should be having.
The fracas began with an editorial from the Appeal Democrat which took public employee unions and Democratic legislators to task for attempting to prevent California cities from declaring bankruptcy. (Doing so would put public employees pensions and benefits in jeopardy but, as the editorial pointed out, these generous benefits are one of the main reasons cities find themselves in fiscal trouble.)
It didn’t take long following the publication of the editorial for Professionals Engineers in California Government (PECG) to weigh in with their tired campaign slogan suggesting public employees don’t get paid enough for years of service or when they retire. (We beg to differ, but their sizable campaign contributions evidently speak louder than our facts.)
Just when you’d expect a riposte from the private sector, Chuck Miller, a retired public employee and past president of PECG, sharpened his pencil and filed his own op-ed taking PECG and current president Mark Sheahan to task.
To quote Mr. Miller: “The Sept. 23 A-D editorial Sheahan rebutted was correct in criticizing public employee unions and elected officials for their lack of concern and prudent management of the taxpayers' money.”
Bravo, Mr. Miller! Finally, a representative of the public employee sector who is willing to stand up and tell it like it is. The fact is that California’s public employees get some of the richest pension benefits in the world AND they get even more generous health benefits, making those pension dollars stretch even further in retirement.
In his editorial, Chuck Miller admits that he is doing quite alright, thank you, with his Caltrans pension. However, he also realizes that the system has run amok and the strains on that system threaten his future retirement benefits.
There are many fine people that work at PECG and other public unions, but I don’t think it serves them or the public to run the system into the ground. Like Mr. Miller, they should realize that the pension system is in desperate need of reform.
Tom Blackburn
Blackburn Consulting
President, ACEC Califronia
The fracas began with an editorial from the Appeal Democrat which took public employee unions and Democratic legislators to task for attempting to prevent California cities from declaring bankruptcy. (Doing so would put public employees pensions and benefits in jeopardy but, as the editorial pointed out, these generous benefits are one of the main reasons cities find themselves in fiscal trouble.)
It didn’t take long following the publication of the editorial for Professionals Engineers in California Government (PECG) to weigh in with their tired campaign slogan suggesting public employees don’t get paid enough for years of service or when they retire. (We beg to differ, but their sizable campaign contributions evidently speak louder than our facts.)
Just when you’d expect a riposte from the private sector, Chuck Miller, a retired public employee and past president of PECG, sharpened his pencil and filed his own op-ed taking PECG and current president Mark Sheahan to task.
To quote Mr. Miller: “The Sept. 23 A-D editorial Sheahan rebutted was correct in criticizing public employee unions and elected officials for their lack of concern and prudent management of the taxpayers' money.”
Bravo, Mr. Miller! Finally, a representative of the public employee sector who is willing to stand up and tell it like it is. The fact is that California’s public employees get some of the richest pension benefits in the world AND they get even more generous health benefits, making those pension dollars stretch even further in retirement.
In his editorial, Chuck Miller admits that he is doing quite alright, thank you, with his Caltrans pension. However, he also realizes that the system has run amok and the strains on that system threaten his future retirement benefits.
There are many fine people that work at PECG and other public unions, but I don’t think it serves them or the public to run the system into the ground. Like Mr. Miller, they should realize that the pension system is in desperate need of reform.
Tom Blackburn
Blackburn Consulting
President, ACEC Califronia
Monday, September 21, 2009
Firms feel the pinch when state puts major projects on hold
Treasurer’s office shifting toward more direct bond funds rather than pooling funds for hundreds of projects
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer
Tom Blackburn sounds remarkably patient for someone who’s been waiting for more than a year for payment from one of his largest clients.
Blackburn Consulting, a relatively small firm of 40 people with offices in Auburn and West Sacramento, performs soil engineering services mainly on public projects, such as levee work for the state of California. The state’s budget crisis has had a major impact on Blackburn’s company and those like it.
“We have some projects funded by the state that have gone over a year without being paid,” he said. “Typically, we’re paid within 60 to 90 days. This stuff really impacts our firm and I’m sure many others.”
The lack of payments is a direct result of the California’s weakened financial condition, brought on by falling tax revenue, a series of budget crises and unfavorable grades from credit-rating agencies. It has led to the state Treasurer’s Office looking for new ways to fund projects, and to some fighting among union and non-union engineering firms over scarce jobs.
“It’s a big deal for us,” said Blackburn, the newly installed president of the American Council of Engineering Companies’ California chapter, of the impact on engineering firms. “We don’t have furloughs. We have layoffs and real jobs that are gone.”
When the state Legislature adopted a budget in July that closed a $26 billion gap, it didn’t resolve the state’s financial crisis. Many capital projects that were put on hold back in December — when the state’s Pooled Money Investment Account was unable to fund all its obligations for things such as school construction — are still on hold.
That has caused problems for architecture and engineering firms in Sacramento and beyond.
“We have a big project that’s on hold,” said Chuck Hack, business development director at Lionakis, Sacramento’s largest architecture firm. “We get updates, but nothing specific, so we’re in a wait-and-see mode.” The $45 million project is supposed to replace the Department of Forestry camp in Growlersburg with 72,000 square feet of new administration and other buildings and ultimately improve firefighting efforts there. The preliminary plans were 65 percent complete when the project was put on hold, deemed “nonessential” by the state.
But the economy has led to significant savings for projects that have been allowed to move forward. Lionakis is the architect on one such project that will remove asbestos, add seismic support and put a new exterior on the six-story Department of Motor Vehicles building at Broadway and 24th Street. Competition among contractors for this kind of work has significantly reduced costs. The budget for the DMV project was $67 million and the winning bid came in at $44 million.
In Sacramento, budget problems have delayed millions of dollars of work on office building renovati ons. Funding for new school construction this year is also on hold. So unless school districts can raise their own money through voter-approved bond sales, most projects are going onto an “approved but unfunded” list. Local districts with projects on that waiting list include Placer Union High, Davis Joint Unified and Folsom-Cordova Unified.
However, California’s financial officials have been able to find money for some projects that were significantly under way when the crisis struck, such as the Central Plant at Q and 7th streets, which will heat and cool about 20 state buildings downtown. Construction is largely complete.
Officials at state agencies that oversee capital projects, such as the Department of General Services and the Division of State Architects, say their hands are tied until the state’s financial officials can supply the money to move forward.
“Our projects were all the result of PMIB action,” said Eric Lamoureux, spokesman for General Services, speaking of the Pooled Money Investment Board that oversees the fund that supplies hundreds of state projects.
How long will the cash crunch last? The state plans to test investors’ appetite for California bonds by late fall.
“We’re not exactly in a position cash flow-wise where we can resume making hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from the account,” said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. Dresslar expects the state to get back to the business of selling bonds around Thanksgiving. That would give projects much-needed cash. The state also is changing how it goes about funding, shifting away from the idea of pooling funds for hundreds of projects toward more direct bond sales. If the plan works, proceeds would go straight to projects.
“We’d rather not be in the same position again,” Dresslar said.
In the meantime, firms are waiting to see if the plan will work.
Engineer Blackburn notes that some firms that relied on work from private developers and the sweeping master plans that proliferated during the real estate boom are worse off than those who largely do work on public projects.
“I know a firm that went from $16 million in revenue down to $3 million,” he said. “Most of the firms I’m talking to would put it in these terms — it’s a struggle to survive.”
A few large companies are still reeling in government contracts for big projects such as high-speed rail, he said. But those are exceptions.
Blackburn claims that the state’s financial crisis has disproportionately hit private firms represented through the American Council of Engineering Companies. That’s because much of the engineering work on Caltrans projects goes to union engineers represented by the Professional Engineers in California Government.
The state’s financial crisis has exacerbated the disagreements between the two organizations. When times were good, there were more projects to go around. But the economic climate has led to quarrels between the groups over whether private or union engineers are more costly to the state.
Blackburn sees lawmakers’ attitudes about their role as part of the problem.
“The government — their position is that they’re here to provide jobs,” he said. “In my view, we need to figure out how to have a more nimble government than that.”
mshaw@bizjournals.com | 916-558-7861
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer
Tom Blackburn sounds remarkably patient for someone who’s been waiting for more than a year for payment from one of his largest clients.
Blackburn Consulting, a relatively small firm of 40 people with offices in Auburn and West Sacramento, performs soil engineering services mainly on public projects, such as levee work for the state of California. The state’s budget crisis has had a major impact on Blackburn’s company and those like it.
“We have some projects funded by the state that have gone over a year without being paid,” he said. “Typically, we’re paid within 60 to 90 days. This stuff really impacts our firm and I’m sure many others.”
The lack of payments is a direct result of the California’s weakened financial condition, brought on by falling tax revenue, a series of budget crises and unfavorable grades from credit-rating agencies. It has led to the state Treasurer’s Office looking for new ways to fund projects, and to some fighting among union and non-union engineering firms over scarce jobs.
“It’s a big deal for us,” said Blackburn, the newly installed president of the American Council of Engineering Companies’ California chapter, of the impact on engineering firms. “We don’t have furloughs. We have layoffs and real jobs that are gone.”
When the state Legislature adopted a budget in July that closed a $26 billion gap, it didn’t resolve the state’s financial crisis. Many capital projects that were put on hold back in December — when the state’s Pooled Money Investment Account was unable to fund all its obligations for things such as school construction — are still on hold.
That has caused problems for architecture and engineering firms in Sacramento and beyond.
“We have a big project that’s on hold,” said Chuck Hack, business development director at Lionakis, Sacramento’s largest architecture firm. “We get updates, but nothing specific, so we’re in a wait-and-see mode.” The $45 million project is supposed to replace the Department of Forestry camp in Growlersburg with 72,000 square feet of new administration and other buildings and ultimately improve firefighting efforts there. The preliminary plans were 65 percent complete when the project was put on hold, deemed “nonessential” by the state.
But the economy has led to significant savings for projects that have been allowed to move forward. Lionakis is the architect on one such project that will remove asbestos, add seismic support and put a new exterior on the six-story Department of Motor Vehicles building at Broadway and 24th Street. Competition among contractors for this kind of work has significantly reduced costs. The budget for the DMV project was $67 million and the winning bid came in at $44 million.
In Sacramento, budget problems have delayed millions of dollars of work on office building renovati ons. Funding for new school construction this year is also on hold. So unless school districts can raise their own money through voter-approved bond sales, most projects are going onto an “approved but unfunded” list. Local districts with projects on that waiting list include Placer Union High, Davis Joint Unified and Folsom-Cordova Unified.
However, California’s financial officials have been able to find money for some projects that were significantly under way when the crisis struck, such as the Central Plant at Q and 7th streets, which will heat and cool about 20 state buildings downtown. Construction is largely complete.
Officials at state agencies that oversee capital projects, such as the Department of General Services and the Division of State Architects, say their hands are tied until the state’s financial officials can supply the money to move forward.
“Our projects were all the result of PMIB action,” said Eric Lamoureux, spokesman for General Services, speaking of the Pooled Money Investment Board that oversees the fund that supplies hundreds of state projects.
How long will the cash crunch last? The state plans to test investors’ appetite for California bonds by late fall.
“We’re not exactly in a position cash flow-wise where we can resume making hundreds of millions of dollars in loans from the account,” said Tom Dresslar, spokesman for state Treasurer Bill Lockyer. Dresslar expects the state to get back to the business of selling bonds around Thanksgiving. That would give projects much-needed cash. The state also is changing how it goes about funding, shifting away from the idea of pooling funds for hundreds of projects toward more direct bond sales. If the plan works, proceeds would go straight to projects.
“We’d rather not be in the same position again,” Dresslar said.
In the meantime, firms are waiting to see if the plan will work.
Engineer Blackburn notes that some firms that relied on work from private developers and the sweeping master plans that proliferated during the real estate boom are worse off than those who largely do work on public projects.
“I know a firm that went from $16 million in revenue down to $3 million,” he said. “Most of the firms I’m talking to would put it in these terms — it’s a struggle to survive.”
A few large companies are still reeling in government contracts for big projects such as high-speed rail, he said. But those are exceptions.
Blackburn claims that the state’s financial crisis has disproportionately hit private firms represented through the American Council of Engineering Companies. That’s because much of the engineering work on Caltrans projects goes to union engineers represented by the Professional Engineers in California Government.
The state’s financial crisis has exacerbated the disagreements between the two organizations. When times were good, there were more projects to go around. But the economic climate has led to quarrels between the groups over whether private or union engineers are more costly to the state.
Blackburn sees lawmakers’ attitudes about their role as part of the problem.
“The government — their position is that they’re here to provide jobs,” he said. “In my view, we need to figure out how to have a more nimble government than that.”
mshaw@bizjournals.com | 916-558-7861
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Use of ACEC California Firms
Paul Meyer and Tom Blackburn:
Ed Henderson has told me about your continuing efforts to promote the benefits of belonging to ACEC. I have enjoyed many benefits during my 15 year membership, one of which is the opportunity to work with other ACEC member firms. I find that firms that belong to ACEC provide a higher quality of service than those firms that don’t. Firms that we have used as subconsultants have always done an excellent job for us and our clients. We have used member firms throughout the state and have never been disappointed.
I want to let you know of a current project where we reached out to another ACEC firm for help.
We recently were selected for a large project in Southern California, a place that is out of our normal service area. The project engineer for the client is a former TLA employee and he knew we would/will do a great job for him. The project is basically a hydrology and hydraulic study; however the client wants an extensive amount of mapping, which we don’t do. To meet that need, we used our ACEC directory and found a firm in the area. We are teaming with Hillwig-Goodrow, Inc. (Alan Hillwig, PLS). The subcontract portion of the work to Hillwig is $107,000; that will help Alan pay his ACEC dues for a long time.
Without an ACEC firm in the area, I don’t think I would have taken a chance using a firm I don’t know.
Terry Lowell, P.E.
President
TLA Engineering & Planning, Inc.
1528 Eureka Road, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
Ed Henderson has told me about your continuing efforts to promote the benefits of belonging to ACEC. I have enjoyed many benefits during my 15 year membership, one of which is the opportunity to work with other ACEC member firms. I find that firms that belong to ACEC provide a higher quality of service than those firms that don’t. Firms that we have used as subconsultants have always done an excellent job for us and our clients. We have used member firms throughout the state and have never been disappointed.
I want to let you know of a current project where we reached out to another ACEC firm for help.
We recently were selected for a large project in Southern California, a place that is out of our normal service area. The project engineer for the client is a former TLA employee and he knew we would/will do a great job for him. The project is basically a hydrology and hydraulic study; however the client wants an extensive amount of mapping, which we don’t do. To meet that need, we used our ACEC directory and found a firm in the area. We are teaming with Hillwig-Goodrow, Inc. (Alan Hillwig, PLS). The subcontract portion of the work to Hillwig is $107,000; that will help Alan pay his ACEC dues for a long time.
Without an ACEC firm in the area, I don’t think I would have taken a chance using a firm I don’t know.
Terry Lowell, P.E.
President
TLA Engineering & Planning, Inc.
1528 Eureka Road, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
Friday, August 28, 2009
PECG Ad Campaign is Misleading, Deceptive and Irresponsible
This is a time when all Californians should work diligently to help put the state back on an even keel by practicing fiscal responsibility. Instead, PECG has chosen to use expensive means to create yet another misinformation campaign and sway public opinion into believing that state employed engineers are cheaper than private companies and that restricting contracted out services will save the state money.
The fact is that a 2007 report by the former head of the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, showed the comparable cost of in house (state-employed) engineers ranged from $173,434 to $209,212 while the average cost of an outside (privately-employed) engineer was $193,000.
Moreover, PECG’s misleading ad campaign states that pension benefits are only $2000 per state worker per month. In fact, a PECG member employed by Caltrans with a term of employment of 22.7 years - which is the average term of employment for state workers -- would have to earn less than $60,000 in the final year of employment to receive a pension of $2,000 a month.
Resources such as the state worker database
And there’s the rub. It’s not just that in house engineers have comparable salaries to contract engineers, it’s that when you consider the extra liability per state worker in pension and health care benefits – sometimes more than a million dollars over a lifetime -- short-term contracts are a much cheaper option for the state and can actually help reduce costs because the state is not on the hook for contract workers’ long term healthcare or pension benefits.
Unfortunately, less than 10 percent of transportation engineering and design work conducted by the state is contracted out to private engineering companies. Ninety percent is handled by state employees. In light of this dramatically one-sided statistic, it is disingenuous of the union representing state workers to suggest that cost savings of any kind can be made by further restricting outside contracts. If anything, the opposite is true.
The taxpayers, state leaders and ultimately the many fine state employees do not benefit from this misleading campaign as we try to identify the appropriate fiscal adjustments.
Tom Blackburn
President, ACEC California
Blackburn Consulting
The fact is that a 2007 report
Moreover, PECG’s misleading ad campaign states that pension benefits are only $2000 per state worker per month. In fact, a PECG member employed by Caltrans with a term of employment of 22.7 years - which is the average term of employment for state workers -- would have to earn less than $60,000 in the final year of employment to receive a pension of $2,000 a month.
Resources such as the state worker database
And there’s the rub. It’s not just that in house engineers have comparable salaries to contract engineers, it’s that when you consider the extra liability per state worker in pension and health care benefits – sometimes more than a million dollars over a lifetime -- short-term contracts are a much cheaper option for the state and can actually help reduce costs because the state is not on the hook for contract workers’ long term healthcare or pension benefits.
Unfortunately, less than 10 percent of transportation engineering and design work conducted by the state is contracted out to private engineering companies. Ninety percent is handled by state employees. In light of this dramatically one-sided statistic, it is disingenuous of the union representing state workers to suggest that cost savings of any kind can be made by further restricting outside contracts. If anything, the opposite is true.
The taxpayers, state leaders and ultimately the many fine state employees do not benefit from this misleading campaign as we try to identify the appropriate fiscal adjustments.
Tom Blackburn
President, ACEC California
Blackburn Consulting
Monday, July 6, 2009
US House Bill H.R. 2104 is smokescreen to bypass California voters
H.R. 2104, a bill currently before the U.S. House of Representatives would mandate that only public employees carry out construction inspection functions on all federally funded transportation projects. The bill proposes that such a mandate would identify alleged "conflicts of interest and potential failures to protect public safety and welfare" that might occur if privately employed engineers are given that work.
California’s private engineers vehemently disagree. The whole idea that somehow, all of a sudden, the private engineering firms that can and do perform this work now have ‘conflicts of interest’ or would fall short of ‘providing for public safety’ is ludicrous. Not only is this bill a smoke screen for protecting public union jobs in California and the nation, its premise is based on misinformation which is carefully woven in to the bill.
In fact the entire concept of the bill runs counter to common practices in the industry and is an affront to the high professional standards which California engineers have maintained for decades.
My fellow ACEC California member and engineer Rob Salaber agrees. Rob asks: “Why all of a sudden is the well established system of partnering between the public and private engineering community in question? Simple. At this time of fiscal crisis when everyone is suffering financially, the public unions want all of the work for their members, and U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D. San Diego) is trying to deliver it to them on a silver platter.”
H.R. 2014 would also directly conflict with Proposition 35, legislation passed by California voters which has withstood two State Supreme Court challenges by California’s public unions since its passage in 2000. At that time, California voters overwhelmingly approved amendment to the California state constitution to give state and local public agencies the choice and authority to use private engineering services, when needed.
Proposition 35 expressly applies to construction services such as inspections as well. It is now regularly used by both state and local agencies to excellent effect to speed up the delivery of badly needed infrastructure projects, including transportation projects. It doesn't cut corners and it has ensured the continued safety of our citizens.
Numerous surveys of practices in states all around the country demonstrate that the traditional system of using private engineering services is crucial to delivering innovative, on-time and on-budget projects to the public. Allowing only state employees to conduct construction inspection work would slow up the delivery of projects at a time when we desperately need efficiencies, both to keep costs low and deliver projects on time and on budget for minimal disruption to the general public.
America’s private engineers are involved in every phase of every type of transportation
project including planning solutions to reduce congestion, assessing environmental impacts, evaluating and improving the safety and sustainability of roads, bridges and tunnels, designing both simple and complex infrastructure to exceedingly high standards, and, yes, monitoring construction to ensure it complies with approved designs and materials.
This proposed legislation sponsored by U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D. San Diego) is ill considered, and will result in even greater costs for California taxpayers without any discernible additional value to the state.
Tom Blackburn, Blackburn Consulting
ACEC California President
California’s private engineers vehemently disagree. The whole idea that somehow, all of a sudden, the private engineering firms that can and do perform this work now have ‘conflicts of interest’ or would fall short of ‘providing for public safety’ is ludicrous. Not only is this bill a smoke screen for protecting public union jobs in California and the nation, its premise is based on misinformation which is carefully woven in to the bill.
In fact the entire concept of the bill runs counter to common practices in the industry and is an affront to the high professional standards which California engineers have maintained for decades.
My fellow ACEC California member and engineer Rob Salaber agrees. Rob asks: “Why all of a sudden is the well established system of partnering between the public and private engineering community in question? Simple. At this time of fiscal crisis when everyone is suffering financially, the public unions want all of the work for their members, and U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D. San Diego) is trying to deliver it to them on a silver platter.”
H.R. 2014 would also directly conflict with Proposition 35, legislation passed by California voters which has withstood two State Supreme Court challenges by California’s public unions since its passage in 2000. At that time, California voters overwhelmingly approved amendment to the California state constitution to give state and local public agencies the choice and authority to use private engineering services, when needed.
Proposition 35 expressly applies to construction services such as inspections as well. It is now regularly used by both state and local agencies to excellent effect to speed up the delivery of badly needed infrastructure projects, including transportation projects. It doesn't cut corners and it has ensured the continued safety of our citizens.
Numerous surveys of practices in states all around the country demonstrate that the traditional system of using private engineering services is crucial to delivering innovative, on-time and on-budget projects to the public. Allowing only state employees to conduct construction inspection work would slow up the delivery of projects at a time when we desperately need efficiencies, both to keep costs low and deliver projects on time and on budget for minimal disruption to the general public.
America’s private engineers are involved in every phase of every type of transportation
project including planning solutions to reduce congestion, assessing environmental impacts, evaluating and improving the safety and sustainability of roads, bridges and tunnels, designing both simple and complex infrastructure to exceedingly high standards, and, yes, monitoring construction to ensure it complies with approved designs and materials.
This proposed legislation sponsored by U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D. San Diego) is ill considered, and will result in even greater costs for California taxpayers without any discernible additional value to the state.
Tom Blackburn, Blackburn Consulting
ACEC California President
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The real cost of hiring public employees is in their pension funds.
A recent article in the Sacramento Bee outlined where the City’s money will have to be allocated during the next fiscal year in order to keep current employees employed. Bottom line, 85 cents out of every dollar spent in the $386 million California general fund would go to pay for the salaries, health care and retirement benefits of more than 3,000 city employees.
The “cuts” of course will then have to come from a corresponding reduction in Sacramento city services and supplies --which drop from an average of about 22 percent during the last six years to about 5.5 percent of the annual fund. Good news for people who need to keep their jobs; bad news for taxpayers.
But an equally important point made in the article might just be overlooked if one were to miss focusing on all of the ramifications of budget parsing. The overwhelming cost of pension obligations incurred by the city in hiring more full time employees is almost mindboggling for those demanding more efficiency and accountability.
What’s more, according to the proposed budget released last month, the stock market's fall has battered the value of the Sacramento City Employees' Retirement System, and the hit will need to be offset next year to the tune of an $8 million contribution by the city. Then, in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the city is preparing for a $12 million hike in its annual contribution to the California Public Employees' Retirement System to make up for investment losses in city funds held by CalPERS.
"We're concerned and we would hope that the city, as all cities, will look very seriously at ratcheting down their pension contributions," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the Bee. “Still, the numbers – especially the amount of the budget being spent on salaries – aren't surprising,” Coupal said. "California is the land of milk and honey as far as public employees go," he said. Adding to the mix, said Coupal, is that Sacramento is a government town where local politics are dominated by the labor-friendly Democratic Party.
As you might expect, Bob Blymyer, the executive director of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, sees it differently. He told the Bee: "The public won't stand for" inequity between public and private sector compensation. It was never the taxpayers' intention to upgrade public workers' salaries and benefits to where they are better than private enterprise.”
All of which points out the following reality: Every time the state hires a new public engineer (who makes more money than if he or she worked in a private engineering firm, and then joins the public engineers employees union to fight for his or her “rights”) the state (you and I) are also signing on for a pension obligation that can run into the $1 to $2 million range, depending on salary levels.
So, rather than just saving jobs, perhaps we taxpayers should be focusing our attention away from just salary to consider another real cost of hiring more public engineers – especially when we let their union lobbyists garner favors from state legislators to, for example, prevent the state from outsourcing the work when and where they can.
By the way, the truth is that in recent years thousands of engineers working in the private sector have already lost their jobs. Much of that failure can be attributed to their comparatively poor and
underfunded private unions who failed miserably in “achieving” the same kind attention and support from the California legislature. Perhaps that kind of inequity should be added to the growing list of reasons to make some official changes in the next election?
Tom Blackburn
President-Elect ACEC California
Blackburn Consulting
The “cuts” of course will then have to come from a corresponding reduction in Sacramento city services and supplies --which drop from an average of about 22 percent during the last six years to about 5.5 percent of the annual fund. Good news for people who need to keep their jobs; bad news for taxpayers.
But an equally important point made in the article might just be overlooked if one were to miss focusing on all of the ramifications of budget parsing. The overwhelming cost of pension obligations incurred by the city in hiring more full time employees is almost mindboggling for those demanding more efficiency and accountability.
What’s more, according to the proposed budget released last month, the stock market's fall has battered the value of the Sacramento City Employees' Retirement System, and the hit will need to be offset next year to the tune of an $8 million contribution by the city. Then, in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the city is preparing for a $12 million hike in its annual contribution to the California Public Employees' Retirement System to make up for investment losses in city funds held by CalPERS.
"We're concerned and we would hope that the city, as all cities, will look very seriously at ratcheting down their pension contributions," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the Bee. “Still, the numbers – especially the amount of the budget being spent on salaries – aren't surprising,” Coupal said. "California is the land of milk and honey as far as public employees go," he said. Adding to the mix, said Coupal, is that Sacramento is a government town where local politics are dominated by the labor-friendly Democratic Party.
As you might expect, Bob Blymyer, the executive director of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, sees it differently. He told the Bee: "The public won't stand for" inequity between public and private sector compensation. It was never the taxpayers' intention to upgrade public workers' salaries and benefits to where they are better than private enterprise.”
All of which points out the following reality: Every time the state hires a new public engineer (who makes more money than if he or she worked in a private engineering firm, and then joins the public engineers employees union to fight for his or her “rights”) the state (you and I) are also signing on for a pension obligation that can run into the $1 to $2 million range, depending on salary levels.
So, rather than just saving jobs, perhaps we taxpayers should be focusing our attention away from just salary to consider another real cost of hiring more public engineers – especially when we let their union lobbyists garner favors from state legislators to, for example, prevent the state from outsourcing the work when and where they can.
By the way, the truth is that in recent years thousands of engineers working in the private sector have already lost their jobs. Much of that failure can be attributed to their comparatively poor and
underfunded private unions who failed miserably in “achieving” the same kind attention and support from the California legislature. Perhaps that kind of inequity should be added to the growing list of reasons to make some official changes in the next election?
Tom Blackburn
President-Elect ACEC California
Blackburn Consulting
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Now’s the time for broad PPP expansion in California
Now’s the time for broad PPP expansion in California
The state has no money and is deep in debt–so to fix our broken infrastructure and build much-needed new transport options and facilities, we need to attract more private capital. This means more public-private partnerships.
Regardless of the results of May 19’s special election in California, the state will face a jarring financial future that should force a change in the way we plan and implement spending, and that includes infrastructure. The fact is that there will be no new public money for large-scale infrastructure for many years to come, so we had better start looking for alternatives now. We must act quickly because, let’s face it, the quality of our existing infrastructure – because of inadequate and sometimes wasteful funding - is just not good.
We really can’t delay implementing repairs to dangerous infrastructure problems like corroding bridges and deteriorating water treatment facilities. First, there’s the public safety issue – Californians deserve safe and secure infrastructure; second, there’s the competitive issue – how can we attract and retain businesses if we can’t provide adequate roads, rail and ports to move goods, energy to power manufacturing or research facilities, housing for workers, etc?
Our Governor knows this, and now so do many of our legislators. Earlier in the year, they passed into law SBX2 4, a bill that gives the state, cities and counties authority to adopt alternative infrastructure delivery methods such as public-private partnerships and design- build for certain transportation projects. The bipartisan effort is a great first step toward creating a multidisciplinary approach to California’s infrastructure challenges but it is not the sole solution. Nor will it address all the state’s needs since the PPP legislation expires in 2016 and the number of design-build projects is limited.
California leaders should rapidly expand the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) in the state in order to attract vital private investment capital for future infrastructure projects. Such PPP efforts have been successful in other states and around the globe, but so far California has been way behind the curve.
Private engineers have been steadfast advocates of using private capital and private expertise to make new infrastructure a reality for the benefit of the state and its industries. PPPs and design-build are possible today in California partly because of ACEC California’s overwhelming success in multiple court battles with state employee unions seeking to quash PPPs. Examples of projects now moving forward because of court victories include expansion of the 405 freeway in Southern California, the recent voter-approved high-speed rail project and expansions of subway systems in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. If we want to see more of these projects in the future, we need to bring private sector capital into play a much bigger role in building it.
Paul Meyer
The state has no money and is deep in debt–so to fix our broken infrastructure and build much-needed new transport options and facilities, we need to attract more private capital. This means more public-private partnerships.
Regardless of the results of May 19’s special election in California, the state will face a jarring financial future that should force a change in the way we plan and implement spending, and that includes infrastructure. The fact is that there will be no new public money for large-scale infrastructure for many years to come, so we had better start looking for alternatives now. We must act quickly because, let’s face it, the quality of our existing infrastructure – because of inadequate and sometimes wasteful funding - is just not good.
We really can’t delay implementing repairs to dangerous infrastructure problems like corroding bridges and deteriorating water treatment facilities. First, there’s the public safety issue – Californians deserve safe and secure infrastructure; second, there’s the competitive issue – how can we attract and retain businesses if we can’t provide adequate roads, rail and ports to move goods, energy to power manufacturing or research facilities, housing for workers, etc?
Our Governor knows this, and now so do many of our legislators. Earlier in the year, they passed into law SBX2 4, a bill that gives the state, cities and counties authority to adopt alternative infrastructure delivery methods such as public-private partnerships and design- build for certain transportation projects. The bipartisan effort is a great first step toward creating a multidisciplinary approach to California’s infrastructure challenges but it is not the sole solution. Nor will it address all the state’s needs since the PPP legislation expires in 2016 and the number of design-build projects is limited.
California leaders should rapidly expand the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) in the state in order to attract vital private investment capital for future infrastructure projects. Such PPP efforts have been successful in other states and around the globe, but so far California has been way behind the curve.
Private engineers have been steadfast advocates of using private capital and private expertise to make new infrastructure a reality for the benefit of the state and its industries. PPPs and design-build are possible today in California partly because of ACEC California’s overwhelming success in multiple court battles with state employee unions seeking to quash PPPs. Examples of projects now moving forward because of court victories include expansion of the 405 freeway in Southern California, the recent voter-approved high-speed rail project and expansions of subway systems in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. If we want to see more of these projects in the future, we need to bring private sector capital into play a much bigger role in building it.
Paul Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
