ACEC Transportation Committee
Meeting Minutes
La
Quinta Resort ~ Palm Springs, CA
1. Chairman David Oates called the meeting to order.
2. Attendance was taken (see attached).
3. Lynda Konomos provided an update on the AASHTO Audit Guide.
a. A full overview of each chapter was presented at an expanded conference workshop on Thursday. Members who were unable to attend the briefing should sign up for one of the ACEC webinars scheduled for October 27 or November 10. Additional education sessions will be held specifically on key issues in the Guide, including compensation, CPA selection and successful overhead audits, and FAR compliance. Visit the ACEC website for details and to register.
b. In balloting AASHTO’s Audit Subcommittee, three states voted against the revised Audit Guide. There is some speculation as to which states opposed the new Guide, but AASHTO officials have not revealed that information.
c. A final vote on the Guide will be held by the full AASHTO Board at their fall meeting, October 21-26, unless the Board defers to a vote by the Standing Committee on Finance.
d. ACEC state organizations and ACEC member firms are encouraged to collaborate in helping with implementation and addressing problems in specific states. Member firms will need to be unified and aggressive in promoting a uniform, consistent interpretation of the FAR and implementation of the Guide.
e. FHWA is developing an educational program, but it could be slow to roll out. ACEC will play a leading role in educating ACEC members and state DOTs on the new requirements. FHWA has also recognized the need to educate its own division offices.
4. Vivian Moeglein provided an update on cost recovery efforts stemming from the DOT Inspector General’s report on consultant services.
a. FHWA has convened a team of state DOT auditors and AASHTO Audit Subcommittee members to handle cost recovery. DCAA has been retained in an advisory capacity. Individual firms will be contacted by letter that their work papers will be shared with the cost recovery team. Each firm’s state DOT will be the point of contact for the process.
b. FHWA is committed to completing the cost recovery process by March 2010, and will provide reports to the OIG and to the House Transportation Committee.
c. ACEC can help facilitate communication with effected firms, who are encouraged to stay in contact with Vivian. The outcome of this process will reflect on the industry as a whole and could influence future legislation or regulations.
5. Vivian Moeglein outlined a potentially expansive revision of federal regulations governing consultant services in transportation.
a. FHWA intends to incorporate the new AASHTO Audit Guide by reference to assist in implementing a uniform and consistent application of federal audit rules.
b. FHWA plans to rewrite much of 23 CFR 172, which governs contracting for consultant services, including such issues as pre-qualification, negotiation and selection of firms, cost estimating, payment methods, responsible charge and conflicts of interest.
c. FHWA hopes to begin the rulemaking process by April 2010.
6. Committee members from Nebraska briefed the committee regarding a change in rules governing conflicts of interest.
a. During a consultant services program review, the FHWA Division Office identified “material weakness” in the Nebraska Department of Roads’ administration and oversight of locally administered projects.
b. Citing a situation in which a firm acted as city engineer and also participated in both the design and construction inspection phases of a project, the FHWA advised the NDOR to prohibit certain activities that could constitute a perceived conflict of interest: (1) an engineering firm serving as City Engineer and providing preliminary engineering or construction engineering on a project; and (2) an engineering firm performing both PE and CE/I services on the same project.
c. Committee members discussed the potential implications for the FHWA rulemaking process. Members cited concerns such as the perceived attack on the professionalism of the industry, the role of state licensing boards and codes of practice, the implications for liability and risk management for a firm performing design but being shut out of construction-phase services, and the impact on firm selection and contract competitions.
7. Matt Reiffer provided a legislative update on the surface transportation authorization bill. The current federal program is operating under a one-month continuing resolution that expires on October 31. The House and Senate will need to pass another stop-gap extension prior to the end of the month, although there has been little progress in resolving the length, e.g. 3 months v. 18 months. Financing continues to be the biggest obstacle to moving a full six-year authorization bill.
8. David Oates led a discussion of the effects of current economic conditions on the engineering industry.
a. Fee Reductions –
i. Committee members from Wisconsin explained the effort of the state DOT to reduce signed contract costs by 3.28%, in response to state budget shortfalls and political pressure from state employee unions. WisDOT is calculating the reduction on the entire price of the contract but taking the entire cut out of fixed fees. ACEC has voiced strong concerns to both the state and FHWA officials.
ii. Members discussed similar or potential efforts in other locations, including the City of Chicago, Rhode Island, California, and Hawaii. Wisconsin appears to be the most aggressive effort, to date.
b. State matching funds –
i. Members discussed states that could be in danger of losing federal funds due to failure to provide state matching funds. States mentioned were New Mexico (maintenance budget), Georgia, Michigan (projected shortfall in 2011) and California (2011).
c. Contracting trends –
i. In Wisconsin, a Democratic member of the state legislature has introduced a bill to restrict contracting out for engineering services. A Minuteman Fund request is expected to help ACEC/Wisconsin oppose the bill.
ii. In Colorado, the governor released the results of an “efficiency study” that concluded that state engineers cost less than contracting with private firms. ACEC/Colorado has responded to the questionable data underlying the report, and no legislative or administrative action has been taken.
d. Stimulus implementation –
i. Several members reported that state and local projects funded through regular annual appropriations have been put on hold while the state manages its ARRA-funded projects. Many states are struggling to get projects approved and out the door, delaying early stage design and PE work.
ii. Many states have supplanted their own state budgets with ARRA funds. ACEC members had expected the stimulus bill to clear out long-stalled projects and allow others to move forward, but that has not happened in many states.
e. Sustainability
i. The trend toward sustainable infrastructure and transportation systems has led to some increased contracting opportunities and/or higher fees for specialized services.
ii. The higher cost of “green” projects has caused many sponsors not to pursue them.
9. Members were advised of an issue in Ohio regarding consultant specification language on intellectual property. A broadly worded provision could require a firm to assign all rights to any intellectual property developed or created in connection with consultant services on a project.
10. Matt Reiffer informed committee members of a successful resolution to the Amtrak General A/E Services contract issue, including changes to the standard of care, liability and warranty provisions in the contract. Members requested that a similar effort be undertaken on right-of-entry contract language.
11. David Oates informed the committee that the ACEC-AASHTO Joint Committee would be meeting on Thursday, October 22, during AASHTO’s annual convention.
12. The next meeting of the Transportation Committee will be held during ACEC’s Annual Convention in Washington, DC, April 25-28, 2010.
13.
The meeting was adjourned.
ACEC Transportation Committee
October 9, 2009
La Quinta Resort ~
Palm Springs, CA
Attendees