CONSTRUCTION STAFFING

Mario R. Jorge, P.E.

District Engineer

San Antonio District

October 11th , 2017

Previous Work Load Staffing Analysis

2

District Workload/Workforce Analysis report prepared internally in July 2014

and updated in August 2015 to include Prop 1 and 7 funding programs. This

report looked at all functional areas of district operations (ADM, TPD,

Construction and Operations and Maintenance). The report concluded that

we have a gap of 715 FTE’s for district operations.

District staffing analysis considering TxDOT portfolio performed by Mckinsey

in late 2015 early 2016 (See below). Report concluded by identifying a gap

of 1365 total employees with approximately 600 in construction

inspection. Assumption was a 50/50 split with in house and consultant

services.

STAFFING NEEDS (AVG $6.4 B LETTING FY 17-25)

3

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION STAFFING ANALYSIS

4

Process and tasks included:

determining the work load per district

developing staffing needs

comparing them to previous staffing reports

balance out with CEI utilization

determining a reasonable percentage staffing with new FTE’s

Projected Work Load analysis

5

The following logic and math was used to determine the “Average

Baseline letting” for each district:

Proposed total planning target (FY 18 through 27) for each district for

Categories 1 through 12 was reduced by the top 2 funding years and

averaged over 8 years. This would remove spikes caused by large Cat

4 or 12 projects, which would most likely be CEI.

Projected Work Load Analysis (Example)

6

DistrictFY18-27 UTP Planning

Target High Year deduction2nd highest year

deductionUTP (Adjusted Planning

Targets) UTP 8 year annual avg.

BMT $ 890,280,000 $ 185,810,000 $ 184,380,000 $ 520,090,000 $ 65,011,250

SAT $ 2,584,840,000 $ 288,300,000 $ 283,380,000 $ 2,013,160,000 $ 251,645,000

YKM $ 1,377,890,000 $ 369,850,000 $ 300,370,000 $ 707,670,000 $ 88,458,750

Projected Work Load analysis

7

The following logic and math was used to determine the “Average

Baseline letting” for each district:

The accompanying MPO letting totals were averaged over 10 years

and added to the district average.

Statewide programs (Bridge and Traffic) were included in the baseline

letting calculation. Category 6 was based on the average of the

programmed 10 year plan obtained from BRG. Category 8 was

normalized across all districts ($10M per year).

Computation of Baseline Annual Letting per District

8

Construction Staffing Analysis

9

Construction inspection staffing needs were based on:

Metrics developed by CTR for FTW district consisting of payouts per

inspector per month,

Projected UTP work load adjusted by reducing for peaks or outliers

due to large projects (“Baseline letting), which would be managed by

CEI.

Methodology correlates lettings per year with average monthly pay-

outs which can then allow us to calculate the number of inspectors

needed using the CTR/FTW method.

Delta from Staffing required and current staffing to include posted

vacancies. (Snapshot in time directly from each district)

Arriving at a consistent staffing plan where districts can staff to handle

a minimum percentage of their “baseline” letting not including the

peaks due to the outlier large projects and/or year. (Metros at 50%

minimum, Urban/Rural at 80% minimum)

10

11

Baseline annual letting *

Baseline

inspector

needs

Current

inhouse

Inspector

staffing

Current

vacancies to be

filled

Additional

Inspector Needs

$ 5,132,688,990 1555 877 97 581

Staffing stablization (Example)

12

District Current staffing capacity

** Recommended construction

inspection staffing M(40-50%)

U/R(80%) Recommended staffing capacity

BMT 97% 0 97%

SAT 41% 12 50%

YKM 41% 17 80%

Final Authorization

13

Legislature authorized 313 additional employees for TxDOT

Based on our analysis, TxDOT administration allocated those employees to the

districts and divisions for the following functional titles:

Construction Inspectors

Project Managers

Portfolio Managers

Contract Specialists

Construction record keepers

Utility coordinators

Note: Metrics were recommended for the other functional titles based on

Baseline lettings previously described.

STAFFING ALLOCATIONS STATEWIDE

14

DD Name

FY 2017

Position

Allocations

Proposed

Additional

Position

Allocations

Proposed

Transfered

Positions

Proposed Total

Positions

PARIS 270 1 271

FORT WORTH 559 13 572

WICHITA FALLS 218 1 219

AMARILLO 344 14 358

LUBBOCK 344 2 346

ODESSA 264 19 283

SAN ANGELO 210 1 211

ABILENE 273 11 284

WACO 327 6 333

TYLER 301 3 304

LUFKIN 257 1 258

HOUSTON 1,093 43 1,136

YOAKUM 286 21 307

AUSTIN 529 12 541

SAN ANTONIO 562 25 587

CORPUS CHRISTI 435 20 455

BRYAN 298 2 300

DALLAS 862 25 887

ATLANTA 265 1 266

BEAUMONT 286 5 291

PHARR 307 29 336

LAREDO 230 13 243

BROWNWOOD 186 1 187

EL PASO 276 14 290

CHILDRESS 194 1 195

PROFESSIONAL PROCUREMENT 100 9 4 113

TRANSPORTATION PLANG & PROGRAM 141 1 142

RIGHT OF WAY 136 6 142

ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 79 79

CONSTRUCTION 176 5 181

MAINTENANCE 60 3 63

DESIGN 69 1 70

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 165 1 166

BRIDGE 93 2 (2) 93

TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS OFFICE 1 15 16

Total Engineering Operations 10,195 313 17 10,525