Young Professionals Round Table

American Council of Engineering Companies of Massachusetts
September 2008
President’s Message
By James A. Pappas, PE, Senior Principal, Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
As I indicated in my first bi-monthly
communication, we have started the
year off with a bang. My presidency
really started with our Strategic
Planning Session in early June, even
though I actually did not take office
until July 1st. This annual formal planning process
began three years ago with great success due to the
commitment from our leadership. This year we met
on Friday June 13th at the Henderson House in
Weston with our Board of Directors and many of our
Committee Chairs and Co-Chairs.
1. Advocacy
ACEC/MA serves as the primary business advocate for
the engineering profession in the arenas of
government, public and private sector clients,
affiliated professional organizations, and the general
public. Advocacy occurs in many forms including the
enhancement of the business interests of ACEC/MA
member firms, the enhancement and improvement of
the public image of engineering firms and the
profession, and the enhancement of partnering
relationships through participation on commissions,
boards and appointed positions.
Our vision remains unchanged and it places awesome
responsibility on our collective shoulders. ACEC/MA
is committed to serving the engineering community
and improving our business practices.
By committing to broad,
strategic
participation in the
Our vision remains
public
and
private sectors,
unchanged and it
ACEC/MA can achieve a
places awesome
high level of recognition and
responsibility on our
influence. The primary
collective shoulders.
outcomes of this goal are for
ACEC/MA to become the
voice of the engineering industry, advocating for its
member firms and society, and to provide leadership
in improving the quality of life for the public good
while protecting the business interests of our
members.
What We Do—Our Core Purpose
“To promote the business environment by providing
advocacy and resources that enhance and advise the
engineering industry.”
What We Are Committed To—Our Core Values
“Creating a sustainable world through applying
science and technology to societal challenges,
protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public,
conducting ethical business practices, and stewarding
sustainability in the natural and built environments.”
Where We Are Going—Our Vision
“To lead with our knowledge and expertise and to be
the voice of the engineering industry for the benefit of
society and the natural and built environment.”
This year ACEC/MA will continue focusing on the
three goals established over the past three years. We
spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the
previous years’ goals, and the consensus of the
Strategic Planning Session attendees is to continue to
pursue these three goals over the next year. We did,
however, create a more detailed and measurable action
plan and key steps, and we identified leaders for each
action plan.
2. Financial Strength
Financial strength and stability will allow ACEC/MA
to maintain our leadership role providing business
advocacy and programs for our member firms. If we
diversify revenue sources (sponsorships), meet or
exceed national PAC goals, create larger programs,
increase membership to increase dues revenue,
maintain a stable and profitable budget and develop a
reserve account equal to the yearly operating expenses,
ACEC/MA will be a strong and financially sound
organization.
3. Membership
Our ACEC/MA goal of expanding member firms by
three percent and member headcount by two percent
continued p. 7
James Pappas is the Regional Leader for Stantec’s New England
Region. He currently serves as President of ACEC/MA. Jim can
be reached at jim.pappas@stantec.com.
The Engineering Center
One Walnut Street
Boston, MA 02108
T: 617/227-5551
F: 617/227-6783
www.acecma.org
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Minimizing Risks
Associated with
Construction Cost
Estimates
PAGE 2
Young Professionals
Round Table
PAGE 3
A Seat at the Table: The
Risk Management Forum
PAGE 4
LIFT 2 Program
PAGE 4
Understanding
Generational Differences
PAGE 5
Upcoming Events
PAGE 10
Select a title for a
QuickLink to your
favorite article.
September 2008
Insights Board of Editors
Robert J. Dunn, Jr., Co-Chair
Associate
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
T: 978/692-1913, E: bob.dunn@stantec.com
Joy L. Kelley, PHR, Co-Chair
Director of Human Resources
Tetra Tech Rizzo
T: 508/903-2489, E: joy.kelley@tetratech.com
David A. Chappell
President
Chappell Engineering Associates, LLC
T: 978/823-0054
E: dchappell@chappellengineering.com
Mary B. Hall, PE
Principal
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
T: 617/482-1000, E: mhall@gza.com
David J. Hatem, Esq.
Attorney
Donovan Hatem LLP
T: 617/406-4800
E: dhatem@donovanhatem.com
Paul J. Murphy, PE
Senior Project Manager
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
T: 781/278-3700, E: pmurphy@gza.com
Cheryl A. Waterhouse, Esq.
Managing Partner
Donovan Hatem LLP
T: 617/406-4520
E: cwaterhouse@donovanhatem.com
Susan Hartman D’Olimpio, IOM
Association Manager
The Engineering Center
T: 617/305-4111, E: sdolimpio@engineers.org
Articles appearing in this or any issue of ACEC/
MA Insights may not be used for monetary gain
nor reprinted in any other format. Requests for
permission to reprint articles should be sent via
email to any member of the Board of Editors or
faxed to 617/227-6783. A ‘Permission to Reprint’
form will be forwarded electronically to the
requesting party and must be faxed or mailed
back once completed and signed. Questions
concerning reprinting of ACEC/MA Insights
articles may be sent to joy.kelley@tetratech.com
or bob.dunn@stantec.com.
2
Minimizing Risks Associated with
Construction Cost Estimates
By David M. Ponte, PE, Senior Claims Consultant, DH Consulting Group, LLC
There are several types of
construction cost estimates:
preliminary or ballpark estimates, intermediate estimates,
Engineer’s estimates (sometimes referred to as the
owner’s estimate) and the Contractor’s bid
estimate. The appropriate estimate type
depends on when, during project development,
the estimate is required. Regardless of the
estimate type there are associated risks for
design professionals involved in preparing an
engineer’s estimate of construction costs. This
article will review those risks and suitable
methods to minimize a design professional’s
exposure to those risks.
Construction Cost Estimate Risk
Construction Cost Estimates provide the
project owner with a reasonable expectation of
the overall project costs, as well as a breakdown
of individual pay items, if the bid form is
structured to allow for it. This serves as the
benchmark for establishing acceptable bid
proposals and allows the owner to ensure that
adequate funding is in place prior to soliciting
bids from construction contractors.
Bid errors, particularly underestimating project
costs, can cause serious problems such as
delayed contract awards or the outright
rejection of bids, and can therefore necessitate
redefining the project scope and rebidding the
project. When problems arise as a result of an
error in the cost estimate an owner might view
this as a breach of the professional’s standard of care and seek recovery from the
design professional. However, the courts have
determined that simply establishing that a
professional’s estimate of cost was materially less
than the actual cost of construction is not
sufficient to prove liability.
In Durand Associates, Inc. v. Guardian Inv. Co.,
186 Neb. 349, 183 N.W. 2d 246, 251 (1971)
the Nebraska court found: “[A]n architect or
engineer may breach his contract for
architectural services by underestimating the
construction cost of a proposed structure ... the
cost of construction must reasonably approach
that stated in the estimate unless the owner
orders changes which increase the cost of
construction. It is ordinarily for a jury to say
whether the actual cost is within a reasonable
range of the estimated costs unless, as here, the
excess is so great that the court can deal with it
as a matter of law.”
The quality of a construction cost estimate is
generally measured against the actual results of
the bid process. However the determination of
the quality of a cost estimate is not strictly
objective. Many construction officials believe
that the Engineer’s Estimate should not actually
match the low bid, but should fall somewhere
between the second and third bidders. The
Federal Highway Administration guidelines
recommend that the Engineer’s Estimate should
be within 10% of the low bid at least 50% of
the time. The New Jersey Department of
Transportation believes that, “The ideal
estimate would be where the Engineer’s
Estimate is approximately the median between
the actual low and high contract bid.”
Preparation of
Construction
Cost Estimates
Cost
estimating,
particularly in the
construction industry,
is not an exact
science. A qualified
cost estimator, well
versed in appropriate
estimating techniques, can reasonably be
expected to determine what the work, as
defined in the contract documents, should cost.
In addition to having a thorough understanding
of the contract documents and any unique
project characteristics, there are several other
factors1 that the estimator should consider when
preparing a construction cost estimate. These
cost factors include: fluctuation of costs, traffic
conditions, restrictive work hours or method of
work, small quantities of work, separated
operations, handwork and inefficient
operations, accessibility, geographic location,
construction season and material shortages.
Regardless of the
estimate type there are
associated risks for
design professionals
involved in preparing
an engineer’s estimate
of construction costs.
Fluctuation of Costs
Every estimate should be reviewed and updated
just prior to soliciting prices from contractors as
it is not unusual for costs and/or availability of
needed resources such as labor and material to
fluctuate. The time of year that a project is
continued p. 6
2
September 2008
Young Professionals Round Table
By Mary Hall, PE, Principal, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. and Joy Kelley, Director of Human Resources, Tetra Tech Rizzo
On July 29th the ACEC/MA Insights Board of
Editors conducted a “Young Professionals
Round Table” discussion with representatives
from our member companies. Fifteen men and
women with between three and eight years
experience as engineers or environmental
scientists, and representing a cross section of
engineering disciplines and consulting
companies, met to share their reflections about
our industry and their goals.
We began by asking our participants to tell us
their name, the company they represent and
their current position. Each, then, told us
briefly about what or who influenced their
individual decision to become an engineer.
Not surprising, many said they were encouraged
into their profession by parents, teachers and/or
professors. Many said they had strong
math/science skills in high school that
influenced the career advice they were given.
There were a few who switched majors in
college—i.e. physics to engineering. One
participant who comes from a family of
engineers half heartedly said that s/he had no
option. Another admitted to being very practical
and deliberately selecting a skill that would be
very marketable after college. He/she knew older
people who had graduated with liberal arts
degrees without knowing what to do next.
One attendee described having a strong social
development ethic which led to civil
engineering. And one of our attendees chose
civil engineering over other engineering
branches because it offered evidence of work
completed. “It’s actually possible to see what
you built.”
We then went on to ask a series of questions to
try to better understand what these younger
professionals desire from their careers and to
solicit their thoughts on possible improvements
in the ways our firms conduct business.
1. What is it about the work you perform now that
gets you out of bed and enthusiastic about starting
your day?
Some contributors expressed that they feel they
are doing something important to society,
whether helping build bridges/roads or cleaning
up the environment. Responses also included:
most important. Bottom line in the minds of
the participants: it’s an employee’s choice if they
want to spend their life at work.
3. Have you mentored an entry level engineer, and
if so, in what ways was that experience valuable
for you?
Of those who had mentored younger staff,
several found that mentoring was harder than
they anticipated. Responses included:
• Every day has different challenges;
• The sense of accomplishment when the work
is well done;
• It’s very rewarding to figure out a solution to
an issue;
• Enjoyment of the multidisciplinary approach
and working with others.
2. Do you now, or have you had, a mentor to assist
you with your professional development? If yes,
what have you learned through this experience?
Several of our contributors shared they had
mentors early on in their career who taught
them important lessons such as studying the
details of projects at the onset or “...it will hurt
you later.” One participant reflected s/he was
influenced to go to grad school. “I was
encouraged to think ahead and lay out my
career path.” One piece of memorable advice
was, “. . . to take charge so that issues don’t
fester.” And some offered that as they progress
in their careers they understand the advice of
their mentors much better.
One member described being mentored on how
not to make their job their life. The group went
off on a tangent as several participants expressed
that their supervisor makes them feel as if their
job should in fact be their life. They perceive
that their boss likes to work 15 hour days but
they openly question if this is necessary for
them as well. Some participants noted there are
managers who are cautious about demanding
long hours, and there are other project
managers one wants to work with regardless of
the time commitment. But when one is
working for several different project managers at
once it’s hard to say yes to a new assignment
that has a short fuse. The group noted that every
project manager believes their task/project is
“Mentoring takes more time;”
“It’s often difficult to articulate and pass on your
experience;”
“Good mentoring takes a lot of planning. Our
work environment of rushing around to get
stuff done isn’t conducive to a good teaching
environment.”
One participant said that they loved to mentor
because it’s a valuable learning experience for
the mentor as it forces one to carefully articulate
what they are trying to explain to someone.
4. What do you think is an important lesson an
entry level consulting professional should learn
their first year?
• To listen and focus in on what one is being
told;
• Ask questions; don’t just say yes because
managers don’t expect anyone to know
everything;
• Time management, including juggling
personnel life with job;
• Forget what was learned in college—now it’s
being applied;
• Keep a file on all designs because this will help
when working on another project and when
applying for the PE;
• Keep the big picture in mind.
5. Do you think your employer demonstrates that
they understand and value what it takes to retain
their talented young professionals?
Some of our participants believe that a variety of
jobs provides very good learning opportunities
and can help them in their career growth. About
one-half of the participants are currently with the
same company they started with out of college.
continued p. 7
3
September 2008
A SEAT AT THE TABLE
“A Seat at the Table” is designed to provide our ACEC/MA membership with direct insight into the wide range of endeavors, accomplishments
and special activities undertaken by the many committees and task forces of ACEC/MA on its behalf. Remember, ACEC focuses on advocating
laws, policies and regulations that improve the business environment and on helping member firms improve their business acumen, and can only
be successful in this regard though an active membership. So come take “A Seat at the Table!”
The Risk Management Forum
By Michael Herlihy, ARM, Executive Vice President, Ames & Gough and Beverly Tompkins, Esq., Corporate Risk Manager, Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger
The Risk Management Forum serves as a
resource to support ACEC/MA Member Firms
by providing information that can assist
engineers in controlling risks. We are an open
forum and any ACEC/MA member interested
in joining us is most welcome.
This past year we were very active providing
advice to other committees, commenting on
contracts and risk management questions posed
by individual member firms as well as
advocating on behalf of ACEC/MA with Public
Agencies. We also presented a training seminar
to ACEC/MA members this past June.
Last December the Risk Management Forum
met jointly with the Information Services
Forum to discuss Electronic Document
Retention policies. Both groups discussed the
growing trend of electronic document discovery
requests during litigation. Firms need to have
written policies in place to govern storage and
retrieval of all information including the data
stored on hard drives and disks. We also
discussed changes in the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures with regard to discovery of
electronic documents during a trial. The
discussion included information that firms may
be required to send to opposing counsel and the
rules governing how much effort a firm must
undertake to retrieve information. The IS
Forum was helpful in identifying what firms are
using for retrieval systems and the most cost
effective ways to store and retrieve data.
Amanda Sirk of Donovan Hatem shared a
sample records retention policy with the
members in attendance. As a follow up to this
discussion, in 2009 our forum will be authoring
a new Records Management White Paper that
will include sample retention guidelines for
electronic information.
Advocating on behalf of ACEC/MA members,
we assisted with ACEC’s response to the
Attorney General’s Draft Advisory on the
Massachusetts Independent Contractor Law.
Since engineering companies frequently
subcontract work to sole proprietor engineers, it
is important that the AG’s office understand
these subcontracting relationships so that the
law is not enforced in such any way that would
prevent firms from continuing this practice.
The Risk Management Forum provided our
input to Abbie Goodman for use in the
ACEC/MA response.
The Risk Management Forum assisted the
Environmental Affairs Committee in
negotiating with the Massachusetts Water
Pollution Abatement Trust for appropriate
certification language. At this time, as a
condition of securing financing through
MWPAT, the design engineer must certify
future plant performance. The present
certification might be construed as a warranty
which would go beyond the standard of care
and be uninsurable. While discussions are still
ongoing, MWPAT’s Executive Director has
confirmed that they are working on certification
language that will take into account what is
realistic for an engineer to certify.
continued p. 8
LIFT 2 Program
By Susan D’Olimpio, Association Manager, The Engineering Center
ACEC/MA is now planning our involvement in
the Leadership Initiatives for Teaching and
Technology Program (LIFT 2) Program for
2009. The LIFT 2 Program offers secondary
school science, technology, engineering and math
(STEM) teachers professional learning
experiences that integrate graduate courses with
relevant externships within our A/E/C industry.
Through direct engagement with teachers,
companies can offer significant insight into
careers that have high relevance for students. And
this important program is a supportive means for
the engineering industry to respond to the
nationwide shortfall of STEM skilled workers.
engineering. The combination of industry work
experience and formal graduate level study
improves teacher classroom instructional
practice and leadership abilities. This
perspective has been shown to motivate
students to pursue STEM college majors and
ultimately careers in engineering fields.
Because teachers offer a unique and positive
influence over career decisions made by many
hundreds of students per year, this professional
learning program offers a highly leveraged
investment to address a decline of interest in
We greatly appreciate the following ACEC/MA
firms who successfully participated in the 2008
LIFT 2 initiative and benefited by supporting
the Externship Program, and we invite your
firm to join them.
The cornerstone of this program is a firm
sponsored 5-8 week summer externships within
the A/E/C industry for teachers. We ask you to
consider sponsoring one or more teacher externs
at your company as you prepare your budgets.
Your help is needed now!
CDM (EMP division)
CDM (WSD division)
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.
Stantec Consulting Services
Tata & Howard
Tetra Tech Rizzo
VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.
To learn more about the LIFT 2 Program go to
www.lift2.org. Jim Stanton, Director of the
LIFT 2 Program, will be attending some of the
ACEC/MA events over the next few months to
provide information and literature about the
program. Should you have any questions and/or
wish to discuss steps necessary to engage your
company in the STEM initiative, feel free to
contact Susan D’Olimpio at 671/305-4111,
sdolimpio@engineers.org or Jim Stanton at
508/665-5990, jstanton@mswreb.org.
4
September 2008
Understanding Generational Differences
By Harriet Rifkin, Rifkin and Associates LLC
The future success of
organizations will partly be
contingent on their understanding of and respect for the
four (soon to be five) generations that currently coexist in
workplaces. Because of stereotyping by each age
group, these four generations are demonstrating
clashes in values, work ethics and almost
anything else one can imagine. It is critically
important for employees of any generation to
relate well with other generations as this will
reduce conflict and open the way for clear
communication. An age diverse employee
population that understands how to successfully
communicate together helps in recruitment,
development and retention of staff across all
generations. The key is to learn about each
different generation, to understand their
motivations, concerns and issues.
As the following information will make some
generalizations regarding each generation, use
this material as a guideline for effective
coexistence and successful organizational
growth.
Why is it Important to Understand
Generational Differences?
In 2001 and 2002, the US experienced an
‘employer’s market’ with more job seekers
available than jobs. Since 2003, however, we
have been concerned about a shrinking labor
pool. Over the next ten years there will be a
highly competitive talent war because there are
half as many Gen X’ers as Baby Boomers. While
there are nearly twice as many Millennials/
Generation Y employees as there are Gen X’ers,
it will be a while before the Millennials can
replace the initial loss being felt from retiring
Baby Boomers.
Turnover has become more of a problem because
with each new generation their tenure in an
organization tends to be getting shorter and
shorter. There is a tangible cost, estimated to be
between 50 to 150 percent of a departing
employee’s salary, for recruitment, hiring and
training, as well as a potential impact on morale.
Firms will be better able to manage their
employees’ needs when they consider the
different value systems of each generation, how
those differences come about and their
influence on recruitment, development, reward
systems and retention. A manager may not
think that the multi-pierced or tattooed
individual could be an asset as an employee,
when in fact he or she may very well meet
the technical standards and quality of the
profession. A lack of understanding on
how to communicate
It is critically impor- effectively
between
tant for employees of generations may also
any generation to
impact perceptions of
relate well with other fairness and equity, and
therefore grievances
generations as this
and
complaints as well.
will reduce conflict
Maybe it is our longand open the way for
term policies that need
clear communication. to be more flexible!
We need to do a better job of understanding the
differences so we can promote more
collaboration. The organizations that don’t
wake up and meet this challenge will lose the
talent war and turnover costs will impact their
bottom line.
A Peek at Generation Differences
Are any of these scenarios familiar?
• A 50+ year old manager with a top down
controlling management style managing
someone in their 20’s.
• The 30+ year old manager with limited
interpersonal skills who manages a 50+
employee and lacks knowledge or appreciation
of this person’s contributions over the years.
• The older manager who says they hear the
word ‘why’ one more time they are going to
strangle that person;
• Complaints from a manager that employees,
“...don’t have a work ethic.”
• The older employee who laments, “I’d gladly
share some of the knowledge I have taken
years to acquire but quite frankly no one even
asked me.”
• The Millennial who comments, “Why do I
have to do all my work at my desk when I can
just as easily do it from home?”
Such situations typically cause misunderstanding and conflicts that can potentially
impact an organization’s productivity, morale
and client satisfaction.
The generation we grew up in influences our
adult behaviors because it predicts a general
mind-set, personal characteristics and group
values. How did these differences in generations
occur? Naturally we were all influenced by our
parents, educational process, friends, media,
and by our peers. A generation is a product of
its time and tastes. The theory is that a
generation’s defining moments provide
common experiences in our lives resulting in
some commonalities that determine how our
cohorts view the world. Someone growing up
right after WWII, a period when jobs were
more secure and people stayed in the same
organization for many years, will have a very
different outlook on corporations from
someone who grew up during the period of a
multitude of downsizings, mergers and layoffs.
Some of the most basic differences between the
generations are outlined below. After reading
these it may be easier to understand the source
of different perspectives.
Veterans/Traditionalists: Born pre-1945
• Life and mind set shaped by the Great
Depression and World War II;
• Values quality and conformity;
• Fiscally conservative;
• Adheres to rules;
• Puts duty before pleasure.
Baby Boomers: Born 1943-1964
• Life and mind set shaped by Civil Rights era,
assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F.
Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr;
• Want to be acknowledged for their hard work;
• Competitive;
• Idealistic;
• Challenge institutions and have a love/hate
relationship with authority;
• Think of their work as a career.
Generation X: Born 1965-1980
• Life and mind set shaped by era of
employment layoffs and the Arab terrorists at
Munich Olympics;
• Grew up during a period of layoffs and
downsizings;
• Self-reliant and adaptable;
• Distrust institutions and question authority;
• Demand that respect be earned and not
based on positions or titles;
• Seek a balance of work and life—work is a
job not a career;
• Family and relationships stressed over income
and promotions;
• Techno-literate;
• Prefer informal attire.
continued p. 9
5
September 2008
Minimizing Risks
continued from page 2
released, as well as economic conditions, can
adversely affect how contractors will price a
project. The cost estimator needs to incorporate
this information and update the cost estimate
accordingly.
Traffic Conditions
Traffic conditions can substantially influence
the cost of construction. A civil project that
involves work on, or adjacent to, existing traffic
may consist of large quantities of related
roadwork items overall. But if the project is
separated by traffic restrictions into multiple
work zones consisting of smaller quantities of
work the unit price of those items will be higher
than if all of the work is readily available to the
contractor.
Restrictive Work Hours
or Method of Work
The cost of the work will also be affected by any
restrictions on the hours of work or on
acceptable construction methods. Such
restrictions could include limiting work hours
on highly-trafficked roadway arterials to
nighttime when there is less traffic or imposing
noise restrictions on construction equipment in
residential areas.
Impacts on the cost of the work could also
include the addition of premium time
differentials to labor-rates, reduction in
production rates and efficiencies, and increased
equipment costs
Small Quantities of Work
Because the cost mobilization and setup is
unaffected by the quantity of a particular work
item small quantities are more expensive. The
cost estimator must be cognizant of items
procured in minimal quantities.
Separated Operations
Similar to small quantities items which are
separated, such as different areas of the project
or available work zones, will require individual
set ups and thereby increase the cost of the
project.
Handwork and Inefficient Operations
In those areas where high-production
equipment cannot be used, such as asphalt
sidewalks where the work is performed by hand,
the cost of the work will be more expensive.
Accessibility
The ability of the contractor to move material
and labor in and out of the work site will impact
the cost of the project. An example is work on a
highway where, due to traffic restrictions, the
contractor is limited in its ability to access the
work areas. Other examples include working on
slopes and retaining walls where access becomes
more limited as the work progresses thereby
affecting the excavation and backfill activities.
Use Projects of Similar Size and Scope
The referenced bid price should be adjusted to
reflect differences in the project factors. If
possible use only recent projects to eliminate
having to adjust for variances in economic
conditions. A study by the Oregon Department
of Transportation has shown that utilizing a bid
history of three to four months yields more
accurate results than the former practice of
using a three-year history.
Geographic Location
Geographically remote areas will also result in
higher construction costs. Cost estimators need
to incorporate the additional cost of housing
and feeding the workforce when the project is
located in areas where daily commuting is not
practical. Examples of remote work sites include
offshore marine projects and dam projects.
Complete Analysis Method
This methodology involves a detailed analysis of
each item of work similar to the bottom-up
estimate process that a contractor would
perform. This is a difficult approach in that it
requires the cost estimator to make assumptions
about construction techniques, size and type of
equipment, and various crew sizes. It also
requires a thorough understanding of the local
marketplace for both labor and material costs.
This approach is best used for projects where an
adequate bid history is not available or for
unique types of construction features for which
there is no bid history.
Construction Season
The time of year work is expected to be
performed can also influence the cost of the
work particularly on smaller projects that are
not expected to take more than several months.
For larger projects, it is important for estimators
to understand the anticipated construction
schedule, particularly if work will be performed
during winter months when the cost can
increase to accommodate weather-related needs
such as protection of the work, the use of
heaters and the use of concrete add-mixtures.
Material Shortages
As was recently demonstrated by the volatile
steel market, material shortages can have a
substantial impact on the cost of a project. It is
essential that the cost estimator understand the
economic conditions and account for resource
shortages. This is typically accomplished
through the use of contingencies.
Methods to Estimate Construction Costs
There are essentially two different approaches a
cost estimator can use when developing a
preliminary cost estimate: the Historic Data
Method and the Complete Analysis Method.
Historic Data Method
This is the most rational method used by noncontractors in developing a reasonable
construction cost estimate. There are several
factors which should be taken into
consideration when developing a cost estimate
utilizing this method.
Conclusion
Design professionals engaged in the development of construction cost estimates for their
clients should understand not only the project
for which they are providing design services, but
also the external environment in which that
project will be constructed. This additional
insight into the various external nuances of a
project will enable the design professional to
select the best method, or combination of
methods, to adequately develop the construction cost.
1 Engineer Estimating Guidelines for Roadway
Construction Projects, County of Riverside, State of
California, January 29, 1999.
David M. Ponte, PE, is a Senior Claims Consultant
with DH Consulting Group, LLC, a subsidiary of
Donovan Hatem, LLP. With more than 24 years of firsthand experience in the design, construction and
management of large predominantly civil and marine
projects, David has a distinct expertise in construction
claims analysis. David is a licensed Structural Engineer
in two states, and he has memberships in the American
Society of Civil Engineers and the Structural
Engineering Institute. David can be reached at
617/406-4708 or at dponte@dhcboston.com.
6
September 2008
President’s Message
continued from cover
is in harmony with ACEC National’s goals.
Growth is important to maintain a healthy,
viable organization. By adding new firms and
new categories of firms we will increase
organizational diversity and enhance our
programs, legislative initiatives and pool of
organizational
volunteers.
Additionally,
maintenance of existing members safeguards
our existing dues revenues and we are rewarded
by better word of mouth testimonials from
existing members to gain new members.
Finally, ACEC/MA will continue our goal to
improve our business environment by
strengthening our partnership with local, state
and municipal organizations. Our latest
endeavor was a very successful joint webcast
with the Massachusetts Highway Department
focused on improving quality.
In closing I would like to express my appreciation
to the ACEC/MA members for giving me this
opportunity to serve as your President. Without
your support we would not be the organization
we are today. Additionally, I would like to thank
each and every one of you for your contributions
to ACEC/MA organization.
Young Professionals Round Table
continued from page 3
Our attendees noted that task assignments at
larger and smaller firms can differ. One is likely
to be pigeonholed in a larger firm, though this
can happen in either, and this behavior will urge
a professional to find a new firm.
• “Yes, as long as the firm/manager knows the
individual’s needs. Different people are
motivated by different things. Keep the
communications lines open.”
• “Companies should recognize that no matter
what they do they will still lose people. We
move to new firms because this offers us early
promotions and new challenges.”
• “I wanted new and different challenges; if you
aren’t being challenged at your job it may be
time to change.”
• “I could get a new job easily but then I’d just be
the new dude. Right now I know personally
who I’m working with, and there are rewards
for staying with my current employer.”
industry engineers don’t always make the best
managers. A few of the participants identified
that their firms have intensive PM training over
1 to 1 1⁄2 years in preparation for a manager role.
Some of the others wish their firms did
something similar.
7. Do you set your sights on a technical
professional or a management career path w/in
your discipline?
Many of our participants want a leadership
path. Participants believe that to get to the
highest levels within a firm it is necessary to be
both a technical expert and a good manager.
Many expressed they would enjoy the balance of
both management and technical professional.
One individual best summed up the
predominant feeling by identifying s/he was
looking forward to more management
responsibility because this would give him/her a
chance to learn far more.
continued p. 8
Limited Space Available for the
ACEC/MA’s Inaugural Everest Event
Held at the beautiful Equinox Resort in Vermont
October 31– November 2, 2008
6. What should project managers and/or company
presidents learn more about that, in your
estimation, they don’t?
Our participants heartedly agreed that most
project managers could benefit from
understanding just how long it actually takes to
perform some project related tasks. People
writing the proposal often underestimate the
effort necessary to do the work.
They then discussed the timeless quandary of
engineers as managers saying that in our
Learn more about Event Leader Hugh Hochberg at:
www.coxegroup.com/ppeople1.html#hoch
Contact Mike Powers at SMMA to hear about plans for this special event
and why you want to be there: 617/520-9204 or m_powers@smma.com
Click here to register TODAY at: www.engineers.org/euclid/
cgi-bin/eventsdll.dll/EventInfo?sessionaltcd=AC_EVEREST_08
Or contact Elizabeth Tyminski, COO, The Engineering Center:
etyminski@engineers.org or 617/305-4127
7
September 2008
Young Professionals Round Table
continued from page 7
8. What is of most value to you in your career? For
instance, is it the opportunity to quickly advance
as a professional, time flexibility to balance
personal and professional interests, a highly
competitive salary or something else?
• “All are equally important to me.”
• “Technical excellence is my first choice and
the other items mentioned are simply a
given.”
• “Time flexibility is high for me, and this is an
option many of my friends in other
industries don’t have.”
Most of our participants work at firms that
allow flex time, and 9:30—10 a.m. seems to be
the average time that many arrived at work.
One individual remarked, “Some people find
their stride at 3:00 p.m. while others do well at
6:00 a.m. Work schedules should be a matter of
one’s own body schedule.” They enthusiastically
spoke about how flexibility gives them time for
outside activities from recreational to
professional and civic endeavors. And they
added that the job is made easier knowing they
can come and go without concern for rush hour
traffic.
9. In five years what do you think will be the
biggest challenge facing engineering and environmental consulting firms?
Concerns about energy and the environment
were on most participants minds.
10. If you weren’t an engineer, what do you think
you would be?
• Alternative energy—wind, solar etc—and the
changing of the US/world energy sources. The
infrastructure required for this change could
be a huge undertaking;
• Green is only gaining popularity in the US
now, but has been big in Europe since the mid
70s. There is a compelling need for the US to
get current;
• There is a strong need to look forward and to
keep up with technology to stay competitive.
“It’s easier than ever to fall behind;”
• The general public doesn’t know what’s going
on and engineers are not reporting on what’s
going on with energy, global warming, etc.
Firms are focused on their clients and not on
the big picture;
• Public involvement in issues seems to be
“controlled” by liability concerns. The threat
of law suites, particularly by private citizens
fighting projects, makes it difficult for
engineering firms to complete work;
• “As engineering professionals we need to take
an interest in our future. Right now the
politicians are making the decisions and
they’re not the experts;”
• In the environmental remediation field, sites will
be cleaned up in the next 10+ years so companies
need to be ready to find the next market.
This is when the dreams emerged from our
attendees. Next best jobs include teacher, baker,
librarian, business career, Zamboni driver,
developer, ship captain, and public policy
contributor. One engineer simply wants to be
Tom Brady. And we learned that over half of our
participants wish to work the opportunity for
regular golf games into their career, regardless of
profession!
The ACEC/MA Insights Board of Editors
wishes to thank everyone who participated in
this Young Professionals Roundtable discussion.
The intelligence, energy and enthusiasm shared
were both delightful and enlightening to hear.
Mary Hall, PE, a principal with GZA GeoEnvironmental,
Inc., is a member of the ACEC/MA Insights Board of
Editors, and on the ACEC/MA Board of Directors.
Joy Kelley, Director of Human Resources for Tetra Tech
Rizzo and Co-Chair of the ACEC/MA Insights Board
of Editors, urges our readers to provide us with future
Roundtable Discussion topics!
A Seat at the Table
continued from page 4
Finally, The Risk Management Forum reviewed
and presented comments regarding changes to
Massport’s Insurance Requirements.
Our annual spring seminar, held in June, is
offered to ACEC/MA members at no cost. The
2008 seminar featured a Contracts Negotiations
Workshop conducted by Pat Sordill, a specialist
in human resources and a negotiations trainer.
There were over 40 people in attendance, many
principals of ACEC/MA member firms. The
program included small group work on contract
negotiation case studies. The groups reported
back on their strategies for negotiating to
achieve more favorable treatment from the case
study clients.
We are currently drafting the new Records
Retention White Paper and have the sample
Documents Retention Policy available to share
with anyone interested. Over the next few
months the Forum will also be working on
topics for our annual spring seminar. Topics
under discussion include Engineering Ethics
and an update from a representative of the
Board of Registration. If you have topics you
would like us to consider, or if you want to join
the Risk Management Forum, please contact
Beverly Tompkins or Mike Herlihy. From
September through June, the Forum meets
from 8:00 to 10:00 a.m. the first Thursday of
every month, and the location rotates between
GEI Consultants, Donovan Hatem, SGH and
Metcalf & Eddy.
Beverly M. Tompkins, Esq. is the Corporate Risk
Manager for Simpson, Gumpertz & Heger. SGH is a
leading specialist in the design, investigation and
rehabilitation of structures and building enclosures.
Beverly can be reached at 781/907-9282 or
bmtompkins@sgh.com.
Mike Herlihy is an Executive Vice President and
Partner with Ames & Gough, Inc. Ames & Gough
specializes in providing risk management and insurance
solutions to architectural and engineering firms,
environmental consulting companies, Design Builders
and Contractors. Mike can be reached at 617/3286555. Or mherlihy@amesgough.com
8
September 2008
Understanding Generational Differences
continued from page 5
Millennials/Generation Y:
Born after 1980
• Life and mind set shaped by a national focus
on children and the Oklahoma bombing;
• Like fun and remain upbeat;
• Team oriented;
• Entrepreneurial;
• Technology savvy;
• Questioning;
• Concerned with personal safety;
• Most are protected by their family;
• Selective hearing may impact management’s
message.
Understanding the different generations does
not mean lowering one’s own expectations.
Every employee should be held accountable to
company standards, and no adaptation should
occur that compromises the health, safety and
welfare of the project. Keep in mind that
generational differences may determine
behavior but that does not mean the differences
determine acceptable adult interactions.
Managers of any generation must continue to
set clear goals with their employees and provide
constructive feedback that keeps the recipient’s
self-esteem in place.
viewing, coaching, delegation and creating
motivational environments. Understand and
respect the different career aspirations of each
generation. Give the Baby Boomer generation
more opportunities to mentor and share their
experiences. Connect them to the growth and
success of the organization whenever possible.
Understand that Generation X prefers to do
much of their work on their own. Give them
flexibility with their time should they want to
work part-time for a period or take time off for
a period to engage in other activities. Review
benefits packages from the perspective of each
generation.
Each generation has distinctly different life
experiences, philosophies, values and beliefs
based on the era in which they grew up. Because
of these differences, instead of blending we
often see seemingly incompatible colleagues
trying to work on the same team. For instance,
while Generations X and Y have similar work
ethics, they don’t have the same work ethic as
the preceding generations.
Someone growing up right after WWII, a period
when jobs were more secure and people stayed in
the same organization for many years, will have a
very different outlook on corporations from
someone who grew up during the period of a
multitude of downsizings, mergers and layoffs.
Constructing a Bridge
Across the Generations
While each generation may express their
preferences and ideals differently, they all really
want many of the same things. Each generation
seeks time flexibility but with different options
and great benefits with more choices in types of
coverage or retirement plans. A company’s goal
must be to build a bridge between the
generations to help employees to more
effectively work in partnership and to
communicate.
Recruiting Different Generations
As a significant portion of the workforce
becomes eligible for retirement or seeks to
change from full-time status to part-time, firms
need to initiate some inventive strategies for
recruiting new employees for different positions
at various levels of experience. It can be
important to reflect that Traditionalists enjoy
consulting opportunities, Baby Boomers prefer
status and the chance to make an impact.
Generation X prefers to have flexibility in work
time, time off and with benefits to achieve a
balance of work and life. And Generation Y is
socially conscientious, requires the latest
technology and is turned on by the challenge in
any job.
Development and Coaching
A manager’s feedback style and form of giving
constructive feedback can definitely be
impacted by generational differences. A
feedback style that may appear informal or
helpful to one generation may appear ‘preachy’
to another. Generation Y is very accustomed to
praise and may mistake silence for disapproval.
They seek feedback multiple times a week (yes,
a week not once a year).
Recognition/Reward
Baby Boomers want public recognition from
managers that their contributions are valuable
to the organization. Awards for longevity are
relevant to Baby Boomers but certainly not to
Gen X or Gen Y. Student loan repayment
programs and tuition reimbursement policies
for continuing education appeal to both of
these younger generations as well.
Gen X and Gen Y both seek opportunities for
work/life balance that including flextime
schedules, telecommuting and child-care. Gen
X wants to have more individual input on how
and where they perform their work. Millennials
or Gen Y want rewards for talent and
achievement that include time off.
Retention
Organizations need to be more flexible and
open to new ideas to retain their best people
and to obtain the most from each generation.
For instance, retired Baby Boomers would
consider returning on a consulting basis so that
their knowledge continuity is not lost.
We need to look beyond our own perspective
and understand what has shaped the thoughts
and behaviors of others. To truly understand we
must go beyond judging other generations.
Successful leaders will enable respect for each
generation’s differences and a means for every
generation to be heard because it is diversity
that contributes to the success and growth of an
organization. One Size Does Not Fit All.
Harriet Rifkin’s practice, Rifkin and Associates, LLC,
specializes in leadership assessment and development to
help organizations manage their strongest asset—their
people. Utilizing 25 years Human Resource experience,
Harriet provides Executive Coaching, intact team
facilitation and workshops to her primary client base
including engineers, architects, manufacturing,
financial institutions and nonprofits. She can be
reached at 518/956-0511 or harriet@rifkinassociates.com.
Additional retention tools include training
management at all levels in behavior inter-
9
ACEC/MA 2008– 09 Board of Directors
September 2008
NEW MEMBER
The Bhatti Group, LLC
75 Federal Street, Suite 810
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 857/350-8100
www.bhattigroup.com
Ilyas Bhatti, PE
President
ilyas@bhattigroup.com
UPCOMING EVENTS — SAVE THE DATE
ACEC National 2008 Fall Conference
The Fairmont—The Queen Elizabeth
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Oct. 19–22, 2008
ACEC/MA and CIM Dinner Program
Sheraton Needham
Oct. 29, 2008
ACEC/MA Everest Program
Equinox Resort
Manchester, Vermont
Oct. 31–Nov. 2, 2008
ACEC/MA Business Practice Forum
February 2009
Details to be announced
ACEC/MA Engineering Excellence Awards Gala
Westin Waltham
March 25, 2009
ACEC National 2009 Annual Convention
Washington, DC
April 26–29, 2009
The Engineering Center 11th Leadership Dinner
Four Seasons Hotel
Boston, MA
May 6, 2009
ACEC/MA-BSCES-MALSCE Joint 17th Annual Golf Tournament
to benefit The Engineering Center Education Trust
Shaker Hills Golf Club
Harvard, MA
June 19, 2009
Upcoming events for this fall are in planning stages. Announcements will be emailed.
Check out www.engineers.org for more information on events and to register.
PRESIDENT
James A Pappas, PE, Senior Principal
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
T: 617/226-9227, E: jim.pappas@stantec.com
PRESIDENT-ELECT
David F Young, PE, Vice President
CDM
T: 617/452-6544, E: youngdf@cdm.com
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT
Lisa A Brothers, PE, Vice President, COO
Nitsch Engineering
T: 617/338-0063, x220, E: lbrothers@nitscheng.com
VICE PRESIDENT
Mary B Hall, PE, Principal
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
T: 617/963-1001, E: mhall@gza.com
PAST-PRESIDENT
Robin S Greenleaf, PE, LEED AP, President
Architectural Engineers, Inc.
T: 617/542-0810, x102, E: rgreenleaf@arcengrs.com
TREASURER
William M Kelleher, CFO, Principal
S E A Consultants Inc.
T: 617/498-4610, E: william.kelleher@seacon.com
SECRETARY
Suzanne L. Pisano, PE
E: suz@pisanos.us
DIRECTORS
Bruce E Beverly, PE, President,CEO
Haley & Aldrich, Inc.
T: 617/886-7390, E: bbeverly@haleyaldrich.com
Dennis P. Coffey, Manager of Business Development
HNTB Corporation
T: 781/565-5905, E: dpcoffey@hntb.com
Ko Ishikura, PE, President, Principal
Green International Affiliates, Inc.
T: 978/923-0400, E: ko@greenintl.com
Brian W Lawlor, PE, LEED AP, Senior Vice President
Symmes Maini & McKee Associates
T: 617/520-9224, E: blawlor@smma.com
Richard A Moore, PE, Chairman
Tetra Tech Rizzo
T: 508/903-2318, E: rick.moore@tetratech.com
Richard F O’Brien, PE, Vice President
Parsons Brinckerhoff
T: 617/960-4919, E: obrien@pbworld.com
Stephen J. O’Neill, PE, Senior Vice President
Meridian Associates Inc.
T: 978/299-0447, x202, E: soneill@meridianassoc.com
William J Reed, PE, Sr.Vice President, Principal
Fay, Spofford & Thorndike
T: 781/221-1118, E: wreed@fstinc.com
Michael J Scipione, PE, President, CEO
Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc.
T: 978/532-1900, E: scipionm@wseinc.com
National Director
Robert Vokes
VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
T: 603/644-0888, E: bvokes@vhb.com
LEGAL COUNSEL
David J Hatem, PC
Donovan Hatem LLP
Dir T: 617/406-4800, E: dhatem@donovanhatem.com
ACEC National ExComm Key Contact
Ted C. Williams, PE
Landmark Engineering
E: ted.williams@landmarkengineering.com
TEC STAFF CONTACTS
Abbie R. Goodman, IOM, Executive Director
The Engineering Center
Dir T: 617/305-4112, E: agoodman@engineers.org
Elizabeth Tyminski, COO
The Engineering Center
Dir T: 617/305-4127, E: etyminski@engineers.org
Susan Hartman D’Olimpio, IOM
The Engineering Center
Dir T: 617/305-4111, E: sdolimpio@engineers.org
10