Características Generales

To understand the demand that is created by the construction of the CHSR network, we must introduce how the project delivery sequence influences the number and type of professionals/personnel needed over the life of the project. The entire process is predicated upon the project delivery sequence, including the following four general categories, Design, Build, Operations, and Maintenance (DBOM).

DBOM

The CHSR network will be completed in the DBOM sequence. (Note that in this context, the sequence prescribes a series of actions that need to take place, and not a procurement method.) The assumptions that inform our estimates for workforce development will be structured around this general project delivery sequence, which is representative of how most projects are accomplished temporally. For our purposes, creating a distinction among the different personnel associated with each separate grouping allows us to more easily create estimates and other data pertaining to workforce demands, based on detailed constraints that we apply.

The DBOM sequence is a method associated with industry-accepted standards regarding contracts that are created to deliver construction projects. It is used by an agency or owner for organizing and financing design, construction (build), operations, and maintenance services for a structure or facility.134 This is done through entry into legal agreements with one or more entities or parties in a process by which a construction project is comprehensively designed and constructed for an owner, including project scope definition; organization of designers, constructors, and various consultants; sequencing of design and construction operations; execution of design and construction; and closeout and start-up. Given gradual changes in procurement laws, public agencies now share the ability of their private sector counterparts to acquire construction services via alternative project delivery methods, such as construction management, design-build, and other hybrid systems. In some instances, some of these methods (e.g., design-build) may include operations and maintenance as well as multi-year warrantees in the contract. The engineering system’s integrator is engaged in the optimization of the project delivery and finance configuration at both project and system levels.135 This is recognized by the CHSRA and the CHSR Program Management Team, which have outlined various procurement methodologies generally. The Authority is currently considering a wide variety of project delivery approaches to

M i n e t a Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n I n s t i t u t e

optimize the allocation of risks. These approaches can include a range of private and public participation levels.

Project Delivery Method and the Impacts of the Procurement Selection Process

Although we identify patterns of the project delivery cycle, there are factors that impact the estimation of personnel, in the delivery method as discussed earlier. The major influencing factor is the method of procurement, which is currently being assembled by the Program Management Team. The choice of procurement methods is likely to have an impact on the discussed sequence of delivery (and indirectly, change the personnel/professional measurements accordingly), and one of the important aspects of the HSR build-out that remains undefined at this date is how the project will be allocated to stakeholders and participants. Such decisions are likely to have an impact on the estimates developed for this report. At this time, the subtleties of this factor and its impact on the potential labor force cannot be quantified for this report. Thus, we in effect hold these elements constant, in recognition that the Authority is engaging in analysis to implement the most effective bid type, and that there is existing research concerning the factors associated with the different contract bid types. Instead, we draw patterns from the existing cost structure, project delivery periods, and other factors as a means through which to accurately depict a large sample of the workforce needed, with as much detail accomplishable, to complete the representation of the CHSR network project delivery process.

The Goal of Measuring Workforce

Recognizing how the procurement method has the potential to impact our estimates of workforce needed, we accept the project delivery method of the DBOM sequences as being an acceptable method of measuring the workforce, specifically isolating and measuring each of those affiliated phase personnel/professionals, for our project. Specifically, we estimate the overall workforce required to construct the CHSR network by examining the professionals and trades persons affiliated with the activities within that sequence, with appropriate assumptions applied to observe the affiliated workers within that particular sequence.

Design Sequence

The design phase is comprised almost exclusively of professionals who hold advanced degrees and are specialists affiliated with the development, evaluation, and implementation of design schematics and drawings in engineering, managerial engineering, and related professions. They will be challenged with design and development of the complex technological HSR systems. The team is often comprised of professionals such as surveyors, civil engineers, cost engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, structural engineers, and fire protection engineers. These professionals most often hold engineering and specialized degrees. This holds true in the CHSR project’s design demographic as well, which confirms the intense involvement of engineering professionals (for the purpose of preparation of technical memorandum and schematics) as well as teams of specialists who are designated to accomplish specific specialist tasks (e.g., the compilation of NEPA/CEQA, and EIR/EIS compliance documentation).

93 Appendix A: Data and Methods

The design process involves many major engineering activities that require unique skills. One such skill is the exploration of possibilities and constraints by focusing critical thinking skills to research and define a problem. (In the case of HSR, this conceptualization is critical.) A second component to this is redefining specifications of design solutions that can lead to better guidelines for traditional design activities (better understood as systems that are designed with costs, labor, time, and other elements as central elements of the design process). A third integral process involves prototyping possible scenarios, or solutions that incrementally or significantly improve the inherited situation. (For the CHSR model, the need to adapt to political and other emerging climates that impact the build strengthens the design capacity of the Design Team for the project.) The critical element here is that the team possesses the professional skills to adjust existing engineering models to emerging and real-time complexities in the HSR project. As a result, this smaller, but elite, team of professionals will continue to play key roles as the designers of highly complex HSR systems.

Overall, the design phase of the project is a period of preparation for the procurement process, when either adopting previously deployed design methodologies and/or modifying design techniques occurs. Thus, a dynamic design team allows for both flexibility to adapt to a changing task environment and rigidity to deploy the necessary engineering and architectural framework for complex projects such as the CHSR build-out. In addition, the team must be ready to troubleshoot problems that arise as the project goes to the field, which is scheduled currently in the 2012 period.

Funding and Patterns Similar to our DBOM Cycle

A similar project delivery cycle was manifest in the funding of higher speed passenger rail (Acela) in the Northeast Corridor over a period of 20 years. After enactment of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (the 4R Act) by Congress, Amtrak became the primary owner of the railroad rights-of-way in the Northeast Corridor. The funding stream used to complete corridor upgrade can be represented as a wave cycle that was distributed over a period of 20 years, with heavy investment in the initial seven years. Figure 21 provides a visual comparison between the funding patterns for the Acela project (1978–1996) and that planned for the CHSR system (2009–2029).

For Acela, this period was labor-intensive, requiring more funding for upgrade purposes, purchasing the land associated with the Northeast Corridor development, and to refurbish/ restructure. This funding declined in the 1987 period, but again increased (presumably for maintenance) in the 1993 period. Direct comparison can be made between build-oriented activities in the corridor (1978–1996) and the project delivery cycle we have outlined. Both exhibit similar funding and cost patterns that mirror the project delivery sequence.

M i n e t a Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n I n s t i t u t e

Figure 21. Comparing Appropriations for Northeast Corridor Fiscal Years 1976–

1995,136 in Real 1995 Dollars (left), and CHSRA 2008–2029 (right), from

CHSRA Report to Legislature

EXISTING PERSONNEL MEASUREMENTS OF INFRASTRUCTURE