This document presents the results of a 2014 benchmarking study conducted by the City of Houston comparing the efficiency of its Engineering and Construction Division to other major cities. Key findings include: Houston's project completion on time was higher on average than other cities. Houston took longer on average than other cities from final design to construction start. The study recommends conducting a comprehensive benchmarking study with Texas cities and implementing electronic signatures and a contract administrator position to improve efficiency. Certain branches were excluded from analysis due to difficulties benchmarking their functions.

1. BENCHMARKING 2014
Presented by: David Canales (Student Intern II)
City of Houston
Public Works and Engineering Department
Engineering and Construction Division
1

2. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this benchmarking assignment is to gather
comparable data from other major cities in the nation, in order to
determine how well the City of Houston compares in efficiency of
these cities’ Engineering and Construction Divisions.
The goal is to determine best practices used nationwide, in order to
improve the responsiveness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the
Engineering and Construction Division.
Data from FY 2011 through FY 2014 is included in this analysis.
2

3. Cities of Comparison
Support Services Branch
 Miami-Dade, FL
 Santa Barbara, CA
 Phoenix, AZ
 Jacksonville, FL
 Dallas, TX
 San Francisco, CA
 Boston, MA
 Kansas City, MI
 Oklahoma City, OK
Engineering, Construction,
Management Branch
 San Antonio, TX
 Dallas, TX
 Arlington, TX
 Austin, TX
 Charlotte, NC
 Miami-Dade, FL
 Long Beach, CA
 San Diego, CA
 San Jose, CA
3

4. Engineering and Construction Division
Benchmarking Cost Center
Excluded from Benchmarking:
 CIP Programming (2000070006)
 Geo-Environmental Services (2000070005)
4

5. Support Services Branch (2000070001)
Measure: The percentage of 3-1-1 service request calls
completed on time (CIP related)
 November 2014 COH mandated from a 21 to 7 day turnaround for service request
calls.
 Both Miami and Santa Barbara use 30 day turnaround for service request calls.
5

6. 3-1-1 Service Requisition Comparison from FY12-14
 Houston FY 12-14 ECD: 94% passed under the old standard of 21 day turn
around.
 Average of other Cities: 88% passed.
 Houston Average after November 2014: 91% passed during FY 2014
 If the new standard was effective FY 2012: only 46% would pass.
6
94.80% 97.63% 97.00% 95.00% 93.00% 91.30%
83.00% 79.80% 78.60% 77.69%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
PercentageofTime
Cities of Comparison

7. Engineering Branch (2000070002)
Construction Branch (2000070003)
ECD Management Branch(200070004)
BenchmarkingStudy2014
Houston SanAntonio Dallas Arlington Austin Charlotte Miami Long Beach SanDiego SanJose
07/1-6/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 7/1-6/30 10/1-9/30 10/1-9/30 07/1-6/30 07/1-6/30
Engineering andConstruction
1. Timeliness ofDeliverybyProjectCompletion(Avg. %) FY(2011-2014) 97.1% 91.4% 89.9% 62.3% 99.8% 79.2% 82.3%
a. MostRecent(FY2014) 97.0% 91.1% 91.7% 76.7% 99.1% 79.1% 82.1%
b. (FY2013) 102% 96.3% 84.6% 66.0% 100% 72.6% 87.0%
c. (FY2012) 97.8% 94.0% 83.3% 83.6% 100% 86.9% 85.0%
d. (FY2011) 91.7% 84.0% 100.0% 22.8% 100% 78.0% 75.0%
2. FinalDesignto NTP Average Work Weeks for FY(2013-2014) 34.9 12.9 32.0 13.2 38.3 17.0 15.5 17.5
A. SignPlans (Mylar) to Bid Opening 13.9 4.2 10.8 6.4 23.1 7.0 7.4 4.1
B. Bid Openingto ContractAwarded 11.0 5.9 7.9 5.0 8.4 5.0 5.1 5.6
C. ContractAwarded to Notice to Proceed 10.0 2.8 13.3 1.8 6.8 5.0 3.0 7.8
3. CostofConstruction(Avg. FinalCostas a % ofBid) FY(2011-2014) 94.1% 92.7% 98.5% 89.7% 85.0% 99.7%
a. MostRecent(FY2014) 91.0% 93.8% 98.3% 92.1% 99.3%
b. (FY2013) 95.5% 93.6% 97.6% 92.6% 98.6%
c. (FY2012) 93.4% 91.0% 99.7% 89.4% 101.1%
d. (FY2011) 96.3% 92.5% 84.8% 99.7%
Unit of Analysis
Dates of Comparison
CapitalImprovement Projects ClosedFY2011-2014
7

8. Timeliness of Project Delivery
(Construction Branch)
97.1%
91.4% 89.9%
62.3%
99.8%
79.2% 82.3%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
PercentageOnTime
Cities of Comparison
 Houston Average: 97.1%  Average of Other Cities: 84.1%
 Measures: Total number of projects completed on time
from estimated completion date including change orders.
8

9. Final Cost of Construction
(Engineering Branch)
94.1%
92.7%
98.5%
89.7%
85.0%
99.7%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
95.0%
100.0%
105.0%
PercentageonTime
Cities of Comparison
 Measure: Final cost of construction as a percentage of
the contract bid amount including change orders.
 Average Houston: 94.1%  Average Other Cities: 93.2%
9

10. Timeliness from Final Design to Notice to Proceed
(EngineeringandConstructionManagementBranch)
34.9
12.9
32.0
13.2
38.3
17.0 15.5
17.5
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
AverageWeeks
Cities of Comparison
 Average Houston: 34.9 Weeks  Average Other Cities: 20.9 Weeks 10

11. Timeliness Breakdown: Sign Plans To Bid Opening
13.9
4.2
10.8
6.4
23.1
7.0 7.4
4.1
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
AverageWeeks
Cities of Cmparison
 Houston Average: 13.9 Weeks  Average Other Cities: 10.5 Weeks 11

12. Timeliness Breakdown: Bid Opening To CouncilAward
11.0
5.9
7.9
5.0
8.4
5.0 5.1
5.6
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
AverageWeeks
Cities of Comparison
 Houston Average: 11 Weeks  Average other Cities: 6.1 Weeks
12

13. Timeliness Breakdown: CouncilApprovalTo NoticeTo Proceed
10.0
2.8
13.3
1.8
6.8
5.0
3.0
7.8
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
AverageWeeks
Cities Of Comparison
 Houston Average: 10 Weeks  Average Other Cities: 5.8 Weeks 13

14. Recommendations
14

15. In State Comprehensive CIPBenchmarking Study
Instate comprehensive
Benchmarking analysis expected
results:
 Improve the accuracy of the data.
 Eliminates the alignment of
measures issue.
 Better communication between
agencies.
 Build a long term relationship
with nearby cities.
15

16. Electronic Signatures
E - Signatures will result in:
 Reduced cycle time: from Bid
Opening to Contract Award by
approximately one week.
 Lower costs: Paper, printing,
stamping, signing, scanning, faxing,
shipping, posting, and processing
time.
 Save Money: Larger firms save
hundreds of thousands a year after
adopting E - signatures.
16

17. Create Position:
ContractAdministrator
Adding this position will result in:
 Improve quality: Less errors and
more accurate contracts.
 Reduced cycle time: from Bid
Opening to Contract Award by
approximately three weeks.
 Relieve: the Project Manager from
contract duties.
EFFICIENCY
Contract focused position will allow
for time and accuracy resulting in
overall efficiency.
17

18. Challenges
Consistency: Determining and collecting
comparable data.
Cooperation: Getting comparable cities to
understand and respond.
Availability:
 Cities stopped tracking certain measurements.
 Budget cuts resulted in the removal of the
position that track this data. 18

19. Reasons for Excluding the CIPProgramming Branch
The CIP Programming Branch is not a core service.
A viable measure to compare performance has not been found,
but the quantification of CIP programs will provide a baseline
for comparing processes.
Because CIP programming is not a core service, other cities
seldom track it for benchmarking purposes.
Differences in organizational structure limit the potential to
compare CIP programming functions.
19

20. Reasons for Excluding the
Geo-Environmental Services Branch
The Geo-Environmental Branch provides technical support to the
Engineering and Design Branch and the Construction Management
Branch, but the branch neither directs nor controls any of the
processes that it supports.
Because technical support is not a core service, other cities seldom, if
ever, track those functions for benchmarking purposes.
Differences in organizational structure limit the potential to compare
technical support functions.
The Geo-Environmental Branch’s performance is counted indirectly
in the timeliness measure being utilized for the Engineering and
Design Branch.
20