AEC firms more convenient, less costly
The primary reasons respondents use AEC firms fall under one or a combination of three categories: access to expertise and unique skill sets, not enough in-house staff (especially for one-time or large-scale projects), and federally funded projects that require they partner with AEC firms.
“We use them for larger projects that we don’t have the staffing for, specialty projects when we don’t have the expertise, or road projects using federal funding due to the processes involved,” explains a Midwest public works director whose department spent $200,000 to $300,000 over the last year.
Also, one respondent mentioned that AEC firms can bring newer technologies to a project, and a few more respondents use firms for an added level of accountability.
“If you have a consultant, you have someone to blame failure on,” says one survey-taker.
Cost and convenience underlie the above justifications. Farming out highly technical work expedites completion when faced with tight construction deadlines. Outsourcing eliminates the overhead associated with employees.
“It’s easier to hire consultants than to obtain budget approval for additional staff,” says a respondent from the Southwest whose department spends more than $1 million on AEC services.
Another respondent, whose department plans to use consultants more in the coming year, explains how outsourcing eases the ebb and flow of staffing needs.
“As capital improvements ramp up, more services will be needed. When the projects end, those services won’t be needed. In-house expertise would entail a long hiring process and then layoffs, which are very taxing to the organization.”
As more funding becomes available in a strengthening economy — but not enough to bring the public-sector workforce back to pre-recession levels — we expect to see public agencies rely more heavily on consultants in the coming years.
Victoria K. Sicaras is a freelance writer based in Countryside, Ill. E-mail vsicaras@yahoo.com.
