The view from the other side: What clients look for in consulting engineers

In the linear world within which some of our projects are completed, the consultant is often the interface with the public. This means they need to be able to communicate and respond promptly to issues that may arise with the variety of stakeholders in the public realm.

Our expectations are high; we select consultants through a rigorous evaluation process. As stated earlier, in the RFP process, selection is based on the evaluation of a combination of mandatory criteria, experience, technical team competence, technical submissions and cost. While cost is important, heavy weighting is given to technical solutions and proposed methodology for project delivery, backed up by satisfactory evidence of successfully delivered previous projects.

Specifically, we look for:

• A clear understanding of scope, scale and timelines.
• Appropriate and realistic allocation of necessary staff resources by task, with specific experience and expertise.
• Assurances that designated staff are and will be assigned as stated and not overcommitted to other projects.
• Assurances that the work can be completed at a high level and delivered on budget and time.
• Confirmation that consultants delivering both linear and vertical works projects understand they are an extension of City staff, and that there may be direct interaction with the public.

For large complex projects related to major infrastructure, proposal evaluation teams are generally comprised of up to six staff from the operating division and the engineering group. A member of the purchasing department is present, and we are now incorporating the use of fairness monitors during the preparation of documentation and to attend during proposal reviews. Fairness monitors are not City employees, and as such are contracted separately.

Fairness and integrity are built into the evaluation process, and the process itself is continuously reviewed and updated. Each person on an evaluation team contributes to the overall scoring and to the ultimate selection of a preferred firm. The goal of the process is to ensure that the best proposal wins. Feedback received during post-award debriefings is used to adjust the process for future proposals.

Consultant evaluation

Consultant evaluations are conducted to help ensure they adhere to commitments made in their proposals. This ensures the City receives the expected high quality of services contracted.

There are varying degrees of satisfaction with consultant performance in the public sector today. So, a consultant evaluation process should be implemented that could lead to or justify prohibitions from submitting on future RFP calls. Some owners conduct evaluations of consultant performance following project completion. This process has been used sporadically to date. However, all major clients in the Greater Toronto Area have either implemented such a process or would like to, in response to both good and bad experiences.

A price-based selection process has resulted in consulting firm submissions that are sometimes skewed towards less experienced staff in order to be “competitively priced”. This has impacted the quality of deliverables and contributed to client angst. As with contractors, consultant evaluations will become more important in the prequalification process for future projects. More activity will be seen in this area in coming years, as consultants continue to come under scrutiny during project execution.

Owner performance and obligations

In my experience, the most successful projects have been those in which a partnership developed between the owner, engineer and contractor. All shared the common goal of completing the project on time and on budget. The key was for each party to bring to the table competent, communicative members, sharing that common goal and working in an atmosphere of trust.

As we expect our consultants to deliver projects on time and on budget, so do we have an obligation to them to assist in project initiation and delivery.

Establishing clear project timelines, scope and budgets are critical requirements to ensuring project success. Problems can arise during preparation of project scoping documents for large complex projects due to a lack of clarity. That uncertainty results in proposal submissions that can vary widely in understanding, hours proposed and fees.

This phenomenon should be a signal to owners that we are not sending a clear message to our consultants of what we want to accomplish with a particular project. Greater rigour must be applied to scoping at project inception, in consultation with operating groups, in order to capture all project elements and requirements prior to posting each assignment.

Owners must work in sync with consultants to meet project objectives by: providing clear direction in a timely fashion; processing invoices and change orders in an expeditious manner; and by taking decisions around disputes quickly. When we don’t, we are complicit in the introduction of project delays and slippage.