Environmental Science & Engineering - www.esemag.com - November 2002
Comments? send them to the editor.

Engineering in the public sector should not take a back seat to accountants

John D. Gamble, P.Eng.
President,
Consulting Engineers of Ontario


Recently, I had a revealing conversation with a government employee regarding consultant selection processes. "So what is it that you guys actually do? Don’t you already have a design before you have the job?" His question clearly illustrated how far we have yet to go in helping some clients understand the role of consulting engineers, let alone the value that consulting engineers can add.

This is a typical (and far too common) example of professional engineering services being regarded as a commodity in the eyes of some public sector purchasing departments. It is not only demeaning to the consulting industry, it also suggests the diminished stature of in-house engineering services within government. Across the country, different governments appear to have very different levels of understanding with respect to engineering and infrastructure issues. The level of understanding can, in fact, vary quite dramatically between departments within a government.

As much as the consulting engineering industry welcomes the challenges and opportunities that arise from government outsourcing, we still want to work with knowledgeable and informed clients. It frustrates us to watch our colleagues who practise engineering in the public sector take a back seat to accountants on what should be regarded as engineering decisions.

Outsourcing should not, and need not replace the importance of in-house engineering expertise. In fact, outsourcing of engineering functions should be overseen by professional engineers who can appreciate the technical merits of engineering proposals, who understand the principles of asset management and life-cycle costing, and who recognize that upfront engineering fees are an important investment in the long-term success of the project.

As a taxpayer and a fiscal conservative, I appreciate the need for government to manage and control costs. However, lower costs do not necessarily translate into long-term value. Responsible fiscal management requires a longterm holistic view of infrastructure projects, including the engineering component. The capital assets and infrastructure designed by engineers are usually intended to have design lives exceeding 20, 30, even 50 years. Frequently the service life of capital assets, and infrastructure in particular, exceeds the design life - such as parts of the water distribution system in Toronto that exceed 100 years in age.

Unfortunately, the upfront planning and engineering decisions that will impact on the quality and value of long-term assets are usually driven by one-year fiscal budgets that are approved by elected officials concerned with three to five year mandates. As a result, engineering costs are regarded by some as being a one-time expense instead of as part of a long-term investment.

There are, however, some encouraging signs on the horizon. We are starting to hear terms such as "asset management" and "life-cycle costs" from government policy makers. Governments are coming to realize that we face an enormous infrastructure deficit as the result of short-term thinking and neglect.

If governments are serious about addressing the infrastructure deficit, they need to look beyond the ledgers and engage professionals with the necessary technical expertise to develop long-term, sustainable solutions. The public sector will need to, in part, look to the wealth of experience and expertise in the consulting engineering industry for the necessary engineering resources.

But the public sector will also require sufficient in-house engineering expertise to help it develop sound infrastructure policy and assess solutions based on value and sustainability and to look beyond the simplistic and expedient "how much will it cost me right now" credo. This in-house expertise is also necessary in order to select engineering consultants based on the qualifications and the value they offer - much more analogous to professional and human resources policies than to the typical "bottom line" procurement polices better suited to office supplies.

When dealing with capital assets and infrastructure, government policy makers need upfront professional advice and realistic solutions from the engineering community - from both the public sector and the consulting industry.

See our home page on how to order your subscription. We regret we can only accept orders from Canada and the United States.