r-396 (1/1/87) - virginia department of transportation - · pdf fileform r-396 (1/1/87)...
TRANSCRIPT
Form R-396 (1/1/87)Standard Title Page -- Report on State Project
Report No. Report Date No. Pages Type Report: Final Project No. : 9342-030-940
VTRC 90R14
February1990
57 Period Covered:10/1/86 - 1/1/90
Contract No.:
Title and Subtitle
Final Report - Construction Manpower ~~nagement System
Author(s)c. S. Hughes and R. R. Long, Jr.
Performing Organization Name and Address
Virginia Transportation Research CouncilBox 3817, University StationCharlottesville, Virginia 22903-0817
Sponsoring Agencies' Names and AddressesVa. Dept. of Transportation University of Virginia1221 E. Broad Street CharlottesvilleRichmond, Virginia 23219 Virginia 22903
Supplementary Notes
Abstract
I{ey Words
Construction r1anagementConstruction ManpowerInspection Manpower
This report traces the development of and explains the operation of aConstruction Manpower Management System (CMMS) developed for the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDOT). Initial direction for this project wasreceived from the Construction Engineering Manpower Management System PooledFund Study and a study performed for VDOT by Price Vaterhouse and RoyJorgensen Associates, Inc. Technical input was received from a projectsteering committee consisting of VDOT engineers, inspectors, andadministrators.
This system has been tailored to the specific needs of VDOT andprovides projections of construction inspection staffing needs for both theshort-term (the next 18 to 24 months) and the long-term (the next 6 years).The short-term projections are very accurate and appear quite adequate foruse as a manpower staffing tool and for VDOT presentations to the GeneralAssembly. As anticipated, the long-term projections, which are based onless certain project schedules in years 4 to 6, are not as accurate as thosein the short-term. Thus, little use of long-term estimates are anticipatedfor planning purposes at this time.
1634
FINAL REPORT
CONSTRUCTION MANPOVER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
C. S. HughesSenior Research Scientist
and
R. R. Long, Jr.Research Scientist
(The opInIons, findings, and conclusions expressed in thisreport are those of the authors and not necessarily those of
the sponsoring agencies.)
Virginia Transportation Research Council(A Cooperative Organization Sponsored Jointly by the
Virginia Department of Transportationand the University of Virginia)
Charlottesville, Virginia
February 1990
VTRC 90-R14
163'5
163~
SUMMARY
This report traces the development of and explains the operation of aConstruction Manpower Management System (CMMS) developed for the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDOT). Initial direction for this project wasreceived from the Construction Engineering Manpower Management System PooledFund Study and a study performed for VDOT by Price Vaterhouse and RoyJorgensen Associates, Inc. Technical input was received from a projectsteering committee consisting of VDOT engineers, inspectors, andadministrators.
This system has been tailored to the specific needs of VDOT andprovides projections of construction inspection staffing needs for both theshort-term (the next 18 to 24 months) and the long-term (the next 6 years).The short-term projections are very accurate and appear quite adequate foruse as a manpower staffing tool and for VDOT presentations to the GeneralAssembly. As anticipated, the long-term projections, which are based onless certain project schedules in years 4 to 6, are not as accurate as thosein the short-term. Thus, little use of long-term estimates are anticipatedfor planning purposes at this time.
1638
163!'}
FINAL REPORT
CONSTRUCTION MANPOYER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
C. S. HughesSenior Research Scientist
and
R.· R. Long, Jr.Research Scientist
INTRODUCTION
The VDOT recognized a need to develop an effective, systematic, andmanagerially defensible method to assess and project the needed levels ofstaff for construction inspection. Accurate estimates of the numbers ofinspectors needed are essential to maintaining a high quality constructionprogram for the Commonwealth. The preliminary task in addressing this needwas to contract with Price Yaterhouse and Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. toevaluate the current practices for the management of construction manpowerand to outline a design for an effective Construction Manpower ManagementSystem (CMMS). This evaluation resulted in a final report dated June 1986(1). The report concluded that the Department's existing method ofdetermining inspection needs, which is primarily based on constructiondollars, is inadequate.
The VDOT administration agreed with the conclusion but believed that anin-house study would be a better way of incorporating the constructionmanagement expertise of the Department's engineers. Furthermore, thedecision was made that the Research Council should spearhead the effort todevelop and implement a CMMS, the urgency of which is dictated by therecord-breaking construction seasons now being faced.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this project was to develop a CMMS using the generaldesign proposed by Price Yaterhouse and Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. as aguide. The CHMS was tailored to the specific needs of the Department; itcontains projections for both long- and short-term manpower needs. Thelong-term needs are primarily for manpower planning, whereas the short-termprojections should be helpful in staffing. Inspection activities includeall activities that occupy an inspector's time (with the exception ofpermits and subdivision work) and thus include all maintenance inspectionactivities as well as those included in construction project inspection.
The CMMS should provide the administration with a defensible manpowerestimate that would be available to support projections made, for example,to the legislature. But primarily, it was designed to be a planning toolfor both the Central Office and the districts. Upon implementing the systemand comparing the estimated needs with actual needs, the potential exists touse the system as a staffing tool.
The primary requisites for the development of the system were theestablishment of an interface with existing automated systems, themaximization of the use of these systems, and the minimization of additionalpaper work and the requirements for new information.
It was decided early, that the project would address engineeringmatters, and that policy decisions related to the use of the results werebeyond the scope of the project.
APPROACH
Organization
The authors acted as project managers to coordinate the collection ofinformation available in the Central Office and districts. The NationalPooled Fund Study "Development of a Construction Engineering ManpowerManagement System" (CEMM) (2) recommended that the required technicalinformation and guidance be-supplied by a steering committee specificallyestablished
o to review and approve the work plano to monitor progresso to provide technical inputo to review system developmentso to coordinate implementation efforts, ando to act on all matters requiring policy-level decisions.
The committee as appointed in October 1986 consisted of the followingpersons:
o C. B. Perry II, Northern Virginia District Engineer, Chairmano J. L. Corley, Bristol District Engineero V. R. Davidson, Lynchburg District Engineero E. E. Hull, Northern Virginia Assistant District Engineero J. C. Cleveland, Suffolk Assistant District Engineero C. F. Gee, Central Office, Assistant Construction Engineer,
Construction Divisiono R. L. Fink, Central Office, Assistant Maintenance Engineer,
Maintenance Divisiono D. C. Morrison, Richmond District, Chesterfield Resident Engineero F. C. Altizer, Jr., Salem District, Salem Resident Engineero G. G. Fahnestock, Culpeper District, Project Engineer
2
1641
o T. H. Sutherland, Jr., Fredericksburg District, Project Engineero T. A. Chrisman, Staunton District, Project Engineero C. H. Vray, Richmond District, Inspector Bo J. T. Coe, Bristol District, Inspector Bo K. V. Vester, Central Office, Assistant Division Administrator,
Management Services Divisiono V. B. Ranson, Jr., Central Office, Human Resource Planning
Supervisor, Personnel Divisiono H. G. Allen, Central Office, Technical Services Manager,
Information Systemso v. C. Mitterer, Central Office, Systems Development Manager,
Information Systems.
Although not officially members of the committee, three individualsattended several meetings and were instrumental in providing technicalinformation and/or system development. They are
o R. C. Edwards, Construction Divisiono C. B. Causey, Jr., Information Systemso Joe Dubreuil, Information Systems.
The study began by analyzing the Price Yaterhouse and Roy JorgensenAssociates, Inc. report and the CEMM. Both reports were very helpful inproviding direction for the CMMS.
The project began with the consideration of the following activities,which will be discussed in greater detail in the next section:
1. identification of all activities requiring inspection time2. description of all inspection activities using the Phase Inspection
Guideline as a starting point3. identification of all project types4. definition and determination of work units within each project type5. determination of typical quantities by project type6. development of staffing guidelines for each inspection activity.
These items form the basis for determining manpower planningfor each project.
The system was intended to provide a reasonable degree of accuracy andbe based on the best contract -information available.
Items Nos. 1 through 4 were determined using the Department's existingpractices, such as the Phase Inspection Guidelines or the expertise of theCMMS Steering Committee. However, for item No.5 it became apparent thatthere were two different ways of obtaining information. The most accuratewas the Construction Division's E03 system, which contains quantitative
3
164~
estimates of all construction items by project. These are estimatedcontract bid quantities and are only available for projects that are to beadvertised in the next 18 to 24 months. Since the CMMS needs manpowerestimates for a period exceeding 24 months, it was decided that for·long-term projected quantities, average quantities should be determined byproject type based on E03 historical records, which contain final payquantities and thus are quite accurate. Furthermore, it ,was decided thatthe Program/Project Management System (PPMS) would be the device foridentifying projects that are in the planning stage, and it would thereforedefine long-term needs for the next 6 years.
THE CONSTRUCTION MANPOVER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Standard Project Types
The CEMH system design manual (2) recommends that the number ofcontract types used should be the minimum number needed to distinguishcontracts according to type of construction and contract characteristicswhich produce similar staffing requirements. General guidelines fordetermining the number of contract types needed were also recommended by theCEHH. The contract types chosen should represent approximately 75 percentof the number of contracts and 90 percent of the dollars in the constructionprogram. Other state's construction management programs were reviewed, andthe number of project types varied from 5 for Vest Virginia to 23 for NorthDakota (3). The premise used in this study was that the number of projecttypes should be sufficient to describe the types of construction activitiesbeing conducted but be as few as possible so as not to complicate thesystem.
The Construction Division analyzed the types of projects over the lastthree years and provided the distribution of projects and money shown inTable 1.
Table 1
Distribution of Contract Types
ConstructionBridge - New ConstructionBridge - ReconstructionResurfacingVideningMiscellaneousSafety
Total
Percent Projects
46.2
14.7
18.47.06.86.9
100.0
4
Percent Honey
56.0
22.4
8.45.14.23.9
100.0
1643
The cumulative distribution indicates that New Construction, Bridge,Resurfacing, and Videning account for more than 90 percent of the moneyspent, and New Construction, Bridge, and Resurfacing account for more than75 percent of the projects. Therefore, based on the criteria used in theCEHH system, Miscellaneous and Safety could be deleted as types of projects.However, it was the opinion of the steering committee that the CMMS would bemore accurate if Safety were retained as a type of project. Vith theaddition of Safety, over 93· percent of the projects and 96 percent of thecontract money is covered. The use of a category called Unique wasconsidered to take care of unusual projects such as a bridge-tunnel, but thecommittee fel.t that these projects occur so infrequently that they would bebetter planned for and staffed separately from the normal system. The finaldefinitions for types of standard projects are as follows:
1. Construction (C). New construction of or additions to divided orundivided highways. Also, the removal and replacement or reconstructing orupgrading of an exis~ing facility. May include short relocations. Includeswidening equivalent to one lane width or wider. Includes all major phasesof construction--site prepar~tion, earthwork, drainage, and paving. Minoritems such as signing, landscaping, and guardrail are included unless theyare in separate specialty contracts.
2. Videning and Resurfacing (V & R). Videning and resurfacing ofexisting highway facilities when the total added width is equivalent to lessthan one lane width and grades are not changed. Includes minor grading,extending culverts, etc.
3. Safety (5). Placement or replacement of guardrail, signs,lighting, traffic signals, and other safety and traffic control devices whenlet on a specialty contract basis. Includes intersection improvements andminor construction or reconstruction of streets or highways. Normallyincludes some item removal, grading, drainage, and paving.
4. Bridge New Construction (B.N.C.). Includes complete structures.(Manpower requirements determined by standards staffing for each bridgeoccurrence by highway system.)
5. Bridge Reconstruction (B.R.C.). Includes structures when decks arereplaced on existing substructures or decks are widened and substructuresextended. (Manpower requirements determined by standard staffing for eachbridge occurrence by highway system.)
6. Maintenance. Overlaying existing roads with hot mix, surfacetreatment, slurry seal, or cold mix. Includes bridge repair and painting,guardrail, pavement marking, concrete repair, sidewalk, curb, and gutterconstruction let as maintenance contracts. Manpower requirements includedas a baseline value with estimated annual increases. (Although this is notstaffed per project, as mentioned previously, the steering committee felt itneeded to be accommodated by the system.)
5
-1644Inspectable Items
The inspectable items were obtained from the Department's PhaseInspection Guideline list, which was expanded by the steering committee.The expanded list of inspectable items is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Expanded List of Inspectable Items
1. Mobilization2. Clearing and grubbing3. Pipes, culverts, and storm drains4. Excavation and embankment5. Undercut excavation6. Soil stabilization - lime and cement7. Application of select material subbase course and aggregate base
course8. Cement stabilized aggregate subbase and base course9. Bituminous surface treatment prime coat and seal coat
10. Slurry seal11. Bituminous concrete pavement12. Slip form continuously reinforced portland cement concrete pavement
*13. Placement of jointed, reinforced portland cement concrete pavement*14. Milling - asphalt*15. Grinding - PCC*16. Patching - PCC*17. Slab stabilization*18. Adding edge drains*19. Shoulder repair*20. Box culverts
21. Incidental concrete items - drop inlets, manholes, junction boxes,intake boxes, spring boxes, paved ditches, sidewalks, steps, medianbarriers, etc.
22. Incidental construction items23. Roadside development - topsoil and seeding24. Bridges and structures and substructures25. Bridges and structures and superstructures26. Traffic signs27. Overhead traffic signs28. Signalization
*Items added to the Phase Inspection Guideline list
As the steering committee developed work units and staffing guidelinesto use with the inspectable items, it became clear that this list was toodetailed to be efficient. Thus the inspectable items were reduced to the 11shown in Table 3.
6
Table 3
Finalized List of Inspectable Items
Items
1. Lump Sum Earthwork2. Earthwork
3. Pipes4. Select Material, Aggregate, or
Cement Stabilized Subbase andBase Course
5. Surface Coursesa. Surface Treatmentb. Portland Cement Concrete Pavementc. Bituminous Concrete Pavement
6. Box Culverts7. Drop Inlets8. Incidental Construction Items
9. Bridges and Structures (Substructuresand Superstructures)
10. Environmental
11. York Zone Safety
Subtopics
Clearing and GrubbingExcavation and EmbankmentUndercut Excavation
Includes Topsoil andSeeding, Edgedrains, &Shoulder Repair
Erosion and SiltationControl
Traffic Maintenance, TrafficControl Devices, YorkerSafety
York Units and Staffing Guidelines
A work unit is defined, in this project, as a quantity of work for agiven inspectable item that can be inspected in one-half to two days. Yorkunits are in the unit of measure used in contract bid tabulations, e.g.,Earthwork is in cubic yards. For many inspectable items, subtopics usevarying work units, and these were combined for the system to functionproperly. For example, Earthwork includes clearing and grubbing (acres),excavation and embankment (cubic yards), and undercut excavation (cubicyards). Therefore, it became important when selecting the staffingguidelines, i.e., the number of man-hours necessary to inspect the workunits, to include all the inspection activities covered in the inspectableitem.
Teams were selected from the steering committee to develop work unitsand staffing guidelines for each inspectable item. An example of theassumptions and logic used to develop staffing guidelines is shown forBridges and Structures in Appendix A. Each team presented its estimate ofthe staffing guideline to the entire steering committee to obtain comments
7
before finalizing the values. Table 4 shows the resultant work unit andstaffing guidelines for each inspectable item.
Table 4
Inspectable Items, York Units, and Staffing Guidelines
Inspectable Item York Unit Staffing Guideline
1. Lump Sum Earthwork Per mile of 120.0 Han-hoursproject
2. Earthwork 10,000 cu yds 8.0 Man-hours3. Pipes 50 ft installed 6.0 Han-hours4. Select Material, Aggregate, or
Cement Stabilized Subbase andBase Course 600 tons 8.0 Han-hours
Sa. Surface Treatment 170 tons 8.0 Man-hoursb. Portland Cement Concrete
Pavement 1,000 sq yds 5.0 Han-hoursc. Bituminous Concrete Pavement 500 tons 14.0 Man-hours6. Box Culverts 50 cu yds 16.0 Man-hours7. Drop Inlets 5 inlets 12.0 Man-hours8. Incidental Construction Items Per mile of 150.0 Man-hours
project9. Bridges & Structures (Substructures
and Superstructures) 5 cu yds 8.0 Man-hours10. Environmental 100 lin ft 24.0 Man-hours
of barriers11. York Zone Safety 60 group II 10.0 Han-hours
barricade-days
Since all inspectable items do not occur on all project types, adistribution of inspectable items by project type was necessary. Again,using the steering committee's expertise, the inspectable items are shown inTable 5 for each project type. Bridge New Construction and Reconstructionuse only the inspectable item Bridges and Structures.
It became obvious that the inspectable items, work units, and staffingguidelines listed in Table 4 did not address several inspection functions.Administration functions such as maintaining a project diary, record-keepingfor a myriad of programs, training, travel to the residency office, etc.were not included. The committee decided that a conservative estimate of aninspector's time required to accomplish these functions is 15 percent.Therefore, this value was used as an additive factor when establishingmanpower values for a project.
8
Table 5
Inspectable Items/Standard Project Type(Numbers Refer to Inspectable Items List)
STANDARD PROJECT
ConstructionPlant Mix
Earthwork (EV)Pipes (P)Select Material (SM)Surface Treatment (ST)Bituminous Pavement (BP)Drop Inlets (01)Incidental Construction (IC)Environmental (ENV)York Zone Safety (YZS)
Surface Treatment
(EV)(P)(SM)(ST)(IC)(ENV)(YZS)
Videning andResurfacing
(EY)(P)(SM)(ST)(BP)(IC)(ENV)(YZS)
Safety
(EY)(P)(SM)(ST)(BP)(01)(Ie)(ENV)(YZS)
NOTE: Not all inspectable items in Table 4 occur in this table. Thoseitems not included are used in the short-term staffing assessment.
Modifiers
It became clear when establishing staffing guidelines, that typicalvalues for inspectable items were not typical in some locations and undersome construction conditions. ---
One of the ways recommended by the CEMM to address out-of-the-ordinarycontract characteristics was to use modifiers to the staffing guidelines,usually to increase the man-hours of inspection required by the unusualcharacteristics. The steering committee decided that modifiers were theproper way of taking into consideration these anomalous situations.Therefore, the committee developed a list of modifiers that would apply tocertain inspectable items under certain construction conditions. This listof modifiers is shown in Table 6.
9
1648Table 6
Modifiers
Modifier Applies To Factor
Mountains Lump Sum Earthwork, 2.0Earthwork, Pipe, BoxCulverts, Drop Inlets,and Environmental
Vetlands Lump Sum Earthwork 1.5and Earthwork
Vetlands Environmental 2.0Subgrade Lump Sum Earthwork 1.25Stabilization and Earthwork
Semiurban All 1.5Urban All 2.0
The modifiers are applied in both the short-term and the long-term to acity or county if they have been described as having mountainous terrain,wetlands, soils requiring subgrade stabilization and/or urban conditions.(NOTE: Semiurban and urban designations were determined by populationdensity for a given location.) There are instances where modifiers must becombined, and the decision was made that they should be additive. Forexample, the staffing guideline for the inspectable item Earthwork inVirginia Beach would be determined as follows:
Characteristic
Vet landsSubgrade stabilizationUrban construction
Modifier Factor
1.501.25
+ 2.00
Total modifier factor for Earthwork at Virginia Beach: 4.75
The full table of modifiers is in Table 5 of Appendix B.
Maintenance
There are many inspection activities included under Maintenance.However, these activities are relatively constant, and thus the estimate ofmanpower needs for these activities was judged to be best estimated by usinga base-line manpower estimate with an annual percentage increase. Theactivities that require inspection under maintenance contracts are:
o plant mix resurfacingo surface treatment (chip seal) resurfacingo slurry seal application
10
164~J
o cold mix placemento pavement markingo maintenance restorationo bridge repairo sidewalk repairo curb and gutter repairo coal severance resurfacingo revenue sharing activitieso airport, industrial, and recreational access construction.
In order to determine the anticipated needs for these activities, itwas deemed reasonable to use recent and anticipated inspection usage. Thus,the districts were asked to provide the number of man-hours used for theabove mentioned activities for 1986 and an estimated annual increase inman-hours for the same activities during the next three years. The data arepresented in Tabl~ 7.
Table 7
Maintenance Manpower Requirements by District
BristolSalemLynchburgRichmondSuffolkFredericksburgCulpeperStauntonNorthern Virginia
Total
Present Usage,Man-hr/yr
51,75419,05011,41628,75333,45920,86419,62418,82765,170
268,917
Anticipated Annual Increases,Man-hr/yr
9,6202,860
5704,8301,8403,340
o3,1701,440
27,670
The estimated annual increase was calculated to be 10.3 percent of thepresent usage. Based on the experience of Central Office administrators andthe steering committee, this figure was judged to be too high, and anincrease of 5 percent annually for each the next three years was decidedupon for the CMHS.
Contract Quantities
As stated earlier, in the analysis of short-term manpower needs,contract bid quantities are available on a project basis from estimatesavailable in the Construction Division's E03 system. However, for long-termmanpower needs, PPMS, which contains projects in the Department's six-year
11
plan, has no quantities, only general descriptive data such as type ofconstruction, length, etc. It was decided that for projects in PPMS, eachinspectable item would have an assigned typical quantity based on theaverage quantity obtained from recent pay quantities obtained from theConstruction Division. For these quantities to be of use, they had to bedetermined in relation to the inspectable items/project type (see Table 5).Therefore, for example, the typical (average) quantity of earthwork wasdetermined as follows:
Project Type
Construction - Plant MixConstruction - Surface TreatmentYidening and ResurfacingSafety
Typical Quantity/Hi (Cu Yds)
38,31220,19123,33126,392
NOTE: The typical quantities shown above were those originallydeveloped through the E03 system, and, as will~be discussed later, theywere modified for use in the proposed system.
Manpower Planning Value
The' manpower planning values (MPV) for each project are easilydetermined by (1) dividing each inspectable item quantity by the appropriatework unit and then multiplying by its staffing guideline, (2) summing thesevalues for all applicable inspectable items, and (3) multiplying by thelength. An example of this calculation is shown in Table 8.
12
Tab
le8
MPV
Sam
ple
Cal
cula
tio
n
Pro
ject
Typ
e:C
on
stru
ctio
n-
Su
rfac
eT
reat
men
tL
engt
h:0
.7M
i.L
ocat
ion:
Jam
esC
ity
Cou
nty
Mo
dif
iers
:S
ubgr
ade
stab
iliz
ati
on
,w
etla
nd
s,an
dse
miu
rban
Insp
.It
em*
Sta
ndar
dQ
uant
ity*
*(p
erm
ile)
Yor
kU
nit*
*S
taff
ing
Gui
deli
ne**
Hod
ifie
r**
(man
-hou
rs)
HP
V/I
.I.
(per
mil
EV48
67.3
5cu
yds
-10
00x
8.0
0x
4.25
=16
5.49
PI
945.
66ft
inst
all
ed
-50
x6
.00
x1
.50
=17
0.22
......
SM57
25.2
6to
ns-
600
x8
.00
x1
.50
=11
4.51
wST
446.
94to
ns-
170
x8
.00
x1
.50
=31
.55
IC1
.00
per
mil
e-
1x
150.
00x
1.5
0=
225.
00EV
8.87
lin
ear
fto
fb
arr
iers
_10
0x
24.0
0x
3.5
0=
7.45
VZ
1201
.99
grou
pII
bar
rica
de
_60
x10
.00
x1
.50
=30
0.50
days
-
HPV
/mi
1014
.72
Adm
in.
x1
.15
-M
PV/m
i11
66.9
3L
engt
hx
0.7
To
tal
MPV
816.
85*F
rom
Tab
le5
**Fr
omT
able
4o
fA
ppen
dix
B
~ 0)
CJl~
Bridges
Establishing MPVs for Bridge New Construction and Reconstructionpresented a challenge. As mentioned earlier, the steering committee feltthat the inspectable item, structures and substructures, was sufficientlyencompassing to be the only one needed to describe the inspection activitiesfor this project type (see Appendix A). Also, because the 6-year plan doesnot include bridge lengths, a standard quantity had to be developed that wasindependent of length. On the other hand, the committee felt that bridgework differed sufficiently on the interstate and primary system as comparedto the secondary system that the MPVs developed should be different for thesecondary system. Therefore, MPVs were determined for Bridge NewConstruction on the interstate and primary systems to be 2,000 man-hours perbridge and on the secondary system to be 600 man-hours per bridge. Thecommittee further concluded that for Bridge Reconstruction, an MPV was onlyneeded on the primary and interstate system, and this value was calculatedto be 625 man-hours. For secondary Bridge Reconstruction, it was concludedthat most of this work should be done under the maintenance replacementactivity; thus, this would be addressed under the maintenance base-linevalue.
Bridges do occur on project types other than Bridge New Constructionand Bridge Reconstruction. Construction projects sometimes include bridges,and Videning and Resurfacing occasionally include bridges. The committeefelt that these projects needed the same additional staffing per bridge. Soa construction project with a bridge would be staffed according to theConstruction MPV plus the appropriate Bridge New Construction MPV. Bridgeson other project types would be staffed with the project MPV plus theappropriate Bridge Reconstruction MPV. A complete list of Bridge MPVs arein Table 9.
Table 9
Bridge MPVs
Project TypeHPVs - Man-hours
Primary/Interstate Secondary
Construction - Plant MixConstruction - Surface TreatmentVidening and ResurfacingSafetyBridge New ConstructionBridge Reconstruction
MPV Accumulation
2000
625625
2000625
600600
600
Accumulating MPVs for a given time frame was not as simple as firstimagined. MPVs cannot simply be added because this does not take intoconsideration scheduling. The anticipated project start date and duration
14
must be determined along with MPV to determine how many MPVs are needed in ageographical area for any given month.
The first assumption that had to be made concerned the project startingdate. This was estimated to be 10 weeks after the advertisement date. Thenext information needed was an estimate of project duration based oncontract type and highway system. To get this information, the assistantdistrict engineers for construction were polled on their experience as tohow long various project types took for completion. This information waspresented to the steering committee, which recommended a few changesresulting in the duration estimates in Table 10.
Table 10
Project Duration, Months
Construction Y&RS.T. P.M.
Rural 10 18 18Rural with Bridge 12 21 21Urban 24 24 21Urban with Bridge 30 30 24
B.N.C.
12
15
B.R.C.
12
15
Safety
12
15
The starting date and duration are used in combination with the projectMPVs to determine the accumulated MPVs necessary by residency as shown inFigure 1. The calculation requires the following steps.
1. Accumulate MPVs (including administration) by project (see Table 8).
2. Apportion MPVs by project by month within a calendar year withthe starting date being 10 weeks after the advertisement date andthe duration according to Table 10.
3. Accumulate MPV/yr by project including maintenance for eachresidency and district (Figure 1).
Full Time Equivalent
The committee deliberated a great deal over the proper way to convertfrom MPVs (man-hours) to full-time equivalents (FTEs). Several figuresranging from 1,832 to 2,288 have been used. The committee concluded thatCMMS should use the same conversion as used by Department-wide staff planningto convert man-hours to FTEs, which currently is 1,832. This figure does notinclude overtime.
15
87
CALENDAR YEAR
88 89 90 91
·I• I··I··II
entoW...,oa:D.
>ozwc-enwa:
JFMAMJJASOND
MPV/VR (Const.)
MPV/VR (Maint.)
TOTAL MPV
13200
3600
16800
19435
3780
23215
18225
3960
32185
Numbers above time line refer to the MPVs divided by project duration.Numbers below time line refer to the apportioned MPV by calendar year.Numbers at end of time line are prorated months of project duration.
Figure 1. Determination of accumulated man-hours by residency.
16
1655
SYSTEM OPERATION
Using the components of the conceptual design as discussed in theprevious section, the actual conversion of project listings to manpower needscan be explained. Figure 2 shows a very basic flowchart for the system'soperation in both the long- and short-term. For a more detailed descriptionof the system operation refer to Appendix B.
Long-Term
For the long-term, projects are taken one-by-one from PPHS and screened.Projects not meeting certain criteria such as valid starting dates orappropriate status classification are omitted and the remaining projects arestaffed. An accepted project is classified by type as one of the standardproject types. Based on the project type, a standard set of inspectableitems and item quantities per mile is assigned. The actual project lengthcontained in PPHS is then used to calculate the total item quantities. Thenumber of work units are then derived from these totals. The location of theproject along with the staffing guidelines dictate the set of modifiers usedto determine the total MPV for a given project. (Refer to Table 8 for asample MPV calculation.) .
Short-Term
For the short-term, projects are taken one-by-one from PPHS and screenedusing the same criteria used for the long-term, except the time period isonly two years. Since a specific project is staffed based on the occurrencesand quantities of inspectable items, project type is of no consequence to MPVcalculation for the short-term. E03 quantities are converted to CHMS itemquantities and staffed by using the same work units, modifiers, and staffingguidelines that are used for the long-term.
FTE Distribution
Once MPVs have been calculated for all appropriate projects, they areconverted to FTEs, sorted by district and residency, and distributed andaccumulated according to project duration. Obviously, the short-term numbersshould be more accurate since specific projects are staffed by actual itemquantity occurrence. Although the occurrence of items may be the same forthe long- and short-term, they may not be; even if they are the same, therecan still be considerable difference in the quantities of the items.Unfortunately, since there are no specific quantity estimates available foruse in the long-term, the only feasible approach to obtain these data was touse standard project types with standard inspection items to determineaverage item quantities per mile.
17
1656
SPECI~~~OJECT
s~;~lbINSPE~TO':}9~::[ITEMS
-. .:-.-:-:
ITEM :~ftfl'T'ES
MANPOWERPLANNING VALUE
MANPOWERPLANNING VALUE
Figure 2. CHMS flowchart.
18
1657
O~P~S
Printouts
Hard copies of both the short-term and long-term estimates are providedby residency and district by year: short-term for the present and the nextcalendar year, and long-term for the present and the next five calendaryears.
Delivery of Printouts
The steering committee decided that the listed printouts should be sentto the following offices.
CommissionerChief EngineerConstruction EngineerDistrictsResidency
Scheduling of Printouts
Statewide and district totalsStatewide and district totalsStatewide, district, and residency totalsDistrict and residency within district totalsResidency totals
The Construction Division with input from the assistant districtengineers for construction agreed that printouts would be needed three timesa year, in April, September, and November. The April printout will allowthem to assess their immediate needs as the construction season begins. TheSeptember printout will allow them a chance to check the system to see if theestimated FTE needs from the CMMS agree with their estimates and provide timefor updates, corrections, etc. before the November printout, which would beused primarily for estimates of required staffing for the next calendar year.This printout would also be the primary one for the Construction Division touse in discussions with the administration.
RESULTS
Long-term
An example of the long-term estimate over the next six years is shown inTable 11. Two results are obvious. First, a comparison between FTEs forlong-term (Table 11) and short-term (Table 12) show that the long-termunderestimate the short-term by about 35 percent. This is a disturbingresult. It is caused by the difference in quantities and the occurrence ofinspectable items used in the two parts of the system. For the short-term,actual bid quantities per project are used; whereas, for the long-term a setof average, typically occurring quantities must be used. In a detailed
19
,1658
analysis of the discrepancy in FTEs, it was found that 39 of the 45residencies had short-term and long-term estimates reasonably close. Theprimary source of the difference was found in six residencies, all of whichadministered construction contracts in urban areas. This led to theconclusion that the average quantities used for the long-term wereunderestimated for urban construction.
Table 11
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of TransportationConstruction Manpower Management System (Long-Term)
Projected Construction Inspector Manpower Needs (FTE)By VDOT District and Calendar Year
Calendar Year
District 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994--Northern Va. 145.6 173.0 130.4 98.9 137.4 101.1Bristol 119.0 154.7 149.2 133.7 110~3 115.2Salem 122.8 140.5 116.3 93.3 90.5 82.9Lynchburg 60.0 65.3 69.5 70.6 64.8 51.6Richmond 175.1 160.0 143.7 171.1 154.5 121.5Suffolk 129.8 182.4 195.2 208.6 172.6 124.7Fredericksburg 53.6 64.0 51.2 48.7 47.2 42.2
·Culpeper 29.9 37.3 45.9 44.5 47.7 38.1Staunton 77.3 90.5 79.8 85.8 67.0 59.6
State Totals 913.2 1,067.8 981.3 955.2 891.9 737.0
20
Tab
le12
Com
mon
wea
ltho
fV
irg
inia
,D
epar
tmen
to
fT
ran
spo
rtat
ion
Co
nst
ruct
ion
Man
pow
erM
anag
emen
tS
yste
m(S
hort
-Ter
m)
Pro
ject
edC
on
stru
ctio
nIn
spec
tor
Man
pow
erN
eeds
(FT
E)
ByVD
OTD
istr
ict
and
Cal
enda
rY
ear
Cal
enda
rY
ear
1989
Dis
tric
tJa
nF
ebH
arA
prH
ayJu
n)u
1A
UL
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
To
tal
Nor
ther
nV
a18
3.0
196.
122
9.4
240.
523
1.6
252.
125
1.9
254.
825
5.0
256.
825
7.0
264.
62
39
.9.
Bri
sto
l11
4.0
121.
812
1.7
120.
112
8.2
134.
412
7.3
127.
413
2.3
147.
015
0.1
146.
613
1.0
Sale
m14
0.9
138.
214
6.0
156.
415
7.5
151.
415
8.0
164.
416
9.2
208.
421
1.8
202.
816
1.6
tvL
ynch
burg
47.0
49.4
53.3
50
.250
.65
0.6
55
.25
4.0
54
.07
1.0
73.9
74.2
57
.0.....
Ric
hmon
d28
5.3
282.
429
3.9
284.
528
7.9
291.
829
4.8
293.
327
4.1
303.
330
9.7
303.
529
2.0
Su
ffo
lk21
6.2
216.
521
4.8
258.
824
1.2
239.
924
0.2
244.
623
9.1
252.
525
3.3
266.
824
0.3
Fre
der
ick
sbu
rg41
.541
.941
.651
.152
.75
4.2
55
.456
.15
6.4
63.5
64.3
63
.053
.5C
ulpe
per
30.8
30.8
34.3
32.2
37.7
37
.83
4.8
32.5
31
.530
.43
1.0
29.8
32.8
Sta
unto
n50
.652
.555
.758
.57
0.4
72.2
79.1
78.8
71.1
88.8
91.8
93
.072
.4
Sta
teT
ota
ls1
,10
9.3
1,1
29
.61
,19
0.7
1,2
52
.91
,26
3.9
1,2
90
.51
,29
6.8
1,3
05
.81
,28
9.3
1,4
21
.61
,44
3.0
1,4
44
.41
,28
6.5
~ OJ
CJ1
......~
16 fl ()
To determine the effect of urbanization on the typical quantities, twonew sets of quantities were generated that separated urban from otherprojects using the classifications given in the modifier table (Table 5 inAppendix B). Using these estimates of quantities, another computer run wasmade and these results were compared to the originally determined standardquantity results.
Table 13 shows the weighted percent difference between short-term andlong-term manpower estimates for standard quantities for all projects andfor quantities separated by urban/nonurban. The percent listed for eachdistrict is based on the proportion of the total statewide difference thatthat district contributes.
Table 13
Contract Quantities based on Standard andUrban/Nonurban, Veigh ted % Difference'
District Standard Urban/Nonurban
Bristol 0.5 0.6Salem 4.1 3.4Lynchburg 0.3 0.7Richmond 8.8 6.2Suffolk 11.2 7.9Fredericksburg 0.1 0.9Culpeper 0.1 0.1Staunton 0.1 0.5Northern Va. 9.7 5.5
Total 34.7 25.7
The first conclusion from these data is that the separation ofquantities based on urban/nonurban classification brings the short-term andlong-term estimates closer. The figures in the "total" row indicate that thelong-term is lower than the short-term by 34.7 and 25.7 percent for thestandard and urban/nonurban quantities, respectively. Thus the separation ofquantities based on urban and nonurban location brings the two estimatescloser together by 9 percent. Also these data indicate that the threedistricts of Richmond, Suffolk, and Northern Virginia create most of thedifference between the long-term and short-term estimates with both standardand urban/nonurban quantities. In every case, separating the quantitiesreduced the percentage difference. The urban residencies of Chesterfield,Norfolk, and Fairfax still account for 13.2 percent of the total 25.7 percentdifference. However, even with this information, it was felt that noadditional adjustments to the urban quantities were justified, i.e., theauthors felt that the best estimates of quantities available were being used.The finalized quantities by project type and urban designation are includedin Appendix B.
22
1661
Short-term
An example of the short-term estimates by district is shown in Table 12.This estimate for 1989 indicates a requirement of 1286.5 FTEs. This comparesvery well with the independently derived manpower needs assessment made bythe districts and construction division. Vhen their estimated FTEs of 1017is increased by 25 percent to cover typical overtime allocations it becomes1271 FTEs.
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION
Verification
Verification efforts incorporated in the development of this system haveincluded comparisons with staffing estimates submitted by field personnel,and as previously discussed, the results indicate close agreement for theshort-term estimates and somewhat less agreement for the long-term.
A more objective approach to verification of the short-term figures wasalso included. CMMS was used to estimate needed staffing levels for 1985through 1988, and these figures were compared to the actual hours ofinspection recorded through the Human Resource Planning System (HRPS) for thesame period of time. Table 14 gives these figures. Even though the HRPSnumbers include overtime, comparisons can be made on an equivalent basissince HRPS does not inflate the hours to reflect the time-and-a-half payrate.
Table 14
Comparisons of CMMS Short-TermEstimates to Actual Hours of Inspection
Year
1985198619871988
CMMS FTEs
594780935
1,266
Actual FTEs
623669846977
Difference
-29 (4.7%)+111 (16.6%)
+89 (10.5%)+289 (29.6%)
Vith the exception of 1985, the CMMS estimates are higher than HRPS.Further examination of these discrepancies revealed several inherentreporting problems with HRPS that would tend to make the HRPS numbers lowerthan the actual hours charged. Probably more importantly, the HRPS figuresdo not include any consultant or contract inspection hours. So, HRPS hoursdo not reflect the real hours required for adequate inspection, whereas, CMMShours do. The variability of the differences should be a function of theadequacy of the size of the VDOT inspection work force- to handle theconstruction workload. Certainly, 1988 was the most ambitious construction
23
1662
year of the four; therefore, one might anticipate the greatest differencethere. So, considering the potential differences with the HRPS numbers, theCMHS estimates appear to be right on target.
This analysis further indicates that an acceptable level of accuracy isafforded in the short-term portion of CHHS; however, future efforts shouldinclude some additional means of verification such as comparisons toconsensus staffing estimates from a panel of experts or some other defensiblemeans.
Accurate Database
As the system goes into operation, added emphasis must be placed onkeeping the PPMS database as up-to-date and accurate as possible. Since CMMSderives its project listings for all staffing estimates from PPHS, it iscritical that field personnel submit their project information to PPMS in acomplete and accurate form. Errors in project information like type, length,location, surface, etc. can have a direct impact on staffing projections.
Finally, CMMS is a system that will need to be monitored and updatedfrom time to time. There should be periodic feedback from the field aboutthe estimates. Although the system has been designed as carefully aspossible, there may be some bugs still in it, and this feedback is importantto working out these bugs and to monitoring the numbers to assess thepossible need for system changes in the system.
CMMS Monitor
There needs to be a person, probably in the Construction Division, whowill serve as this CMMS monitor. This person will keep up with the feedbackfrom the field and troubleshoot the problems that arise. An important toolthe monitor will have at his/her disposal for assistance with discrepanciesbetween the CMHS estimates and field estimates will be detailed proof sheetsof just how CMHS arrived at each estimate for each project. (A sample proofsheet can be found in Appendix B - Figure 2.) Using these proof sheets, themonitor will be able to determine the cause of the discrepancy. The monitorwill then decide whether the problem is with the system, the project data, orthe field estimate and proceed accordingly to remedy the problem.
In addition to handling differences in estimates, the monitor mustthoroughly understand the details of the system so that he/she can determinewhether and when basic changes may be needed. For example, if theDepartment's policy changes on the level of staffing desired on constructionprojects, staffing guidelines will need to reflect this. If maintenanceinspection needs change or locations become classified as semiurban or urban,the baseline maintenance level will need to be changed, or the modifier tablewill need updating. Also, the applicability of project types and inspectableitems will require periodic review. The monitoring and updating portion of
24
166:3
the implementation of the system will be very important with respect to theacceptance and usefulness of the systems.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Yith guidance from the CEMH Nationally Pooled Fund Study and thePrice Yaterhouse and Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. study, a CMMShas been devised for VDOT.
2. The CMMS appears to provide accurate construction staffing levelsfor short-term estimates, i.e., the next 18 to 24 months.
3. The CMMS appears to provide less accurate construction staffinglevels for the long-term estimates, i.e., the next 6 years.
4. The difference between short-term arid long-term estimates (thelatter is approximately 25 percent lower than the former) appearsto stem from the use of standard quantities and is most apparent inresidencies in which urban construction conditions are found.
5. Short-term construction estimates appear sufficiently accurate forVDOT to use them as a district planning tool and as a means ofpresenting statewide needs to the General Assembly.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Additional verification is needed to provide additional credibilityto the system. A panel of experts should be convened to provideindependent estimates of typical project staffing, which can thenbe compared to the CMHS estimates. Also, further efforts should beundertaken to analyze the differences between the long-term andshort-term staffing projections.
2. It is important that residency personnel who are responsible forPPMS inputs be instructed as to the importance of the accuracy ofthis data because it can have significant impact on the residenciesstaffing estimates for the future.
3. A CMMS monitor position should be established in the ConstructionDivision to serve as liaison between the Construction Division andthe field. This person would be very knowledgeable in the way thesystem operates and will help update the system as needed. It isanticipated this effort will require about .75 FTE.
25
1665
REFERENCES
1. Price Vaterhouse and Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc. 1986. A report onconstruction manpower management. (manuscript)
2. Newman, R. B. and F. D. Hejl. 1978. Development of a constructionengineering manpower management system. Publication No. DOT-FH-11-9122.Vashington, D. C. .
3. Newman, R. B. 1989. Staffing considerations in constructionengineering .management. NCHRP Synthesis 145. Vashington, D.C.:Transportation Research Board. I
27
1666
APPENDIX A
Sample Staffing Guideline Estimation
29
1668
CONSTRUCTION MANPOWER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Inspectable ItemsBridge Structures and Substructures
Bridqe, S~ructures and Superstructures
BRIDGE MODEL
Three-Span BridgeSpan Layout: 1-42'~", 1-76'0", and 1-42'0"Steel Rolled BeamsWidth: 42'6" Face to Face of CurbsLength: 162'3-5/8"S.Y. of Deck Surface: 766.42 s.y.Cost: $423,731.60
166!)
MobilizationSurveyingA3-Conc.: 274.2 c.;. @ $187.50Rei n f. S tee°1: 3 0 , 0eelb s. @ $. 3 9Struct. Excav.: 275 c.y. @ $18.0010" Steel Piles: 2609 l.f. @ $16.50Pile Points: 64 @ $40.65Driving Test: 164 :.f. @ $24.00Slope Protection: 654 s.y. @ $26.00
SUB TOTAL
Rolled Beams: L.S.Epoxy Resteel: 33,170 lbs. @ $.52A4 Cone.: 200.3 c.y. @ $222.00Cone. Parapet: 342 l.f. @ $42.00
SUB TOTAL
Inspection of Bridge Substructure Footings
$ 36,000.009,000.00
51,412.0011,700.00
4,950.0043,048.50
2,601.003,936.00
17,004.00$179,652.60
168,000.0017,248.4044,466.6014,364.00
$244,079.00
For new construction will consist of checking out thebridge stake out #1. Checking elevations for excavating offootings #2. Checking the pile locations and actualchecking the driving of these piles #3. Checking footingforms and placement of reinforcement in same #4. Testingconcrete and inspecting the placement of this concret~ #5.Inspection of how concrete is cured #6.
31
Substructure (Heat Work)
Inspection of line, grade, forms, and reinforcing steelplacement i1. (i2 is same as i5 & 6 of footings)
Work units needed to inspect substructure per cu. yd. ofconc. is ·(formula) cu. yds. conco Ao3 on plans x 4.0 manhrs. per cu. ydo+ by 8 hrs. per day is = to work unit days.
B601 A.3 conc. 594 x 4.00 = 2366 hrs. = 296 man days8 hrs./day
Staffing Guideline = 2 cu. yd. of conc. per man day
Bridge Superstructure
Inspection of beam placement (#1) (#2) will be same as #4,#5 and #6 of substructure. Inspection of parapet walls(#3) will be performed in the order as #4, 5 and 6 ofsubstructure. Inspecting the placement of linseed oil ondecks (#4).
Work units needed to inspect superstructure per cu. yd. ofcone. is (use same formula as substructure)
525 cu. yds. A.4 x 1.0 man hrs. = 525 hrs. = 66 man days8 hrs/day
Staffing Guideline = 8 cu. yd. of conc. per man day
Administration
(Checking) EEO, WBE, CBE, Construction Health and SafetyStandards, P. R. , recordkekeping and all bookkeepingneeded to be performed on superstructure andsuperstructure on entire bridge.
Work units need to perform these duties per cu.· yd. ofcone. total of sub and superstructure is (formula) cu.yds. of A.3 + cu. yd. of A.4 x 1 man hr. or
1119 x 1 = 1119 hrs. = 140 man days8 hrs/day
Staffing Guideline = 8 cu. yd. of conc. per man day
STAFFING GUIDELINES
Using sq. yds. of Deck Surface
766.42 s.y.-of Deck Surface = 1.5 s.y. of Deck Surface502 man days per man day
32
APPENDIX B
System Operation Detail
33
·1672
1673
The long-term portion of the Construction Manpower Management System(CMHS) obtains all the project information used for project staffing from theDepartment's Program/Project Management System (PPHS). The projectscontained in PPMS are screened in order to establish a list of projects to bestaffed by CMHS.
First, projects that are to be built with state forces are eliminatedsince no inspection time is allocated to such projects. Next PPHS projectswith scope-of-work classifications that are not included in CMHS areeliminated. Tables 1 and 2* show that projects with PPHS scope-of-work codes06, 07, 11, 13, or 14 are dropped. Table 3 shows status codes that areassigned to each PPMS project. Obviously, staffing assessments for projectsthat have no dates set, have been deferred or put in storage, or have beencompleted would be of little use; therefore, projects with status codes 10,30, 35, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, and 80 are further eliminated from considerationby CHMS. Finally, only those projects that will be actively underconstruction during the 6-calendar-year period which constitutes the staffingwindow for the long-term portion of CMMS will be staffed. For purposes ofCHHS, if a project's start date (advertisement date plus 10 weeks) fallswithin the 6-year period, it is considered active. All inactive projects aredropped.
Table 1
Project Type Codes (CMMS TYPE)
Project Type
New Construction Plant MixVidening and ResurfacingSafetyNew Construction - Surface TreatmentBridge New ConstructionBridge Reconstruction
CMMS i
123456
PPHS-Scope-of York Code
01, 02, 0304, 051215, 168, 910
*AII tables in Appendix B with parentheses refer to Information Systems tablenames.
35
16·74
Code
01020304050607080910111213141516
Code
1013141516171819202530404550556065707580
Table 2
PPMS Scope of York Codes
Title
New ConstructionRelocationReconstructionMajor VideningMinor VideningRestoration and RehabilitationResurfacingNew BridgeBridge ReplacementMajor Bridge RehabilitationMinor Bridge RehabilitationSafety/Traffic Opers/TSHEnvironmental RelatedPreliminary Studies OnlyNew Construction-Surface TreatmentReconstruction-Surface Treatment
Table 3
PPMS Project Status Codes
Title
Unschedule ConstructionNo Dates Set YetUnder Review by PPMSActivity Dates SetNeed D.L.E. ActionNeed M.S.H. ActionNeed G.E.F. ActionNeed J.G.R. ActionTemporarily Deferred (For Decision)Indefinitely Deferred (For Decision)Storage (Inactive)AdvertisedAwardedConstruction StartedConstruction CompletedFinal (Estimate Paid)Closed (All Claims Paid)ZeroedMise Funds/Monitoring OnlyBudget Item Only
36
1675
Staffing requirements referred to as manpower planning values (HPV) arecalculated in man-hours for all projects remaining after the screeningprocess. Projects classified as types 1 through 4 are given total man-hoursper mile staffing requirements from Table 4. A project is considered urbanif it has an urban highway system code or if it is in an urban location.Location is taken from the city, town, or county code in the project number.All cities and counties with population densities greater than 200 people persquare mile and all incorporated towns with total populations greater than10,000 and densities greater than 200 per square mile are classified asurban.
Project location is also used to assign a set of modifiers to eachproject to increase the inspection time required for various inspectableitems according to project type. These modifiers are determined from Table5. Once the modifiers have been applied, each project may have an adjustedstaffing requirement per mile. The adjusted staffing value is then increasedby 15 percent for administrative overhead. Individual project HPVs aredetermined by multiplying project length by the final staffing value. Table6 shows a sample HPV calculation.
Before a project's HPV is finalized, a check is made to see if theproject includes any bridges. If there are any bridges, an additional MPV isadded for each bridge (see Table 7). For project types 5 and 6, totalproject MPVs are determined from Table 7 only.
In order to apportion staffing needs over the six-year planning period,projects must have a duration. Durations are assigned according to Table 8by project type. Using project start dates and project durations, CMMSapportions individual project staffing requirements equally by month over thelife of each project. Once all projects' staffing requirements have beenapportioned, HPVs are accumulated by calendar year, district and residency.Residency annual MPV totals then have needed maintenance MPVs added to them.The first year's maintenance needs are shown in Table 9. An estimated annualincrease of 5 percent is added for the next 3 years with the needs remainingconstant for the last 2 years of the 6-year period. MPVs are divided by 1832for conversion to FTEs. An example of MPV accumulation is shown in Figure 1.Finally, summary printouts are produced by district and residency for all ofthe long-term results.
The staffing requirements for the short-term portion of CHHS aredetermined very much the same way the long-term needs are determined. Themain differences are that the short-term staffing window is 2 calendar years,and instead of using standard quantities for each inspectable item, estimatedcontract quantities for each individual project are used.
The PPMS project listing is still screened to determine which projectswill be staffed, and the screening process is the same for the short-termexcept that only projects with start dates that fall within the 2-yearstaffing window are included. The projects that remain after screening arestaffed according to the inspection time required for specific occurrencesand quantities of inspectable items as contained in the ConstructionDivision's E03 system. PPHS projects are matched tn corresponding projects
37
(NO
NU
RB
AN
TY
PE
)
TA
BL
E4
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
S(I
TE
MS
TA
F)
CO~ISTRUCTION
(PL
AN
TM
IX)
D~
(jJ
~ ~
w 00
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
(UR
BA
NT
YP
E)
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wor
kzo
ne
safety
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
'lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
II
barr
icad
e-d
ay
s
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
IIb
arr
icad
e-d
ay
s
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
)(p
er/
mi)
{p
er/
mil
--_.-_~_
..._
.-.-
~-_
..._-
---
--------
8.0
56
25
1.7
64
56
.01
43
9.8
01
73
8.0
71
13
.62
95
8.0
27
7.6
41
31
4.0
32
60
.61
911
2.0
4.6
41
11
50
.01
15
02
4.0
7.8
42
10
.01
96
1.9
93
27
----
----
--T
OT
AL
MA
N-H
RS
/MI
=9
07
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
){
per/
mil
{p
er/
mil
----_.-._~.-.-----
-_...
.-
..._-
---
----
--8
.01
61
69
5.7
12
96
.05
21
3.5
06
26
8.0
11
40
4.1
21
52
8.0
14
5.9
67
14
.01
17
36
.02
32
91
2.0
34
.72
83
15
0.0
11
50
24
.04
08
4.4
79
80
10
.07
14
4.8
511
91--
----
--T
OT
AL
MA
N-H
RS
/MI
=3
64
7
(NO
NU
RB
AN
TY
PE
)
TA
BL
E4
(ca
nt.
)
WID
EN
ING
AN
DR
ES
UR
FA
CIN
G
LA.>
\.0
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
(UR
BA
NT
YP
E)
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0-t
on
s5
inle
ts1
per
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
II
barr
icad
e-d
ay
s
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
II
barr
icad
e-d
ay
s
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
)(p
er/
mi)
(per/
mi)
----
-,-.
----
----
---
----
--.-
---
----
-..-
.-8
.09
47
15
.61
76
6.0
43
12
.46
51
78
.01
30
86
.51
17
48
.02
47
.48
12
14
.01
16
96
.13
32
71
2.0
00
15
0.0
11
50
24
.08
.59
2
10
.03
10
0.9
45
17
------
...-
TO
TA
LM
AN
-HR
S/M
I=
17
76
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
)(p
er/
mi)
(per/
mi)
----_
'-'__
-.0_"
'_-~-~-~---
......
._-
----
-8
.07
55
89
.79
60
6.0
53
27
.06
63
98
.01
02
53
.07
13
78
.05
7.3
83
14
.01
60
47
.92
44
91
2.0
00
15
0.0
11
50
24
.03
53
1.0
28
47
10
•0
13
98
7.6
22
33
1J-
-'.0
;--------
-JT
OT
AL
MA
N-H
RS
/MI
=4
61
7""
-'
+:' o
(NO
NU
RB
AN
TY
PE
)
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
(UR
BA
NT
YP
E)
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
TA
BL
E4
(can
t.)
SA
FE
TY
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
II
barr
icad
e-d
ay
s
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
II
barr
icad
e-d
ay
s
~ OJ
-;J
CJj
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
)(p
er/
mi)
(per/
mi)
----
----
----
----
---_
..._-
----
----
8.0
29
37
.07
26
.09
9.9
51
28
.04
31
.03
68
.05
.57
01
4.0
66
7.2
41
91
2.0
6.6
71
61
50
.01
15
02
4.0
16
.93
4
10
.0
61
9.0
81
03
----
----
-T
OT
AL
MA
N-H
RS
/MI
=3
12
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
){
per/
mil
(per/
mi)
----
-..._-
---
...--
----
---
--_
....--
--8
.03
55
8.5
13
6.0
20
7.5
82
58
.08
65
.27
12
8.0
8.9
20
14
.01
21
0.9
83
41
2.0
2.2
55
15
0.0
11
50
24
.02
64
.41
63
10
.02
41
9.0
14
03
--------
TO
TA
LM
AN
-HR
S/M
I=
69
6
TO
TA
LM
AN
-HR
S/M
I=
+:-~
(NO
NU
RB
AN
TY
PE
)
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
(UR
BA
NT
YP
E)
TA
BL
E4
(can
t.)
CO
NS
TR
UC
TIO
N(S
UR
FA
CE
TR
EA
TM
EN
T)
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
IIb
arr
icad
e-d
ay
s
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
(man
-ho
urs
)
8.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
14
.01
2.0
15
0.0
24
.0
10
•0
QU
AN
TIT
Y(p
er/
mi)
48
67
.35
94
5.6
65
72
5.2
64
46
.94 o o 1
8.8
7
12
01
.99
ST
AF
FIN
G(p
er/
mi) 4
11
37
621
o o1
50 2
20
0
56
7
INS
PE
CT
AB
LE
ITE
M
Eart
hw
ork
Pip
eS
ele
ct
mate
rials
,etc
.S
urf
ace
treatm
en
tB
itu
min
ou
sp
av
em
en
tD
rop
inle
tsIn
cid
en
tal
co
nstr
ucti
on
En
vir
om
en
tal
Wo
rkzo
ne
safety
WO
RKU
NIT
10
00
0cu
.y
ds.
50
ft.
insta
lled
60
0to
ns
17
0to
ns
50
0to
ns
5in
lets
1p
er
mil
e1
00
lin
ear
ft.
of
barrie
rs
60
gro
up
IIb
arr
icad
e-d
ay
s
ST
AF
FIN
GG
UID
EL
INE
QU
AN
TIT
YS
TA
FF
ING
(man
-ho
urs
)(p
er/
mi)
(per/
mi)
--------~---
_..._
-----
----
----
---
8.0
21
26
1.2
21
76
.06
66
.53
80
8.0
18
77
.55
25
8.0
16
08
14
.00
01
2.a
00
15
0.0
11
50
24
.02
68
5.7
16
45~
10
•a
10
30
6.1
21
71
80
)
~--
----
--c:o
TO
TA
LM
AN
-HR
S/M
I=
26
42
~ mTA
BLE
5CX~~
CHHS
HODI
FIERS
(LOCH
ULT)
~
DIST
RICT
DIST
RICT
COUN
TY/
CO./C
ITY
SUBG
RADE
HOUN
TAINS
WET-
URBA
NSE
MIUR
BAN
CODE
CITY
CODE
STAB
ILIZA
TION
LAND
SLS
EWPI
SHST
PCBP
BCDI
ICEV
WZ~~~------~-~----~-~-~-----~----~-----------~--~-~--------------------~---------~-----~~-----~-----------~----------~-----------------------~--------~--------------
------------------------------------------------------
---------~------~--------------------~---------------~---------------~------------~--------------------------
1BR
ISTOL
BLAN
D10
X2.
02.
02.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.01.0
1BR
ISTOL
BUCH
ANAN
13X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.01.
02.0
1.01
BRIST
OLDIC
KENS
ON25
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.0
1.01
BRIST
OLGR
AYSO
N38
X2.
02.0
2.01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.
01.0
1BR
ISTOL
LEE
52X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.01.
02.
01.
01
BRIST
OLRU
SSEL
L83
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.0
1.0
1BR
ISTOL
SCOT
T84
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.0
1.0
1BR
ISTOL
SMYT
H86
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.
01.0
1BR
ISTOL
TAZE
WELL
92X
2.0
2.0
2.01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.0
1.0
2.01.
01
BRIST
OLWA
SHING
TON
95X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.01
BRIST
OLWI
SE97
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.0
1.01
BRIST
OLWY
THE
98X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.01
BRIST
OLBR
ISTOL
102
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
01
BRIST
OLHO
RTON
146
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.02
SALE
HBE
DFOR
D09
X1.2
51.2
51.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
0J:
:'-2
SALE
HBO
TETO
URT
11X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.01.0
N
2SA
LEH
CARR
OLL
17X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2SA
LEH
CRAIG
22X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2SA
LEH
FLOY
D31
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.
01.
02
SALE
HFR
ANKL
IN33
X2.
02.
02.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
2SA
LEH
GILE
S35
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.0
1.02
SALE
HHE
NRY
44X
X3.
53.
53.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
3.5
1.5
3.5
1.52
SALE
HMO
NTGO
MERY
60X
X3.
53.
53.
51.
51.
51.
51.
53.
53.
51.
53.
51.5
2SA
LEM
PATR
ICK70
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.
01.0
2SA
LEH
PULA
SKI
77X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.01.
02.0
1.0
2SA
LEM
ROAN
OKE
80X
X4.
04.
04.
02.
02.
02.
02.
04.
04.
02.
04.0
2.02
SALE
HBE
DFOR
D14
1X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02
SALE
MBL
ACKS
BURG
150
X2.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02
SALE
HCH
RISTIA
NSBU
RG15
4X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.02
SALE
MGA
LAX
113
X2.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
2SA
LEM
MART
INSV
ILLE
120
X2.
02.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.02
SALE
MRA
DFOR
D12
6X
2.02.0
2.02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.0
2SA
LEM
ROAN
OKE
128
X2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.0
2SA
LEM
SALE
M12
9X
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
AMHE
RST
OS1.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.0
1.03
LYHC
HBUR
GAP
POMA
TTOX
06X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
01.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
BUCK
INGHA
M14
X1.2
51.2
51.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.0
1.0
1.01.0
TABL
E5
(con
t.)
DIST
RICT
DIST
RICT
COUN
TYI
CO.IC
ITY
SUBG
RADE
MOUN
TAINS
WET-
URBA
NSE
MIUR
BAN
CODE
CITY
CODE
STAB
ILIZA
TION
LAND
SLS
EWPI
S"ST
PCBP
BCDI
ICEV
WZ:::
:=:=
:===
::::::
====
====
::===
==:::
::::::
:===
====
::::=
::::=
==::=
==:::
:=:=
===:
::::::
:===
====
:=:=
==:::
::::=
====
::::::
::===
=:==
==:::
====
====
====
==:::
::=:=
====
====
====
3LY
NCHB
URG
CAMP
BELL
15X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
CHAR
LOTT
E19
X1.2
51.2
51.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
03
LYNC
HBUR
GCU
MBER
LAND
24X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
HALIF
AX41
X1.2
51.2
51.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
03
LYNC
HBUR
GNE
LSON
62X
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
PITTS
YLVA
HIA
71X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
01.
01.
03
LYNC
HBUR
GPR
INCE
EDWA
RD73
X1.2
51.2
51.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
03
LYNC
HBUR
GDA
NVILL
E10
8X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
LYNC
HBUR
G11
8X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3LY
NCHB
URG
SOUT
HBO
STON
130
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
04
RICHM
OND
AMEL
IA04
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4RIC
HMON
DBR
UNSW
ICK12
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
01.
01.
04
RICHM
OND
CHAR
LES
CITY
18X
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4RIC
HMON
DCH
ESTE
RFIEL
D20
XX
X4.7
54.7
52.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
~4
RICHM
OND
DINW
IDDI
E26
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
01.
01.
0w
4RIC
HMON
DGO
OCHL
AND
371.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
04
RICHM
OND
HANO
VER
421.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
04
RICHM
OND
HENR
ICO43
XX
3.25
3.25
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
04
RICHM
OND
LUNE
NBUR
G55
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4RIC
HMON
DME
CKLE
NBUR
G58
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
01.
01.
04
RICHM
OND
NEW
KENT
63X
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
4RIC
HMON
DNO
TTOWA
Y67
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4RIC
H"ON
DPO
WHAT
AN72
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
4RIC
HMON
DPR
INCE
GEOR
GE74
XX
2.75
2.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
02.
01.
04
RICH"
OHD
COLO
NIAL
HEIGH
TS10
6X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4RIC
HMON
DHO
PEWE
LL11
6X
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
04
RICHM
OND
PETE
RSBU
RG12
3X
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4RIC
HMON
DRIC
HMON
D12
7X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5SU
FFOL
KAC
COMA
CK01
XX
2.75
2.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
02.
01.
05
SUFF
OLK
CHES
APEA
KE13
1X
XX
4.75
4.7S
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5SU
FFOL
KGR
EENS
VILL
E40
X1:
251.2
51.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5SU
FFOL
KHA
MPTO
N11
4X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
05
SUFF
OLK
ISLE
OFWI
GHT
46X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
01.
01.
05
SUFF
OLK
JAMES
CITY
47X
XX
4.25
4.25
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.51.5
1.5
3.5
1.5
5SU
FFOL
KNE
WPOR
THE
WS12
1X
XX
4.75
4.75
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.02.
04.
02.
05
SUFF
OLK
NORF
OLK
122
XX
X4.7
54.7
52.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
04.
02.
0~
5SU
FFOL
KNO
RTHA
MPTO
N65
XX
2.75
2.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
02.0
1.0
OJ
CO~
~ ~ (X)
TABL
E5
l\~
(con
t.)
DIST
RICT
DIST
RICT
COUN
TYI
CO./C
ITYSU
BGRA
DEMO
UNTA
INSWE
T-UR
BAN
SEHI
URBA
NCO
DECIT
YCO
DEST
ABILI
ZATIO
NLA
NDS
LSEW
PISH
S1PC
BPBC
DIIC
EVWZ
--~~--~------------~----~---~----~---~--~----~-~------~----~--------~----~---------~~--~----~--------~-----------~------~----------~~------------------------------
--~------~--~-~------~-~--~---------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
-----~---~~--------~------~----------------------------
5SU
FFOLK
PORT
SMOU
TH12
4X
XX
4.7S
4.75
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5SU
FFOLK
SOUT
HAMP
TON
87X
X2.
752.
751.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
01.
05
SUFFO
LKHA
HESH
OND
61X
X2.7
S2.
751.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
01.
05
SUFFO
LKSU
FFOLK
133
XX
X4.
254.
251.
51.
51.
51.
51.
51.
51.
S1.
53.
51.
55
SUFFO
LKSU
RRY
90X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5SU
FFOLK
SUSSE
X91
X1.
251.
251.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
0....
5SU
FFOLK
VIRG
INIA
BEAC
H13
4X
XX
4.75
4.75
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5SU
FFOLK
YORK
99X
XX
4.75
4.75
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
5SU
FFOLK
E"POR
IA10
9X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5SU
FFOLK
FRAN
KLIN
145
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
05
SUFFO
LKPO
QUOS
ON14
7X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
5SU
FFOLK
WILL
IAMSB
URG
137
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GCA
ROLIN
E16
X1.
251.
251.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GES
SEX
28X
X2.
752.
751.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
01.
0
~6
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GGL
OUCE
STER
36X
XX
4.25
4.25
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.5
1.5
~6
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GKIN
GAN
DQU
EEN49
X1.
251.
251.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GKIN
GGE
ORGE
48X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6FR
EDER
ICKSB
URG
KING
WILL
IAM50
X1.
251.
251.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GLA
NCAS
TER
51X
X2.
752.
751.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
01.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GMA
THEW
S57
XX
2.75
2.75
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
6FR
EDER
ICKSB
URG
"IDDL
ESEX
59X
X2.
752.
751.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
01.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GNO
RTHU
MBER
LAND
66X
X2.
752.
751.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
01.
0.:~~:
6FR
EDER
ICKSB
URG
RICHM
OND
79X
1.25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6FR
EDER
ICKSB
URG
SPOTS
YLVA
NIA88
X1.
251.
251.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
06
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
GST
AFFO
RD89
XX
2.75
2.75
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
6FR
EDER
ICKSB
URG
WESTM
ORELA
ND96
X1~25
1.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
6FR
EDER
ICKSB
URG
FRED
ERICK
SBUR
G11
1X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
7CU
LPEP
ERAL
BEMA
RLE
021.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
07
CULP
EPER
CULP
EPER
231.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
07
CULP
EPER
FAUQ
UIER
301.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
07
CULP
EPER
FLUVA
NNA
321.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
07
CULP
EPER
GREE
NE39
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.
01.
07
CULP
EPER
LOUIS
A54
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7CU
LPEP
ERMA
DISON
561.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
01.
07
CULP
EPER
ORAN
GE68
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7CU
LPEP
ERRA
PPAHA
NNOC
K78
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
7CU
LPEP
ERCH
ARLO
TTES
VILLE
104
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.'
0
TABL
E5
(cen
t.)
DIST
RICT
DIST
RICT
COUN
TYI
CO./C
ITY
SUBG
RADE
MOUN
TAINS
WET-
URBA
NSE
MIUR
BAN
CODE
CITY
CODE
STAB
ILIZA
TION
LAND
SlS
EWPI
SHST
PCBP
BCDI
ICEV
WZ-----~~-~~----~~~-~-------------------------------------~----------------------~-------------------~---------------------------~-----------------------------------
-------------------------------------~-----~-~--~-----------------~-------~------~-~-~----~-~~--~---~-~--~-------------~-~---~-----~--------~----------------------
8ST
AUNT
ONAL
LEGH
ANY
03X
2.02.0
2.01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.0
1.0
2.01.0
8ST
AUNT
ONAU
GUSTA
07X
2.02.0
2.0
1.0
1.01.
01.
02.
02.0
1.0
2.01.0
8STA
UNTO
NBA
TH08
X2.0
2.02.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
02.0
2.01.
02.0
1.08
STAU
NTON
CLAR
KE21
X2.
02.
02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.0
1.0
2.01.0
8ST
AUNT
ONFR
EDER
ICK34
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.01.
01.0
1.08
STAUN
TON
HIGHL
AND
45X
2.0
2.02.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.01.0
8ST
AUNT
ONPA
GE69
X2.0
2.0
2.01.
01.
01.
01.
02.~
2.0
1.0
2.01.0
BST
AUNT
ONRO
CKBR
IDGE
81X
2.0
2.02.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.02.0
1.0
2.01.0
8ST
AUNT
ONRO
CKIN
GHAH
82X
2.0
2.02.
01.
01.
01.
01.
02.
02.
01.
02.0
1.08
STAUN
TON
SHEN
ANDO
AH85
X2.0
2.02.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.02.0
1.0
2.01.
08
STAU
NTON
WARR
EN93
X2.
02.
02.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.01.
02.0
1.0
8ST
AUNT
ONBU
ENA
VIST
A10
3X
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.0
2.02.
02.0
2.08
STAU
NTON
CLIFT
ONFO
RGE
105
X2.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
8ST
AUNT
ONCO
VINGT
ON10
7X
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.02.
02.0
2.0.p
o8
STAU
NTON
FRON
TRO
YAL
112
X2.
02.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.0
VI
8ST
AUNT
ONLE
XINGT
ON11
7X
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.02.
02.0
2.08
STAU
NTON
HARR
ISONB
URG
115
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.0
8ST
AUHT
ONST
AUNT
ON13
2X
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
8ST
AUNT
ONWA
YNESB
ORO
136
X2.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.08
STAUN
TON
WINC
HEST
ER13
8X
X2.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.09
HO.
VA.
ALEX
ANDR
IA10
0X
X3.2
53.2
52.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.02.0
9NO
.VA
.AR
LINGT
ON00
X2.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.
02.0
9NO
.VA
.FA
IRFAX
29X
XX
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.09
HO.
VA.
LOUD
ON53
XX
X2.7
52.7
51.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.S1.
51.5
1.5
1.51.5
9NO
.VA
.PR
INCE
WILL
IAH
76X
X3.2
53.2
52.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.0
2.02.
02.0
2.09
HO.
VA.
FAIRF
AX15
1X
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.09
HO.
UA.
FALL
SCH
URCH
110
X2.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.09
NO.
VA.
HERN
DON
235
X2.
02.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
2.02.0
2.09
NO.
UA.
LEES
BURG
253
XX
3.25
3.25
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.02.0
9HO
.VA
.MA
NASSA
S15
5X
2.02.0
2.02.
02.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.02.0
9HO
.VA
.MA
NASSA
SPA
RK15
2X
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.
02.0
2.09
NO.
VA.
VIENN
A15
3X
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.02.0
2.0
2.02.0
~ OJ
00~
Tab
le6
HPV
Sam
ple
Cal
cula
tio
n
Pro
ject
Typ
e:C
on
stru
ctio
n-
Sur
face
Tre
atm
ent
Len
gth:
0.7
Hi.
Loc
atio
n:Ja
mes
Cit
yC
ount
yM
od
ifie
rs:
Sub
grad
est
ab
iliz
ati
on
,w
etla
nds,
and
sem
iurb
an
Insp
.It
emS
tand
ard
Qua
ntit
y*V
ork
Uni
t*S
taff
ing
Gui
deli
ne*
Hod
ifie
r**
MP
V/I
.I.
(per
mil
e)(m
an-h
ours
)(p
erm
i)
J::'
Ear
thw
ork
4867
.35
cuyd
s•
1000
x8
.00
x4.
25=
165.
490
'\P
ipe
945.
66ft
inst
all
ed
506
.00
1.5
017
0.22
-x
x=
Sel
ect
Mat
eria
l57
25.2
6to
ns•
600
x8
.00
x1
.50
=11
4.51
Sur
face
Tre
atm
ent
446.
94to
ns•
170
x8
.00
x1
.50
=31
.55
Inci
den
tal
Con
str
1.00
per
mil
e•
1x
150.
00x
1.5
0=
225.
00E
nvir
onm
enta
l8.
87li
near
fto
fb
arri
ers
_lO
ax
24.0
0x
3.5
0=
7.45
Yor
kZ
one
Saf
ety
1201
.99
grou
pII
bar
rica
de
_60
x10
.00
x1
.50
=30
0.50
days
MPV
/mi
1014
.72
Adm
in.
x1
.15
--
HPV
/mi
1166
.93
Len
gth
x0
.7
To
tal
MPV
816.
85
*Fro
mT
able
4**
From
Tab
le5
~ OJ
00
i+~
Table 7
Bridge HPVs (CHHS BRDG)
HPVs - Han hours
Project Type
Construction - Plant MixConstruction - Surface TreatmentVidening and ResurfacingSafetyBridge New ConstructionBridge Reconstruction
Primary/Interstate
2000
625625
2000·625
Secondary
600600
600
Table 8
Project Duration, Months (CMMS DUR)
Construction V&R Safety B.N.C. B.R.C.S.T. P.H.
Rural 10 18 18 12Rural with Bridge 12 21 21 12 12Urban 24 24 21 15Urban with Bridge 30 30 24 15 15
47
168(j
Table 9
Maintenance Manpower Requirements by Residency (CMMS HANT)
Present Usage,District Residency Han hr/yr
Bristol 01 1575503 0320604 1575506 0311408 0302358" 03756
Total 44609
Salem 09 0308011 0373912 0362513 0184614 0412216 02638
Total 19050
Lynchburg 17 0253718 0253719 0211420 0211422 02114
Total 11416
Richmond 23 0432124 0374425 0345626 0974927 0309928 04384
Total 28753
Suffolk 31 0366432 0366433 0366434 1120335 0760036 03664
Total 33459
48
District
Table 9 (cont.)
ResidencyPresent Usage,
Man hr/yr
Fredericksburg 37 0365539 0238340 0809241 06734
Total 20864
Culpeper 42 0299843 0681445 0436146 05451
Total 19624
Staunton 50 0446353 0513854 0298955 0383956 02398
Total 18827
Northern Virginia 47 4924548 1200049 03925
Total 65170
49
1688
87
CALENDAR YEAR
88 89 90 91
entOW..,oa::a.>ozwc-enwa::
10800/18=600/mo3 ----.- ••--------.- •• -------- 3
1800 8400 18
7300/10=730/mo4 2920 --- -4380·" 6
2 • .~~~.o_~¥~_~~~~.~~_. 10~ 10760 8950
JFMAMJJASOND
MPV/YR (Const.)
MPV/YR (Maint.)
TOTAL MPV
13200
3600
16800
19435
3780
23215
18225
3960
32185
Numbers above time line refer to the MPVs divided by project duration.Numbers below time line refer to the apportioned MPV by calendar year.Numbers at end of time line are prorated months of project duration.
Figure 1. Determination of accumulated man-hours by residency.
50
contained in E03 to obtain item quantities. E03 items are converted to CMMSinspectable items according to Table 10. The staffing is then determinedusing the staffing guidelines given in Table 11. Next, a value of 150.0man-hours per mile of project length is'added to the project HPV. Modifiersare applied, and overhead is added just as it is in the long-term. MPVapportionment and accumulation are also done like the long-te~m, except thatstaffing needs are accumulated by month instead of just by year.
Table 10
E03 Item Code Conversions (ITEM CONV)
168~)
E03 Item Code
00125, 0012600120, 00127 - 0030000580 - 0600110013 - 10021, 10080 - 1023110468 - 1048110771 - 10982, 11011 - 1101410321 - 10323~ 10510 - 10552, 1058000520 - 0052206745 - 0900327505, 275062427860403 - 60420, 68030, 68040, 65010 - 65093,69030 - 69040, 68602, 68620, 68005 - 68010
51
CMMS Inspectable Item
Lump sum earthworkEarthworkPipesSelect materials, etc.Surface treatmentPCC pavementBituminous pavementBox culvertsDrop inletsEnvironmentalYork zone safetyBridges and structures
(substructures andsuperstructures)
16!J ()
Table 11 (ITEM STAF)
Inspectable Items, York Units, and Staffing Guidelines
8.0 Han-hours
8.0 Han-hours6.0 Man-hours
8.0 Man-hours
8.0 Man-hours24.0 Man-hours
10.0 Han-hours
Staffing Guideline
120.0 Han-hours
5.0 Man-hours14.0 Man-hours16.0 Man-hours12.0 Man-hours
150.0 Han-hours
York Unit
170 tons
Per mile ofproject
10,000 cu yds50 ft installed
600 tons
York Zone Safety
Inspectable Item
Lump Sum Earthwork
EarthworkPipesSelect Material, Aggregate, orCement Stabilized Subbase andBase Course
Surface Coursesa. Surface Treatmentb. Portland Cement Concrete
Pavementc. Bituminous Concrete PaveBox CulvertsDrop InletsIncidental Construction Items
1,000 sq yds500 tons50 cu yds5 inletsPer mile ofproject
9., Bridges & Structures (Substructuresand Superstructures) 5 cu yds
Environmental 100 lin ftof barriers
60 group IIbarricadedays
1.
5.
6.7.8.
2.3.4.
11.
10.
The long-term and short-term portions of CMHS have been presentedseparately simply because each portion derives staffing needs differently;however, both are still part of the same system. Both outputs are producedtogether, and in some cases, the two portions actually share staffingassessments. In order to prevent some projects' staffing needs from beingomitted because of glitches in the data, a default system has been built intothe system. If a PPHS project is screened for the short-term and acceptedbut for some reason an E03 matching project cannot be found, the long-termstaffing value is substituted for the short-term. Conversely, if a long-termproject cannot be staffed, typically because it has a length of 0.0, theshort-term value is substituted.
The long-term and the short-term each staff years Nos. 1 and 2. Onlythe long-term staffs years Nos. 3 through 6. It was suggested that only oneset of staffing values be produced for the first 2 years; however, because ofthe short-term's greater accuracy and the need for consistency in thelong-term 6-year projections, separate staffings are produced for years Nos.1 and 2.
52
·1691
Vhen a default value is needed for the long-term in years Nos. 3 through6 (or any other time when there is no short-term value available), a defaultvalue of 2 FTEs (3664 man-hours) is used. Before this default value is used,a check is made to see if there are any bridges in the project. If there areany bridges in the project, then it is staffed according to the number ofbridges. Certainly, staffing projects with default values is not desirable,but it is much better to account for those projects in some way rather thansimply to omit them.
Field personnel may have concerns about their projected staffing needsin CMMS. In order to help locate where discrepancies between fieldassessments and CMMS assessments might be, a detailed, project-level proofsheet can be generated by CHHS. Proof sheets show total staffing andapportionment by project for both the long-term and the short-term. Thesesheets should enable field personnel to spot problems like the use of defaultvalues, omission of projects, and erroneous project data.
Figure 2 is a sample proof sheet. The first column is thedistrict-residency code followed by the county, state project number, andPPHS number. The next two columns are the PPHS scope of work and CMHSproject type as defined in Tables 1 and 2. Start date is projected from theadvertisement date. Length is total project length in miles and number ofbridges is count. Highway system is coded as follows:
IPAPRRUS
Interstate SystemPrimary Arterial NetworkRegular Primary SystemUrban System .Secondary System
All modifiers that apply to a given project are marked with an "x."
SGHVUSU
Subgrade StabilizationMountainsVetlandsUrbanSemiurban
The next column is the long-term HPV with the corresponding short-termMPV right beneath. For the first project, the long-term HPV is 600.0 andthe short-term is 2410.64. Each of these numbers is followed by thecorresponding FTEs in the next column. The remaining columns all pertain tothe apportionment of the MPVs/FTEs over the life of the project. The sameformat is used in these columns as the other staffing columns--the firstnumbers in the column are long-term and the next ones are short-term. Startand end months are in reference to month 1 of calendar year 1. In the caseof the sample proof month 1 is January 1989. The column headed by yearrefers to the years during the staffing window which each project will span.All projected staffing may not be shown in the remaining columns if theproject extends beyond the staffing window (6 years for long-term and 2years for short-term). Based on the start and end months, the HPVs aredivided among the appropriate calendar years in the next to the last columnwith the FTE equivalents being given by year in the last column.
53
~ en ~ ~~ ...,~1
...~:
,-1:-
COM
MON
WEA
LTH
OFV
IRG
INIA
D~PARTM~NT
n~
TR
AN
SPO
RT
AT
IOM
CON
STRU
CTIO
NM
ANPO
WER
MAN
AGEM
ENT
SYST
EMD~TAJI
PR
n.J
FC
TPRn~~HFFT
~FI
14
3
DIS
TS
TA
TE
PRO
Ipp
MS
Sco
pEC
MM
SST
AR
TN
OHU
YM
OD
IFIE
RS
CO
NT
RA
CT
ST
RT
EN
DY
EA
RlY
MP
V/E
TE
SRE
SCO
NUM
BER
NU
M8E
RW
ORK
TYPE
DATE
LNG
THBR
GSY
SSG
MS
U5U
LT&
5TM
PV/F
TES
110
HOYR
ITIe
STY
EARL
Y
42
84
20
61
10
42
24
90
00
01
66
70
95
19
90
02
01
0.4
01S
60
0.0
00
.314
25
25
30
.00
0.3
35
00
0o
02
.41
0.6
41
.314
242
2.2
09
.90
1.2
42
84
20
61
50
42
24
10
00
01
62
71
64
19
90
06
01
0.8
00
S5
20
.72
0.2
18
27
23
64
.70
0.1
31
56
30
o0
1,5
09
.41
0.8
18
242
1,0
56
.30
0.5
42
84
20
61
70
42
P6
50OO0870~
03
11
99
30
90
13
.40
0S
3,5
46
.37
1.9
57
72
:57
88
.00
0.4
A_
2.~~4.00
t.2
4'2
A_
4.,
QA:l7a4~lA2_0lHlll!4g~
__O~
11
99
10
An
11
.1o
ns
1.141.3~
0.6
_3
24
1!
__3_
31A.~O
0.1
47
64
.40
0.4
5~3.70
0.0
A"'
)A4
?0
.c.?
7Q
'??
54
nn
nn
t.c.C
;A0
5?
lQC
11
n?n
tI_
An
n~
.3~A24~25·
_2.1
)__
21-,.
43
__3
'.'4
5.1
01
.?
41
,42
8.7
00
.7
42
84
20
64
00
42
26
20
00
01
52
20
319
9105
010
.600
S6
25
.83
0.3
29
463
27
8.4
00
.14
34
8.0
00
.1
4-/
0A
?nLA~nA??S'l
nn
nn
1L
J.?
"...
10Aqn~ln1_
_1l~~
__g
71
71!t_~~n
ull
q_
__'
.21l
_1_
~4_0n
n.n
0920
13
39
.20
0.1
2_b
78
•4
00
•~
0.5
1.0
17
.95
*~
1;
24
8.0
00
.00C
l-:
--=
-:-:
=-:
:-::
-__
--:-
--:-
_
VI
+:"-
4.,
S4
20
65
70
'22
61
non01b~1
09
5199;nQn~_n_2u_ftl
s~
bru
L.Q
O_O~~
51
_~g_
52
0.0
.00
0.1
64
00
.00
0.2
42
84
20
65
80
42
P4
40
00
01
62
016
419
9010
011
.800
S1
,17
1.6
20
.62
231
23
51
.60
0.1
3B
?Q4
0o
42
,07
1.4
61
•1
22
24
26
21
.30
0.3
4:28
42
06
67
04
22
55
00
00
16
53
095
19
92
10
01
0.8
01S
60
0.0
00
.346
57
41
50
.00
0.0
5_4
50
.00
0.2
4'-
't:'
42
06
75
0'2
p.2
00
00
16
22
03
~_
_1
9S
C1
09
0t
0.7
00
S1
30
..1
40
.30
92
61
16
2..4
00
.02
48
7.2
00
.2~
21
.20
0.0
73
9.1
10
.40
9~4
11
64
.40
0.0
24
93
.20
0.2
428
42
06
76
04
22
35
00
00
15
94
095
1988
0401
0.3
01S
60
0.0
00
.301
031
15
0.0
00
.0
75
9.3
20
.401
03
11
89
.90
0.1
-----------
4.23
~2
06
83
04
2P
43
00
00
15
86
OS2
1991
1201
1.3
00
S2
.65
3.6
31
..43
65
3..
14
7.0
;0C
I.O~_
__
1~_16S
2·D
..-_
_~2-
,.;
:37
..~·~
I:l•.;
-----------------------------------------------------------
---
---
----
---
----
---
---
--
---
---
---
-------
Fig
ure
2.
Sam
ple
pro
of
shee
t.