Questions have been raised about the use of engineering consulting firms by the WCRM158 Wastewater Management Authority (WMA) - and whether it would be more cost-effective for the WMA to just hire it's own engineer.
In my opinion, the use of "external professionals or engineers" continues to be a cost-effective alternative to in-house engineers. Let me explain.
The WMA doesn't have a 'steady state' or ongoing need for engineering expertise, so that would result in significant periods of time when there was no engineering work being performed. While there could be 'work found' to keep an engineer occupied, 'make work projects' aren't very rewarding - and often result in high turnover. Further, at what cost? Keeping a 6-figure salaried engineer on staff, paying for benefits, annual dues, professional development, etc. would all add up significantly.
WMA requirements are mostly project-based, resulting in a relatively large burst of activity that may require 3 or more engineers working at one time to accomplish goals, rather than a single engineer working for a longer period of time. Using an engineering firm with sufficient resources is the best way to deal with these projects.
It's worth noting there are multiple engineering disciplines, including structural, geological, electrical, civil, environmental, etc. All of these named have been used over the last 4 years, meaning even if the WMA had its own engineer there would be the question of which discipline to hire, and the WMA would still need to contract externally for the others.
Regardless, it's important to note that, since 2021, the WMA has contracted for an 'Owner's Engineer'. This role is focused on representing and protecting the interests of the WMA, much as a staff person would. The key difference is that the WMA pays for services as and when needed, not on a full-time basis. I believe this is an excellent compromise between employed vs fully-outsourced engineering services.
This is why I believe using external engineering services was and is the correct decision for the WMA.
Comments