For the first time ever, demand for the annual BEX Forecast event was so high we had to plan two separate presentations. Now that the first is in the books, we wanted to give our readers a glimpse into what our research shows for the Arizona construction landscape.
On Weds., Jan. 25, BEX Founder and President Rebekah Morris and DATABEX Manager Lya Parrish summarized construction activity across all the sectors we track in a whirlwind two-hour presentation before a capacity crowd at the Arizona Heritage Center. Based on current trends, the duo also gave their predictions as to what will happen in terms of volume for the year to come.
You will have to wait until next Friday’s issue for a full recap. After all, we don’t want to spoil the surprises for those attending the second presentation on Feb. 1. We do, however, want to give you a quick peek at some of the more interesting findings our culling, curating and scrubbing of 12 months of operational data revealed.
The Arizona Construction Gold Rush
Even with all the market headwinds from supply chain constraints, material cost increases, labor shortages, inflation, interest rate hikes and capital market constrictions, Arizona construction had a banner year, hitting $22.4B in 2022, a 24% year-over-year increase in market activity.
Because some sectors were much more active than others, the number of firms launching, designing or building projects varied. Some counts stayed the same; some contracted or consolidated. Like bees to flowers, however, those market sectors that were in full bloom drew a massive increase in participants, with new players showing up as owners, design firms and general contractors for projects across the state.
The following table will give you the at-a-glance has to how many players are making their mark in Arizona in 2023.
Take a look at both Industrial and Multifamily. It’s no surprise that pretty much anyone and everyone wanted to get into those sectors in Arizona over the past two years, but those numbers are just staggering when you stop to think that those are all individual companies working on individual projects.
They were a veritable gold rush, drawing new firms in like prospectors hoping to strike their own mother lodes in the burgeoning desert.
That’s all we’re going to tease with you with this week, though. To find out who’s doing what where, you’ll have to wait for next Friday’s issue.
Even better, come see for yourself. Tickets are still available for the Weds., Feb. 1 presentation.
The last BEX CompaniesLeading Market Series event of 2022 – Higher Education – was also one of its best attended as a sold out crowd filled ASU’s SkySong Building 3 Synergy II meeting space Tuesday morning.
After a brief welcome from BEX President and Founder Rebekah Morris, moderator Cassie Robertson, Southwest regional prefab leader for DPR Construction introduced the panel.
Appearing in person for Arizona State University was Alexander Kohnen, VP of facilities development and management. Attending virtually were Peter Dourlein, associate VP of planning, design & construction for the University of Arizona and Stephanie Bauer, assistant director of facility services for planning, design and construction at Northern Arizona University.
Arizona State University
Kicking off the panelist presentations, Kohnen said ASU has six projects headed to the Joint Committee on Capital Review for the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee in the immediate future. He stressed a great deal of ASU’s upcoming work focuses on projects dedicated to lab space to accommodate the university’s exploding student growth and demand in research-focused fields. ASU currently has more than $700M in funded research, he said, and needs space to deal with the volume.
A Job Order Contract request focused on laboratory work is expected to come out in the spring, he said, advising attendees to be on the lookout.
He also explained that the university’s student growth has contributed to already high demand for housing. Since ASU has a policy requiring all first year in-person students to live on campus, large volumes of students have been temporarily housed in area hotels for extended periods while they wait for space. Adding to the need is the fact that much of the university’s housing stock is out of date and in need of renovation to make it current and appealing.
Lastly, Kohnen turned his attention to the ASU Polytechnic Campus in Mesa. The first building in the ASU School of Manufacturing Systems & Networks, Polytechnic Campus plan is currently in design, and the second, he said, is coming soon.
University of Arizona
Dourlein said the current year has been one of reemergence from the pandemic and focusing on growth. The current student body is approximately 52,000, while the research portfolio exceeds $800M and is projected to hit $1B.
Much of Dourlein’s presentation covered the UACapital Improvement Plan and Annual Capital Plan. Given that UA has a large number of old buildings that need upgrades, renovation and revitalization projects are front of mind for the university at the moment. Many projects in that space will be managed as JOCs.
For larger projects, he said UA is leaning heavily on Design-Build delivery methods, although there may be Construction Manager At Risk projects as the need arises. “We’re having great success with Design-Build right now, so we’re continuing down that road,” he said.
He then launched into a rapid-fire recap of projects included in the Annual Capital Plan that have not yet been awarded. These projects include:
A remodel of the Shantz Building, currently reviewing the submission,
Mining Mineral & Natural Resources Education Museum Renovation, expected to be announced in Q1,
Arizona State Museum Renovation RFQ is expected in Q1.
Another project on the list and currently out for procurement is the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Food Products and Safety Lab Renovation and Animal Feeding and Resource Capture Facility.
The first year of UA’s recent Capital Improvement Plan has no new projects, as most of the work was covered in the Annual Capital Plan. Dourlein again recapped several projects, noting that projects become moved from the wish list into reality when they receive funding.
Projects included in his CIP recap included an overview of the UA Center for Advanced Molecular and Immunological Therapies. CAMI has two buildings, one of which may be undertaken as a public-private partnership while the other, larger building will be a more traditional Design-Build delivery. CAMI will complete UA’s “superblock” in downtown Phoenix. The RFQ is expected in Q1.
UA’s housing needs have generated two projects expected to release for consideration in the near future, one of approximately 1,000 beds and another of 800.
The remainder of the projects and focuses Dourlein mentioned dealt with campus infrastructure, including:
Deescalating the use of historic Centennial Hall and creating a new 2,500 performing arts venue,
A new art museum, and
A new student engineering design center.
Northern Arizona University
When her turn came around, NAU’s Bauer told the audience the university is currently working on its first Campus Master Plan in 12 years. As a result, major capital project identification and planning are on hold until the master plan is complete.
Future development focus will center not so much on adding new space, but rather in optimizing existing space and reconfiguring uses. The draft plan is expected for release in summer 2023.
In the interim, the focus will fall on deferred maintenance, facility improvements and renovations. Most of those projects will be procured as JOCs.
With time running short, Robertson pitched a series of quick questions to the panelists. The first question concerned what has worked and not worked in the universities’ project development and procurement efforts.
Bauer said NAU needs contractors and design firms to be innovative and patient and to help guide the university around some of its historically self-imposed roadblocks. Dourlein agreed, saying innovation and adaptability are vital in managing UA’s projects. At ASU, Kohnen said the need is for better time management and understanding from providers that budgets are locked in place. He said providers need to explain how they will secure partners to complete projects.
When Robertson turned to the audience for questions, the one that grabbed everyone’s attention was a request to explain how sustainability goals are impacting construction budget constraints.
Kohnen said sustainability adds to costs, but that students demand it and it is part of the ASU brand. He added that there is, by necessity, a tradeoff between sustainability focus and program scope. “We’re going to have to start looking at the program and say, ‘Do we sacrifice sustainability or do we sacrifice program?’ We need direction from the leadership on which way that’s going to go. It used to always be program was sacrosanct. I think that’s going to shift this year.”
Bauer said NAU has struggled with maintenance and is looking at how to manage the demand for improved sustainability while keeping projects on pace. She added that it is causing planners to focus more clearly on their future projects and new construction direction to achieve sustainability goals. “We have a lot of different ideas from our Climate Action Plan that we need to choose a direction on how we’re going to go. That will inform how, when we do go forward with new construction, what components will be in those buildings in the future.”
Dourlein said UA is working on a comprehensive sustainability and climate action plan, which is focusing on decarbonization of the campus.
“Some of the trends that I’ve noticed is the long-term cost of maintaining a building or heating and cooling it isn’t being benefitted all that much from getting the LEED certification. We’re already doing all that to a high degree. The LEED certification keeps escalating, and it’s adding cost that we’re not necessarily seeing benefit from. It’s probably sacrilegious to say, ‘One day we won’t build to LEED standards…,” but I think that’s part of the ongoing discussion and uncertainty.
“We do need our buildings to be maintainable and cost-efficient over the long haul… I think there are some things that are evolving there that I don’t have an answer to that I think are going to impact sustainability and design and construction. It’s going to have to be a little more of a value proposition.”
Contractors, design firm representatives and other public infrastructure development watchers from around Arizona were treated to a smorgasbord of Capital Improvement Plan and other details October 18th at the BEX Companies’ 2022 Public Works Conference.
This year’s half-day event was held in the conference center at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Phoenix Tempe. Following brief introductory remarks by event emcee Amanda Elliot, redevelopment program manager for the Town of Gilbert, the presentations, panels and information flowed at a fast and furious pace for the next four hours.
Top 10 Capital Improvement Programs Across Arizona
Kicking off the event, as she usually does, BEX Companies President and Founder Rebekah Morris let attendees know early on that even though overall construction activity in 2022 is on track to surpass 2021 volumes by more than 20%, Public Infrastructure has fallen to just 22% of the overall volume, compared to 45% for Commercial and 33% for housing.
Just a few years ago, she said, the pie chart was evenly split between the three sectors. Even though public infrastructure spending is a smaller percentage of the overall market, Morris reported CIP totals were up 15.22%. She also pointed out the broad spectrum of projects under consideration across agencies, from the perennial roadway and transit projects to expanding investments in parks and recreation and water infrastructure for many agencies.
Next, she broke out the Top 10 Capital Improvement Plans by total amounts. As has been the case for the past few years, City of Phoenix once again took the top spot, remaining ahead of former long-time front runner the Arizona Department of Transportation by nearly $3B for this planning cycle.
She also pointed out that nine of the Top 10 CIPs this cycle totaled more than $1B. The only exception – Town of Queen Creek – was a surprise newcomer to the list, knocking out City of Chandler by a mere $13.1M.
Also of note was the fact that eight of the 10 entries’ plans increased over the prior cycle. Maricopa County’s plan went up a modest 2.81%, while Queen Creek’s soared by a “whopping” 87.2%. Valley Metro’s plan fell by 30.48%, largely due to the number of projects on the agency’s books that are transitioning from development to maintenance statuses.
Wrapping up her segment, Morris reminded attendees about the more than 15% increase in CIP totals this cycle even though Public projects continue to be a smaller portion of the overall construction market. She then whetted their appetites by highlighting the fact that CIP projects are almost all front-loaded in terms of funding allocations. “The next two years should be very strong for publicly funded infrastructure and public projects in Arizona,” she said.
In her general outlook for the Public sector moving forward, she reminded both the public representatives and private industry staffers in the audience that construction price increases are not going away anytime soon.
She also said firms simply must be given more time to bid projects. She said contractors are declining to bid on projects because short submittal deadlines do not give them time to get quotes and information from subcontractors and materials suppliers they need to adequately prepare bids. Concurrent with the need for more time, she said, is the need for flexibility in the current volatile environment in terms of dealing with potential supply constraints and materials complications.
Expanding Transportation Systems
The afternoon’s first panel discussion dealt with the state of transportation systems expansion in Arizona and where the sector is headed in the near- and mid-terms. The panel consisted of:
Albert Santana – Ardurra client services manager (Moderator),
Jesse Gutierrez – Maricopa County Department of Transportation deputy director,
Henry Ikwut-Ukwa – Capital Development-Capital Planning director for Valley Metro, and
Kini Knudson – City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department director.
After giving the panelists an opportunity to briefly introduce themselves and their agencies and to explain their funding sources and major project focuses, Santana launched into the question-and-answer portion of the panel discussion. He first asked them to describe what challenges they are seeing in the state of the skilled labor market, both in their operations and in the market in general, particularly as it impacts deadlines and project deliveries.
Gutierrez said that from the internal side, MCDOT was experiencing problems recruiting enough skilled personnel to handle its workloads. On the external side, he said, the agency was experiencing difficulties in getting enough bids on projects. “We’ve seen jobs with only one bidder,” he said, “and several jobs with only two bidders, in fact. We’re seeing that more and more. It makes it very difficult, obviously.”
He added that when they do get teams on board, they show “tremendous effort” and dedication to getting the jobs done.
Ikwut-Ukwa agreed, saying the current tough state of the skilled labor market is a crisis across the entire economy and said he has seen some positions remain open for more than a year. He praised partnership efforts between contractors and others in the development community working with resources like community colleges and other education programs to develop trades training campaigns, saying they were needed contributions to the future of skilled labor development.
He cautioned, however, about the overall state of labor at the moment. “If this continues much longer,” he said, “it’s going to affect how long it takes to deliver projects.”
Knudson said it has become an ongoing challenge to manage expectations, particularly with a 24% job vacancy rate at City of Phoenix. He said he reminds his staff regularly that Street Transportation is known for its ability to deliver. “We can do a lot of things in the short term. We have a reputation for delivering projects and for getting things done, but you can’t live like that forever… It just isn’t healthy for our staff. It isn’t healthy for how we do things or how we want to do things.”
He added that the pressures are great but that he takes a degree of comfort in the fact the labor problem is not industry specific. With all industries experiencing variations of the same problem, there is more understanding than there would otherwise be.
Santana then asked the panelists for their thoughts on construction cost increases.
Knudson said he had to wonder if the current state of 20%-30% increases represented “a new baseline” in the project development world. He added the situation is a balancing act. “We have to plan, but we don’t want to overreact.”
Gutierrez said MCDOT is seeing increases in the area of 30% and is responding by phasing some previously planned projects that were to be built all at once into smaller segments, swapping out some materials for others when possible and trying to maintain flexible schedules for materials and project component deliveries.
Ikwut-Ukwa said Valley Metro was fortunate that its two major current projects were locked in with Construction Manager At Risk providers before the pandemic, although he acknowledged the pain the vendors are experiencing as a result and stressed his agency’s flexibility in working with them to mitigate the impacts where possible.
For new projects like the Light Rail Capitol Extension, he said he is seeing cost increases of 30% more than the original estimate in 2020. He appeared to speak largely for the entire room when he said, “Prices are out of whack.”
Powering Up Future Economic Development
The next panel, Powering Up Future Economic Development, dealt with the changing state of Arizona’s power supply needs and delivery systems as providers move to achieve aggressive sustainability and environmental goals without sacrificing reliability. The panel consisted of:
Diane Fischer – Kiewit director of generation services (Moderator),
Karla Moran – SRP principal economic development analyst and
Kelly Patton – APS economic development manager.
Both panelists in their introductions talked about the exponentially increasing needs and demand for power mega-users in the current development cycle.
Moran pointed out SRP currently has 251 active Greater Phoenix Economic Council prospects, 13 semiconductor projects, 39 “mega projects,” and more than 9,100MW of potential new load on the SRP system. SRP’s historical growth area includes the Price Road Corridor and Mesa Tech Corridor, with major potential new growth areas around the Loop 202 South Mountain Freeway and the Superstition Vistas area southeast of Apache Junction.
Patton’s economic development impact summary included 219 active projects, 15 pending locates, 26 locates so far in 2022, and a phase one potential new load of 6,100MW. Major APS activity areas include Buckeye, the Loop 303 Freeway corridor, north Phoenix around the TSMC plant, and major swaths west of Casa Grande and east of Eloy.
When Fischer posed the question, “What’s the hardest part about sustainability?” both panelists were off and running. Patton explained education and understanding of process has to come before policy. She used the example of Arizona’s exceptional hunger for solar projects, given the state’s climate and volume of sunny days per year.
She pointed out that solar, by itself, is not a 24×7 solution and that issues like storage and transmission of generated energy are every bit as vital to the process as the solar energy capture, itself. She said people need to understand that, at the operational level, a 100% renewable energy supply is not possible.
Moran piggybacked on Patton’s statement and explained growing resistance to solar development in particular areas – like Coolidge’s recent moratorium on solar development in agriculture-designated areas – compounds the problem.
She said it is possible to build developments farther and farther away from population centers, but the farther out they are built, the greater the need for transmission infrastructure development. She also said building on vacant desert land, particularly federal land, requires addressing an ever-increasing load of permitting and environmental impact issues that lengthen production times and add still more costs and technology-related issues.
When asked how the energy provision landscape has changed in the last five-to-10 years, Patton said the level of activity has seen a massive increase, with utilities going from having a couple mega projects on their plate then to now having a few dozen.
Moran said the big challenge has been in educating clients about issues like cost shifts, project premiums and cost acceleration for high-priority projects. She stressed clients need to understand that every new component must be created and implemented, and that these needs require investments of both time and money.
Fischer closed the session by asking what advice the panelists would give to builders working in the power sector.
Moran said SRP is outsourcing a great deal of work, with workloads going up but resources not following suit. As a result, partnerships and expertise are vital.
Patton said 50% of APS’ distribution and transmission work relies on vendors. She urged everyone to understand that utilities are suffering supply chain impacts just like every other industry, and that partners can help to educate companies about timelines and managing expectations. “Help us help you,” she urged.
Show Me the Money!
The third panel, entitled “Show Me the Money!” focused on funding sources for transportation and infrastructure projects, including recent federal stimulus monies, regional transportation tax measures and bond propositions. The panel was made up of:
Audra Koester Thomas – Maricopa Association of Governments transportation planning program manager,
Kristine Ward – ADOT CFO, and
Casey Ambrose – Town of Gilbert senior project manager.
After the panelists introduced themselves and their agencies, Olds started the questioning by asking them about their funding sources.
Ward immediately started off by passionately explaining the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocation for Arizona was not the $5.3B lump gift many people and reports seemed to believe. She explained allocations are set for $1.3B over five years and pointed out there are numerous different programs and requirements attached to funds.
She specifically differentiated monies that are awarded through program grants and those awarded through competitive discretionary grants. She added that discretionary grant applications are made more attractive by a number of factors, including the ability to provide dedicated matching funds.
She praised the fact that the Arizona State Legislature has begun allocating funds for ADOT and called it “a big deal” that the Legislature approved nearly $1B in ADOT appropriations in the most recent session.
Koester Thomas then explained the current challenges facing MAG after Gov. Doug Ducey’s July veto of a bill that would have scheduled the current Proposition 400 half-cent sales tax for a March special election renewal vote. She pointed out that Prop 400 monies are a significant source of matching funds for transportation projects and that projects are now in jeopardy and facing significant delays because their sustained funding source is now uncertain.
(AZBEX NOTE: We recently covered the veto of the Proposition 400 extension, known as Prop 400E, in detail. To learn more, please go here, here, here or here.)
Ambrose gave attendees a historic overview of Gilbert’s use of transportation and infrastructure bonds and recapped the 2021 Streets, Transportation and Infrastructure Related Bond passed by Gilbert voters with a margin of just 162 votes. She explained that in putting the request together, officials structured it so that monies were available to categories of projects, rather than individual efforts, which allows for greater flexibility in allocating funds.
Later in the session Olds asked about the competitive nature of project funding. Koester Thomas explained that discretionary funding is competitive, and that the competition is fierce, with roughly eight times as many requests as there are awards available. She added that competitive awards require a local match, and the more matching money a request can guarantee, the more attractive the project becomes, with a 40% match being a general target. She then reiterated that the half-cent sales tax that has funded so much of the Valley’s transportation and economic development since its first approval in 1985 is the source for the area’s local matches.
When asked about the implications of the veto, she used the current state of the State Route 30 – Tres Rios freeway as one example. A portion of the project had been out for design bid by ADOT. After the veto, that solicitation was pulled because of questions over future funding. Estimates now are the project segment will be delayed by two years and cost $300M more than it would have if the process flow had not been interrupted.
Ward agreed and said the half-cent tax has been a key economic development driver for the Valley and the state and that there are tremendous impacts associated with possibly losing it as a revenue source.
Olds then segued into asking the panel about inflation and project cost increases.
Ambrose pointed out the Gilbert 2021 bond was worded around project categories rather than funding for specific projects. She expressed gratitude for the foresight in structuring the request that way, but concern that not all the items that need to be addressed will be handled as fully as they could have been without the current state of inflation.
Koester Thomas said MAG is seeing bids come in at 20%-30% more than estimates. She said, however, that one upside of relying on a sales tax versus a bond is that sales tax revenues also increase due to inflation.
Ward said the impact is that ADOT will have to do less because, “Dollars don’t change. The value of dollars does.” She said when the amount of money is fixed, there is no option but to do less.
Olds closed the session by asking the panel what industry can do to support planning and funding efforts.
Ward said it is important to battle misinformation and to define expectations. She asked attendees to look at what the Department is actually doing and to trust that it is working to get funding in place as far across the board as possible.
Ambrose urged vendors and service providers to help cities and agencies find ways to save. She urged them to “give us information and options.”
Upcoming Water Infrastructure Projects
The day’s final panel was an overview of Upcoming Water Infrastructure Projects. The panel was comprised of:
Jaren Murphy – McCarthy Building Companies director of business development (Moderator),
Marc Ahlstrom – City of Mesa assistant city engineer, and
Troy Hayes – City of Phoenix water services director.
After the panelists introduced themselves and explained how their operations were funded, Murphy asked them to address the impacts of recent federal funding and stimulus availability. To the obvious surprise of some attendees, Hayes said that because of the degree of red tape and extensive requirements lists, Phoenix found it both easier and cheaper to bond for projects internally.
Murphy then asked how the labor shortage was impacting operations and project delivery. Ahlstrom said a key challenge has been finding and retaining engineers. He said job postings have gone from receiving 50-60 applications to receiving just five or six. He said there were similar problems finding plant operators and that recruitment and retention was a continuous problem across all positions.
Hayes said Phoenix has encountered similar issues, but he expressed optimism and appreciation for the various apprenticeship programs available to partner with for labor development.
In terms of how the industry can help cities with their current difficulties, both panelists urged partnership, involvement and information sharing. Ahlstrom said agencies rely on providers’ expertise and urged contractors and other vendors to deliver alternative ideas on items like design and materials. He also urged them to get involved in the process as early as possible.
Hayes reminded contractors that they are on the so-called “front lines” and urged their help in identifying unknowns and potential pitfalls agencies may not yet be aware of.
The BEX FY 2022-2023 CIP Special Report
As is part of the Public Works Conference every year, the event coincided with the release of the BEX FY 2022-2023 CIP Special Report. This year’s is the 12th annual edition and contains detailed descriptions and line-item breakdowns of major projects from agencies around the state.
Every March, BEX Research staff begins tracking preliminary CIPs from more than 25 agencies around Arizona and spends the next six months assembling project information, cost and timeline details, and contact lists for agencies and major projects.
This year’s CIP is available through the BEX website here.