-
Job Description
Marketing Statement
Ride BART to a satisfying career that lets you both: 1) make a difference to Bay Area residents, and 2) enjoy excellent pay, benefits, and employment stability. BART is looking for people who like to be challenged, work in a fast-paced environment, and have a passion for connecting riders to work, school and other places they need to go. BART offers a competitive salary, comprehensive health benefits, paid time off, and the CalPERS retirement program.
Job Summary
Pay Rate
Non-Rep Pay band 12:
$ 185,624.00 (Annual Salary Minimum) - $ 281,222.00 (Annual Salary Maximum)
*Initial salary will be between $228,823.00 - $242,717.00 annually to commensurate with education and experience.
Reports To
Chief Maintenance and Engineering Officer or designee.
Current Assignment
The Assistant Chief Maintenance Officer, Maintenance & Construction, will be responsible for assisting with the Safety, training, administration, direction and overall management of the Right of Way Maintenance area of the Maintenance & Engineering Department. Responsibilities including, but not limited to, leadership development, developing and executing the maintenance control, regulatory compliance, planning and executing of Capital Maintenance projects, quality assurance and warranty administration of District assets.
The incumbent selected will be responsible for managing, through subordinate staff, all maintenance operations activities related to the successful deployment and life cycle management of assigned activities within the Maintenance & Engineering Department including the utilization of best practices cross departmental, non-revenue vehicle maintenance, project management, customer safety, infrastructure reliability and asset management activities to ensure right of way assets efficiently support revenue service.
Ideal candidate will demonstrate the following beyond the minimum qualifications:- Strong Leadership Skills
- Good written and verbal communications
- Ability to work long and varying shifts
- 24/7 Availability
Selection Process
Applications will be screened to assure that minimum qualifications are met. Those applicants who meet minimum qualifications will then be referred to the hiring department for the completion of further selection processes.
The selection process for this position may include a skills/performance demonstration, a written examination, and a panel and/or individual interview.
The successful candidate must have an employment history demonstrating reliability and dependability; provide copies of certificates, diplomas or other documents as required by law, including those establishing his/her right to work in the U. S; pass a pre-employment medical examination which may include a drug and alcohol screen, and which is specific to the essential job functions and requirements. Pre-employment processing will also include a background check. (Does not apply to current full-time District employees unless specific job requires additional evaluations).
Examples of Duties
Assumes full management responsibility for managing activities and operations, through subordinate managers, all maintenance and engineering activities related to the successful deployment and life cycle management of assigned activities and infrastructure assets.
Manages and participates in the development and implementation of departmental goals, objectives, policies and priorities for each assigned engineering and maintenance division.
Plans, directs and coordinates, through subordinate level staff, the assigned group’s work plan; assigns projects and programmatic areas of responsibility; establishes clear responsibility for personnel safety programs and processes, reviews and evaluates work methods and procedures; assess and monitors workload: identifies opportunities for improvement; meets with key staff to identify and resolve problems: and directs and implements changes.
Participates in the development and optimization of business management systems; analyzes and utilizes data to make management decisions and measure organizational performance; enforces compliance with business processes; provides resources, data and expertise that contribute to the formulation and execution of District asset management processes and plans.
Responsible for the execution of, and participation in, the development of proactive and predictive maintenance programs; define and meet equipment safety standards, analyze and monitor performance and quality; manage through data acquisition and analysis; employ reliability centered maintenance methodology; effectively plan and schedule the execution of interdisciplinary work; and optimize materials management in the group.
Oversees the execution of engineering projects and major contract design and rehabilitation projects; ensures use of design best practices to define and meet safety requirements and customer needs; utilizes project management best practices to optimize project delivery; reviews performance and implements changes as necessary; and oversees and directs the work of in- house, consultant and contracted staff.
Attends and participates in professional group meetings; stays abreast of new trends and innovations in the field of systems, and maintains a very high level of technical expertise; provide strategic direction in the research, analysis, development and implementation of new technology; and manage and execute the resolution of complex technical problems.
Oversees and participates in the development and administration of the departmental budget; provides annual and long-range forecasts of funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials and supplies; approves expenditures and implements budgetary adjustments as appropriate and necessary.
In coordination of designated personnel manages and supports labor relations issues including Department and District labor-management relations, investigations, grievances and arbitrations, contracting notifications, and negotiations.
Establishes, within District policy, appropriate service and staffing levels; monitors and evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of assigned area’s service delivery methods and procedures, provides recommendations for improvement, and allocates resources accordingly.
Selects, trains, motivates and evaluates assigned personnel; provides or coordinates staff training; works with employees to correct deficiencies; implements discipline and termination procedures.
Monitors developments and legislation related to assigned areas of responsibility; evaluates impact upon District operations; recommends and implements policy and procedural improvements.
Represents the District to representatives of manufacturers, vendors, governmental agencies and professional and business organizations; coordinates assigned activities with those of other departments and outside agencies and organizations.
Provides responsible staff assistance to the Chief Engineer; participates on various District management committees; prepares and presents staff reports and other necessary correspondence.
Minimum Qualifications
Education :
Bachelor’s degree in Engineering or a related field from an accredited college or university.
Experience :
The equivalent of seven (7) of full-time professional verifiable experience in maintenance engineering, maintenance management or related experience, which must have included at least three (3) years of management responsibility.
Substitution:
Additional professional experience as outlined above may be substituted for the education on a year-for-year basis. A college degree is preferred.
Knowledge and Skills
Knowledge of :- Operations, principles, and activities of comprehensive maintenance and engineering programs
- Principles and practices of comprehensive asset management programs.
- Principles and practices of design for assigned infrastructure asset categories.
- Principles and practices of modern maintenance management.
- Principles and practices of project and contract management.
- Principles and practices of program development and administration.
- Principles and practices of policy development and administration.
- Principles and practices of budget preparation and administration.
- Principles of supervision, training and performance evaluation.
- Related Federal, State and local laws, codes and regulations.
Skill in :- Managing comprehensive maintenance and engineering asset management programs.
- Managing engineering design programs.
- Managing maintenance programs delivering capital projects
- Utilization and analysis of data as a basis for decision making
- Developing and administering departmental goals, objectives and procedures.
- Analyzing and assessing policies and operational needs and making appropriate adjustments.
- Identifying and responding to sensitive community and organizational issues, concerns and needs.
- Project Management.
- Delegating authority and responsibility.
- Selecting, supervising, training and evaluating staff.
- Preparing clear and concise administrative and financial reports.
- Preparing and administering large and complex budgets.
- Interpreting and applying applicable Federal, State and local policies, laws and regulations.
- Communicating clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.
- Establishing and maintaining effective working relationships with those contacted in the course of work.
Equal Employment Opportunity GroupBox1
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District is an equal opportunity employer. Applicants shall not be discriminated against because of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and above), religion, national origin (including language use restrictions), disability (mental and physical, including HIV and AIDS), ancestry, marital status, military status, veteran status, medical condition (cancer/genetic characteristics and information), or any protected category prohibited by local, state or federal laws.
The BART Human Resources Department will make reasonable efforts in the examination process to accommodate persons with disabilities or for religious reasons. Please advise the Human Resources Department of any special needs in advance of the examination by emailing at least 5 days before your examination date at employment@bart.gov .
Qualified veterans may be eligible to obtain additional veteran's credit in the selection process for this recruitment (effective Jan. 1, 2013). To obtain the credit, veterans must attach to the application a DD214 discharge document or proof of disability and complete/submit the Veteran's Preference Application no later than the closing date of the posting. For more information about this credit please go to the Veteran's Preference Policy and Application link at www.bart.gov/jobs .
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) prides itself in offering best in class benefits packages to employees of the District. Currently, the following benefits may be available to employees in this job classification.
Highlights- Medical Coverage (or $350/month if opted out)
- Dental Coverage
- Vision Insurance (Basic and Enhanced Plans Available)
- Retirement Plan through the CA Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS)
- 2% @ 55 (Classic Members)
- 2% @ 62 (PEPRA Members)
- 3% at 50 (Safety Members - Classic)
- 2.7% @ 57 (Safety Members - PEPRA)
- Reciprocity available for existing members of many other public retirement systems (see BART website and/or CalPERS website for details)
- 6.65% employer contribution up to annual maximum of $1,868.65
Closing Date/Time: Continuous -
ABOUT THE COMPANY
-
-
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
Show moreThe BART story began in 1946. It began not by governmental fiat, but as a concept gradually evolving at informal gatherings of business and civic leaders on both sides of the San Francisco Bay. Facing a heavy post-war migration to the area and its consequent automobile boom, these people discussed ways of easing the mounting congestion that was clogging the bridges spanning the Bay. In 1947, a joint Army-Navy review Board concluded that another connecting link between San Francisco and Oakland would be needed in the years ahead to prevent intolerable congestion on the Bay Bridge. The link? An underwater tube devoted exclusively to high-speed electric trains.
Since 1911, visionaries had periodically brought up this Jules Verne concept. But now, pressure for a traffic solution increased with the population. In 1951, the State Legislature created the 26-member San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit Commission, comprised of representatives from each of the nine counties which touch the Bay. The Commission's charge was to study the Bay Area's long range transportation needs in the context of environmental problems and then recommend the best solution.
The Commission advised, in its final report in 1957, that any transportation plan must be coordinated with the area's total plan for future development. Since no development plan existed, the Commission prepared one itself. The result of their thoroughness is a master plan which did much to bring about coordinated planning in the Bay Area, and which was adopted a decade later by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The BART Concept is Born
The Commission's least-cost solution to traffic tie-ups was to recommend forming a five-county rapid transit district, whose mandate would be to build and operate a high-speed rapid rail network linking major commercial centers with suburban sub-centers.The Commission stated that, "If the Bay Area is to be preserved as a fine place to live and work, a regional rapid transit system is essential to prevent total dependence on automobiles and freeways."
Thus was born the environmental concept underlying BART. Acting on the Commission's recommendations, in 1957, the Legislature formed the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, comprising the five counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo. At this time, the District was granted a taxing power of five cents per $100 of assessed valuation. It also had authority to levy property taxes to support a general obligation bond issue, if approved by District voters. The State Legislature lowered the requirement for voter approval from 66 percent to 60 percent.
Between 1957 and 1962, engineering plans were developed for a system that would usher in a new era in rapid transit. Electric trains would run on grade-separated right-of-ways, reaching maximum speeds of 75-80 mph, averaging perhaps 45 mph, including station stops. Advanced transit cars, with sophisticated suspensions, braking and propulsion systems, and luxurious interiors, would be strong competition to "King Car " in the Bay Area. Stations would be pleasant, conveniently located, and striking architectural enhancements to their respective on-line communities.
BART employees in the 1970s.
Hundreds of meetings were held in the District communities to encourage local citizen participation in the development of routes and station locations. By midsummer, 1961, the final plan was submitted to the supervisors of the five District counties for approval. San Mateo County Supervisors were cool to the plan. Citing the high costs of a new system-plus adequate existing service from Southern Pacific commuter trains - they voted to withdraw their county from the District in December 1961.
With the District-wide tax base thus weakened by the withdrawal of San Mateo County, Marin County was forced to withdraw in early 1962 because its marginal tax base could not adequately absorb its share of BART's projected cost. Another important factor in Marin's withdrawal was an engineering controversy over the feasibility of carrying trains across the Golden Gate Bridge.
BART had started with a 16-member governing Board of Directors apportioned on county population size: four from Alameda and San Francisco Counties, three from Contra Costa and San Mateo, and two from Marin. When the District was reduced to three counties, the Board was reduced to 11 members: four from San Francisco and Alameda, and three from Contra Costa. Subsequently, in 1965, the District's enabling legislation was changed to apportion the BART Board with four Directors from each county, thus giving Contra Costa its fourth member on a 12-person Board. Two directors from each county, hence forth, were appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The other two directors were appointed by committees of mayors of each county (with the exception of the City and County of San Francisco, whose sole mayor made these appointments).
The five-county plan was quickly revised to a three-county plan emphasizing rapid transit between San Francisco and the East Bay cities and suburbs of Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The new plan, elaborately detailed and presented as the "BART Composite Report, " was approved by supervisors of the three counties in July 1962, and placed on the ballot for the following November general election.
The plan required approval of 60 percent of the District's voters. It narrowly passed with a 61.2 percent vote District-wide, much to the surprise of many political experts who were confident it would fail. Indeed, one influential executive was reported to have said: "If I'd known the damn thing would have passed, I'd never have supported it. "
The voters approved a $792 million bond issue to finance a 71.5 mile high-speed transit system, consisting of 33 stations serving 17 communities in the three counties. The proposal also included another needed transit project: rebuilding 3.5 miles of the San Francisco Municipal Railway. The new line would link muni streetcar lines directly with BART and Market Street stations, and four new Muni stations would be built.
The additional cost of the transbay tube -- estimated at $133 million -- was to come from bonds issued by the California Toll Bridge Authority and secured by future Bay Area Bridge revenues. The additional cost of rolling stock, estimated at $71 million, was to be funded primarily from bonds issued against future operating revenues. Thus, the total cost of the system, as of 1962, was projected at $996 million. It would be the largest single public works project ever undertaken in the U.S. by the local citizenry.
After the election, engineers immediately started work on the final system designs, only to be halted by a taxpayer's suit filed against the District a month later. The validity of the bond election, and the legality of the District itself, were challenged. While the court ruled in favor of the District on both counts, six months of litigation cost $12 million in construction delays. This would be the first of many delays from litigation and time-consuming negotiations involving 166 separate agreements reached with on-line cities, counties, and other special districts. The democratic processes of building a new transit system would prove to be major cost factors that, however necessary, were not foreseen.
-