All this paperwork is great, but who’s building the job…
This blog will focus on my exposure to the quality management system at Battersea Power Station Phase One.
To set the context of this blog I will provide a bit of an update on the project. It’s fair to say that the pace of life at Battersea power station is getting frenetic. Carillion (CCL) and Skanska Rashleigh Weatherfoil (SRW) finally got agreement on the MEP programme we’re working to, so pressure is naturally being applied to hit deadlines. This pressure is added to by the fact that CCL procured the job during the recession, under resourced it and have no immediate plans to increase the level of resources available. As I have previously mentioned the site has significant logistic constraints and complexity due to the sheer scale and profile of the job. Given these factors I would have thought it prudent to keep processes simple and not re-invent the wheel. This is certainly not the case with regards to our quality management system.
Battersea’s quality management system.
It will come as no surprise that the main way in which CCL are managing quality during the installation is through the use of Risk Assessment and Method Statements (RAMS) to ensure the planned method of installation is correct and safe. This is then followed by Benchmarks (part of the JCT contract) which must be the first of type on site to set the standard for the works including how it was achieved not just the finished product, Inspection and Test Plans (ITPs) and check sheets to ensure that the installation is being carried out as per the agreed specification, this information is then recorded in a package plan file which is the audit trail to the client that CCL have done their job. The processes I have just outlined seem straight forward and make sense to me. Where I believe Battersea is starting to over complicate things is through the overly zealous use of Benchmarks.
Benchmarks
Under the JCT contract that CCL have signed up to there are approximately 250 benchmarks that are required, none of which are MEP related. There are further 140 non-contractual benchmarks that have been created internally by CCL, the majority of which are attributed to the MEP team. Each benchmarks requires SRW to pull together an 8 page document with additional supporting evidence (details of the specification that the benchmark relates to, photos of the installation, relevant extracts from the RAMS and drawings). This paperwork then needs to be red penned by CCL, signed off by 5 people and utilised to inspect the benchmark itself on two separate occasions; quite a time consuming process in total for what is effectively a discretionary task. Due to the lack of resources on site these non-contractual benchmarks are not being closed out in a timely manner. As mentioned above the benchmarks are supposed to be the first of type on site. However, in reality by the time the paperwork is completed and the benchmark signed off the job has progressed far beyond the first of type being utilised as a benchmark. As an example, a recent benchmark for electrical containment took so long to close out that approximately 50% of the total installation had already been completed. In theory the works should have been stopped until the benchmark was signed off. But on a job that is already behind schedule that wasn’t going to happen. With regards to the specific example of the electrical containment, one of the reasons work wasn’t stopped was that everyone knew (from walking past it on a regular basis) that the work was being installed to a high standard. Therefore what was the point of this benchmark other than to tick a box on an excel spreadsheet? I believe the production of the associated paperwork took up valuable time that could have been better spent managing other areas of the job which would have resulted in improved quality. I have highlighted my concerns and they are shared by other members of the CCL team, however, we are being told to soldier on.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Rich,
If you can prove the time wasted on the paperwork for each benchmark and back that up with no quality issues seen from utilising the standard QA/QC systems in place and present that to CCL surely they would have to take note? Especially if you can forecast the remainder of the MEP installation (using said benchmarks) and predict ‘wasted’ time thus showing that you may/will be hit with potential liquidated damages.
Fran,
Unfortunately not. Although the benchmark’s I’m involved in aren’t contractual we’ve told the client about them and get his resident engineer to sign them off. Seems like a bit of creeping excellence and a paperwork exercise to keep the client happy to me.
Rich,
Ah….well I can understand if the client is expecting it then it’s very unlikely you can drop them.
Similarly on my project the client has now started asking to review ITPs in advance of any testing/commissioning and we are having to set-up client witnessing. Though, like you say, it is getting close to creeping excellence.
Rich, one of the tasks that I was given a few weeks ago was to develop the work lot register for our project, which is essentially involved breaking the job down into component parts each of which can then be signed off as it is completed (with copies of ITP’s etc.) and then form part of the manufacturers data report (MDR) which will be handed over to the client at the end. This task would have been a lot easier if:
A. There was a PBS or WBS to follow
B. The process has been agreed at an early stage of the project before subcontractors had started handing lot completions in.
C. The client had been consulted as to what they want in terms of MDR.
Sounds like CCL have made a rod, not only for their own back, but the resident engineer too. Assuming you are not exagerating who are the five people that need to sign each off these submittals off? I am currenntly typing an email to ensure that the mechanical quality control guy for my FtIG contract signs off on submittals as they keep coming in wrongly and a signature is the only way we can check. That would put the chain up to 4 signatures: (mech QC, overall QC, me and my supervisor). This is clearly two on each side (contractor and client) and my supervisor usually signs in a similar manner to a compliant OC/CO.
Henry,
I’m not exagerating. The signatures required are: sub-contractor for carrying out the works, sub-contractor for design responsibility, CCL design manager, CCL package manager and the RE. We get off quite lightly for non-contractula benchmarks. If it’s a contractual benchmark you’re looking at no less than 9 signatures and a process that takes about two weeks to get through from start to finish. The getting signatures is the relatively straight forward bit, I’ve had the experience as you that most people are willing to sign like a compliant OC/CO, which in my mind only further highlights that the process is a paperwork exercise, all be it a time consuming one.
I see what you mean and I suppose it is the number of different organisations in the chain that generate the issues to a degree. I am not exposed to what happens at the sub-contractor level but I have probably got a 40% rejection rate at the moment so I can see how much extra time it takes to generate the paperwork. Also to me it is the paper element itself that is half the issue. We have an electronic sign off system, which I control, but have to have everything in hard copy too which takes a lot of extra time and trees.