Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog

Following on from the cryptic erection plan for the steel truss roof a meeting was called; the contractor was livid that their plan had been E coded. The start of the meeting was uncomfortable to say the least, but when we got into the crux of the meeting, ie them talking us through their plan it was evident that there was confusion even between the sub-contractor and the principal contractor as to what was going on. In the end the USACE contingent didn’t have to say much.

Whilst I have no doubt that the very experienced sub contractor would have been able to build the truss, and would have done so safely, probably –  if we hadn’t insisted on a properly thought out and communicated plan that was understood by all it would no doubt have been a lot more painful.  Simple things like staging areas, order of material delivery to site and sequencing may have gone wrong, resulting in on site fixes to get the thing up. The new plan was submitted while I was away and is much better, essentially being an isometric contract drawing that is coloured in to indicate different stages of construction with notes.

Example erection plan sketch

Example erection plan sketch

Although the document is still not paginated (chinned me right off) the step by step process is crystal clear through the use of drawings as included above.

Whilst I was away the CUP was pretty much completed (structurally) and is now a mass of Mechanical, electrical and Plumbing (MEP) hangars and Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) walls. The CMU has a lot more to it than I thought and has been fairly interesting to see, but so far only minor deconfliction issues have arisen.

I’ve also got involved with the site ‘pencil walk’ to determine the percentages complete of on site activities and ultimately the payments to the PC. This process starts with the PC who submits their proposed percentages of works complete for the month to USACE. We then verify the percentages and negotiate discrepancies with the PC. I was surprised at how amicable this was, especially when I knocked back a few estimates. Some of the ‘agressive’ percentages are a floor in the system, which has a given data date by when percentages are required. This is not at the end of the month, and so field engineers are required in some instances to estimate how much work will be completed by the end of the month.

The agreed percentages are put into the cost loaded schedule and a narrative produced by the PC. This is agreed once and for all by the Contracting Officer who then agrees payment in the sum of whatever the monetary value of the percentages complete works out to be. The updated schedule is then published with the output being the ability to track the progress of the project in terms of project finances. By comparing the actual S curve to the baseline S curve you can get a feel for how the project has/is progressing and make assessments about manning levels and payment dates as well (payment requests are made 90 days before 85% of the funds are used up). The process is lengthy and requires considerable input to mitigate the risk of the PC over/under estimating his work but the utility of the output is in the ability to accurately report progress. The downside is that the most up to date conformed schedule is a month behind!

Another snippet that I gleaned is a floor in the proposal stage. At tender all the contractors submit a cost loaded schedule as part of the tender package. This is, for one, so that USACE can assess that the project can be built on time. The schedule is required by the contract to conform to a number of specification requirements, such as nil redundant logic, must be cost loaded, costs for procurement are to be included in the installation activity (to encourage performance), must be in the approved programme etc. This conformity, however, is not checked as part of the proposal grading when USACE is selecting a contractor to complete the works. This is interesting because the initial schedule is required by USACE 30 days after contract award as part of the pre-construction submittals. It is at this stage that scheduling issues are highlighted. An example of this issue is highlighted by one of the other projects on site which was recently awarded. Their initial schedule, and the one which they used to win the contract, has been rejected because it doesn’t conform to the specification and so they are having to resubmit as part of their pre-con submittals. To USACE its a bit of a non issue, because the contract has been awarded for a set price and duration, however it can put the PC on the back foot from the start. Fortunately though, the sooner you get behind the longer you have to make it up.

I’m also mid way through writing a Basic Change Document (BCD). This will alter the scope of the initial contract based on realities of site conditions. Initially the client wanted all underground power to be concreted in (in red concrete), including the electrical ducting to all the site lighting. Congestion of utilities across the whole site has led to a re-think of this requirement. The 3700 yards of schedule 40 piping initially specified has been up-scaled to schedule 80 piping but the requirement to concrete completely removed. This was after negotiation with the client who agreed based upon the likelihood of conflicts and the required time to place. The numbers are not yet confirmed yet but, across the whole site, there will likely be a $200,000 credit for the client and the relief of some un-needed headaches for the PC. I can’t help feel that if somebody had checked with the client at an earlier stage, that he actually meant ALL electric utilities should be concreted in, this might have been averted.

In other news: This.

The Defence Attache visits the site.

And this.

President Obama visits the site…

Which was interesting, not least because the entire job site was shut down for his arrival on half a days notice from the Client. Cue the e-mails from the PC requesting adjustments for delays. Fair one.