HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2501CONCEPTUAL DE'lELOPHENT
the r.ycles the
A!ternatives.
Chart listing Concepts Considered.
III. Points of reference.
Minutes of the meeting
Bechtel and Alasl-a Pm·.rer Authority staff~ October 981.1
charts of Cc~cepts Presented -through
V, Minutes of the meeting
Bechtel ansi Alaska Power Authority s taf November l l9HL;
Including charts of Alternatives presented -through
r~d IIA through IID.
VI. Data presented to the .U'A on November 9. t 984 9 in
"Briefing Book" shm:~dng ch,:=~rts of Altneratives
and related information.
VI. Memorandum addressed to Mr. Lee Nunn, Chairman of the Project
Management Committee from Joseph L. Perkins of the Alaska
Power Authority, dated November 9, 1984.
7208/082
elaborated in 1983 FERC
the
construction manager will
transmiesion lines;
license
11
has decided
are finalized
environmental
to monitor
March
do
hire staff needed.
1987 in accordance with CASE IIIo
ow:
ve A, B, G
1)
2)
s i l i
the owner
of 50-60
ternative E. F, H:
alternative
ve G: rceived as a possibili
ternative E: To As a matter of
Authori po 1 i C) and C~1 1 not
same rm.
tional Al ve: An all-owner ternative
should shown and ana then excl
study.
2 -
0
r
d
I '
I,
'~-.··
r ...... .,.4-"'' "-?" nn ~·larraat:mei''lt Contractor Oi recti on
t'nnino~;r;:,,r. r,,..,.,+""""""''"'"' Direction
~::,..~,~ """'""''"~"'""'''''":r";~-t"'~ ,,..i .. inn Coordination
F~10inB2r"iloo/IPm::un~lt Coordinatioo
't'Oic'll-ntM<"'ii'WI Coordinator
. .
o E plus EPOM Contractor
SallE rn 1 es as
Ventures ll
in
..
& Construction
Policy
Engineering Contractor Direction
Engineering/Construction Coordination
Engineering/Procurement Coordination
Procurement/Construction Coordinator
Eng i nEH<I" in~ Management
Procurement Management
Construction Management
Alas~a Power Authori
SUSITNA PROJECT MANAGfMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
I. Ovmer is Project i"iH1dQer/Con:str·uction Manaqer
EXEC!.. T I ON
f
G
Conce t
Joh1t Venture
Contractor
Management
EPCM.
E+EPCM
· ...
Susitna
for individual weighting of alternatives ..
l. Crawford
J. Perkins
vJ. Batt
f4. Yerkes
J.
L.
M. Isaacs
B. Petrie
J. Larson
November 1
8:chte1:
Susitna Management Plan
R.
R. s.
R.
the meeting outlining the work done since the last
different charting used, and the fact that it is an
He welcomed comments from APA.
in describing the 4 level R. Seemel
zation
tional level
wer:: made:
the respective responsibilities of each
attached copy of chart). The following comments
Add Labor Relations, Risk Management, Environmental Policies,
Land Acquisition, Power Sales/Utilities Relations
Project Management level
Add 0/M interface, environmental programme.
Entitle one function: 11 Environment and Other Functional
ia:lties".
Functional Management
Add "Environmental Compliance".
Then R. Seemel briefly described each of the e·ight alternatives
studied. (See attached list).
Comments:
0 Show title and legend on the viewgraphs.
o Explain the brackets.
o Add a tur·nkey alternative.
7074/288/03/Fl
R. Loder ained the criteria used for
al te~ :1atives, that each of the Bechtel
each of the alternatives and
unanimous fQr the first three ces and
He then the
attached 1i
R. Seeme1 went +"'"''"'""''"' the 1 ist of and di
each alternative. attached lists}.
Generally agree with choice number 1 and 2 and comfortable with
ranking through 4.
Choice number 1 -appears to have a clear
and a good management information system. Also, the number
APA would have is low. The fewer people on State
that Bechtel consider the cost
effect on the cost of the
to increase costs. A
alternatives is required for the Board.
range of Authority staffing
and
poor
t s of
Bethte1 should
the different
l~ith Choice number 1, a question was raised about who ru:u•'f'nrmc:
It ltJas mentioned that Ff.RC might see a prob'lem
does both the QA and QC.
With Choice number 2, a question was raised about who does
contructabi1ity reviews? The CM doin9 such reviews was seen as an
advantage compared to choice number 1.
It was noted~ choice number 2 was similar to the organization used
at Intermountain Power Agency (IPA) in Utah.
At that time, the meeting was adjourned until 2:30 p.m.
Meeting resumed at 2:40 p.m.
Present APA: l. Crawford Bechtel: R.
J. Perkins R. w. Batt s.
J. Ferguson R.
L. Prentice R.
T. Loder
N. Seemel
Harwell
Tripp
Picard
R. Seemel continued enumerating the pros and cons of various
alternatives 1 through 4.
.·
7074/288/03/Fl
an
o Use·bu1 et
o Rather see
o How to handle
o of dam s a
o Ho\!'J hancn e scope ._.,..,, .. u~-,.
CM than
rm.
item.
o Mentioned tho sequence hiring in choice number
PM, then then CM
o A rHnl'nnr:;HJP of management contractors
sian of design neer firm.
Fi
o The State pay levels are not an absolute limitation, but
itica1 consideration.
o that scope changes be mentioned in the charts.
o A unified management information system is a
o Asked if choice number 1 could be started
CM -then make a later decision on the CM
col'i11Parlv or the same as PM). Response was
1Ji!l:)i·'~"'1li'at'l to where "Official Files" are to 0
reporting.
in financial
o Wants to be able to fix accountability on contractor. Wil not
go for an integrated organization.
o Finance fits well into either of the first two organizations -
1 or 2.
0 Lake project is managed under a·l ternative IA
number for Susitna, but not necessarily ~o low a choice for a
small project). It uses b permanent APA e plus two
temporaries.
Fairbanks-Anchorage Intertie is also alternative IA and uses
2-3 people.
o .An estimate for Susitna of 200 people in APA and PM
organizations (excluding CM) was mentioned.
o Bechtel should present all the alternatives to the Board of
Directors next week, starting from the bottom up, moving up
the line quickly, and spending most of the time with the top
two choices.
Attachments as stated.
RP/tmm
7074/288/03/Fl
APA
OWNERSHIP
ORt;ANIZATION
*Executive Manilgef'l~nt
*Plannin<J
*Finance 11 Arlninistration
*OpP.rations
*Projects
0 Environmenta1
1 i
1ancial
0 ~1oni tor Project
0 Public/Communi
0 Government Rel
Licenses Pe rmi
0 lntergration with State/Regional
Planning
0 0perations & Maintenance
-------------------------------------------------------------~----------·---------------------------------------------------~
I
I
--------
I I GENERAL
I ~1ANAGEMENT
PLANNING I [OTHER
l'J FUNCTIONAL
CONTROLS I SPECIALIST\ 1
J
I
PROCUREMENT I fONSTRIJCT!ON fl
LOGISTICS L_ .
----------------------------------------/---------
--I PROCIJRtM~iiT I ?1 LOGISTICS
MANAGEMENT
CONSTRIIr.TION I
MANAGEMENT I
I
--------------------1--------------------
1
PROCUREMENT/
LOGiSTICS
CONTRACTORS
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTORS
Project Management
Responsibilities
6 ProJect Master Plan
0 Project Budgets and Schedules
0 Project Policies and Prn~edures, Criteria and
Star.da rds
°Cost & Schedule Controls
0 Management Reporti
°Functional Contract Administration
0 tngi neeri ng/Procurement Coordi nation
0 Procurement/Construction Coordination
0 Engineering/Construction Coordination
0 Support Functions
°Functiona1 Planning, Policy Monitoring
aQua1ity Assurance
~>Environmental Compl~ance
-------------------------------------------------------------
or_,.. ___ ~,:
1H::JJJCI...I. I
<>cost &
"Performance
Assuri'P•Ce
I,
I J
I
l·
I
I
I I .. I ~-.1
I L I
I
I
I.
'
'
I
1.
!.
I
' l
I
I·-i. -·
! ! . I
I I 4
1----i
1
-t
'· r _j
I
f
!
+
I
r
. i ·-
' l
i
I
i
I i
l !
I
I
l
I I
! I I ~-·· .; 1_.
l I• ..
I I
I i l
~ ·-·· l
i
L.
!
I
. f
.f
I
I -·
I -!.
l
I ' ~
; .
i
[
i '·
I ' . i I . ! I -;· I· ..
I I I
! ~ . I l !
!
I
I ,. i I I
I I
I I I ~. i I
-I
i l l
I I . I
l
I
1 1-
I I
i
l I
1-j· f i I I I I
I ..
·I
I
I
! -
I I I I l I I I i" I I !·· i ..
i I . I I i ! . i ! I
i
I
I
"' !
i
I
I
l
I
! I . i t. r· ; -i ! . ·f l· I . -··r . 1
I
I -i I I _L I I
!·
' I !'
i I
. "! .. J . -I .
!
I
1
to
in
has to 1 oolc to one martaaeme!nt contractor
ts.. No i''l"'::ll~~ni':~~i'i
1
11
ized the
is
owner can
ts (i .. e .. ,
to d accoun.tab
1 Power Authori
vement, aad
Cost and seneau
in 1
number 1 ,_
is less than in a
r
owner
red ..
~
aw1agren!nt erJntrac f:ors
is
the
1
1
1 the
next to the
di
is not clear cut -more
other ans.,
to
Oimi ni shed :i»il"'f'f"''·'1~'~+:~ as the owner
tors ( &
1 s J,iii th
El!M~~•I!\'l• net te!n:e!d and are lflllt1ne:(il
Pi'i'il~~'tmilt'l!l!!~.a sources ..
s
net as as
'7ll!IT"I!I'llll'\l and ll'llam,fth<i!1 is a
8 ternate
Few checks and
1ty ttl
SCih~So
of te€1tm sunm~~~~
(which could
problems with mobilizing and then ae .. ·mtn::nl
significant under this
lack of
and controls.
Hi~~
A 1 tev .. nill
I·
i
\
---------------------------------------
.. '
Execu ive Man
*Planning
*Finance Adninis
*Opera.tion
*P cts
t ~RO.~UREMEf(I'/-_
{ t:OG I
iC.ONTRACT .,_........._
fxecuti na
*Plannin9
*Fina ce ~ Adn ni at
*Op rat ons
Project
I
J
I
i
I
-------~
*fxeco ive n
Pl nning
*Fin n c ~ Adntnt tr
*!lpP.ra ons
*Projr:c
ENGINEERING
·.·, ... ,CONTRACTOR ( S
J
IEFING
u
APA
OWNERSHIP
ORGANIZATION
~------~----------
I
GENERAL
*Executive Managenent
*Planning
*Finance & Arlninistration
*Oppraticns
*Projects
0 GG·:iernment Jlnnr•·n,-'l
0 Right .. of-Way
0 Power Sales/Uti i
oproject Management an
0 Management Contract Administration
0 lmplementation Contract Approvals
0 [nvironmental Policy
0 0percbility/Maintainability Reviews
0 financia1 Resources
0 Monitor Project Management Performance
0 Pub1 ic/Community/t1edia Relations
0 Government Relations
0 lntegration with StateiRegiona1 Systems
Planning
0 0perations & Maintenance
. )
NANAGEMENT Project Mana ement Responsibilities
OOwnersh1p Eng1neenng Coordination' (including Operations
PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL
!'t r,:; n OTHER
CONTROLS SPECIALISTS
'----------
1 I
& Maintenance Considerations)
0 0wnership/Procurement Coordina~ion
0 0wnership/Construction Coordination
0 Project Master Plan
0 Project Budgets and Schedules
0 Project Policies, Procedures, Criteria and Standards
°Cost & Schedule Controls
0 Management Reporting
°Functiona1 Planni11g, Policy Mon.toring
°Functional Management Contract Administration
0 Engineering/Procurement Coordination
oProcurement/Construction Coordination
0 [ngineering/Construction Coordination
ENG! 0 Support Functions (Labor Relations, Legal, Insurance, Etc.) N::J PROCIIREM~
?. CONSTRIICT ION
LOGISTICS L 0 (/uality Assurance
---------------I ~------------------------------------t=---. ------~ ~~: ~~~:;"-:~ ~~:~:~ ~~;e-s~:: s-i~ ~; 1 :i e ~------------. -------
'----------.........__
I
[
UH;!NEERIN(;l PHOCUREr~[JENT ~,ONSTR!ICTION ~1 oContrac~ Admin1~:r.::tlon
t1ANAGEMEtlT I ?, LOGISTICS t1ANAGH~ENT oinspect.1onjQual1ty Control
Mflt~AGF.MENT -oCost & Schedule Control
L_ ______j Pe;--fonnance Repo.·ting
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________
1
________________ T _ . __ . _ _ _ _ _ ~ [ n ~ i-r~ ~~~ ': t~ ~ C ~mp 1 i an c_e ___________________ _
OESIGN
FNG!NEER
r-------' I l PRo c iJr~ E NT 1 ! --c-o~~ r ( o ~~---1
I LOGISTICS I C:ONtRALfOR<; I
LNTRACTO~_j J °Fabrication of Equipment
olnfrastructure Operation
oconstruction & Startup
·".
f.~fiCIENCY +
+
lTV
D!EfiCIEMCIES TO ELIMINATED BY SPECIAl .,...,,. .. ,.... OVERSIGHT, CoriMITTEES,
II ETC.
DESIGM
ENGINEER
P~OCUREME'14T/
LOGISTICS
CONTR"ACTORS
CDMST~UCTION
0
0
MJiNil.~~NT ACCtlJNTABILITY -
-MAXIMIZED BY &lA..()'{MFNf OF
COOROLS -OPTIMIZ8). <UNIFIED COOROL
PARTICIPATION LESS THAN IN FUI.l Y INTEGRATED
CHECKS AND BALANCES -Glf£R C
TO ASSURE CHECKS ANJ BAL~NCES
TECHNOLOGY TRANS'=ER TO ()lrf:R LESS THAN IN RJLLY INTEGRATED
ORGANI.zt\TION
7104/018
0
0
Management and Techni ca 1 E.xperti se
This alternative likewise permits maximization of the expertise
brought to the project. Selection of an experienced fiMm with a
proven record on like projects can permit assignment of qualified
personnel with proven track records. This reduces the risk to the
project of depending on relatively inexperienced personnel to
into the jobo 11
Impact on Ow:1er Organization (Staffing)
This alternative~ although requiring more owner involvement (and
staffing-up) than the "turnkey" approach where he exerts effectiv ...
ely no operational control, represents an ~timization of his
resourcese The owner is able to exercise control of the Project
Manager's operations through a relatively small cadre who monitors
the PM/CM's operations. These cadre represent the interface
between the PM/CM and the "Owner" and this interface exists
7104/018
to one mcu1agie:m1ent:
• No
can be the ..,~i'fl!ll!l•1" Miana1geimer1t
.... mruu''''~~"5 '~"1 '"1111' under the philosophy
Contractor or supp 1 i er I i nsta 11 er wi t~~oe... t the .;iii! rnlnlli'T'n,,""
r:a_,,c,~• Manager or its desigmsted ""'""'ft'li'\l'OA
continuous verification of 1ty of ~1'\~~~I~'IN"f'l!ll!
plant and in the forms, gradation of fill millllt'f''I!!UI"~~a
emt,ankmE!nt work, embedment, a 1 i gnment and job
contractors before allowing any one contractor to
OWner, through its management cadre quality assurance staff can
directly monitor this program at the site$
~roject Controls and Management Information Systems
The selection of a single management firm to manage all
of the proje~t should result in emplacement of compatible controls
systems at a11 working levels of the project .. 1·he only int!!rface
then becomes the establishment of the inte~ f.ace between the ..,,..JR."ll!ll!.t'·?
Manager's control systems and the Owner's reporting and mat1agrem1ent
information system. (NOTE: In all probability, the Project Mal~ace~r
who is selected will possess a completely integrated project
controls reporting and management information system proven on
previous projects. The Power Authority may want to consider
7104/018
\.
7104/018
the s ,.. __ ........... _ .... ,
the Sus
owner
ted s
0
MANAh~NT FUNCTIONS ENHANCES
ACCOUNTABLE FOR
STAFF IN
EFFECTIVElY CONTROL PROJEcr 111ROUGH A
EFFECTIVE QUALITY CONTROL BY . EXPERiaeD
SPLIT OF MANAGEME.NT BETWffJ\! ThO ORGANIZATIONS CAN CREATE
PROBLEMS (EXJVIlPLE: QUAlilY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE,
CONTROL & REPORING SYS1tJ'IlS)
UNIFICATION OF PROJECT CONTROLS SYSltJ'IlS-POTENTIAL DIFFIQJLTY
OWNER PARTICIPATION LESS THAN IN FULLY INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TO OWNER, LESS THAN IN FULLY INTEGRATED ORGANIZATION
The creation. of an organization from t~ro firms ... one
is responsib1 e for engineering and the other resoort-
sib1e for construction management, will tend to enhance a """'!;"'"";;)
anrl balances between the engineering and the nw,,.u.I"'~Dn'o"·t>l
ti on a c::ti viti es ~
Project Accountability
As with the first choice alternative, the owner can 1 oo k to others
to hold accountable for project results. However, the existence of
a separate CM contractor diminishes the accountabi li ";y· of the
project management contractor.
Impact on_Owner Organjzation (Staffing)
Likewise ease of staffing for the Power Authority is maximized.
Mobilization and demobilization problems are minimized because of
the relatively small PO\'Ier Authority staff required. Compared to
the first choice alternative where total responsibility is awarded
to a single management organization, the interface between the
7104/018
between
for interface di
re r>esotn<>ee~$ to mar1ag1! ..
an organization created from two di ma11agren!nt
will growing pains unti 1 l su·n to work
coordinate their respective of th
increased intercession by the
fferences.. Als~, the owner•s proximity
Construction Management function is not as
Number 1 in view of the fact that the Ol.11ner functions at
project management level. Consequently, owner involvement in
construction oper·~tions decision making is necessari1 more remoteo
(NOTE: The construction management contractor could up to
three times the number of people fumi sned b,1At~:~h;e .... ~~~
management contractor. This cm.c1d make the nuuuageme~n
contract the most lucrative. This could potentially have
undesirable effects on the bidding for these ).
Cost and Schedule Control
Cost and schedule control could ;Jotentia11y be as effective as in
the number 1 choice.. However, some conf1 ict i:. inherent in the
joining of two different control approaches.
7104/018
7104/018
PROCURE}fEMT/
LOGISTlCS
CONTRACTORS
SPLIT RESPONSIBILITY
BTORT
ACCEPTS ProJECT MANA<Hf'.NT ..................... ~
7104/018
Project cost and schedule control should be as effecti
second choice alternative, providing that the proven met:noc~s
different management contractors can be successfully
quality Control
1
This alternative should permit effective quality control because
access to experienced personnel from the Co11struction Mar1aaemE!nt
organization ..
Technology Transfer
Owner personnel obtain significantly more project than
in Choices 1 and 2, due to the fact that owner personnel staff
positions in the project mar.ag~ment organization.
7104/018
Unlike the first two organizational choices ~~
to others ,for accountability for
ternative ~ Direct owner involvement n
mana~remamt team implicates the owner in r~~:nrn11~
• Likewiset the benefits of i aud nn,,.at"'.ll"'"'
obtained from ar. independent overview group are not ""'l!ll~e:.Atl-t
the owner directly participates in th! project management
7104/018
DESlGH
ENGINEER
P~OCUREMENT7
LOGISTiCS
CONTRACTORS
A
·o
STAFF-liP BY CW£R REQUIRED
PERSONNEL ADMINISlRATION OF LARGE INTd1RATED MllNAi~NT
ORGPNIZATION·. REWIR8J
OWNER CANNOT ·Lf.DK TO OTHfRS TO HOLD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MANAirf'ME!~
FEWER GIECKS & BALANCES IN INTEGRATED PROJECT MANAGEM:Nr
ORGPNIZATION
7104/018
ma.r11agEm~es1t organization be identified
Power Authority in
the contractors who with
and not through a .mddl eman ..
'!:o the owner• s contribution to s ..-.. ......... ..,, ...
organization in key positions, owner
possible.
g~ 1i.ty Assurance/Control
The availability of experienced quality assurance personnel from a
qualified outside firm selected to participate in the project
management function assures the r~quired expertise in this
tant function ..
quality of the Management Organization.
The quality· of the personnel and working efficiency of the manage-
ment organization under this concept should be high.. S.el action of
a11 experienced and well qualified outsiJe firm should permit
assignment of high quality personnel to the job by this outside
finn~ Id~Rlly, many of these personnel will have worked together
before on otheu" projects and this should enhance early attainment
of a smoothly w~'t'ie ing organization.
7104/018
The creation of an i ,
ment containing owner. as
, res
nlllllo~:.,.A.,_ personnel icies for s
advancement, salary adMinistration
for ~loy.ees of both organizations
team, should be contro11 ed by this
One of the key prerequisites for
identity in the management organization is
nel administration by that organization.
Project Accountability
Un1 ike alternatives where the owner contracts thi malllcH111!':!1mem:
out to other firms, the owner is an integra 1 part of
mcrnagement in this management organization concept.. Cone~all"inar'+
the owner cannot look solely to others to hold accountable
project results. Likewise, the objectivity and independence
obtained from an owner overview group (management cadre) is not
present in this form of organization.
7104/018
. 7104/018
DESIGN
INEER
PtUJCUREMEHT I
LOGISTICS
CONTRACTORS
Dl
PERSCNE. SHOUlD BE
MANAGEflfNT" ORGANIZATION
OR.iANlZATION COO..ICATES DB-INEA'TION OF
01~R STAFF REOOIRBVIENTS GREATER lHAN MOST 011£R
IN. TI£ PRQJECT' MANA
L rrt OF OTHERS FOR PROJEC
INVQVere.JT OF TIREE DIFFERENT FIRJVS MAY CREA1E
DifTIQJLTIES INITIALLY
01Pir£R IMfOLVEMOO IN THE "PROJEcr MJ.\NAGflJENT'' RJNCTION MINIMIZES
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE OiECKS & BALANCES ROLE OF 11£
COf'STRUCTION MANAGER
7104/018
Engage!Mt'!lt of an experienced technical
1ty assurance by the owner's project ma11~agem1ertt !l'\ll"n.::!l,ll'ioi'7!'1+"i
control fs exercised by construction maf1tagE!m!B1t r~'!I''J"JI!iiii"'TI'!!Ii"
involvement of specialized finns in both the ,..t\.lc:+1~u·+1tu!l llii:ule'lge-
ment, as well as project management functions should assure
act·fvity 1 s adequately staffed ..
Project Contra 1 s
Likewise, engagrement of a h'ighly qualified firm to provide certain
technica 1 services penn its profession~ 1 schedu1 ing and cost control to
the project. However, their successful integration into the balance of
the project activities may be more difficult than in other on
structures due to involvement of three different firms in
structure ..
Hiring of an experienced construction contractor and
a tion of the use of personne 1 frorn the ca 1 services firm
allow employment of experienced and trained people in most of the other·
important areas of the project as we 11.
7104/018
y
..
a
nal!"<o:::nnli'11111i 1 to
+av-llll~lo"i woo ld requi rt
Av.eunt'e•.:lh ization of a 1
""'''"·~···""-.zation, the owner retains ibi
ma1nag1efi'N~nt and consequently shares the responsibility
.. Ace ountab·l lity of others is correspondingly 1 nwAli"At~
Organizational Efficiency
The staffing of the management functions with personnel from three
different organizations who have not worked together before will
ably create initial interface difficulties. Deve1 of i
systems and procedures with which all participants can work wil
difficult ..
Checks and Balances
The split of 11 Project Management 11 and construction management functions
produces a certain checks and balances benefit in theory. However§ the
fact that the project management organization is constituted of
personnel effectively negates the Construction Manager's checks
balances role.
7104/018
\.
SEPARATION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGBVENT
ENHANCES CHECKS ANl BALPM:ES
INTEGRATION Cf PRlJ COOROLS/REPOOING
f~~NAffR Wffil PR MAN\GER POTENTIALLY
O\f£R MUST HIRE SIGNIFICANT N91 STAff TO STAff
ORlANIZATION
OWf£R FACES DIFFICllT OBSTAO..ES TO HIRE QUALIFIED STAFF
INTO AN EFFECTIVE ORGANIZATION
7104/018
-.;ac~nJt~!"te owner staffing of team
personnel, a'F~rds the owner a arge measut>e of direct ...... ,.., ... .,.,..
the conduct f'""' the project.
Construction Management Expertise
Engagement of a qual if1ed con~truction management firm to nall"·~·l"l\W"~lill~
the construction ,management function pemits this
function to be smffed with experienced
The construction management function represents
number of people as in the project management
Checks and Sal anc:es
The separation of the construction management from the balance ·of
the "project management~., functions -enhances the checks and balances
between the .. engineering and construction activities.. HOlil~ever the
complete owner control of the project management function to
diminish somewhat the effectiveness of the construction manager in
the checks and balances role®
DISADVANTAGES
Project Controls
The integration of the construction manager's project contra 1
systems with the contro 1 and reporting system of the owner's
project management organization could be difficult. This could be
exacerbated if the systems and repor·ting requirements of the owner
are i ncori!patible with those of the construction management firme
7104.'018
7104/018
lffiK TO OTHERS
malrti~IEmlelnt ~~ 1 ance
ma.Bu:agrem!Trt ¥su'!lll"+'lln!!'iae! assures direct owner contro 1
1'\IA<!!olll'l!ii!<iP''it'IIIIUll of the
an experienced services contractor to n~r"f"nli'om
functions permits staffing with h
in functions.. Their ccaplete i n+~~n•:!lll'll'~inn
organization is ·flnportant and would
the o'ltftr.
DISADVA~TAGES
Owner St! ff.ing
The owner would need to hire over 300 additional staff in order to
staff this project. The attendant problems to this staff-up,
int-egration into a cohesive project organization and their eventua 1
demobilization would be fonni dabl!.
Project Ac.EJ!mtabi lity
Accountability of others for project results woold be almost nil ..
The services contractor accountability would be low as the nature
of this contract wwld be to furnish personnel to perform a
functi m, rather than assignment of responsibi1i ty for the
function ..
7104/018
s mffing and control of the entire ........... , .. """' .... m.ana1aemefl1t
ofll' ..... ~ ...... ·~ ...... minimizes the checks and balances Detlflt!Em
of the project management
7104/018
7104/018 .
lll'l£11'!!~1,.;
ma1r~agerm~nt .Ali"IUift'i"JI·mt>"it\11'11 and the time
nll"'nlllfliH""T management Staff with
In view of the fact that the project mar~1agE•r•t
envisio~d in this alternative is an entirely
personnel policies and administration should be s impl
cCJrip~red to integrated management organization alternatives ..
However, it is likely that the creation of a construction arm
the Pow~r Authority which eoul d effectively quadrup1 e
employ~ ~taff wruld have significant iawpact on the Power
ity•s structure itse.lf, as well as its personnel policies and pay
scales. .
DISADVANTAGES
7
Pay ScaJ!!
Exis"t;ing pay scales may not give the Power Authority the abi 1 to
hire all the construction specialists required in the marlagenu~nt
organization ..
Organizational Efficiency
Creation of a complete project management organization by the owner
from the ground up, will produce a group of individuals who have
not worked together before. Likewise, they will not have a shared
~xperience wort ing with common systems and procecho~res.. The
required to mold th!se indiv·iduals into a smoothly runr,,;ng team
7104/018
ORGANIZATIONAL
OWNER 8<EUS LESS DIRECT
CHEa<S &··BALANCES PRACTICAlLY .,.. .. ,.-., ... ·
RELATI\tELY lmtE PfWECT EXPERIENCE OBTAINED BY
UNTENABLE CONlRACTING POSITION FOR
7104/018 .
A,>!llll'~~~m<!i<~~e exce 11 ent t"nni'P'n
a .... + ..... a of an &YI'Il&W'•"iAII'ilfOG!!i,I'JI CiOns;tnt.~ct:orjfma:na~:rer
hydro projects wi1 , in
lft<!\UI'll+lill+<tr"'ft of proven control systems
could be as good as in the
ee ..
-Quality Control
Quality Assurance/Control could also be high for the same reasons
as above. The unification of the quality assurance and control
functions within the same organization may reduce the potentia 1
checks and balances feature which exists when these two i'IUU"'+'~~~"'e
are perlomed by different organizations. This may be to
some extent however, by improved harmony ivt the operations of an
t>rganization which has been brought to the pro,ject 11 intaet".
... Unified Project Accountability
Accountability (as well as responsibility) for project results are
more completely unified in this alternative than in any of the
others considered. The owner holds one firm accountable for all
aspects of the project~
7104/018
pr1ncipa 1 disadvantage of
that the Owner exE:rts relatively
Most decision making is
MOJ1i'b)r.1ng .of progress
disadvantage may a 11
nec.Lfrom this form of project t\ll'>fltJIIIMO~~"JII4i""i
o · · Checks and Balances
0
C~p1ete1y: .unified project organization under one firm wii 'lout
sign~ficant operational participation by the owner the
potential for checks and balances within the project
(particula~ly between th~ engineer1ng and construction
i~h~ology Transfer
Relatively 1 i ttl e project experience i s acquired by owner o~r·'!;ow·un~
under this organization concept for obvious reasons.
Contracting '17urnkey 11 Contract
Letting a "tumkeyu contract for the Susitna project woold a
di1emJM.. Due to technical uncertainties in several areas the
project, bidders for a lump sum contract would be obliged to
i.ncorporate significant contingencies in their bids.. In :~dition,
due to the magnitude of the project, few lump sum bids are li
Both of these factors work against realization of the ect
lowest total cost using a lump sum "Turnkey" approach.,
7104/018
7
TELEPHONE NO:
i'ut"l'f'hil!l~"" study before
su~:ttv~.a 1 ~ ad()pted.
+tll!!>~-s+•h•• 1 ... Contractor Pwlvi,fi~D~
2 ... Project and Construction MarllagEBvrt r"i'ilfi'il"'ll'>:illlli"<ta!l'ft
Separately;
Alternative 5 ... APA Manag~nt ~ugmented by ca"11'!!'lli"illlet~~ti
and Construction Manag~nt.
{For W!Or'e detailed descriptions of the A1tematives1' see
Bechtel Briefing Book.)
The Conmittl!e wi11 study the three selected orgcmizational options
• over th~ next few and wi 11 meet again bef'lre the December Board
of Directors meeting to formulate a recommendation which
struct•Jre is the optimu~ approach. At the December , the
Committee wi11 its recommendation and the Board w111
at that time to ly approve the recommended ap.proach ..
The Committee that Bechtel should proceed during the next month
with the development of policies and organizational t·•equirements which
are common to a11 three approaches. This will allow a minimum of dis-
ruption in the schedule for preparation and completion of the
Martiage!mtrlt Plan.
cc: Javid Allison, Esq~
Esther Wunnicke, Commissioner, Depart~nt of Natural Resources