ML20138H403
| ML20138H403 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/15/1985 |
| From: | AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Jordan AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| OL-I-CCANP-078, OL-I-CCANP-78, NUDOCS 8510290030 | |
| Download: ML20138H403 (25) | |
Text
J7) -y ?(lY9 f6 L
. L - C C A AIP-7 g
'7A /rs'
~
m 4.
(
f'$$P g
U :n 3Atw
._yc L ik Cai.
'C uRps-
.p j
-j a
/d and&%/Af/M sL,
~
p'ssww 1/
f E/
NUCLEAR REGt/LATOAf COMMl3360m Ifi:!al Exh. No. $ k f g
l&ENTIFt' D f A30iitant j --
latervtaer Cant's OfI'r nATE
/
f./
0t Witness rett
$4 "%RT ggs c_c n p> r Jf 4
"A"
,~.
- r. ' a n - i - r.
r u..i.c September 8, 1981 i
SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT REPORT ON CONTRACTOR REPLACEMENT INTRODUCTION This report outlines the steps which have been taken to study the possible replacement of Brown & Root as architect-engineer and construction manager for the South Texas Project.
Reasons are set forth why these steps should be taken now.
This report describes the method used to obtain and to analyze the proposals by prospective replacement contractors and, finally, recommends a course of action.
I.
Background
Performance by Brown & Root (B&R) on the South Texas Project (STP) has been a matter of increasing concern.
The most visible problems have been in B&R's actual construction activities, including related quality assurance functions, culminating in the issuance by the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission (NRC) of a Show Cause Order last year.
Although improvements in these areas during the past year --
as confirmed by both HL&P and NRC -- indicate that B&R can properly continue those functions, there are continuing serious problems with respect to B&R's ability to complete engineering and to manage construction effectively.
u u.[
3!
- a. ' -
The problems encountered by B&R in engineering and construction management derive from its extremely limited experience in nuclear projects; its lack of sophisticated management controls to ensure proper coordination between engineering and construction, as well as proper scheduling and sequencing of construction operations; lack of seasoned personnel in the nuclear field; and B&R's inability to gather an appropria*e management team for a project of this magnitude and complexity.
The difficulties with the engineer-ing to date are reflected both in the Quadrex report and in other reviews conducted of individual systems.
The diffi-4 culties in construction management are evidenced by continuing delays and changes in scope, only some of which can be ascribed to evolving regulatory requirements.
i We have concluded that B&R lacks the necessary depth to perform its encineering and construction management tasks in an orderly, timely and cost effective manner, and that the prospects for improvement are poor owing to B&R's-limited experience in nuclear projects and its inability to make the necessary improvements to date.
Thus, retaining B&R to per-form such functions wou'ld, in our judgment, result in very significant delays in completing the project.
We have further concluded that it is feasible and desirable to replace B&R with a contractor with extensive nuclear experience in engineering and construction management i
i
while continuing B&R's responsibility as constructor.
The availability of the new contractor's experienced personnel will enable design and engineering of STP to progress at a faster rate and to better support the construction effort at STP.
In addition, the new contractor will greatly bolster construction management by strengthening the scheduling and Reten-planning functions currently being performed by B&R.
tion of B&R as the constructor will provide continuity at the job site and facilitate B&R's cooperation in the A-E/ con-structor management takeover, which is essential.
The balance of this memorandum summarizes the intensive study we have conducted during the past six weeks of the alternatives available to HL&P and its partners in the South Texas Project.
II.
Alternatives Examined There are basically four components in the management of a large nuclear power project.
They include:
project management (the function executed by HL&P for STP); architect-and construction.
engineering services; construction management; Brown & Root has conducted the latter three functions at the STP.
We have examined the possibility of terminating all of B&R's activities under the STP contract.
We concluded, for the reasons mentioned above, that B&R must be relieved of
3 ga ;
a
. s 4. :E; r3
. (
-4_
4' a.;
architect-engineering and construction management services as quickly as possible, consistent with licensing require-ments.
We believe, however, that B&R can continue construc-tien work under the direction of a new contractor for engineer-ing and construction management.
This also allows some face-saving for B&R which may be of great importance because, as discussed below, their cooperation is essential in order to have a smooth transition -- which is important, not only to the success of the project but also for licensing reasons.
III.
Study and Action by Manacement There are about seven architect-engineers in the United States who have experience in the nuclear power field.
Titey include: United Engineers and Constructors (UE&C); Sargent
& Lunfy: Burns and Roe; Gilbert Associates: Gibbs & Hill:
i Ebasco: Stone & Webster; and Bechtel Power Corporation.
Although the projects of Ebasco, Stone & Webster (S&W) and Bechtel have not been uniformly successful, they are, in our judg=ent, the only firms with the resources necessary to assume architect-engineering and construction management responsibilities for a job of this magnitude.
The'others i
i
- s. F T, "h }
lack the' necessary human resources, technical sophistication and experience to step into a job of this size and complexity.
Informal contacts were made with Ebasco, Stone &
Webster and Bechtel to determine their interest in undertaking this work.
In addition, an expression of interest was solic-ited fro = Westinghouse.
These contacts established that all four companies were interested in the project.
On July 24, 1981, a Request for Proposals (RFP) was dispatched to them.
The RFP sought information on the resources available in each company to undertake a two-part process involving, first, an assessment and " bench marking" of construction and engineering work done to date; and, second, completion of engineering, construction and startup of the STP units.
Those submitting 1
proposals were asked to identify key personnel, as well as total corporate resources, available to support the STP.
In
- addition, the companies were asked to identify any licensing questions associated with the assumption of responsibilities by them, as well as their flexibility in acco=modating con-straints imposed by licensing considerations.
A copy of the RFP is included as Attachment 1.
Each organization submitted a lengthy proposal which described its approach to the tasks outlined in the RTP, its relevant experience and resumes of key individuals to fill each major slot.
Each company also identified the major features of its commercial offer, in the form of general terms
wiM1.
and conditions relating to compensation and responsibility for defective work, as well as assumption of responsibility for work performed by B&R.
The Westinghouse offer, which was submitted in partner-ship with Gilbert Associates, contemplated complete assumption of responsibilities for the project, including project manage-In essence, Westinghouse proposes a " turnkey job,"
ment.
which was not solicited by the RFP.
Moreover, the proposal contained unrealistic commercial terms and raised extremely serious licensing questions.
Accordingly, the proposal was non-respcnsive and not further evaluated.
The proposals submitted by Ebasco, S&W and Bechtel were evaluated in detail by Messrs. Oprea, Goldberg and Newman.
Upon co=pletion of their independent reviews, they met to exchange reactions, concerns and questions regarding each proposal.
These matters were discussed in letters sent to each candidate.
At the same time, arrangements were made to visit each company at its home offices in order to allow each an opportunity to elaborate on its proposal, to answer questions identified in the letters and to arrange inter-views with key personnel proposed for major positions.
Messrs. Oprea, Gcidberg and Newman visited each con-tractor, starting with Ebasco (August 24-25), and followed by Stone & Webster (August 31-September 1) and Bechtel
I.:Ti[*F a.
The meetings were extremely helpful in (September 3-4).
as well as assessing the capability of each organization, its understanding of the tasks involved in undertaking the South Texas Project.
Criteria for Evaluation and IV.
Overview of Proposals each of which are dis-The following nine criteria, cussed in detail below, were utilized / in evaluating the proposals:
(1)
Dedicated Resources, (2)
Pool of Corporate Resources, (3)
Prior Experience, Understanding the Transition Process, (4)
(5)
Management Systems, (6)
Takeover Experience, (7)
Flexibility, Commercial Considerations, and (B)
(9)
Licensing.
(1)
Dedicated Resources The most essential aspect of the evaluation is i
of skilled, seasoned people in key positions the commitment such as project manager, manager of engineering, construction
- /
Another important consideration, the operating is style and approach of each contractor, discussed in the following Secr. ion V.
T 4
r.
.r., e ps,n
- a b'l da 8-manager, cost and scheduling manager, records management, and quality assurance.
Each organization offered its share of extremely capable people and all indicated a willingness to accept a " key man" provision which would preclude reassignment of certain individuals without the prior consent of HL&P.
4 Although Ebasco offered the services of several very impressive people, the dedicated technical resources of S&W and Bechtel are significantly greater.
As between the two, S&W has an edge in view of its commitment to assign to the l
project Mr. V. A. Suziedelis, Executive Vice President of S&W.
Stone & Webster indicated that Mr. Suziedelis would be available to devote 60-70 percent of his time to the STP for a period of at least one year, giving up all other respon-sibilities except those associated with his position as a senior officer and director of the corporation.
Bechtel's senior representative (Project Manager) is performing similar work at another major nuclear job.
He appears to be an able person but has not held positions of great visi-bility in the Bechtel organization.
Although there are different strengths and weaknesses in each organization, the dedicated personnel in S&W and Bechtel project teams are comparable and appear to have the " chemistry" necessary to succeed.
f r
Wr r-y yye-w-i-
-mr
-rv
-r--
N'----'ea
-P
t r:-
~
..,, :,, [ k'?
-i_ !kfiS I
_g_
(2)
Pool of Corporate Resources The total human resources of each organization is an important f actor in making a selection.
The project, as it stands, is formidable; however, the results of the critical, comprehensive review of the engineering and con-struction work performed by B&R (which would be the first job of the new contractor) may indicate a need for even larger numbers of people and a greater diversity of technical talent than now foreseen.
Ebasco is unacceptably " thin" because, ar.cng other things, of its commitment to the Allens Creek i
Bechtel Power Corporation with more than 22,000 Project.
engineers, is almost twice the size of Stone & Webster and probably has a greater diversity of talent.
(3)
Prior Experience Bechtel has, by far, engineered and built more nuclear power facilities in the U.S. (about 60) than either S&W (25) or Ebasco (13).
(4)
Understanding the Transition Process Stone & Webster conveyed a surer understanding of the tasks involved in taking over a project from another In engineer / constructor than either Bechtel or Ebasco.
particular, S&W demonstrated a better " feel" for the task involved in statusing the engineering and construction work performed to'date, and the need for systematic analysis of such work prior to the release of further engineering and
ha a*-4&
L-n J
+
-,a-s-----
.-a
_-,-e1-
-A 4
- !.
- . - i.
- p s*LA
. (
k 7 ;
construction activities.
Bechtel's grasp of this matter was somewhat superficial; they appear to understand the elements of the transition process, but had not given the matter the l
careful thought and analysis demonstrated by S&W.
As discussed further below, Ebasco demonstrated the least appreciation of the co=plexity of the transition process.
(5)
Management Systems All three organizations utilize sophisticated
=anagement systems for evaluating job progress and controlling cost and schedule.
S&W, however, offered a unique " extra."
i S&W is a leader among A-Es in the development of reference 4
I nuclear power plants (RNPP).
One of its RNPPs is " mated" to cn NSSS of the type incorporated in STP.
Accordingly, S&W has, in being, a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) which i
. identifies the specific tasks to be accomplished in a 4
series of discrete job " packages."
Although S&W would
)
s have to do some adaptation of its WBS, it has a distinct
}
}
" leg up" on the process, and probably could proceed more quickly and with greater certainty to assess the progress of STP and proceed in an orderly fashion to release further engineering and construction work.
I (6)
Takeover Experience Each of the candidates purported to have some experience in "taking over" projects from other A-Es.
I f
i
_ _ _ __-- _., _ -., - -..,.,... - - -.., _ - -,. - _.... -. _ _. _.,_,,,_,..,._ __ _ m.,..., _,.,,_,,,,,_, -..,,,_ _
,.7,
-.__~_,...
g g m,,.
L
/}pa bdkkJ bI
_ 11 _
Although Ebasco had actually taken over A-E and constructor responsibilities on a nuclear power project in Mexico, the experience is not really on point because Ebasco was not required to undertake a prolonged interface with the dis-charged contractor; nor was the transition under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Neither S&W nor Bechtel had any true " takeover" experience.
(7)
Flexibility Both Bechtel and Ebasco indicated that they could alter their respective approaches and personnel assignments to meet the requirements of the STP as circumstances develop.
1 Stone & Webster appeared to be less flexible, particularly.
in connection with personnel assignments.
It was suggested, for exa=ple, at our meeting that S&W consider a person other than the individual designated in the proposal for Project Manager.
S&W nevertheless pressed for its initial choice.
Flexibility is regarded as an important factor because review of B&R's work, as well as licensing conditions, may require a shift of resources and changes in functional responsibilities.
(8)
Commercial Considerations l
Commercial arrangements were only briefly touched j
upon.
Bechtel appeared to be the most forthcoming of the candidates by offering a fixed fee of 512 million, together i
I
r, p
.iiSf $
I b[E kblW.
with an incentive package which would provide up to an additional $15 million in fee.
Bechtel agreed to accept financial responsibility for defects in its workmanship up to $10 million.
Stone & Webster initially offered a " cost plus percentage of cost" contract, but then modified its proposal by offering a fixed fee of $24 million (adjustable for escalation and scope changes) with earned incentives expressed as a percentage of estimated costs and further incentives (in the sole discretion of HL&P) based on S&W's performance.
S&W would, however, limit its liability for defective workman-ship to $3 million per unit.
Ebasco's proposal, likewise, initially conte = plated a " cost plus percentage of cost" contract for Phase B activ-ities.
A fixed fee of approximately $1 million was offered to cover a very brief Phase A effort.
Ebasco has now furnished a proposal. incorporating a fixed fee of S __ million and an i
opportunity to earn S __ million in incentive fees.
Ebasco's proposal with respect to penalties for defective werk=anship is not clear at this time.
In general, co==ercial considerations in a job of this type are secondary.
We believe that, in the course of negotiations, all candidates can be " brought around" to a set of commercial arrangements of approximate parity.
f
r 6.,s=. P.
f.'U ". M W t
1.-
(9)
Licensing Stone & Webster had clearly given more consideration to licensing questions than either Bechtel or Ebasco.
S&W understood the potential necessity for a construction permit amendment and offered intelligent suggestions for meeting regulatory proble=s.
Although less developed, Ebasco also reflected an understanding of licensing considerations associated with the transition to a new contractor, although its thinking was less developed than S&W.
Bechtel was some-what shallow in explaining its view of licensing matters, but this may be attributable to the f act that the chief licensing engineer it proposes to use on the STP was not available for discussion at the time of our meeting.
A subsequent tele-phone conversation with the licensing engineer confirmed our impression that licensing requirements can only be evaluated after further discussions with NRC.
V.
Operating Style and Approach of Each Contractor Each organization brought a different approach to the takeover of the STP job.
Ebasco proposed a " blitzkrieg" evaluation over a period of four weeks by very senior people in order to perform a preliminary baseline evaluation of the progress on the STP.
We are skeptical about this approach because none of the senior level personnel involved in the i
a
,.-r is _^
4
~
.. :s t
-.i J
i.
Y,
evaluation have responsibilities thereaf ter for doing the job.
Presumably, Ebasco would continue the baseline evalu-ation af ter it moved into Phase B but, in general, the Ebasco suggestion is somewhat naive; it fails to reflect the complexity involved in the transition from job evalu-ation and baselining to production activities.
Stone & Webster did not propose any change in staff between Phases "A" and "B."
The same people charged with responsibility for assessing the project will also have responsibility for future engineering and construction.
After an initial period or 4-6 weeks, S&W proposes an
" intensive planning session" with HL&P to review the status of the job and planning future work.
S&W suggested the possibility of several med " intensive planning sessions" 1
over a period of about 6 months in order to establish priorities for verification activities, new engineering and further construction.
Although S&W would assign personnel to Houston, the job would be controlled in virtually every i=portant aspect from its Boston headquarters.
Bechtel proposes to have the STP administered by its Los Angeles Power Division, through its Houston office.
We expressed concern that the movement of a large number of people to the Houston office (about 250) would almost double the size of that office and thereby create significant administrative problems.
In addition, we noted that the
..g
?s:
We also
~ Houston office had no prior nuclear experience.
expressed concern to Bechtel that its proposed Project carry Manager and Engineering Manager for Phase "A" did not Bechtel indicated that an appropriate over to Phase "B."
provision would be made for an orderly transition between We remain concerned, however, personnel in each phase.
i that the administrative problems involved in establish ng a large nuclear of fice in Houston could be extremely disruptive This matter should in the crucial early months of the work.
the be discussed further with Bechtel, if they are to get as sig nment.
The foregoing is a subjective analysis of each proposal from several vantage points.
In general, Ebasco appears to lag considerably behind Bechtel and S&W in the competition.
concern regarding Ebasco's In particular, we have significant control and records management systems, as well as document the experience of certain of its key individuals.
The competition is extremely close.between Bechtel and at the Stone & Webster appears to offer, Stone & Webster.
a stronger team with closer involvement by high level
- outset, Bechtel, on the other hand, has fielded a good management.
hich can team and, more importantly, has enormous resources w be called upon to accommodate presently unforeseen requirements
~*.
hk b
a
' A serious concern, however, is whether access to the con-siderable resources of the Bechtel organization can be
+
achieved through a fledgling Houston office.
An attempt at a quantitative, objective evaluation is incorporated in Attachment 2 to this report.
It would show slightly ahead of in the competition with Ebasco trailing substantially.
VI.
Timetables 4
All of the prospective candidates seemed ready to start work almost immediately.
Ebasco believes that it can release new drawings within 3 months while a review goes on of other existing i
i drawings, specifications and designs.
Ebasco projects a period of 6 months in order to establish a realistic formal t
schedule and cost estimate.
Ebasco would plan to submit a transition program within one month af ter contract award, I
and complete the task of assessing and verifying B&R's work within 8 months.
Ebasco would be prepared to assume construction management functions within 3-6 months after co-.ract award.
Stone & Webster, as noted above, contemplates an initial evaluation period of 4-6 weeks, followed by an intensive planning session and similar intensive planning sessions over a period of about 6 months.
S&W would plan to have a good schedule and cost estimate within 10 months
E 5. f. P '
~
gy[;r t y d IS bli -
af ter contract award, and a projected schedule for the first year of work by December, 1981.
S&W plans to assume con-struction management functions almost immediately af ter contract award on a phased basis.
Their proposed schedule indicates that substantially all construction management responsibility could be assumed within 6 months after contract award.
Bechtel would plan to assume construction management a
functions about 4 weeks after contract award, and progres-sively increasing its construction management activities over a period of about six months.
Bechtel projects that it will be 9 months af ter contract award before a definitive i
]
cost and schedule can be produced.
Bechtel and Stone & Webster contemplate a staff of about one thousand at the peak of work activity.
Ebasco indicates that it could perform the job with a staff of 350.
VII.
Licensing and Other Internal Considerations Replacement of a contractor for architect-engineering and construction management is unprecedented in NRC experience.
It is unclear whether a construction permit amendment will be required.
If an amendment is required, there may be a need for a prior notice and hearing. /
The process of implementing i
- /
Whether or not an amendment is needed, the replace-ment of B&R will undoubtedly have to be considered j
in the current operating license hearing and compli-l cations may thus arise as to the timing of the take-over of responsibilities by the new contractor.
.-_=.
p.T: f. - T
"
- d i 4.yn l
w'hkiNk$ u '
the decision to replace Brown & Root in A-E and construction l
management functions may be heavily influenced by licensing We have informed two key of ficials in the NRC Staf f 4
2 matters.
l regarding our consideration of releasing Brown & Root from all A-E and construction management functions.
It is necessary, however, to have more definitive discussions with the NRC Staff and, especially, its legal arm to deter-mine the nature of any licensing hurdles.
An early decision is, therefore, very important; until the action is taken, we j
i are effectively precluded from meaningful discussions with the j
1 I
l NRC Staf f, and cannot conplete plans for the changeover.
f In addition, word is leaking through several sources that this. change is being contemplated.
This, of course, could introduce a good deal of instability in STp activities.
i A decision at an early date is also important so that Brown Root can be approached in a way conducive to gaining its l
cooperation in an orderly transition.
All proposals stressed the i=portance of this cooperation.
4 t
v!II. Recommendation l
i l
4 Attachments (2) l I
l
Attachmant 1 July 24, 1981 Page 1 of 5 RIDEST FDR PRJPOSAL 4
I.
Sroe of terk A.
General:
You are invited to sub-it a pmposal for the take-over and perfemance of the re aining engineering, design, and construction tranagerent work of the project. Included in this is the need to review the existing engineering, design,and construction work to verify conferrance with applicable regulatory, code, and sound indastrf practices and bench-r ark their status.
Changes would be regaired to be trade to the ccepleted engineering, desien,and construction, where app =priate.
B.
Detailed:
Also inclu$ed in the work se:rpe are the fc11owing activities which the successful contractor would be responsible to perfc =.
1.
Preparation of procurement specifications 2.
Preparation of erection specifications 3.
Preparation of purchase regaisitions and crders Preparation of licensing reports, answers to ingairies, 4.
aM ce.ndnents 5.
Secare and raintain ARE III Desien T ste p l
6.
Participate in rnenthly project status review rneetings 7.
Planning, scheduling, and cost centrol of Engineering and Cc.struction E.
W aining of client and contractor per m nnel 9.
Pr/iew of rapplier design drawings and procebares
)
- 10. Beview of construction co. tractor prograc.s and procedures
- 11. A&.inistration of construction subcontracts
- 12. Devele;rne.t and rainte.ance e! a docune.t control and reccrds ra agenent system
- 13. Institute a renthly change control system. Provide tirely reports to the utility identifying potential changes and their esti:ated irpact en project costs and schedule.
i I
C.
Resoonsibilitvr Du fim selected to ccrplete the project would be respea.sible to perfem those engineering and construction ranagerent se: vices necessa:'y to seea:e the regaisite A92 certifications, as well as satisfy licensing i
i and I & E rwairements.
' July 24, 1981 PEC'TC M FER cbnstrxtion work is currently planned to rer ain the responsibility of e
'his could change at a later date in the event the existing contractor.
it is deter:-ined that such a chance would be in the best interests of the project.
p, paality Assu ance:
thgineering, Design, and Construction work will be performed under the
" Engineers" OA Progre, which will have to satisfy the 0; c rritments set forth in the S;R.
U.
Condun Of lerk It is e.nvisioned that the req; ired wrk will be &ne in tv: phases.
Phase "A" werk censists of those activities dealing with review of the A.
existing engineering, desica, and construction activities and their Also included in associated reccrds to bench ark project status.
Phase "A" is the preparation cf a project ccrpletion ecs and schedule j
j fere:ast.
Phase "E" v:rk consists of resrption of proda-tive engineering, desien, It is anticipated that the Phase "B" work E.
and constructi n activities.
can be initiated prior to the ccrpletion of Phase "A" werk provided the repisite licensing :atters associated with this change of En=:neer c:' Constn: tion Manager have been res0lved with the Nuclear Begulatery l
C:rnissic..
It All v:rk, irrespective cf phase, is to be execn:ted with dispatch.
C.
is essential, therefere, that the prcject be staffed sa.p.ly with qualified and seasoned professi:nals in sufficient nrbers to acecrplish the rep.: ired w:rk.
III. Pre esal Fecuirene.ts Schedule cf Stdr-ittal - within ten (10) working days upc. rece.ipt of Based on receipt by af ternoon of July 24,19E1, proposal A.
this repest.
due in Houston by 0B00 AM, Au g s: 10, 1981. Awsrd and start of work is ant:cipated on or before Septerber 4,1981.
I E.
Pr:-esal Centent The proposal, as a mini.u, should address those elerne.ts specified Any cther areas not listed and which are believed to be sig-belev.
j nificant, should be addressed as well.
orca.ization - Identify your plan for staffing the project for 1.
conduct of each phase of work. Provide organization charts, l
rees of all key re-bers of the ma.agene.t tan (down to
" Principal Engineer" and " Construction Sape: visor" levels),
a.d prenide up-to-date resunes for ea::h. Identify against each IT SHO*J D BE rxed individual their date of availability.
NOTED THAT "ORGA';IIATICt;" IS LI)T:,,Y 'It BE THE Por IMPOPCA'O EL"CC D; IECIDD;3 MC S10'1.D TD;ISH THE PE'ECT.
a
1
. 'N E E N N July 24, 1981 2.
Io:-istics - Identify for each phase of work what portion of your organization will be working where. Particular atten-l tion should be paid to the follcuing locations:
a.
Ibuston b.
Job Site c.
Hcre Office d.
Other i
3.
Exius ooeran:ii - Identify your plan for carrying out the irger-tant ele ents of work. This should include, but not be lirited to,the following:
a.
Review of SAR ccrr.itments b.
Review and statusing of engineering calculations Review and statusing of engineerir.g specifications c.
and other technical reference doc.re.ts d.
Review and statusing of engineered and bulk material procurrent Review and statusing engineering drawing develo; rent e.
including " hold" status and " design change notices" f.
Revice and statusing open non-confc:rance repcrts (fCR's)
Establishing repired changes to the project decane.t g.
co. trol and records ranagernent progrn h.
Review and statusing construction 1.
Ide.tificeisa of mresolved field change reg.aests (KR's) to engineering for corrective action
- j. Revice adepa:y of the project material control pro-3 9:C k.
Develo;rne.: of a lice. sing strategy and plan to pre-pare a C.P. cenine.: and attend a co.ference with the fE in order to address the following:
i (1) A/E's technical qualifications (2) A/E's @ Progre (3) Interface between old and nee engineering enethocblogy and aralyses)
(4) Interface of A/E's % Progre with Constructor's QC activities (5) Retraining of constructor to A/E's % Progre req.sirenants (6) Changes to existing SAR ccrr.itments (7) CrAnges to existing design criteria (8) Interfa:e betwee. A/E's @ Progra and that of the utility 4
9
. - July 24, 1981 EQLT.E TOF PROPOSTJ.
Idc.tification of construction related activities to con-1.
tinue during Phase "A" and required manning resources Review of construction facilities and equipment. Identify m.
needs for job otrpletion Review, selection, and assimilation, stere prudent, of n.
current Engineer's htran resources (both enginedring, CC, and Construction Ma amerent perso.nell Preli inarv Scheduling - Provide preliminary CPP. style netucrk 4.
schei:les featuring the key work elemnts associated with the job takecuer, execution, and cmpletion.
(Current estirated proje:: status is as follows:)
D.it Engineering Cc.struction 1
70%
50t 2
20t 15t 7t:tal:
65%
45%
Fanloa ing - Pm/ide a preliminary ranloadinc for engineering, 5.
desic., and construction ra-agement activities reflected on the netw ks provided in response to "4" above.
Final Schedule and Cost Esti. ate - Identify how ra.y m='.ths frm.
6.
centra: a ard to prepare an official project cost and detailed schedule.
Identify stat Engineering and Constm-tion Panage ent systems, 7.
if any, will be utilized for the work recaining to be done.
Centra :ual - For ea:h type and phase of work, identify stat E.
A ratrix-fc
.s cf contracting would you recomend be utilized.
type res c.se should be p=/ided along the following guidelines:
Phase A Phase B Engineering Design Cc.struction Ma.agre.t O.:ality Assurance Paxi:
. use of lir.p su. or incentive type contracting is en-coraged.
Describe your position with respect to financial responsibility i
fer defee.s in engineering and/or constnrtion in existing work discovered after you have ccrpleted your review of, and accepted, such work.
i Cbrpensation - Pm/id3 your schedule of costs, rark :ps, and fees 9.
for each type and phase of work based on the contractual options reacrre.ded in resp::nne to "B" abcne.
l Identify what financial liability you are willing to accept for rewc k caused by your failure to properly execute Phase "B" work.
i J
. July 24, 1981 ELT.r ym Pc?OSA'-
1
- 10. Sterial Decerience Identify any power plant related experience gained frtrn ass.:.ing engineering and/or construction responsibilities frcan another organization.
Potential Transitional Considerations 11.
If it were necessa y for a transitional period that you perfor your engineering function as a consultant to the utility review-ing the designs of its current Engineer prior to release to con-struction, would such a contractual relationship be acceptable?
4 If you have answered "11" ab:ne in the affir: ative, describe b' f,
you uculd propose to interface with the utility and its current 12.
^
Engineer during the transitional period.
1 b
I i
4
[
i
1 e
Ebasco S&W Bechtel d
Committed personnel Corporate resources Management systems i
Understanding of Verification Phase C/S Controls Document control & RMS Transition Plan OA Sophistication Licensing Sophistication Experience Contractual provisions Readiness to proceed
(
0
- ~-
~,,-,
--