Project Completion Report

Project Completion Report

Project Summary

Client: Water Corporation Contract No.:C3/3000002316

PROJECT DELIVERABLES TARGET ACTUAL

Safety Nil LTI /Nil Incident 17 incidents

Scope As Per Contract 3 Variations

Schedule PC 26/09/2012 PC 3/10/2012

Budget $1,969,938 $2,166,003

Margin $492,744 $137,965

Quality (NCR’) 0 0

Customer Satisfaction Score 80% or above 66%

Project Pictures – Training

Cleaning the Speedy Slump Tests

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Training

Whole Sale Lining Cleaning the Nozzles

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Site Inspection

Site Office Location K Piece Locations

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Site Set Up

Toilets Water Corporation Gear

Project Pictures – Getting Started

Laying out Bypass Hoses Charging Bypass Hoses

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – HP

Moving the Big Winch Control Room

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Coving

Coving Machine Coving Operation

Project Pictures – WSL

WSL from End of Section 2 Lined Pipe

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Welding

Welding inside Sheds Welded Band

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

Weather Weather

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

Bypass Hoses Track Maintenance

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

Mobile Plant Late Delivery

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

Unreported Incidents Equipment Damage

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

QA Check Sheets Traffic Management

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

Cleaning Packing

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Pictures – Issues

Rehabilitation Inappropriate Behaviour

INSERT PHOTO HERE INSERT PHOTO HERE

Project Summary

Safety and Environment

Target – Nil Incident Actual – 17 Incidents

Comments

• 3 June 2012 Property damage HP Machine knocked off stands by forklift• 12 June 2012 Property damage 2 x Storage tents damaged by winds• 17 June 2012 Property damage Damage to handrail loading bulk-bags• 26 June 2012 Minor Injury Sprain to finger removing trailer from

vehicle (FAI)• 3 July 2012 Property damage Lock on telehandler damaged by operator• 3 Aug 2012 Minor injury Cut to wrist moving hoses (FAI)• 20 Aug 2012 Near Miss Over extension of forklift arms raised rear

wheels.• 20 Aug 2012 Property damage hydraulic lines damaged on telehandler• 20 Aug 2012 Property damage High pressure water hose separated from

truck

Project Summary

Safety and Environment

Target – Nil Incident Actual – 17 Incidents

Comments

• 20 Aug 2012 Property damage Damage to Porta-loo during relocation• 28 Aug 2012 Property damage Conveyor safety switch damaged – cause

undetermined• 28 Aug 2012 Property damage Hose reel damaged during operations• 3 Sept 2012 Property damage Light vehicle damage - cause

undetermined• 3 Sept 2012 Property damage Hydraulic lines damaged on telehandler• 16 Sept 2012 Property damage Vehicle and Porta-loo struck by forklift• 22 Sept 2012 Property damage Staircase caught on ground and damaged

• NB: There were a number of unreported issues including the damage to the tyres of the Water Corporation Truck.

Project Summary

Scope of Works

Target - Original Contract Scope of Works Total Number of SCN’s 4 Total Approved 3

Comments

• SCN-02 was raised to install Sintakote Pipe ($32K)• SCN-03 was raised for Welding Additional K Pieces and Sockets ($11K)• SCN-04 was raised for K Piece Removal ($23K)

NB The Water Corp were extremely slow in approving the SCN’s submitted to their electronic invoicing system and this caused confusion with the billing schedule.

Project Summary

Schedule2799F- Project Schedule

Item Task Planned Start Planned Finish Actual Start Actual Finish Planned Days Actual Days Variance

Project Pre Works and Training 7/05/2012 20/05/2012 7/05/2012 21/05/2012 13 14 -1

Site Establishment 21/05/2012 25/05/2012 21/05/2012 1/06/2012 4 11 -7

Section 3 25/05/2012 9/06/2012 1/06/2012 8/07/2012 16 38 -22

Section 4 9/06/2012 20/06/2012 25/06/2012 20/07/2012 11 26 -15

Section 1 20/06/2012 15/07/2012 15/07/2012 27/08/2012 25 32 -7

Section5 16/07/2012 27/07/2012 18/08/2012 27/08/2012 11 9 2

Section 2 28/07/2012 22/08/2012 28/08/2012 21/09/2012 25 23 2

Section 6 22/08/2012 4/09/2012 22/09/2012 26/09/2012 11 4 7 only Completed on 700 metres

K Piece Removal 26/09/2012 26/09/2012 3/10/2012 3/10/2012 1 1 0

Site Clean Up 27/09/2012 8/10/2012 4/10/2012 20/10/2012 11 16 -5

Demobilsation 8/10/2012 8/10/2012 20/10/2012 20/10/2012 1 1 0

Total 129 175 -46

• Schedule based on 122 m per day

Project Summary

Schedule

Original Contract Delivery 26/09/12 Actual Practical Completion – 20/10/12

Comments• Site Establishment - realistically should be 7 days as 4 days lost due to leaking

bypass hoses. Very unreliable delivery schedule provided by Water Corp. • Section 3 – The HP Process took 20 days to complete the full section (70m/day).

The Main issues appear to be equipment failures but due to the slow coving process, it did not hold up any other the other processes. The relocation of equipment although not highlighted in the reports is suspected to have contributed to these delays.The Coving Process took 17 days (82m/day) to complete the full section however, it took 13 days to complete 4 sections at the beginning of the process. The main issue was hand chipping off excess concrete left by the HP Process. The WSL Process took 17 days (82m/day) to complete the whole process, the main issues being equipment failures, muddy track and equipment blockages.

Project Summary

Schedule• Section 4 – The HP Process took 18 days to complete this section(77m/day). 2

days were lost to the boggy track . 2 Days attributed to locking bar and bogging problems and another further full day lost to frozen pipes, no fuel and the gen set serviceThe Coving Process took 13 days to complete this section (116m/day). 2 days were lost due to low pressure caused by condensate not being drained from the system. A further day lost as held up by HP.The HP Process took 15 days to complete this section (93.3m/day)2 days were lost due to road conditions and a further estimated 1 day due to blockages in equipment.

• Section 1- The HP Process took 21 days to complete this section (157m/day). A few smaller issues regarding cable fraying, sump pump failures.The Coving Process took 24 days to complete this section (138m/day).2 days were lost allowing HP to get ahead in the process. A further day was lost due to no water outlets on the pipe.The WSL process took 25 days to complete this process(132m/day).The main issue appears to be equipment failures costing approximately 2 days.

Project Summary

Schedule• Section 5 – The HP Process took 19 days to complete this section (73m/day). 2

days were lost due to installing bypass hoses; a further 4 when the hose leaked and the Water Corporation had to make a decision whether to proceed. In this section there were issues regarding the bogging process but it was discovered that we could adjust the angle of the bogging bucket and this greatly helped the operation.

• The Coving Process took 13 days to complete this section (108m/day). 2 days were lost due to late start by HP and the coving remained hard up behind the HP for the remaining work. No issues during Coving got this section

• The WSL Process took 11 days to complete this process (127m/day). 1 day was lost due to the installation of the Sintakote pipe . O.5 days lost due to Auger snapping in speedy – possibly poor cleaning.

Project Summary

Schedule• Section 2 – The HP Process took 23 days to complete this section (143m/day).

1 Day lost due to hose unravelling and ROV getting stuck on debris in pipe. Concrete extremely tough in this area and another day lost including another winch failure problem. The nozzles were changed on the HP Wands and this greatly improved the speed.

• The Coving Process took 24 days to complete this section (138m/day) 2 days were spent doing other duties and helping out the other processes. The absence of locking bar in 7 sections of this area provided plenty of additional work time.

• The WSL Process took 23 days to complete this section (143m/day). 1 day lost due to patching as pipe was out of shape. 1 day lost due to blockages, speedy auger snapped and issues with the Pozzilith pump.

Project Summary

Schedule• Section 6 – The HP Process took 8 days to complete this section (96m/day). 2

days lost waiting for pipe to be scoured and nipples remove. 1 day lost due to Big Winch Tripping and ROV issues.

• The Coving Process took 6 days to complete this process – no issues. • The WSL lining process took 4 days to complete this section (192m/day).

However, a further day was taken to repair and patch the pipe and the last section was of very poor quality.

Project Summary

Budget and Margin

Original Contract Sum $1,969,938 Expected Final – $2,166,003Original Contract Margin $492,744 Expected Final - $ 137,695

CommentsOver budget items were:-• 2-02 – Fabrication Materials ($61,138) (+$34,574) - approximate tools and

materials costs were $54K. However, some consumables and hire also hit this budget area in the early stages of the project .

• 3-10 – Installation Labour ($902,760) (+$170,415) – this reflects on the additional duration of the project and the extra 2 persons to help with the Hot Works.

• 7-11 Construction Management ($78,752) (+$23,341) – this reflects on additional duration of project and ‘on site’ visits

• 7-21 Site Supervision ($143,640) ($31,335) – approximately $39K additional booked onto this job for Project Management and Engineering

• 7-51 Cranes / Vehicles ($35,495) (+$26,632) – this reflects the additional duration of the project

Project Summary

Budget and Margin

• 7-54 Consumables ($102,764) (+$9,522) This budget line cost does not reflect the true cost consumables used to service the project. The hire of equipment was also added to this area adding an additional $45K. Repairs to damaged equipment added an additional $8K

• 7-54 Site Sheds ($43,242) + ($11,854) This budget line was impacted by the additional duration of the project. However, it must be noted that approximately $7k was spent on transport costs and an additional $6K for pumping out the septic tank.

• 7-55 Accommodation ($147,000) (+$21,605) This budget line was impacted with the additional requirement for manning, extended duration of project and the frequent site visits by management.

• 7-76 Freight ($3,400) (+$4660) This budget line was impacted by the additional cost of the Humpies freight and ‘waiting costs’ incurred by Shaws Transport.

• 8-33 Commissioning Subcontract ($30,000) (+$17,908) This budget including training and welding qualifications. Approximately $5K was spent of qualifying welds and welders. Approximately $24K was spent on training hours.

Project Summary

Budget and Margin

Under budget items were:-

• 1-02 Equipment for all other works – ($65,000) (-$51,657) – due to the lease agreement on the excavator.

• 7-57 Duration ($121,284) (-$21,563) – Diesel Costs were added to this budget line and the usage of diesel was less than the Water Corporation had advised. If the project had not been extended, this cost would have been considerably less.

• 7-59 Airfares ($137,000) (-$16,540) Airfares were sourced from the cheapest carrier’s – Sky West and averaged approximately $600 per person against the original estimate of $1000. However, the extended duration and site visits impacted on the saving.

Project Summary

Quality

Target – Nil Quality Issues or NCR’s Actual Nil

Comments

• A review of the Quality Check Sheets found that a significant amount of sheets were missing from the Coving Operation and WSL. Sheets were ‘filled in’ incorrectly, missing dates, and Pre Equipment checks had not been carried out. This proved to be an issue as the Water Corporation had to supply these sheets back to their Client in the MDR.

• The Welders ID was missing on 2 bands during the K Piece Install - the feedback was that the Water Corporation Welders had not put there's on.

• The Aerison Welders had no leaks on the K Piece Install - the Water Corp had 3.• The Water Corporation’s feedback included that the Lining was of a higher

quality that the previous contractors.• The completion of the remedial work and quality was an issue. The crew had left

site without this being carried out.

Project Summary

Human Resources

Comments

• Hays recruitment were used to source a number of site personnel but we had issues regarding medical health screening on one employee.

• Sourcing short term employee’s in the Kalgoorlie area turned out to be successful and benefited costs as we were not paying the Hays margin

• Training and availability of training courses for the specific tasks was an on going issue.

• The team of Irish working holiday employees provided a good dependable workforce.

• There were a number of Performance and Attitude relates issues throughout the project leading to discipline procedures being used.

Project Summary

Client Satisfaction

Target – Score of 5 with Client Survey Form

Comments

• Aerison scored 66% on the Client Survey Form.• The Clients main area’s of concern was the number of Aerison Personnel

available on site and the ability to meet the required milestones.• The Client’s higher scores were regarding the standard / quality of the work.• The Environmental rehabilitation work was also given very positive feedback.• Negative feedback was verbally communicated concerning the ‘on going’ issue of

damage to their equipment and the general cleaning of equipment on a daily basis.

• Negative feedback was expressed regarding ‘two way’ radio communications not being taken seriously and employee’s using this system for practical jokes.

Project Summary

Lesson Learnt

• Ensure that there are sufficient Water Outlets for equipment prior to

commencing the works. Also check sizes / lengths of hoses so that they can reach different operations.

• Change the HP Water Blasting Tips on a regular basis – check to see that Water Corporation have correct size and quantities in stock.

• Take pictures of all Water Corporation equipment prior to taking control of site - leads to less disputes about original condition.

• Take pictures of roads, banks etc so clear scope of how remediation work should be carried out.

• Audit Pipe at start up to identify area’s that contain no locking bar – the coving personnel may be scheduled ahead for different tasks.

• Chain Storage Basket required for Telehandler – prevent damage to hydraulics• Request Water Corporation provide lid for HP Submersible Pump Basket – this

was a high breakdown issue• Pre Start Daily checks to be enforced ?

Project Summary

Lesson Learnt

• The Daily Quality Check Sheets to be attached to the Daily Report and

approved by the Water Corporation• The Cleaning Process is critical to the maintenance of the equipment and

there were many breakdowns and equipment damage due to poor cleaning.• Selection criteria decided early in the planning and selection not only based

on current skills – past performance, ability to work in a team, attitude, etc• Early discussion with Teams about Performance Expectations in regards to the

Client, Aerison and General Public. • HR to be more involved with the hire / training matrix of casual labour.• Factor in the costs of the transport of hire equipment to site – telehandler

changes, excavator all impacted on budget for delivery.• Add Budget Line for 7-58 – Site Costs – Tools and Equipment – a lot of tools

and equipment were added into 2-02 (Fabrication Labour) and 7-57 -Consumables.

• Training hours, Site Clothing, Welding Qualification Costs ,etc should be evaluated from this project.

Project Summary

Lesson Learnt

• The Water Corporation were requested to provide a punchlist but this did not

happen and the various parties all had different idea’s to the levels of clean up. This should include photographs and pipe coordinates of all area that require work.

• The Budget included all the Provisional Quantities and the majority of items were excluded from the works. The Provisional Quantities could be classed a variation items and not added into the other cost lines?

• The Weld Maps with the items used were late and not completed incorrectly - patches were cut into smaller parts and this made it difficult to balance when reconciling to charge the Client. Better timely and accurate reports required.

• The estimates for Welding patches was based on a ‘fixed price’ for each patch. A number of patches became issues when the surrounding area’s were corroded and multiple patches were required. It should be stated that the fixed price is based on a time limit and hours and materials associated with further works will be charged at agreed hourly and cost rates.

Project Summary

Lesson Learnt

• The Contract Appendices had not been clearly checked in regards to Fatigue

Management and the Shift Rosters had to be changed to accommodate this – check all contract appendices.

• The Daily Pre Start Meeting lacked direction or defined targets – train Supervisors on how to conduct a Pre Start Meeting.

• The Water Corporation indicated that there had been an excessive removal of Pipe Bolsters by the Aerison Crew - request Water Corp Supervisor agree on which bolsters to remove.

• The Coving Machine worked at the wrong pressure setting for many weeks - request Water Corp provide recommended settings for all machinery.

• There were many issues regarding late payment, short payments and variation approvals using the electronic Eprocurement site – would advise to get approval with hardcopy before entering electronic invoice.

Project Summary

Lesson Learnt

• Traffic Management was a general concern from the Water Corporation in

regards to barricading the HP Area. The barrier method and signage requirements should be agreed before going to site as there were conflicting opinions between the different stakeholders.

• The Overall Coordination from the Water Corporation was very displaced and the project was managed through a number of different stakeholders. Request that the Water Corporation give Aerison an organisational structure or a central point of contact for project related matters.

• The change over to use the bogging bucket involved the use of mobile plant as it is too heavy to lift. Advise that look into building small jib that can be used for this activity.

Project Summary

Project Completion

Unfinished Business

Comments

• Thank You Letter

• Bank Guarantees

• Future Business or Related Projects

• Aerison Procedures