SUPERSTRUCTURE CONTRACTS: Procurement and contract strategy

April 20th 2009Benno StoiberArjen de Boer

Thijs van Steen

Agenda

• Scope• Contract strategy (creation process) • Contract form• Procurement procedure• Planning• Risks and challenges

• Propositions for discussion

Scope superstructure contracts

Cluster 11 Superstructure (Track) / Traction

Cluster 12 Telecommunication systems

Cluster 13 Station and tunnel installations & Passenger services

Cluster 16 Architectural outfitting stations / Art

Scope e.g.

• Escalators (99) and elevators (26)• Architectural outfitting stations (8): walls, glass panels, tiles,

etc.• Lighting• Ventilation systems• Substations and switching devices• Camera’s and dynamic passenger information system• Rail system (except signalling and equipment) - 9.5 km, mostly

ballast-free

Contracting Strategy: Completion

• Workshop in May 2008 determining priorities (key risks)

• Realization concept Contracting Plan• Comparison of variants• Preparation preferred variant • Review variant(s) in interviews with experts • September 2008 in Board of Directors NZL

discussion with Director Public Works Amsterdam the Alderman was informed

Contract Form: Choices

• Balancing Contract Forms: traditional versus integrated (E&C / D&C / DB(M) / DBFM)

• Multi-criteria analysis on criteria such as: time/planning, interfaces, market, environment, etc.

• Results discussed in exploratory talks with (potential) candidates

Contract Form: Market analysis

• Market wants to integrate disciplines• Market is eager for quick selection procedures

(reduce to 2 or 3 competitors)• ‘Rail’ market is ‘hungry’ because of declining

workload ProRail (September 2008)• Telecom/installation market is selective regarding

selection of projects• Outfitting market: positive nor negative image• Progressive insights Effects of credit crunch,

economic situation in the construction market results in ?

Choice: D&C contract

Dominant arguments:• Planning advantages (integration of disciplines)• Interfaces• Coordination• Flexibility

• Technical specifications based on Systems Engineering (Safety Case)

Procurement: Choice of procedure

• Competitive dialogue: technical and logistical complexity of the work

• Focus: quick selection procedure based on ‘Critical Success Factors’ (CSF‘s):

– Management system

– System integration

– Minimize Environmental Nuisance

• Use of ‘Maximum Value of Bids’

Maximum Value of Bids

• Maximum amount the Authority has available for the project

• Published early in the procurement process

• Validity criteria

• Price is still an important criterion

DialoguePrequalification phase Final Tender Phase

Business Plan Consultation phase Dialogue phase

Con

trac

t Aw

ard

3 Participantsn Participants 1 Participant

Business PlanApplication for participation Definitive Bid

Award Criteria: - Rating preparation Critical Success Factors (CSF‘s)

- Grounds of Exclusion- Eligibility Requirements

Award Criteria: NCW valuation of Options

Pub

licat

ion

Procurement phase: Prequalification

Relatively "light" criteria on the candidate companies:

• Exclusion criteria

• Financial economic standing

• Project management experience

• Experience in 'rail' market

Procurement phase: Business Plan (Critical Success Factors)

Three Critical Success Factors (CSF):

CSF 1: Management system

CSF 2: System integration

CSF 3: Minimize environmental nuisance

CSF 1 Management system

Purpose: ‘In Control’ in aspects time, quality and budget in realization process

Questions • Vision on cooperation and flexibility? • Organization regarding the management systems?• Selection of critical processes for the project?• How are these processes arranged?

Process • Categorize at strategic level (vision, top risks, opportunities, etc)• Assessment focused on controlling risk cq. size residual risks for

the Authority during contract period

CSF 2 System integration

Purpose: a controlled test, system integration, Test run and commissioning of the North / South line

Questions relating to: • Testing System• Acceptance and transfer• Test run

Process: • Categorize in consultation with AMSYS (coordinator / 'system

integrator')• Assessment focused on residual risks for the future operator

Learning from other experiences ....

CSF 3 Minimize nuisance on surrounding environment

Objective: to reduce environmental nuisance strengthen image of the Noord/Zuidlijn in the surrounding environment

Questions • Through what measures will nuisance for the environment be

minimized? • How is the duration of the disturbances minimized?• Elaborate risk analysis (identifying bottlenecks, formulating

measures)• Targeted cases on several bottlenecks identified in advance

Logistics process

• Logistic accesses in Sixhaven and South

• Relieve disturbance in sensitive areas (inner city, canal area)

Sixhaven

South

Assessment Methodology CSF

• Qualitative assessment and valuation by external Advisory Committee for each CSF

• Per CSF the Advisory Committee will give a score between 0 and 5 points

1 2 3 4 5

Minimum completion, Only just complies to the minimum requirements

Optimal interpretation, Very significant improvements Compared to minimum requirements

0

Advisory Committee

• Composed of experts in relevant fields / disciplines (professors, recognized experts and local experts)

• Appointed early in the process and involved in final drafting of the CSF

Relation Business Plan – Final Bid

• Final Bid must build on Business Plan (validity criterion)

• Parts Plan (drawing CSF) are further developed in Options

CSF 1

CSF 2

Business Plan

Option A

Option B

Option C

Option D

Option E

“new” topics

Options

• The Authority has defined ‘Options’, in addition to the minimum requirements

• To (partially) not fulfill these Options results in a fictitious increment of the NCW

• Options will be translated into ‘Dialogue Products’

• Final valuation of Options will take place in the Dialogue Phase

Options

• Option A: Management System• Option B: System integration• Option C: Minimize environmental nuisances• Option D: Fast delivery• Option E: Elevators / Escalators (Quality levels)• Option F: Maintenance Concept (LCC)• Option A: effect CSF 1• Option B: effect CSF 2• Option C: effect CSF 3

Dialogue Products

• Options: – Management Plan – Acceptance Plan, System integration, Safety

Case, Installation and Test run– Logistics plan – Planning – Analysis Failure mechanisms Elevators and

Escalators– Maintenance Concept

(Other) Dialogue Products

• Sample Preparation regarding Systems Engineering

• Verification matrix (on risky design elements such as the vibration reduction systems in the rail track)

Planning

• Prequalification: July 2009 - Nov 2009• First phase of the Dialogue – Business Plan

(n Participants) Nov 2009 - Feb 2010• Second phase of the Dialogue – Consultation phase

(3 Participants) Mar 2010 - Apr 2010• Third phase of the Dialogue – Dialogue phase

(3 Participants) May 2010 - Oct 2010• End of Dialogue – Definitive Bid

(3 Participants) Nov 2010 - Dec 2010• Completion – Contract Award

(1 Participant) Dec 2010

Key risks• Capacity of the internal NZL organization

(quantity and quality) for drafting the contract, the process of contracting and contract management

• Complexity of the project: none or (too) few interested parties

• Unstable scope • Implementation planning is not feasible• Appeals of candidates or participants• Bidding over budget • Realisation of substructure contracts will take

longer than planned• The building time frame (superstructure) will take

longer than planned

Challenges: coordination and input

External stakeholders• Managing ‘the Law of the inhibitory ahead’• Discussion Maintain component (DIVV Management)• Signalling, Integration test, Test run (AMSYS)• Frames for Acceptance and Transfer (DIVV

Management)

Internal stakeholders• Interfaces file substructure ('as built' or 'as designed ‘

including non conformities)

Questions?

Propositions for Discussion

Proposition 1

If large infrastructural projects are contracted traditionally*, public authorities are

incapable of keeping project control.

*choices in design and methods of construction made under responsibility of the Authority, with directive supervision by the Authority

Proposition 2

The characteristics and the key risks of the project, for instance:

• Capacity of the internal organization • Unstable scope • Uncertainty in timeframes of substructure contracts

make the project highly suitable for a form of alliancing

Proposition 3

To transfer design responsibility is like a boomerang: it will inevitably return to the Authority.