John R. FishDirector Project Support Services

Git R&R Done!

Director Project Support Services,Ford, Bacon & Davis, LLCBaton Rouge, La.jrfish@fbd.com

Git R&R Done!R h T 242Research Team 242,

Front End Planning for Renovation / Revamp

Projects

Inspection & Testing

Mtl/Equipment CostsEngineering Costs

Construction Costs

KNOWNCOSTS

Operational Delays/Lost Production

Inspection & Testing

Custom Specs/StdsPreferences

Document Control/TransfersVerify Site conditions Multiple Approvals

U.G. Obstructions

Maintenance & Storage Costs

Opns IncidentsPremiums for limited shop space

Audit for ConsistencyTraining Costs

IMPACT OF INDECISIONEngineering Holds & CHURN

Document Control/Transfers

MULTIPLE APPROVALS

Verify Site conditions Multiple Approvals

Match ORIG Specs yTraining Costs

Maintenance CostsOperational Costs

Ease of MaintenanceIT Support Costs

HIDDEN

Compressed ProcurementUrgency Mode

Delay in Vendor InformationRework in Engineering

Slippage in Construction

Match ORIG Specs

Safety Costs

Spare Parts

Procurement Labor

Ai F i h C

HIDDENCOSTS

LATE VENDOR INFO

Engineering Operations

MaintenanceS P t

Toxic Emissions

Cost CHANGE

Expediting Fees

Startup Delays

Redundant Data Entry

Air Freight CostsRework Spare Parts

Product Liability

Hot Work PermittingControlled Access Contaminated Soils

TODAYTODAY

NEWNEW TOOLS

R&R PROJECT MANAGERS

DID YOU KNOW?DID YOU KNOW?

• Approximately 30 percent• Approximately 30 percent • Handled differently, due to:

– Site conditionsSite conditions– Safety– Operations

• Greater focus on project controls

Our MissionOur Mission

S t d b ild CII h f• Support and build on CII research for Front End Planning

• Focus on Renovation and Revamp Projectsj

• Improve existing FEP Tools

R&R Project DefinitionR&R Project Definition

Focused on an existing facility, g y,Replaces, restores, repairs, or improves, p ,May include additional structures and systems,y ,Achieves a more functional, serviceable, or desirable , ,condition

Definition: R ti / R P j tRenovation / Revamp ProjectA project, focused on an existing facility, which i l d th t k fincludes the act, process, or work of replacing, restoring, repairing, or improving this facility with capital funds or non-capital funds. It may include additional structures and systems to achieve ya more functional, serviceable, or desirable condition, including improvement in: – profitability,– reliability,– efficiency,– safety, – security, – environmental performance, – or compliance with regulatory requirements

Aliases: Renovation / Revamp ProjectRenovation / Revamp Project

• Retrofit• Reconstruction

• Upgrade• Makeover

• Shutdown / Turnaround / Outage• Maintenance project *• Modernization

• Rebuild• Overhaul• Replacement• Modernization

• Improvement project• Repair project *

• Replacement• Betterment• Reclamation

• Alteration• Rehabilitation• De-bottlenecking project

• Regeneration• Redevelopment• Relocationg p j

• Refurbishment• Modification* Not including routine maintenance actions.

• Reutilization • Restoration

g

UNIQUE R&R RISKSSAFETY• Facility Specific Rules

Ha ardo s Materials

COORDINATION• Tie-Ins/Hot cutovers

A il bilit f O ti• Hazardous Materials• Working in Operational

Environment

• Availability of Operations support

• Parallel projects or M i t• Confined Space

• Hot Work Permits• Demolition

Maintenance• Transportation • Outages

• Congestion• Surprises• Hot Equipment/Pipes

• Update Existing RecordsPROCUREMENT• Compatible components• Hot Equipment/Pipes

• Live WiresCompatible components

• Buy Same• Match old specs

UNIQUE R&R RISKSUNIQUE R&R RISKSExisting Site Conditions• Drawings not up to date

DISMANTLING• Sequencing of WorkDrawings not up to date

• Old systems/components• Isolation points not working

Pi i t Thi / l d

• Sequencing of Work• Safety/Decon• Impact to Opns

• Piping systems Thin/clogged• Supports inadequate/broke• Poor soils conditions

• Air GappingENVIRONMENTAL• Spills/Leaks/emissions

• Degraded insulation/asbestos• Limited utilities• Sumps clogged

p• Legacy regulationsSECURITY• Limited AccessSumps clogged

• U.G. surprises/obstructions• Congestion

• Limited Access• Timing of deliveries• Screening of personell

Research Team Members, RT 242 ,John Fish Chair – S&B Engrs. & ConstructorsBob Seay Co-Chair – Tennessee Valley Auth.Bill Barnett BE & K

Chris Holcomb Eastman Chemical CompanyJohn Moore Ontario Power GenerationBill Pew DuPont

Ken Bryson DHHS-CDCBuzz Buswell ZurichEskil Carlsson CSA GroupDennis Chastain Mustang Engineers & Constructors

Neil Platt ShellFaron Rollins Ontario Power GenerationStan Scofield US Department of StateMark Swanson Burns & McDonnell

Don Cooley CH2M HillDoug Craig Dresser-RandQingbin Cui The University of AlabamaEdd Gibson The University of AlabamaJ l G H I d t i

Mark Swanson Burns & McDonnellBill Thorsen General MotorsJim Vicknair WorleyParsons K.C. Wong U.S. Steel

Joel Guess Harper IndustriesStudents:Suzanne Howard The University of AlabamaDon Whittington The University of Alabama

Research Team Members, RT 242 ,John Fish Chair – S&B Engrs. & ConstructorsBob Seay Co-Chair – Tennessee Valley Auth.Bill Barnett BE & K

Chris Holcomb Eastman Chemical CompanyJohn Moore Ontario Power GenerationBill Pew DuPont

Ken Bryson DHHS-CDCBuzz Buswell ZurichEskil Carlsson CSA GroupDennis Chastain Mustang Engineers & Constructors

Neil Platt ShellFaron Rollins Ontario Power GenerationStan Scofield US Department of StateMark Swanson Burns & McDonnell

Don Cooley CH2M HillDoug Craig Dresser-RandQingbin Cui The University of AlabamaEdd Gibson The University of AlabamaJ l G H I d t i

Mark Swanson Burns & McDonnellBill Thorsen General MotorsJim Vicknair WorleyParsons K.C. Wong U.S. Steel

Joel Guess Harper IndustriesStudents:Suzanne Howard The University of AlabamaDon Whittington The University of Alabama

Research Team Members, RT 242 ,John Fish Chair – S&B Engrs. & ConstructorsBob Seay Co-Chair – Tennessee Valley Auth.Bill Barnett BE & K

Chris Holcomb Eastman Chemical CompanyJohn Moore Ontario Power GenerationBill Pew DuPont

Ken Bryson DHHS-CDCBuzz Buswell ZurichEskil Carlsson CSA GroupDennis Chastain Mustang Engineers & Constructors

Neil Platt ShellFaron Rollins Ontario Power GenerationStan Scofield US Department of StateMark Swanson Burns & McDonnell

Don Cooley CH2M HillDoug Craig Dresser-RandQingbin Cui The University of AlabamaEdd Gibson The University of AlabamaJ l G H I d t i

Mark Swanson Burns & McDonnellBill Thorsen General MotorsJim Vicknair WorleyParsons K.C. Wong U.S. Steel

Joel Guess Harper IndustriesStudents:Suzanne Howard The University of AlabamaDon Whittington The University of Alabama

Research Team Members, RT 242 ,John Fish Chair – S&B Engrs. & ConstructorsBob Seay Co-Chair – Tennessee Valley Auth.Bill Barnett BE & K

Chris Holcomb Eastman Chemical CompanyJohn Moore Ontario Power GenerationBill Pew DuPont

Ken Bryson DHHS-CDCBuzz Buswell ZurichEskil Carlsson CSA GroupDennis Chastain Mustang Engineers & Constructors

Neil Platt ShellFaron Rollins Ontario Power GenerationStan Scofield US Department of StateMark Swanson Burns & McDonnell

Don Cooley CH2M HillDoug Craig Dresser-RandQingbin Cui The University of AlabamaEdd Gibson The University of AlabamaJ l G H I d t i

Mark Swanson Burns & McDonnellBill Thorsen General MotorsJim Vicknair WorleyParsons K.C. Wong U.S. Steel

Joel Guess Harper IndustriesStudents:Suzanne Howard The University of AlabamaDon Whittington The University of Alabama

Research Team Members, RT 242 ,John Fish Chair – S&B Engrs. & ConstructorsBob Seay Co-Chair – Tennessee Valley Auth.Bill Barnett BE & K

Chris Holcomb Eastman Chemical CompanyJohn Moore Ontario Power GenerationBill Pew DuPont

Ken Bryson DHHS-CDCBuzz Buswell ZurichEskil Carlsson CSA GroupDennis Chastain Mustang Engineers & Constructors

Neil Platt ShellFaron Rollins Ontario Power GenerationStan Scofield US Department of StateMark Swanson Burns & McDonnell

Don Cooley CH2M HillDoug Craig Dresser-RandQingbin Cui The University of AlabamaEdd Gibson The University of AlabamaJ l G H I d t i

Mark Swanson Burns & McDonnellBill Thorsen General MotorsJim Vicknair WorleyParsons K.C. Wong U.S. Steel

Joel Guess Harper IndustriesStudents:Suzanne Howard The University of AlabamaDon Whittington The University of Alabama

F t E d Pl i D fi dFront End Planning Defined

Design

00 Feasibility 11 Concept 22 DetailedDetailedScopeScope

and Construction

33

Front End Planning Front End Planning ProcessProcess

Previous CIIPrevious CII Front End Planning Research

• Sample of 609 projects, $37 billion

R lt f d f t d l i• Results of good front end planning:

Cost: 10 percent less

Schedule: 7 percent shorter delivery

Changes: 5 percent fewer

RT 242 Research Effortesea c o t• 41 questionnaires, volume of R&R• 25 R&R case studies $1 4 billion• 25 R&R case studies, $1.4 billion• CII Benchmarking and Metrics data

– 522 R&R projectsp j– $ 9.3 billion

• Four Shutdown/Turnaround/Outage (STO) workshops– 67 participants

$ 5 5 billion– $ 5.5 billion

Critical Success FactorsCritical Success Factors 1.1. Ensure alignment and conduct teambuildingEnsure alignment and conduct teambuilding22 Choose contracting strategy for projectChoose contracting strategy for project2.2. Choose contracting strategy for project Choose contracting strategy for project

constraintsconstraints3.3. Define existing conditionsDefine existing conditions44 Identify and involve key stakeholdersIdentify and involve key stakeholders4.4. Identify and involve key stakeholders, Identify and involve key stakeholders,

including operations and maintenanceincluding operations and maintenance5.5. Follow a front end planning processFollow a front end planning process6.6. Define critical scope issuesDefine critical scope issues7.7. Ensure labor & material availabilityEnsure labor & material availability8.8. Explore alternative construction methodsExplore alternative construction methods9.9. Apply leadership and experience Apply leadership and experience

Updated Front End Planning Publications

PDRIPDRI――Industrial ProjectsIndustrial ProjectsCII Implementation Resource 113CII Implementation Resource 113--2, 32, 3rdrd EditionEdition

PDRIPDRI B ildi P j tB ildi P j tPDRIPDRI――Building Projects Building Projects CII Implementation Resource 155CII Implementation Resource 155--2, 32, 3rdrd EditionEdition

Front End Planning Tool KitFront End Planning Tool KitADD FEP ICON

Front End Planning Tool KitFront End Planning Tool KitCII Implementation Resource 213CII Implementation Resource 213--2, 22, 2ndnd EditionEdition

New ToolsNew Tools

• Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Review• Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Review (STAR) Tool

“O t M ” l ti hi– “One to Many” relationship

• Project Condition Investigation (PCI) Cards

– Available tools and technologies

Research Review

Research EffortResearch Effort• Phase I—41 CII members (24

owners and 17 contractors)owners and 17 contractors)• Cases—25 projects, $1.4 billion; 13

organizations• BM&M—679 projects, $23.6 billion• Shutdown Turnaround Alignment

Review (STAR) tool developmentReview (STAR) tool development—67 participants, 39 organizations, $5.5 billion

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Phase I Survey•• Survey QuestionsSurvey Questions

–– R&R project amounts of revenue or R&R project amounts of revenue or budgeted expendituresbudgeted expendituresg pg p

–– 2005 thru 2007 2005 thru 2007 –– Critical issues related to R&R projectsCritical issues related to R&R projects

•• A total of 41 organizations (out of 101A total of 41 organizations (out of 101•• A total of 41 organizations (out of 101 A total of 41 organizations (out of 101 members) responded, 40 percent response members) responded, 40 percent response raterate

•• 24 owner organizations and 17 contractor24 owner organizations and 17 contractor•• 24 owner organizations and 17 contractor 24 owner organizations and 17 contractor organizationsorganizations

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Extent of R&R—Phase I Snapshotp

Total Budget/Revenue Projects vs R&R Project

$60

$70

$80

lars

R&R Projects

rs

N=35

N=39

$30

$40

$50

$60

Mill

ions

of D

oll

Total Budget/Revenue Projects

ns o

f Dol

lar

N=38

$-

$10

$20

2005 2006 2007

MB

illio 27% 25% 35%

2005 2006 2007

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Phase I—Unique Characteristics

Why R&R projects should be managed differently:• Safety and security issuesSafety and security issues• Unforeseen site conditions• Scope definition uncertainty-estimating the

amount of work• Scheduling intensity / schedule constraints • ShutdownsShutdowns• Interfacing with operations / tenants,

maintenance, and construction personnel• Funding sources

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Phase I—Key Conclusionsy• Approximately 30 percent (by $) of CII

projects are R&R

• R&R projects different: site conditions, safety, and operations

• Greater focus on project controls for R&R

• Most common R&R project risk: unforeseen site conditions

• Two-thirds of respondents handle R&R projects differently in their processes

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Case Studies-Sample

Total Cost # of Projects

$245.14Contractor (RT 242)

($ million)Projects

$660.06Contractor (RT 213)

$91.78Owner (RT 242)

$366.07Owner (RT 213)

$( )

$1,362.825Total

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Case Studies SnapshotCase Studies-Snapshot

Cost Growth Schedule Growth Change Orders

Successful 5 9% 3 3% (ahead) 4 0%Successful -5.9% -3.3% (ahead) 4.0%

(N=10) (N=10) (N=10)

Unsuccessful 53.4% 46.0% (behind) 9.9%

(N=11) (N=11) (N=12)

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Case Studies-Pattern MatchingCritical Success Factors # of "terms"

•• Pattern MatchingPattern Matching–– Atlas SoftwareAtlas Software–– Uploaded case study Uploaded case study

Critical Success Factors # of termsIdentified stakeholders 934Define a front end planning process 811

writewrite--upsups–– Word Queries Word Queries

•• Produced over 20,000 Produced over 20,000 words words

•• Deleted conjunctions and Deleted conjunctions and pronounspronouns

pScope Definition including tools 354Alignment and Teambuilding 250

pronounspronouns

–– Created codes using Created codes using words related to words related to planning into the planning into the softwaresoftwareRan queries againRan queries again

Contract Strategies and Project Drivers 246Existing Conditions 199

–– Ran queries again Ran queries again based on the codesbased on the codes

•• ResultsResults–– Critical Success Critical Success

Overarching Issues # of "terms"

Labor and Material Issues 163

FactorsFactors–– Overarching IssuesOverarching Issues

Leadership and Experience 68Alternative Execution Practices 34

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Case Studies-Critical Success Factors

Alignment and Teambuilding All 13 successful projects had developed good alignment Eleven of the 12 unsuccessful projects had poor alignment

Select the proper contracting strategy early and understand the project drivers p j Only five of the 12 unsuccessful projects had chosen the

correct contracting strategy All 13 successful projects had chosen the right strategy

Define existing conditions thoroughly Only four of the 13 unsuccessful projects adequately

examined existing conditions Eleven of the 12 successful projects adequately discovered

the existing conditions

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Case Studies-Critical Success Factors (2)

Identify Stakeholders Nine of the 12 unsuccessful projects did not identify /Nine of the 12 unsuccessful projects did not identify /

involve key stakeholdersAll 13 successful projects did involve key stakeholders

Develop and consistently follow a defined front p yend planning processAll 13 of the successful projects followed an existing

FEP process Only five of the 12 unsuccessful projects had a well

developed FEP process to follow Ensure adequate scope definitionNine of the 12 unsuccessful projects did not adequately

define the scopeAll 13 successful projects adequately defined the scope

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Case Studies-Overarching Issues Labor and Material shortages are a concern for R&R

projects Labor and material shortages should be investigated and g g

mitigated if possible Alternative Construction Methods need to be

considered during front end planning Modularization, prefabrication, and work package phasing

can help organizations to create safer environments, reduce on-site work load, and create more efficient projects

Leadership and Experience were factors that affected success of R&R projectsGood leadership, experience in the local work environment

d f ili it ith th d t h fand familiarity with others produce a greater chance of performing well

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

CII Benchmarking and MetricsG fi ld R&R t t• Greenfield versus R&R, contractors versus owners, different project sectors, different total installed cost ,(TIC)

• Total sample:

–679 total projects•157 Greenfield157 Greenfield•522 R&R

– $23.6 B total (not all projects used for all analyses)

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Benchmarking and Metrics (2)• Areas studied:

– FEP tools versus performance metrics• PPP Index• Alignment• Change Management Indexg g

– FEP use versus construction cost– FEP Phase Costs– Percent design complete– Safety and contracting strategies

S t d d t tifi d l• Segregated and stratified sample

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Benchmarking and Metrics (3)

7.4 7 3 8.1 8.06.5 6.5

7.3

N = 102, 260 N = 43, 76

N = 126, 256

Benchmarking and Metrics (4)

• R&R projects 77% of SAMPLER&R projects 77% of SAMPLE

• 40% of COSTS

• Little difference in use of tools and processes

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

Critical STO Categories

1. Design for constructability2 Permit requirements2. Permit requirements3. Equipment and material status4. Procurement procedures and plansp p5. Project control requirements6. Engineering/construction plan and

happroach7. Shutdown/turnaround requirements8 Commissioning8. Commissioning9. Startup requirements

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

For More InformationFor More Information…

Research Report 242-11, Analysis Supporting Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp ProjectsRenovation and Revamp Projects

P j t D fi itiProject Definition Rating Index UpdatesRating Index Updates

Why Update?Why Update?

• Lacking adequate scope definition for R&R• Incomplete facility information on R&R

projects• Critical needs to improve execution:Critical needs to improve execution:

– Identify existing conditions– Perform sitePerform site

investigation/assessment– Improve site access for front end

planning

The PDRI UpdatesThe PDRI Updates

• Developed lists of unique R&R Risk issuesSafet & En ironmental Contracting- Safety & Environmental - Contracting

- Security & Logistics - Coordination- Existing Conditions - Compatibility- Investigation Tools - Demolition

• Coordinated Risk issues for Bldg & Industrial• Applied Risk issues to PDRI Element

Descriptions• Additional items to consider for R&R• Additional items to consider for R&R

projects

E l f R&R Ri k IExamples of R&R Risk Issues• Modifications to meet existing or

anticipated reg lator req irementsanticipated regulatory requirements

• Worker & occupant safety issues, exposure and monitoring during R&R workexposure, and monitoring during R&R work

• Complete condition assessment of existing facilities and infrastructurefacilities and infrastructure

• Potential reuse of existing equipment, materials, and systems, y

• Integration of new technology with existing systems

The R&R NumbersThe R&R Numbers

• R&R Risk issues: 27 of 64 (42%) Building PDRI Elements38 of 70 (54%) Industrial PDRI Elements

• Evenly distributed across three PDRI Sections• Evenly distributed across three PDRI Sections• R&R impact: 414 of 1000 Building PDRI points414 of 1000 Building PDRI points526 of 1000 Industrial PDRI points

PDRI Element Descriptions(Example)(Example)

B4. Design PhilosophyA listing of design philosophy issues should be developed. These issues should be directed at concerns such as the following: Design life Aesthetic requirements: Theme or style [such as gothic, Victorian, or modern] Image (character of occupants or function portrayed to public by the Image (character of occupants or function portrayed to public by the

building, i.e., welcome, power, or nature) Compatibility with master plan Environmentally sustainable design (internal/external) and level of

certification, if applicable Quality of life Quality of life Requirements of any adopted anti-terrorism design standards Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects Design impact of Renovation projectsg j Compatibility of new Design with existing Design (equipment,

egress, etc.) Match existing features and/or materials Preservation efforts – cultural & architectural

CII IR 155 2 3rd EditionCII IR 155-2, 3rd Edition

The ResultsThe Results• Conducted PDRI 3rd Edition sessions

Several R&R projectsSe e a & p ojects Both Building & Industrial

• Initial positive results– Highlighted project issues– Revealed shortcomings of scope

documentsdocuments– Identifies issues of concern in FEP

Updated Excel Spreadsheets developed

When to use…..

Design

1 2 2i 3

00 Feasibility 11 Concept 22 DetailedDetailedScopeScope

and Construction

33

Front End Planning Front End Planning ProcessProcess

P j t C ditiProject Condition Investigation ToolsInvestigation Tools and Technologiesand Technologies

Project Condition Investigation C t iCategories

• Underground Conditions• Integrity (Mechanical/Structural/Electrical)• Restricted Access• Spatial Relationships• Risk Identification

Environmental Constraints• Environmental Constraints

This is NOT an U. G. Site Identification Tool

Project Condition Investigation(PCI) C d(PCI) Cards

• Current available technologies• Front end planning investigation• Risk reduction

PCI Tools & TechnologiesNo PCI Card/Technology Underground

Conditions

Integrity (Mechanical / Structural / Electrical)

Restricted Access

Spatial Relationships

Risk Identification

Environmental Constraints

1 Ground Penetrating Radar X X X2 Electromagnetic Sensing X X X2 Electromagnetic Sensing X X X3 Hydro-Excavation X X4 3D Laser Scanning X X5 Photogrammetry X X6 Rapid Prototyping X X X7 3D Wind Tunnel Modeling X X8 Ultrasonic Testing X X9 Hydrostatic Isolation Technologies X X10 Infrared Scanning X X X X11 Real Time GPS X X X11 Real Time GPS X X X12 X-ray Fluorescence X13 Fiber Optic Sensors X14 Acoustic Structural Monitoring X15 Smart PIGS Smart Ball X16 Magnetic Particle Inspection X17 Eddy Current Test (ECT) X18 Liquid Penetrant Inspection X X19 Flux Leakage X20 Falling Weight Deflectometer X20 Falling Weight Deflectometer X21 Mass Spectrometers X X22 Cost & Schedule Risk Analysis X23 Conceptual Cost Estimating X24 SCAPS X

Tool Ground Penetrating Radar

Alias Ground Probing Radar, Georadar, Subsurface Radar, earth sounding radar, Computer Assisted Radar Tomography (CART)

Ground-penetrating radar is a geophysical method that uses radar pulses to image the subsurface. This non-destructive method uses electromagnetic radiation in the microwave

E l

Descriptiong

band of the radio spectrum, and detects the reflected signals from subsurface structures. GPR can be used in a variety of media, including rock, soil, ice, fresh water, pavements and structures. It can detect objects, changes in material, and voids and cracks.

Underlying Technology Noninvasive electromagnetic geophysical technique

Example PCI Card

Applied Project

Condition

Underground ConditionsSpatial relationshipsIntegrity (Mechanical/Structural/Electrical)

Service Fee(unit price)

Cost depends on the area surveyed and surface conditions, but is typically between $0.15 to $.40 per sq ft. A good average cost is about $0.25 per square foot.

P id hi h lit li bl id d t l ti t b f i ti ti

Benefits/ Features

Provide high quality, reliable, rapid, and easy to use solutions to subsurface investigation needs;Can be performed without interfering with buried utilities;Detects both metallic and non-metallic materials;Presents no safety hazards.

Limitations Areas with extremely complex subsurface layouts can be extremely difficult to interpret Limitations properly; Sensitive to noise, i.e. interference caused by various geologic and cultural factors

Application Areas

Subsurface survey, structural mapping, forensic investigation, pavement and infrastructure characterization

Service Providers

Bhate Geosciences CorporationGeoModel Inc.AMEC Engineering & Construction ServicesProviders AMEC Engineering & Construction Services And more service providers are listed online at: http://www.g-p-r.com/morecom.htm

Equipment Suppliers

Geophysical Survey Systems Inc.MALÅ

Ground penetrating radar waves can reach depths up to 100 feet (30 meters) in low conductivity materials such as dry sand or granite Moist clays shale and other high

Other Issues

conductivity materials such as dry sand or granite. Moist clays, shale, and other high conductivity materials, may attenuate or absorb GPR signals, greatly decreasing the depth of penetration to 3 feet (1 meter) or less. Computer-assisted radar tomography (CART) is a new type of ground-penetrating imaging radar that can detect and differentiate buried metallic and non-metallic objects and rapidly generates high-resolution 3D underground images.

When to applyWhen to apply…..PCI Card Application

Design

00 Feasibility 11 Concept 22 DetailedDetailedScopeScope

and Construction

33

Front End Planning Front End Planning ProcessProcess

Front End Planning Toolkit,

Version 2.0

Front End Planning Toolkit, V 2.0Front End Planning Toolkit, V 2.0

FEP ToolkitFEP Toolkit

What is the FEP Toolkit?How does it work?Where can I get it?

Can I customize it for my company?What will it do for my company?Can you show me how to use it?

REVISED!!!

NEW!!!NEW!!!

Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Review

(STAR) Tool(STAR) Tool

Definition of Shutdown/ Turnaround/Outage (STO)Turnaround/Outage (STO)

Unique event where multiple jprojects converge

to a point, resulting in a “time-constrained”, integrated and

often rapid schedule execution of one or multiple projects.

Time, money, safety, and quality all require detailed, y y yfocused attention including consideration for

scheduled plant maintenance and discovery of unplanned work scope.

STAR Tool

• Facilitates assessment of multiple

projects

• Complements the PDRI

• Helps identify risks for mitigation• Helps identify risks for mitigation

• Measures planning progress

UH HUH MOMENTUH HUH MOMENT

TA Planning GroupTA Planning Group RARELY if EVER

Involved in PROJECT FEP ReviewsFEP Reviews

Shutdown/Turnaround Ali t R iAlignment Review

(STAR) Tool• Shutdown, Turnaround, or Outages (STO)

A “One to Many” relationship

• A tool that tests planning alignment or preparedness of the multiple projects/tasks performed during a common STO

(targeted at the Industrial Sector)(targeted at the Industrial Sector)

• Helps to identify inherent risks to STOs for mitigation at a very early stage y y g

• Complements the “PDRI” for Renovations/Revamps

Example STAR Timeline

0 Feasibility

321 DesignDetailed Scope

Concept

Project 1

0 Feasibility

321 DesignDetailed Scope

Concept

Project 2

STOTimeline of communication between PM and STO leadership

STA

R

0 Feasibility

321 DesignDetailed Scope

Concept

Project nAt this point, the STOLeadership can collectivelyevaluate results

AR

AR

STA

STA

Actual timing for each application

Communications of statusand Input from PM/STOLeadership

=will be set by the Project/STOLeadership Team

Wh t th STAR T l ill d fWhat the STAR Tool will do for you

• Establishes an early forum for ycommunication

• Helps with alignment of STO participantsHelps with alignment of STO participants

• Promotes consistency in planning

• Identifies STO risks and assigns actions

• Can be used in developing the overall STO program approach

Development of Prioritization

• Four workshops; Houston (2), Wilmington BirminghamWilmington, Birmingham

• Input from 67 participants, 39 organizationsorganizations

• Respondents asked to prioritize relative value of nine STAR e at e a ue o e Scategories; provide input and critique

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

STAR Tool DevelopmentOwner Companies

• BP Products Ch Philli Ch i l

Contractor Companies

• Altair Stricklandf C

• Siemens St• Chevron Phillips Chemical

• Citgo Petroleum • ConocoPhillips • Dresser-Rand • DuPont

• Bancroft Construction• BE&K• Brock Maintenance • Burns & McDonnell• BSE Industrial

• Starcon• Synterprise• Taranis• The Turnaround

Management Co

• Eastman Chemical • ExxonMobil Chemical • Lyondell Basell Industries • OPG

BSE Industrial• Day & Zimmermann NPS• CH2M Hill• Fluor• GUBMK Constructors

• Timec• Turner Industries• URS• Wheelabrator

Technologies• PRSI • Shell • Southern Company • TVA • US Steel

• JV Industrial• S&B Constructors

Technologies• WorleyParsons• Wyatt Field Services

Phase ISurvey

BM&M

Case StudiesSTAR

US Steel • WE Energies

BM&M

Relative Priority-STO Categories

1. Shutdown/turnaround requirements 16.3%2 Engr/construction plan & approach 14 2%

Relative PriorityRelative Priority

2. Engr/construction plan & approach 14.2%3. Equipment and material status 14.0%4. Design for constructability 13.4%5. Project control requirements 12.0%6. Procurement procedures and plans 8.8%7 Startup requirements 7 7%7. Startup requirements 7.7%8. Commissioning 7.3%9. Permit requirements 6.3%

Phase ICase Studies

STARSurveyBM&M

STAR

Example: Category 4. Procurement

Categories/Elements for Review: N/AHigh

Performing Meets Most Meets SomeNeeds

ImprovementNot

Acceptable Comments:4. Procurement Procedures and Plans 1 22 44 66 88

1- The Category

Specific guidelines, special requirements, resources, or methodologies for accomplishing the purchasing, expediting, delivery, and security of equipment and materials required for the project. Evaluate each of the line items below based on a collective impact of the multiple

j t i l d E l ti it i h ld

3- The Ratingsprojects involved. Evaluation criteria should include:

A. Procurement guidelines (including expediting processes) to support planned, unplanned, or 'discovery' work during STO are in place with appropriate time constraints

B. Procedures and accountabilities to allow for real-time contract change controls are in place

C. Potential for leveraged contracts across multiple projects for common commodities (i e piping conduits valves cable 2- The Elements(i.e., piping, conduits, valves, cable, consumables, etc.) has been reviewed

D. Staff resources available to support procurement procedures and plans

E. Other

2 The Elements

4 Comments4- Comments

Evaluation DefinitionsReadiness Rating Description

NA Not applicable

High Performing Project meets or exceeds the objective(s) or expectations.

Meets Most Project consistently meets the objective(s). Some j y j ( )areas may need additional minor attention.

Meets Some Project partially meets the objective(s) or expectation. Without improvement, success could be in jeopardy.j p y

Needs Improvement Project is not consistent in meeting the objective(s) or expectations. Without improvement, project is at risk. Actions to meet expectations are required.

Not Acceptable Project is consistently below expectations and performance is unacceptable. Success cannot be achieved in current state. Actions are required to improve.

Action?• A state of readiness or rating in Columns

1-3 may be acceptable to management depending on the importance to the STOdepending on the importance to the STO.

• A state of readiness in Columns 4 and 5A state of readiness in Columns 4 and 5 needs definite improvement.

One or more line items in these columns could be grounds for a “no-go” decision.

Columns 1 to 3 Columns 4 and 5

Not Acceptable

Needs ImprovementMeets SomeMeets Most

High Performing ppg

Example: Category 4. Procurement

Categories/Elements for Review: N/AHigh

Performing Meets Most Meets Some

Needs Improvement

Not Acceptable Comments:

4. Procurement Procedures and Plans 1 22 44 66 88 44Specific guidelines, special requirements, resources, or methodologies for accomplishing the purchasing, expediting, delivery, and security of equipment and materials required for the project. Evaluate each of the line items below based on a collective impact of the multiple

j t i l d E l ti it i h ld

44

projects involved. Evaluation criteria should include:

A. Procurement guidelines (including expediting processes) to support planned, unplanned, or 'discovery' work during STO are in place with appropriate time constraints

√B. Procedures and accountabilities to allow for

real-time contract change controls are in place

C. Potential for leveraged contracts across multiple projects for common commodities (i e piping conduits valves cable √

√

(i.e., piping, conduits, valves, cable, consumables, etc.) has been reviewed

D. Staff resources available to support procurement procedures and plans

E. Other

√√

√

Example: SummarySummary STAR Tool Ratings

Categories/Elements for Review:High

PerformingMeets Most

Meets Some

Needs Improvement

Not Acceptable

Summary Ratings

1. Design for Constructability Analysis 1 34 67 101 134 67

2. Permit Requirements 1 16 31 47 63 1

3. Equipment and Material Status 1 35 70 105 140 105

4. Procurement Procedures and Plans 1 22 44 66 88 44

5. Project Control Requirements 1 30 60 90 120 306. Engineering / Construction Plan and Approach 1 36 71 107 142 1

7. Shut Down / Turnaround / Outage Requirements 1 41 82 122 163 41

8. Commissioning 1 18 37 55 73 18

9. Startup Requirements 1 19 39 58 77 58

Total points Achieved 3651000 Total Points Possible

Example: Summary of Actions

Category/Element Rating Issue/Action Item Description

Responsibility Assigned

Due Date Status/Comments

C S

Dependencies or integration of the critical paths(s) for one project's C C1C, Integration dependencies Meets Some critical paths(s) for one project s predecessor/successor relationships or impact to another

JD April 12 Create master CP schedule

1E, Critical shop fabrication Needs Improvement

Critical shop fabrication details and inspections for special fit-up or rigging requirements to aid in final i l t ti h b id tifi d

CP/DAA May 1 Verify rigging details for Gen-Set

implementation have been identified

3B, Equipment and materials Needs Improvement

Status of all equipment is known and tracked including required long lead equipment and materials

AG April 12 Verify pump casing fabrication schedule

Restraints or impediments due to

3I, Facility impediments Needs Improvement

facility structure, space or the physical clearance or placement of equipment is identified and mitigated

CAS April 12 Confirm size of scrubber vessels

3J, Warehouse plans Not Acceptable

Warehouse plan is in place for materials received including security and staging

BBB/DAW April 12 Identify storage and laydown areasand staging

7I, Reporting/forecasting Not Acceptable

Standard reporting for progressing, forecasting, and frequency required by the STO Manager defined

BBB May 12 Bruce to submit reporting plan to group

9D, Technology startup Not Technology start-up supported on-site including information technology MB April 12

Confirm IT availability for nightshift startup of controlsupport Acceptable site, including information technology

identified and plannedMB April 12 nightshift startup of control

system

In SummaryIn Summary

• Helps establish multiple project i ticommunications

• Assists in developing overall approach, with expectations recognized earlyg y

• Enhances alignment among stakeholders• Provides consistency in planning around

STO objectivesSTO objectives• Identifies risks with assigned actions to

minimize impact to the STO

Excel Spreadsheet developed

OPEN DISCUSSIONOPEN DISCUSSIONFRONT ENDFRONT END

in TheoryyIn Reality

MAN DISCOVERS TOOLS85

MAN DISCOVERS TOOLS

Git R&R Done!