首页> 外文会议>SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference >Assessment of Two Contract Awarding Strategies; Lump Sum Turn Key LSTK and Lump Sum Procure and Build LSPB for Low Budget Oil and Gas Construction Projects C1; Less than 100 Million USD
【24h】

Assessment of Two Contract Awarding Strategies; Lump Sum Turn Key LSTK and Lump Sum Procure and Build LSPB for Low Budget Oil and Gas Construction Projects C1; Less than 100 Million USD

机译:评估两项合同授予策略; Lump Sum Reck Key LSTK和Lump总和采购和Build LSPB用于低预算油和天然气建设项目C1; 不到1亿美元

获取原文

摘要

This study offers a thorough assessment of two contract awarding strategies; Lump Sum Turn Key (LSTK) Versus Lump Sum Procure and Build (LSPB) conducted specifically for C1(≤100 Million USD) budget projects. The study objective is to access and compare the Pros and Cons of each type of awarding strategies over four specific aspects; (1) project budget size, (2) awarding period length, (3) procurement cycle, and (4) level of engineering detail design scope of work. The effect of the project driver and stakeholders’ requirement on each of the 4 aspects is considered and analyzed. Also, the effect of a fifth aspect (brown field Vs green field) is evaluated and introduced in our study as "control". This assessment is conducted as a case study for an ongoing C1 budget project. The evaluation compares realistic time frames utilizing PERT and GANTT charts. The time frames are extracted from processes mandated by "Company" Engineering procedures" SAEP". The two awarding strategies are analyzed using "5 WHYs" technique and fish-bone analysis method for this specific case study. The project activities critical path was driven and analyzed. Level 3 schedules are built using Primavera Software. Data for all 4 aspects were obtained from the company Bench Mark projects and recommended procedures. It was observed that each of aspect number (1), (2), and (3) on its own cannot be a decisive measure to choose a specific contracting strategy for this specific low budget category, C1 projects. You need the stakeholders requirement that is translated into project initiating driver as a core input to steer the decision for selecting the contract awarding strategy. Hence, the assessment of selecting the awarding strategy for C1 projects would show different results if the project is "Cost Driven" Versus if it is to "Schedule Driven′′. For instance, if the project is initiated to maintain business then, the stakeholders would be expediting the execution and completion of the project. Thus, Project Management Team (PMT) will be on great pressure to visit all time saving avenues starting with the contracting strategy. On the other hand, if the project is cost driven then, the awarding strategy that results in lower expenditures will be selected. However, the study concluded that the level of complexity of the engineering detail design scope for a C1 project should be a decisive factor on its own for the choice of the contract awarding strategy. The reason for this conclusion is to avoid wasting valuable resources that could be exhausted in rework. This assessment was conducted using top notch project management softwares merged with lean management methodologies. The author is a strong advocate of introducing lean thinking in project management of Oil and Gas construction project. In his current job with "The Company", he is implementing Lean thinking and process improvement techniques in all project management responsibilities and has published a paper with MOES 2017 on the positive monetary advantage that lean thinking brings to construction projects extracted from his implementation in mega Oil & Gas construction project experience.
机译:本研究提供了对两项合同授予策略的全面评估; Lump Sum Reck键(LSTK)与专门针对C1(≤100百万美元)预算项目进行的一次性汇率采购和构建(LSPB)。研究目标是通过四个特定方面获取和比较每种类型的授权策略的利弊; (1)项目预算规模,(2)授予期限长度,(3)采购周期,(4)工程细节设计范围。预计和分析了项目驾驶员和利益相关者对4个方面中的每一个的要求。此外,在我们的研究中评估和介绍了第五方面(棕色磁场VS绿地)的效果作为“控制”。该评估是为正在进行的C1预算项目进行的案例研究。评估比较利用Pert和Gantt图表的现实时间框架。时间框架从“公司”工程程序“SAEP”所要求的过程中提取。使用“5个WHYS”技术和鱼骨分析方法进行分析两种授权策略,用于该具体案例研究。项目活动是关键路径被驱动和分析。使用Primavera软件建立级别3日程计划。所有4个方面的数据都是从公司的替补项目和推荐的程序获得的。观察到,各个方面(1),(2)和(3)上的每一个都不能成为决定性的措施,以便为这一特定的低预算类别,C1项目选择特定的合同策略。您需要将其转化为项目启动驱动程序的利益相关者要求作为核心输入,以转向选择合同授权策略的决定。因此,如果项目是“成本驱动的”,则选择为C1项目选择授予C1项目的授权策略的评估将显示不同的结果,如果它是“计划驱动”。例如,如果该项目启动以维持业务,那么利益相关者将加快项目的执行和完成。因此,项目管理团队(PMT)将在很大的压力下访问,以便从签约战略开始所有时间储蓄。另一方面,如果该项目是成本驱动的话,那么将选择导致较低支出的授权策略。然而,该研究得出结论,C1项目的工程细节设计范围的复杂性程度应该是其自身的决定性因素,用于选择合同颁发策略。原因出于这个结论,避免浪费可以在返工中耗尽的宝贵资源。本评估是使用Top Notch项目管理软件与精益管理合并进行的评估方法。作者是在石油和天然气建设项目项目管理中引入精益思想的强大倡导者。在他目前的“公司”工作中,他正在实施所有项目管理职责的精益思想和过程改进技巧,并发表了一份关于莫斯2017年的纸质,以至于精益思维带来了从他在大众实施中提取的建设项目的建设项目石油和天然气建设项目经验。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号