2. Setting the goals & strategies

Having done a deep dive into the current processes and systemic flaws, it is very important to set the goals & strategies clearly, which will enable us to chart the process to be adopted in the context of current deficiencies to achieve these goals.

Let us look at the goal of organisation with regard to project execution.

The underlying goal of any organisation is to become successful in the space they operate. Being successful means achieving the business plan with near perfection.

For construction or development point of view, it would mean

Delivering the building

(a) as per the schedule

(b) to the budget

(c) with the desired safety and quality.

Assuming quality and safety are given, Schedule and Budget become two uncompromisable goals for the construction department. However, these two are very elusive in nature. 

We shall dwell upon the factors affecting the schedule and budget in the risk management section.

These two key elements become the main points of contention between the Principal and the Contractor. Provided both the parties are impacted in same quantum and in uni-direction, there is alignment and seldom there would be challenge in achieving them as planned. However, if these parties are mis-aligned on the quantum of impact and the direction, this would create a gap and lead to potential area of failure.

This leads to another important area and that is risk absorption. There is always constant endeavour between the Principal and the Contractor to push the risks on the other side. What people don’t realise is that all risks are priced by the person who is assuming the risk. If a person is forced to assume a risk which he is not conversant with, he shall be pricing it high. In cases where they have priced it incorrectly, they shy away from owning the risk management and fail to discharge their responsibilities, which will have direct negative impact on the schedule and budget. 

Referencing the study conducted by the PMO in July 2020, titled “Study to evaluate the restructuring efforts” identifying the strategies for setting up the process, the process described in the forthcoming pages have been designed to align itself to the strategies mentioned hereunder. These were proposed, as Mitigation Measures for Improvement in Project Delivery, which in itself becomes the goals & strategies.

A. Corporate Policy

1. Adoption of Linear Processes and No Change Policy post Gateway closure, except in case of regulatory issues & critical market conditions.
2. Adoption of Zero RFI’s & Zero Variations Target to be achieved in next 12-18 months period.
3. Zero tolerance on unethical practices and non-performance at all levels to ensure better quality & limit the variations, to save time and ensure better project delivery

B. Design Improvements

1. Achieving complete design adequacy before GC/NSC contract award. More time & focus at design stage with possible third-party design review to ensure complete design adequacywith respect to execution, cost and time.
2. Stage approvals for 30% (Concept), 60% (Design Development), 90% (GFC & tender package) and 100% (Shop drawings)
3. Standardise design, finishes & signages across projects to reduce design issues. Standardise basic solar panel system through select preferred vendors & types to close terrace floor design in time.
4. Standardisation of packages and alignment of budgets to the exact packages to allow for easier tracking of budget during package closure.
5. Standardised specifications and agreed signed make list by LDC & Phoenix.
6. Adoption of smarter design for more mechanised delivery and reduce labour intensive activities at project sites to save time.
7. Simplification of construction packages to allow easier management of interfaces between vendors
8. Introduction of no wet work policy after foundation levelwhich is to be reviewed and updated as per the standard budget plan signed off by Phoenix.
9. Measurable design performance evaluation with agreed minimum resources availability for all design consultants through approved design deliverable schedule agreed at project award stage.
10. Use of more experienced Senior Design Managers with at least 15-20 yrs international exposure for better design delivery with assistants having experience in shop drawings, as part of the Concept Team to manage design deliverables.
11. Having a senior resource as part of the team to oversee selection of finishing materials and workmanship at site such that the design intent are achieved in execution.

C. Procurement Policy

1. Possible induction of single responsibility hybrid contract model (Design-Built with cost of major supplies negotiated by Phoenix) for new projects or GC Model with design adequacy responsibility under GC to control delays due to design information’s.
2. No splitting of supplies and execution. All contracts should be comprehensive from procurement, execution and handover.
   • Induction of GC’s from outside Indian market probably from Middle East, to improve overall work ethics, quality & project delivery.
3. Lesser to Nil interference in procurement of concrete and rebar.
4. For smaller projects multiple contracts selected through evaluation system under control of Construction Manager of international repute with delivery link payment terms.
5. Evaluation of all awarded contracts through project performance review system for future use.
6. Ensure Contract terms are accurately detailing the outcome required. For example, scope, responsibility, schedule, payment terms, penalties etc need to perfectly be tied into the requirements of the schedule and cannot be changed post tender. These must be determined by the site team and the GC prior to tendering.
7. All Contracts to be awarded only with 100 % Design completed with GFC Drawings of all the packages.
8. Linking of general conditions of various contracts for seamless integration & better coordination between various contracts for better project delivery.
9. Identify the link with Shop drawing approvals as part of the procurement process to manage as specific deliverable, for GC’s, Consultants and Vendors.

D. Site Management

1. Induction of independent Government approved survey agency to conduct critical survey checks at various agreed check points to minimise variations & save time due to construction issues.
2. More empowerment & responsibility at site level with strong project team (GM/CM) to fast track decisions for better control through adoption of variation resolution mechanism, as proposed.
3. Induction of detailed check for GC’s team selection with minimum international exposure requirement to improve work ethics, timely delivery and overall Quality.
4. Review GC’s team structure and involve senior management in discussions to improve work ethics & productivity.
5. Project Charter, commitment to deliver based on Clear, defined, measurable project deliverables for the GC team (refer to Turner Division 01 General Requirements of Contract). [Appendix 1.
6. The principle must remain that we need to move towards making our site teams largely redundant except for few critical activates like Client approval and VO. Design must be completed, tenders properly prepared and there should be no requirement of our team by the GC at all.

Back to Top