Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Project: Package No.3, Supply and installation of the Turbines, Generator, and associated
Equipments for the Hydropower generation project, Missouri
Subject: Tom Martin, Planning & Scheduling Manager Report
Dear Sir,
The following are our findings and observations with final recommendation included at
the end of the report for the given scheduling problem of the referred subject project.
A. Background
M/s Consolidated entered into a lump sum type of contract for referred project
package No.3 with NHPC a government owned Company with a total contract
value of $ 2,000,000.00. The delivery of this work package as agreed in the
contract duration is 60days. The liquidated damages as per the contract were
$50,000 per day for any delay beyond the agreed contract duration with a delay
penalty of 10% maximum of the Contract value and early completion bonus of
$25,000 per day. M/s Perfect Fabricators assigned as a contractor for fabrication
and the erection of steel structure works. Also a Japanese Manufacturer assigned
for supply of the Generators and Turbines.
B. Initial Findings
1. The schedule problem affecting the project delivery was that the revised forecast
as per current update indicates the project would be completed only on day No.66
against original duration of 60 days leading to a project delay of 6days due to an
error in progress reporting.
1.2 By changing the shipment of Generator & Turbines delivery from sea to air
- Difference in Sea to Air transportation cost is $80,000 (extra)
- Reduction of delivery time of changing the shipment from sea to air which is
not on the critical path would not reduce the project duration
- Cost of crashing for the electrical cabling work which has a float of 3 days
parallel with Generator & Turbines, $125,000 (8days x $25,000/day)
- Cost impact of this corrective action is $(80,000+125,000) = $205,000
2. Considering the maximum delay penalty as per the condition of contract, which is
10% of the Contract value = 10% x $2,000,000 = $200,000
D. Recommendation:
From the above analysis, it is clear that the Cost impact of implementation of any of
the above three corrective actions is not recommended as the maximum delay penalty
of 10% of contract value (i.e., $200,000) is better than the implementing corrective
actions. So our recommendation is that instead of going for above highlighted
corrective actions which costs higher than the maximum delay penalty amount, it is
better for our Company to accept a delay penalty subject to maximum of 10%
contract value (as per the contract) from the Client.