The Construction, Building and Real Estate Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Held at Dauphine

Universit, Paris, 2-3 September 2010

ISBN 978-1-84219-619-9 RICS 12 Great George Street London SW1P 3AD United Kingdom www.rics.org/cobra September 2010

The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform for the dissemination of original research and new developments within the specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:

Management of the construction process

Cost and value management Building technology Legal aspects of construction and procurement Public private partnerships Health and safety Procurement Risk management Project management

The built asset

Property investment theory and practice Indirect property investment Property market forecasting Property pricing and appraisal Law of property, housing and land use planning Urban development Planning and property markets Financial analysis of the property market and property assets The dynamics of residential property markets Global comparative analysis of property markets Building occupation Sustainability and real estate Sustainability and environmental law Building performance

The property industry

Information technology Innovation in education and training Human and organisational aspects of the industry Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management Professional education and training

Peer review process All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing process. Referees were drawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from the construction and building research community. The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the following members of the panel for their work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA.

Rifat Akbiyikli Rafid Al Khaddar Ahmed Al Shammaa Tony Auchterlounie Kwasi Gyau Baffour Awuah Kabir Bala Juerg Bernet John Boon Douw Boshoff Richard Burt Judith Callanan Kate Carter Keith Cattell Antoinette Charles Fiona Cheung Sai On Cheung Samuel Chikafalimani Ifte Choudhury Chris Cloete Alan Coday Michael Coffey Nigel Craig Ayirebi Dansoh Peter Davis Peter Defoe Grace Ding Hemanta Doloi John Dye Peter Edwards Charles Egbu Ola Fagbenle Ben Farrow Peter Fenn Peter Fewings

Sakarya University, Turkey Liverpool John Moores University, UK Liverpool John Moores University, UK University of Bolton, UK University of Wolverhampton, UK Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria Danube University Krems, Austria UNITEC, New Zealand University of Pretoria, South Africa Auburn University, USA RMIT University, Australia Heriot-Watt University, UK University of Cape Town, South Africa Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Queensland University of Technology, Australia City University of Hong Kong University of Pretoria, South Africa Texas A and M University, USA University of Pretoria, South Africa Anglia Ruskin University, UK Anglia Ruskin University, UK Glasgow Caledonian University, UK KNUST, Ghana Curtin University, Australia Calford Seaden, UK University of Technology Sydney, Australia University of Melbourne, Australia TPS Consult, UK RMIT, Australia University of Salford, UK Covenant University, Nigeria Auburn University, USA University of Manchester, UK University of the West of England, UK

Peter Fisher Chris Fortune Valerie Francis Rod Gameson Abdulkadir Ganah Seung Hon Han Anthony Hatfield Theo Haupt Dries Hauptfleisch Paul Holley Danie Hoffman Keith Hogg Alan Hore Bon-Gang Hwang Joseph Igwe Adi Irfan Javier Irizarry Usman Isah David Jenkins Godfaurd John Keith Jones Dean Kashiwagi Nthatisi Khatleli Mohammed Kishk Andrew Knight Scott Kramer Esra Kurul Richard Laing Terence Lam Veerasak Likhitruangsilp John Littlewood Junshan Liu Champika Liyanage Greg Lloyd S M Lo Mok Ken Loong Martin Loosemore David Manase Donny Mangitung Patrick Manu Tinus Maritz Hendrik Marx Ludwig Martin Wilfred Matipa Steven McCabe Annie McCartney Andrew McCoy Enda McKenna Kathy Michell Roy Morledge

University of Northumbria, UK University of Salford, UK University of Melbourne, Australia University of Wolverhampton, UK University of Central Lancashire, UK Yonsei University, South Korea University of Wolverhampton, UK Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa University of the Free State, South Africa Auburn University, USA University of Pretoria, South Africa University of Northumbria, UK Construction IT Alliance, Ireland National University of Singapore University of Lagos, Nigeria Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia Georgia Institute of Technology, USA University of Manchester, UK University of Glamorgan, UK University of Central Lancashire, UK University of Greenwich, UK Arizona State University, USA University of Cape Town, South Africa Robert Gordons University, UK Nottingham Trent University, UK Auburn University, USA Oxford Brookes University, UK Robert Gordons University, UK Anglia Ruskin University, UK Chulalongkorn University, Thailand University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UK Auburn University, USA University of Central Lancashire, UK University of Ulster, UK City University of Hong Kong Yonsei University, South Korea University of New South Wales, Australia Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Universitas Tadulako, Malaysia University of Wolverhampton, UK University of Pretoria, South Africa University of the Free State. South Africa Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa Liverpool John Moores University, UK Birmingham City University, UK University of Glamorgan, UK Virginia Tech, USA Queens University Belfast, UK University of Cape Town, South Africa Nottingham Trent University, UK

Michael Murray Saka Najimu Stanley Njuangang Henry Odeyinka Ayodejo Ojo Michael Oladokun Alfred Olatunji Austin Otegbulu Beliz Ozorhon Obinna Ozumba Robert Pearl Srinath Perera Joanna Poon Keith Potts Elena de la Poza Plaza Matthijs Prins Hendrik Prinsloo Richard Reed Zhaomin Ren Herbert Robinson Kathryn Robson Simon Robson David Root Kathy Roper Steve Rowlinson Paul Royston Paul Ryall Amrit Sagoo Alfredo Serpell Winston Shakantu Yvonne Simpson John Smallwood Heather Smeaton-Webb Bruce Smith Melanie Smith Hedley Smyth John Spillane Suresh Subashini Kenneth Sullivan Joe Tah Derek Thomson Matthew Tucker Chika Udeaja Basie Verster Francois Viruly John Wall Sara Wilkinson Trefor Williams

University of Strathclyde, UK Glasgow Caledonian University, UK University of Central Lancashire, UK University of Ulster, UK Ministry of National Development, Seychelles University of Uyo, Nigeria Newcastle University, Australia Bogazici University, Turkey University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa University of KwaZulu, Natal, South Africa Northumbria University, UK Nottingham Trent University, UK University of Wolverhampton, UK Universidad Politcnica de Valencia, Spain Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands University of Pretoria, South Africa Deakin University, Australia University of Glamorgan, UK London South Bank University, UK RMIT, Australia University of Northumbria, UK University of Cape Town, South Africa Georgia Institute of Technology, USA University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Nottingham Trent University, UK University of Glamorgan, UK Coventry University, UK Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Chile Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa University of Greenwich, UK Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South Africa MUJV Ltd. UK Auburn University, USA Leeds Metropolitan University, UK University College London, UK Queens University Belfast, UK University of Wolverhampton, UK Arizona State University, USA Oxford Brookes University, UK Heriot-Watt University, UK Liverpool John Moores University, UK Northumbria University, UK University of the Free State, South Africa University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa Waterford Institute of Technology, Ireland Deakin University, Australia University of Glamorgan, UK

Bimbo Windapo Francis Wong Ing Liang Wong Andrew Wright Peter Wyatt Junli Yang Wan Zahari Wan Yusoff George Zillante Benita Zulch Sam Zulu

University of Cape Town, South Africa Hong Kong Polytechnic University Glasgow Caledonian University, UK De Montfort University, UK University of Reading, UK University of Westminster, UK Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Malaysia University of South Australia University of the Free State, South Africa Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed papers for the COBRA session arranged by CIB W113 John Adriaanse Julie Adshead Alison Ahearn Rachelle Alterman Deniz Artan Ilter Jane Ball Luke Bennett Michael Brand Penny Brooker Alice Christudason Paul Chynoweth Sai On Cheung Julie Cross Melissa Daigneault Steve Donohoe Ari Ekroos Tilak Ginige Martin Green David Greenwood Asanga Gunawansa Jan-Bertram Hillig Rob Home Peter Kennedy Anthony Lavers Wayne Lord Sarah Lupton Tim McLernon Frits Meijer Jim Mason Brodie McAdam Tinus Maritz London South Bank University, UK University of Salford, UK Imperial College London, UK Technion, Israel Istanbul Technical University, Turkey University of Sheffield, UK Sheffield Hallam University, UK University of New South Wales, Australia University of Wolverhampton, UK National University of Singapore University of Salford, UK City University of Hong Kong University of Salford, UK Texas A&M University, USA University of Plymouth, UK University of Helsinki, Finland Bournemouth University, UK Leeds Metropolitan University, UK Northumbria University, UK National University of Singapore University of Reading, UK Anglia Ruskin University, UK Glasgow Caledonian University, UK Keating Chambers, UK Loughborough University, UK Cardiff University University of Ulster, UK TU Delft, The Netherlands University of the West of England, UK University of Salford, UK University of Pretoria, South Africa

Francis Moor Issaka Ndekugri John Pointing Razani Abdul Rahim Linda Thomas-Mobley Paul Tracey Yvonne Scannell Cathy Sherry Julian Sidoli del Ceno Keren Tweeddale Henk Visscher Peter Ward

University of Salford, UK University of Wolverhampton, UK Kingston University, UK Universiti Technologi, Malaysia Georgia Tech, USA University of Salford, UK Trinity College Dublin, Ireland University of New South Wales, Australia Birmingham City University, UK London South Bank University, UK TU Delft, The Netherlands University of Newcastle, Australia

Identifying Risk Factors in Equipment Procurement of Power Plant Projects

Veerasak Likhitruangsilp, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Email address: VeerasakL@gmail.com

Kanokjeth Praphansiri Civil Engineer, Black & Veatch (Thailand) Company Limited, Bangkok, Thailand Email address: KanokjethP@hotmail.com

Abstract
Power plants are an infrastructure that plays a significant role in every nations economic and social development. The successive growth of electricity demand contributes to the increasing number of new power plant projects worldwide. The development of a power plant project is extremely

challenging and risky due to its complexity and dynamic. Each power plant consists of a variety of integrated systems, each of which encompasses numerous types of machine. Since these systems are typically supplied by assorted manufacturers or suppliers, the contractor needs to acquire them from a large number of parties. Owing to the complexity of the equipment procurement process, a common contractual arrangement of power plant projects is the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) contract, where the contractor has to be responsible for these three major duties. The objective of this paper is to identify critical risk factors associated with the procurement process of power plant projects. The paper focuses on the contractors risks in the procurement of imported equipment for power plant projects in Thailand. We applied the risk identification techniques

modified from those presented by the Risk Analysis and Management for Projects (RAMP) handbook. Thirty-eight critical risk factors associated with the procurement process of power plant equipment were listed and categorized into five groups, namely, the contract aspect, the financial aspect, the partner aspect, the engineering aspect, and the procurement aspect. The results can be used for preparing an efficient risk management plan for the equipment procurement of future power plant projects.

Key Words: EPC Contract, Equipment Procurement, Power Plant, Risk Factor, Risk Identification

1.

Introduction

Power plants are an infrastructure that plays a significant role in every nations economic and social development. The successive growth of electricity demand contributes to the increasing number of power plant construction projects worldwide. The development of a power plant project is an

extremely challenging and risky task for every contractor due to its complexity and dynamic. Each power plant consists of a variety of integrated systems (e.g., combustion system, stream generating system, and cooling system). Each of these systems encompasses numerous types of machine. For example, a power generating system consists of various machineries such as boilers, turbines, and generators, all of which must be integrated with other systems. Since these systems are typically supplied by assorted manufacturers or suppliers, the contractor needs to acquire them from a large number of parties. Owing to the complexity of the equipment procurement process, a common contractual arrangement of power plant projects is the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) contract. This paper identifies critical risk factors associated with the procurement process of power plant projects by focusing on the contractors risks in procuring imported equipment for power plant projects in Thailand.

2.

Power Plant Project Development

The development of a power plant project from inception to operation is a complex and dynamic process, the details of which are varied depending upon financial, engineering, and environmental requirements (Garrett, 1996). The power plant development process can be divided into six major stages, as illustrated in Figure 1.

The first stage, project planning and analysis, encompasses defining important strategic elements of the project, including its goals, objectives, and constraints. A variety of studies and analyses need to be conducted, including system planning studies, site evaluation, environmental feasibility analyses, and economic and financial feasibility analyses. The second stage is conceptual design, which mainly involves systematically defining and evaluating the basic conditions and constraints of the plant. The following stage is detailed design, which includes determining the technical requirements of all plant components such as considering equipment sizing, performance requirements, and codes and standards. All this design information will then be used for equipment procurement and the

preparation of construction specifications and contracts. Finally, construction works will commence.

Figure 1: Power plant project development [modified from Garrett (1996)]

Project Planning and Analysis

Conceptual Design

Detailed Design

Construction Specifications and Contracting

Equipment Procurement

Construction

Among all these stages, equipment procurement is often considered a most important and most challenging stage because it is not only a complex process per se, but it is also interrelated to other major stages such as design, contracting, and construction. Thus, effective management of the equipment procurement process is essential to the success of power plant projects.

3.

Equipment Procurement of Power Plant Projects

Every power plant comprises a large number of complex and unique processes and elements, including structures, equipment, and control systems. Thus, the systems approach is widely used not only in the conceptual and detailed design stages, but is also applied to the checkout, testing and startup of power plant equipment. This approach begins with categorizing all power plant elements into functional systems, some of which are common, but some are distinct for different types of power plants (Garrett, 1996). Table 1 illustrates a list of system categories for different types of fossil-fueled power plants. Each system category shown in this table can be subdivided further into several subsystems, each of which usually requires a large number of machines.

4.

Contracting Arrangement for Power Plant Projects

The project in which the owner contracts a single entity for both design and construction is typically referred to as a design-build or a design-construct project. The turnkey project is a special case of the design-build project, where the contractor provides a complete service for the owner, including project financing, land procurement, project design and construction, and handing over to the owner for the operation (Clough et al., 2005).

Table 1: Power plant system categories [modified from Garrett (1996)]

System Category Ash and scrubber solids Auxiliary power supply Auxiliary steam Buildings and structures Bulk materials (not coal) Coal handling Combustion gas Communication Compressed air Compressed gas storage Control Cycle heat rejection Drains and plumbing Electrical Equipment cooling Feedwater Fire protection Fuel gas Fuel oil Generator terminal Information Lighting Substation Sampling and analysis Space conditioning Steam generation Turbine extraction Turbine generator Waste collection and treatment Water supply and storage Water treatment Type of Power Plant Simple Cycle Gas/Oil Steam Combustion Turbine Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine

Coal Steam

A form of contracting arrangement typically adopted for power plant projects is the EPC (Engineering, Procurement, and Construction) contract, where the scope of the contractors responsibilities is more limited than that of the turnkey contract. In other words, the EPC contract is a subset of the turnkey contract. For example, for a power plant project where the owner does not know much about the projects requirements, the owner may hire a contractor to execute the entire works, ranging from feasibility study to construction. This contracting arrangement is the turnkey contract. However, the owners of most power plant projects generally separate the works into two main packages, namely, feasibility study and project execution. For the first package, the owner may conduct the feasibility study itself or hire a consulting firm to conduct such study. For the second package, the contractor is hired to carry out the engineering, procurement, and construction works to achieve a fully-equipped facility that is ready for operation (Huse, 2002).

Among these three contractual components of an EPC power plant project, the majority of the projects cost is the expenditures on electrical and mechanical equipment (e.g., those listed in Table 1). The costs of the equipment for a power plant project can be summed up to 75% of the total project cost. Thus, equipment procurement is an extremely crucial process of the power plant project

administration. Major risks associated with the equipment procurement process need to be identified and responded optimally to eliminate or mitigate their adverse consequences.

5.

Risk Identification

Risk identification is the first phase of risk management process, which can be divided into four major phases: risk identification, risk analysis, risk response, and risk monitoring and evaluation (Flanagan and Norman, 1993; Smith, 1999; Likhitruangsilp and Putthividhya 2008).

According to The Risk Analysis and Management for Projects (RAMP) handbook (ICE, 2005), the objectives of risk identification are as follows. To identify all significant types and sources of risk and uncertainty associated with the objectives and their key parameters To ascertain the causes of each risk To assess how risks are related to other risks and how risks should be classified and grouped for evaluation

Risk identification is a beginning step of risk management.

It yields types, sources, causes,

characteristics, and relations of risks associated with the problem considered, all of which will be used to analyze and respond each risk in the subsequent phases.

Figure 2 outlines the risk identification process proposed by the RAMP handbook (ICE, 2005). As can be seen, the risks associated with the problem can be identified by three successive approaches, namely, using no prompt aid, using prompt aids (e.g., generalized checklists), and brainstorming. The risks that have been identified are then validated by experts. The risks are later classified, grouped, and presented in an appropriate form (e.g., table or diagram). The resulting risks are usually listed in a risk register for a subsequent review and analysis with an indication of the significance of each risk and their interrelations. Detailed discussions of this process can be found in the RAMP handbook (ICE, 2005). This paper applied this process to identify critical risks associated with the equipment procurement of power plant projects, the details of which can be illustrated as follows.

Figure 2: Risk identification process [modified from ICE (2005)]

Identify risks without using any prompt aid

Classify and group risks

Identify risks by using prompt aids

Represent risks in an appropriate form

Identify risks by brainstorming

List risks in a risk register

Risk Factors

Validate risks by experts

6.

Risk Identification of Equipment Procurement: Applications

In this paper, a number of actual power plant projects in Thailand were investigated to identify risks associated with their equipment procurement process. Since the details of these projects are quite diverse, this paper will only present some important information of the selected projects.

Figure 3 shows the contract structure of a power plant project in this study. As can be seen, the EPC contract of this project consists of four main packages: the Onshore (Construction) Contract, the Coordination Agreement, the Offshore (Procurement) Contract, and the Engineering contract. This paper focuses only on the Offshore (Procurement) contract, the objective of which is stated in the contract as follows.

Owner desires to engage Supplier to supply the Imported Material for the Power Plant from sources outside of Thailand (the "Imported Materials" means the equipment, supplies, apparatus, instruments, machinery, parts, tools, components, appliances, spare parts, lubricants, chemical and appurtenances thereto which: (a) are described in or required by the Scope Documents and/or with respect to a Prudent Supplier for the design, engineering, construction, rehabilitation, testing, operation and maintenance of the Plant, as applicable, and

(b) are to be supplied by Supplier under this Agreement from sources outside Thailand, the principal items of which are identified in Exhibit B: Technical Specification by Owner), and Supplier has agreed to such engagement upon and subject to the terms and conditions in this agreement.

The term Supplier in this contract represents the contractors main duties to supply imported equipment and other parts specified in the contract (e.g., spare parts during the warranty period). Thus, to avoid any confusion this paper will use the term contractor (rather than supplier) to represent its duties specified in the contract, and the term equipment to represent all Imported Materials per the above contract clause.

The equipment for the projects in this study was procured from different manufacturers or suppliers. Since the contractor was responsible for equipment procurement, it was also called the purchaser in the procurement contract. Figure 4 displays the contractual relation in the procurement process of a project in this study.

Once all important information about the equipment procurement process was collected, the risks associated with such process were identified by following the RAMPs approach presented previously. In this paper, the risk identification process can be broken down into four steps: (1) Establish the key parameters (2) List the risks associated with each of the key parameters (3) Validate the resulting risks by experts (4) Group the risks

Figure 3: EPC contract structure of a case study

Onshore Contract: For Construction Testing, and Commissioning Coordination Agreement Offshore Contract: Procurement for the Supply of Imported Material

EPC Contract

Exhibits: Engineering, Technical Requirements, Design Basis & Scope of Work

Figure 4: Contractual relation in equipment procurement process

Owner Prime Contract Supplier Contractor Purchaser Procurement Document & PO Supplier / Manufacturer

6.1

Establish the key parameters

The first step was to establish the key parameters that were appropriate for the problem. Any events that affect such key parameters are considered risks. Three key parameters in the study were contract price, payment schedule, and project gross margin, all of which were major concerns of the contractors participated in this study.

6.2

List the risks associated with each of the key parameters

The main source used to identify the risks associated with the contractors equipment procurement was the Offshore (Procurement) Contract between the owner and the contractor. This contract

however did not cover all procurement risks because there were also other parties involved in this process, including the manufacturer, the supplier, and the freight forwarder. As a result, the risk identification in this study consisted of two parts: review the procurement contract and analyze the procurement process.

6.2.1

Review the procurement contract

The main purpose of any contract is to delineate the rights, duties, obligations, and responsibilities of the contracting parties as well as allocate the risks among them. Thus, all clauses of the procurement contract were reviewed carefully to analyze whether or not they affect the key parameters established previously. If a certain contract clause might cause adverse consequences to any of the key

parameters, it was identified as a risk (risk factor) of the procurement process. Some of the risk factors obtained from reviewing the procurement contracts are as follows. 6.2.2 Owner-initiated changes (e.g., change order) Changes in law Force majeure Title and risk of loss Warranty and termination for the contractors default Termination by owner for convenience Project rejection exposure Contractors duties after termination Delay damages Performance guarantee (e.g., net electrical output, heat rate, etc.) Disputed invoice and payment Suspension by owner Indemnity to owner

Analyze the procurement process

Since contracts do not include all procurement risks, non-contractual risks need to be identified by analyzing the procurement process. In this paper, these risks were first identified by analyzing the projects information without using any prompt aid tool. The prompt aid tools (e.g., checklists) were later used to create a more complete list of these risk factors. Some of the resulting risk factors obtained from this step are as follows. Contract price Owners requirements Owners experience Taxes and duties Contractors impact claims Overall limitation of liability Cash flow Partners experience with project type and technology Partners financial status

6.3

Validate the resulting risks by experts

Once all important risks associated with the procurement process were identified, they were validated by two experts who are experienced in the equipment procurement. The experts reviewed all the resulting risks and provided their comments and suggestions. Consequently, several new risks were added, and the definition and the scope of some existing risks were modified to yield more complete results.

6.4

Group the risks

After the experts validation, it was found that there were thirty-eight risk factors associated with the procurement process of power plant projects. These risk factors were then categorized into groups based on the following five major aspects: Contract aspect (C) Financial aspect (F) Partner aspect (P) Engineering aspect (E) Procurement aspect (Pr)

Based on its source and characteristics, each of the thirty-eight risk factors was assigned to one of the above five aspects. Table 2 summarizes five risk groups and their associated risks. As can be seen, most of the risk factors (21 from 38) are related to the contract, whereas the remaining is distributed in the other four groups.

7.

Conclusion

Equipment procurement is a crucial and risky process for the contractor of a power plant project. The contractor has to acquire numerous components of various systems from various manufacturers and suppliers. Not only does the contractor have to expose to the risks inherent in the procurement contract, it also has to deal with a variety of risks associated with the procurement process. This paper presents the application of risk identification techniques primarily proposed by the RAMP handbook to characterize the contractors risks associated with the equipment procurement process in power plant projects. Both contractual and non-contractual risks were investigated and validated by the experts. Thirty-eight critical risk factors were identified and categorized into five groups, namely,

10

contract, financial, partner, engineering, and procurement. These resulting risk factors can further be used as inputs for analyzing and responding the risks to create an effective risk management plan.

Table 2: Risk factors associated with equipment procurement process

C.1 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.5 C.6 C.7 C.8 C.9 C.10 C.11 Contract (C) Contract Price/Portfolio Impact C.12 Force Majeure The Owners Experience C.13 Changes in Law Applicable Law and Dispute Resolution C.14 Contractor's Impact Claims Project Rejection Exposure C.15 Overall Limitation of Liability C.16 Delay Damages Indemnity to the Owner C.17 Performance Damages Warranty Risk of Loss and Project Insurance C.18 Suspension by Owner Security to Owner C.19 Termination for the Contractor Taxes & Duties Default Hazardous Material Liability C.20 Termination by the Owner for Owner Initiated Changes Convenience C.21 At Risk Work Financial (F) F.1 Security of Payment F.2 Currency and Exchange Rate F.3 Cash Flow (Timing Issue) Partner (P) P.1 Experience with Partner P.2 Partners Experience with Project Type and Technology P.3 Liability within Consortium P.4 Financial Strength of Partner P.5 Availability of Partners Human Resources Engineering (E) E.1 The Owner Interface/Design Review/Approval E.2 The Owners Specification Requirement E.3 Design Resources & Licenses E.4 Technology Risk and Experience E.5 Experience with Applicable Code and Standard Procurement (Pr) Pr.1 Transportation and Shipping Issues Pr.2 Importation Pr.3 Gaps in Subcontract Terms Pr.4 Engineering Deliverables

References
Clough, R.H., Sears, G.A., and Sears, S.K. (2005). Construction Contracting: A Practical Guide to company Management (Seventh Edition). John Wiley & Sons.

Flanagan, R. and Norman G. (1993) Risk Management and Construction. Blackwell Scientific Publication.

11

Garrett, S.M. (1996) Power Plant Planning and Design. Chapter 25 in Power Plant Engineering by Black & Veatch, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Huse, J.A. (2002) Understanding and Negotiating Turnkey and EPC Contracts (Second Edition). Sweet & Maxwell.

Institution of Civil Engineers and the Actuarial Profession: ICE (2005) RAMP (Risk Analysis and Management for Projects): A Strategic Framework for Managing Project Risk and Its Financial Implications (Second Edition). Thomas Telford.

Likhitruangsilp. V. and Putthividhya, A. (2008) A risk-based decision support system for groundwater remediation. Proc. of the XXXVI Integrating Groundwater Science and Human Well-Being (IAH) Congress 2008, October 28 November 1, 2008, Toyama, Japan.

Smith, N.J., Editor (1999) Managing Risk in Construction Projects. Blackwell Science.

12