Rail Corridor IV: SOP-T ProjectsRebuilding for 160 km/h

Brief Overview of JASPERS Technical Assistance to PMUs of CFR

JASPERS Framework Consultant ‘Arup’

Richard H Brown CEng FICE (UK)Team Leader, Practical Consultations and

On-the Spot Support to PMUs of CFR, Romania

Oradea, 15 November 2013Oradea, 15 November 2013

2

JASPERS Technical Assistance (TA) to CFR

Our Role: Practical Consultations and On-the-Spot Support to PMUs of CFR.

JASPERS Project Team: Team Leader and Site Engineer (+ Backup).

Team Leader is embedded within HQ CFR. Site Engineer is embedded on Site.

We are: Advisors, Mentors, Influencers, Catalysts and sometimes Change Agents.

The main objective of our Technical Assistance:

To assist CFR (particularly the PMUs of CFR) in structuring efficient internal working procedures thus contributing to improved implementation of SOP-T projects and strengthening institutional capacities of CFR.

Envisaged Duration: April 2013 – April 2014.

3

Team Focus

Working Alongside:

CFR FIDIC Engineer and Supervision Teams - training & mentoring (pending award of external supervision contracts).

PMUs & DDGEP - reviewing & mentoring within project implementation (feasibility through design & programme to construction) - especially identification of gaps/deficiencies, need for PMU restructuring and improvement & standardisation of PMU services.

Key Output:

Development of ‘Practical Guidelines for Project Implementation’ (Design through Construction), for general use on SOP-T Projects throughout CFR.

4

Corridor IV, Sighisoara - Simeria: The Main Focus of TA

Almost a total rebuild of rail infrastructure (171 route km)

Five Works Contracts - four awarded, one contested

One Signalling/ERTMS Contract - contested (Alstom v Thales)

One Supervision Contract (FIDIC) - contested

Works and Signalling: Linked Physically

Unlinked Contractually

Total Value of Contracts: €1.00 billion (works) + €0.12 billion (signalling)

Works Contracts: 2.5 - 3.0 year programmes

FIDIC ‘Red Book’ for Works Contracts

FIDIC ‘Yellow Book’ for Signalling Contract

5

Current Statistics

Contract Contractor JV Amount Contracted

Contract Period

Elapsed

Physical Progress

Planned as at 31.10.13

Physical ProgressActual as

at 31.10.13

Time Overruns (estimates)

Current Eligible

VOs(unpaid)

Cost Overruns

Sighisoara - Atel FCC1 RON 873M 57% 67% 21% 1.5 years €6M Very likely

Atel - Micasasa FCC2 RON 747M 46% 25%* 14% 1.0 years €3M Very likely

Micasasa - Coslariu

AKTOR RON 722M 50% 53% 27% 1.0 years €4M Very likely

Coslariu - Vintu de Jos

PIZZAROTTI RON 767M 75% 49%* 21% 1.5 years €2M Very likely

Vintu de Jos - Simeria

Contested / Retendered

    0% Very late    

Signalling / ERTMS

Contested RON 500M(estimate)

    0% Very late  

Works Supervision

Contested / Retendered

    0% Very late  

6

Main Issues

Lack of Equitable Commitment between MT and CFR at Project Initiation (a major inter-institutional failure)Failure to Consider Implementation Options and Associated Risks & ContingenciesFailure to Acquire Land Ahead of Commencement of ContractsFailure to Conduct Adequate Geotechnical Site InvestigationsFailure to Identify Major Elements of WorkFailed Procurement of One Works ContractFailed Procurement of Signalling/ERTMS ContractFailed Procurement of Works Supervision ContractMain Designer UnpaidEligible VOs / Additional Works BlockedCapacity Deficits within CFR:

Reactive Corporate Leadership

Departmental Entrenchment

‘Boxed’ thinking throughout EPS

‘Lite’ PMUs: Staffing Ratios, Profiles (qualifications & experiences), Motivation (salaries)

Inexperience in FIDIC Supervision

Potentially, No Signalling for the Foreseeable Future after Tracks are Switched**

7

The Response

What Are We (TA) Doing?Monitoring Activities and Procedures on Site and at CFR HQTraining & Mentoring of CFR FIDIC Supervision StaffAdvising on Proposed Restructuring of Corridor IV PMUsDeveloping the ‘Core Team’ Concept (through RWG)Facilitating Topical WorkshopsPreparing ‘Practical Guidelines’Short-Term Expert Advice on Key Ad-Hoc Issues (FIDIC & Tunnel Design)Reviewing Implementation Plans for Simeria – Km614

What Can MA and CFR Do?Work proactively together to address all the issues - See through the ‘Barriers’, not hide behind them. Form a joint creative (‘no blame’) Working Group. Ask JASPERS to help! Assign appropriate staff to PMUs (numbers of positions)Make use of ‘financial stimulation’ SOP-T funds already allocated under each project budget to enhance the conditions for attracting, maintaining and motivating good quality staff

8

Transferring Key Lessons Learned to ‘Simeria - Km614’

  Item Sighisoara - Simeria Simeria – Km614

       

1. Track Capacity Overprovision of recess loops and crossovers: Too late to re-specify.

Overprovision of recess loops and crossovers: These could be re-specified but might compound delays in project commencement.

2. Project ‘Commitment’ Absent. Pressure from MT to curtail project preparation was intense with adverse consequences for Implementation. No agreed arrangements for adequate project staffing. MT and CFR only interested in ‘outputs’ not ‘outcomes’.

Appears to be absent. No guarantees that all aspects of project preparation will be complete prior to award of construction contracts. No agreed arrangements for adequate project staffing. MT and CFR only interested in ‘outputs’ not ‘outcomes’.

3. Project Risks Either not assessed or inadequately assessed. Options and contingencies not identified. Huge downstream consequences.

Some improvements but in covering for previous inadequacies rather than analysing key options and making optimal selections.

4. Project Procurement Separate contracts for civil works and signalling works and then subsequent delays in awarding the signalling contract have led to an almost unworkable train timetable.

Each contractor on each section of route will take full responsibility for civil works and signalling works – this should insure against misalignment in completion. It will however, require superior project management by CFR to oversee highly complex technical interfaces.

9

Conclusion

Parting Thoughts:

Upgrading an existing railway is more complex and carries heavier risks than building anew.

Attempting to do this on a large scale without an alternative operational plan is asking for trouble.

Upgrading Simeria – Km614 the same way (and now potentially at the same time) will just compound problems – a snowballing effect may eventuate.

Recommendations:

Actions are urgently needed to build/strengthen CFR’s institutional capacities to manage SOP-T projects, with motivation through eligible funds - leverage from the EC could be very helpful.

MA and CFR should undertake a proper assessment of options on all future projects (including Simeria – Km614) with the aim of developing plans that mitigate principal risks both to the projects and to CFR.

10

END

DISCUSSION

11