100 likes | 174 Views
Outsourcing Modifications To Contractors. Tom White Entergy – Pilgrim Station. June 29, 2009. Increased Use of Outsourced Engineers. Many staffs have “downsized” Experienced engineers have retired Specific technical skill sets have been lost
E N D
Outsourcing Modifications To Contractors Tom White Entergy – Pilgrim Station June 29, 2009
Increased Use of Outsourced Engineers • Many staffs have “downsized” • Experienced engineers have retired • Specific technical skill sets have been lost • Large projects continue to emerge (e.g. power uprates, new plants, dry cask storage, security improvements)
Outsourcing Options • All work done remotely under contractor programs (QA/non-QA) – Owner Review • Staff Augmentation – Contract engineers work at station under station’s programs • Other?
Issues/Considerations • ESP training • Procedures (station vs. contractor) • Technical reviews by station • Oversight of productivity • Database access & update • Information access • Fixed cost vs. T&M • Teamwork
Work Remotely Using Contractor Programs (with Owner Review) Pros • No ESP training oversight burdens (i.e. maintaining qualifications, mentoring/co-signing) • No paperwork burdens if contractor uses station procedures under their programs • Owner’s Review is only requirement • Contracts more amenable to fixed pricing Cons • Contractors not on-site so productivity must requires additional management (can be addressed by fixed price vs. T&M, periodic schedule reviews, etc.) • Station database access & update more difficult from remote location/server • Information access (walkdowns, drawings) more difficult • Teamwork requires more effort (to assemble meetings, resolve difficult issues face-to-face, etc.)
Staff Augmentation Pros • On-site contractors can be managed directly for productivity • Station databases readily available for access & update. Contractor questions easily resolved • Access to information/drawings via walkdowns and document control centers is simple • Teamwork more easily promoted via timely face-to-face meetings • All products developed per station procedures Cons • Contractors have to be directly supervised by station • Significant ESP training oversight burdens (i.e. maintaining qualifications, mentoring/co-signing) • Substantial station technical reviews required until contractor qualifications are completed • Contracts are typically T&M which can be more expensive
Implications for Configuration Management • Do the contractors fully understand your document control systems, document indexes, and information management systems? • Remote access availability and speed • Quality of document cross references and links (identifying impacted documents & programs) • Idiosyncrasies of legacy data in databases • Centralization of design basis information • Tribal knowledge of system engineers, Operations, etc.
Implications for Configuration Management • Do the contractors thoroughly understand your document change procedures and electronic processes? • Identification of applicable design criteria • Methods for revising/creating each document type • Roles & responsibilities for each part of overall modification process • Quality training in the use of complicated workflow programs • Data entry quality & verification (e.g. BOMs)
Summary/Recommendations • Continued high modification workload will require continued use of contractors • Build time & funding into contracts to address training in use of key databases and work management processes/procedures • Use graded approach to oversight of technical and configuration management tasks • Recognize limitations and pitfalls of your systems and assure contractors are aware • Verify station personnel are cognizant of goals of Owner’s Review versus technical HU reviews • Ensure regular communication between contractor and station POC • Consider steady flow of work to same contract personnel