RM9bn Light Rail Transit Line 3 (LRT3) - All eyes for the next PDP

Excerpt from the Star

Group managing director Azmi Abdul Aziz said they had identified the corridors for land acquisition.

“We have allocated a certain amount for the acquisition but it is not part of the RM9bil project cost.

“The allocation will come from Prasarana,” he added.

LRT 3 will span 36km with 2km running underground across 25 stations from Bandar Utama to Johan Setia, Klang.

Construction is scheduled to begin in 2016 and will be completed by 2020.

The line is expected to connect the Western Corridor of the Klang Valley to Kuala Lumpur city centre – a route that is currently only being serviced by KTM Komuter.

Azmi also said they were planning to turn the station at Stadium Shah Alam into a main station and a major shopping hub.

“We are also looking at bringing the Klang KTM station closer to the LRT 3 line so transfers will be easier,” he added.

LRT 3 will be integrated with existing and future public transport networks at four stations including One Utama with MRT Sungai Buloh–Kajang Line, Station 3 with the Kelana Jaya Line, SIRIM with BRT Kuala Lumpur–Klang and Klang Town with KTM Komuter.

------------------------------------------

THE INTRIGUING CONCEPT OF THE PROJECT DELIVERY PARTNER IN RAIL TRANSIT PROJECTS – A QUICK ANALYSIS BY NIK ZAFRI

Project Delivery Partner (PDP) is now becoming a trendy concept in United Kingdom, Malaysia and some other countries especially in the management and construction of Rail Transit Projects. (Project Owners - Crossrail Ltd UK (Bechtel, Halcrow & Systra) MRT Corp Malaysia(MMC-Gamuda KVMRT)

Under the PDP model, the Project Owner passes the delivery risks (specifications, cost/project budget (all borned by PDP), time and quality) of the project to the appointed PDP.

This way, the Project Owner could reduce the risks of late completion and cost overrun. It is to ensure maximum spread via competitive bidding, equal and fair distribution of construction work packages. The Project Owner; however; will still maintain a certain degree of control on delivery,  supervising project progress, acquisitions of lands and award of tenders.

In the organizational relationship chart, the Project Owner will be on the top (advised by an Independent Consulting Engineers (ICE), followed by PDP,  the 3^rd Layer is the Supervising Consultants (SC) and finally Work Package Contractors (WPC)

At one glance, it looks fine – as if the PDP is handling similar roles as 'Project Managers' or 'Project Management Consultant (PMC)' with Supervising Consultants to help them out especially on the Design. 

The Work Package Contractors are the 'Constructors' based on the ‘Conventional’ mode rather than the traditional ‘Design and Build’

What intrigues me; in practice; is that the PDP can also function as the lead contractor – in some cases; as if; they can hold two positions simultaneously – “the project managers” and “the contractor”. It crosses my mind of the possibility of ‘conflict of interest’ here – e.g. like in the case of "a certification body and an accreditation body ‘working under the same roof’.

Another issue is - as if there appear to be a ‘shared responsibility’ between the Project Owner, PDP and Supervising Consultants (SC) on issues of alignment options and review, preparations and submissions for the railway scheme, public display, land acquisition, engineering design, tender, construction and supervision, as well as testing and commissioning for safe railway operations.

In some way, there is also the potential of "overlapping duties and responsibilities" in the ‘Trilogy’ (Who to do ‘what’ actually). 

If I am right as a ‘civilian’, then some complications may arise:

a)      If the Project Owners passing all the ‘risks’ to PDP, would that include the ‘responsibility of owners’ spelled out in the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994/Construction Guidelines on Safety and Health?

b)      Should a PDP have the ‘mindset of Contractors’ in managing projects? Or should they should act as the 'Client’s (Project Owner’s) representatives' and be firm and stick to ‘managing/overseeing projects’ while the WPC will do the rest? (construction) Just for ‘impartiality’ sake…

c)       If a ‘Contractor’ is to be appointed to become the PDP – do they have enough experience and skills in Project Management in the past or they can be 'upgraded' there and then?

d)      Assuming PDP being a contractor in another capacity, would the PDP be allowed to construct a segment of the same project whilst managing the overall project in another capacity? If they do, then who will become the PDP and SC to them? Will that do justice for the WPC? 

e)      The SC is another group of professional engineers assuming the role to assist and advise the PDP mostly on technical matters such as Civil and Structure, Building and Mechanical/Electrical (etc) – e.g. related to design (and approval?), construction related drawings, load and integrity, WPC’s Inspection and Test,  Method Statement etc. (not to be mistaken with Independent Consulting Engineers who are with the Project Owners)

f)       The WPC; (a.k.a. Main Contractor) - in Malaysia – mostly are ‘G7’ and a ‘must-be’ ISO 9000 certificated contractor. The construction principles are usually based on their respective ‘Corporate HQ QMS’.  

    Would the PDP request the WPC to have another set of ‘customized site-based (project-specific)’ procedures and project quality plan (is it spelled out in the Contract?) or whatever that the WPC is using is sufficient? or PDP/SC will provide them with the right formats?

Another issue is the submission of Method Statement/Job Safety Analysis by the WPC – must the WPC hire a professional engineer just to do the Construction/Trade Method Statement to be submitted, reviewed by another Professional Engineer in SC and finally approved by PDP? Will that be at the cost of the WPC?

g)      If the PDP is a JV, why not the JV itself work towards the certification of ISO 9000 (and OHSAS 18000 + EMS ISO 14000) just for the duration of the mega project they are managing/overseeing. Or perhaps adopting a certified Integrated Management System (IMS) – rather than one JV partner is already certified separately as one entity and the other JV partner is also certified as another entity (definitely two different systems). Sometimes, this also potentially create some ‘confusion’ as well. If the JV itself is certified, it must be a QMS that is 'tailor-made' to the project itself.

Whatever the answers would be, the PDP is likely to be penalized in the end and potentially end up bearing a hefty cost should the project fails or late delivery (which I think the LAD will be imposed by the Project Owner and probably the PDP will probably imposes another LAD to WPC)

I would also like to suggest ‘some 2 sens’ worth of improvement - in order to avoid overlapping of duties (unless there is NO overlapping - then I'm really sorry), besides assuming the prevailing functions as the Project Owners, PDP, SC and WPC.

Why not counter-refer to the ‘good ol’ PWD 203A (Standard Form of Contract) where in this case – the Project Owners appoints PDP as the SO (Superintending Officers) and PDP appoints the SC to become SORs (Superintending Officers Representatives).

After all, PWD203A is ‘very clear’ on this issue – roles of SO, SORs and even the Contractor’s (WPC) obligations on the matter.

I am unsure if this suggestion can assist the PDP to have a clearer guidelines but I do know PWD203A are widely used by most construction consortiums in Malaysia and the guide has been proven in terms of its effectiveness. Or perhaps PDP should have their very own “PWD203A”.

Yes, my humble (non-professional) suggestions should be seen as opportunities for future continual improvement and not to be taken as 'criticisms'.