By Clarence Wynter and Kevin Noakes
Field Technical Specialist Activities
Advise Site Engineering Manager on requests for information (RFI)s of the Detail Design of the EPC contractor and meet project milestones.
All construction jobs are provided with and organized into Construction Work Packages (CWP’s) or Engineering Work Packages (EWP’s). These packages are distributed to the awarded construction general contractor whose responsibility it is to assign the package to the correct construction silo or sub- contractor’s. This establishes the design criteria and scope of work to proceed with installation. A distribution matrix is generated so all parties are aware of their jurisdiction on the project, Field Site Technical support is engage to follow on engineering activities for the completion of the work packages. It is the responsibility of Field Site Technical personnel to support the delivery of the installation of CWPs in association with the Contractor(s) Field Engineering related procedures.
Site intervention and verification awareness is needed to apply fit for purpose applications that result in safe installations and minimize down time to the project. For example, I recieved a request for information (RFI) from the Engineering Site Support team for piping routing verification for a site assignment installing of a NPS 36” pipe that had been issued for fabrication and construction (IFC)...without a proper field check.
An investigation ensued and I gathered the Field copies of the relevant issued design documents and proposed a site walk down of the pipe routing. During the walk down it was noted that there were some discrepancies the piping design team had not identified, and clashed with the IFC design. The Field Engineering & Site Support Lead then notified all relevant Engineering parties of the site findings that didn't support the issued IFC Design. I initiated a stop order to the pipe fabricator for this line. Follow-up meetings and correspondance established that standard design clearance was not met at Fire Water valves and this impacted the proposed electrical conduit routing and further a root cause analysis determined that a Site visit to identify the design clearances to meet the design needs had not been undertaken. I proposed a new routing for the pipe and submitted a sketch of it to the Home Engineering Design Office requesting Piping and Structural groups re-evaluate the stress supports and load to support the new routing. The piping drawings were then revised to meet the site proposed design and was fabricated and installed sucessfully.
Clarification and field verification is a mandatory part of the work culture a Field Technical Support person embraces for Engineering clarification on a project. Monitoring EPC contractors design, procurement and construction is required to ensure selection and timely delivery of the best technical/economical solutions for M&P Systems. During a Module Fabrication Yard assignment I recieved an RFI, identifying a vendor equipment package that was installed on the module that would require modification to the piping for the connections to be made per the IFC design. Analysis identified that the IFC Equipment document issued by the project was not used by the General Contractor to verify the equipment coordinates per IFC design. A Mod Yard field visit for the Piping Superintendent was initiated by the the Mod Yard supervisor, and I requested that the IFC documents being used to install these vendor skid packages on the module be provided. When the Piping Superintendent presented a Structural Layout Plan for the module, I advised him he was using the wrong document and that he needed to obtain the IFC Equipment Layout Drawings issued through the Document Management System that provided the IFC vendor skid equipment coordinates for the correct installation per the engineered design. As such I responded to the RFI with these findings and authorized the contractor to proceed with the correct IFC drawing issued.
Contractors need to be monitored to ensure the overall design and work complies with regional, national and company standards and guidelines as well as best engineering practices. Doing a field walk about at a plant I observed a contractor apparently not using the correct bolts to connect a large bore valve and I requested to see his FLRA?, reviewed his activities and asked to see the supervisor, requesting he verify the bolt-up connection was as specified in the Engineering Spec. The subcontractor informed me that the bolt-up was as issued for installation. I requested a meeting with all parties, the result of which identified that revised updated EPC documents and drawings had been issued to the general contractor who did not pass this information on to the subcontractor, in a timely manner, in order for the revised bolt specification to be used in the installation per design. My intervention avoided a double handling installation and maybe, a mechanical inegrity failure and the consequences of that.
A version of this article was originally published in February 2015 BIC magazine