Topside and Xmas Tree clashes

[payaam2000]

Dear All

Kindly is requested to help me in judgment.

We are the client of a Gas offshore platform construction project. We have employed two contractor for this project:
One is dedicated for jacket/platform , the other one is for Drilling activities.

At the first of project Jacket/topside contractor has informed the drilling contractor that TDAD(Temporary Drilling Access Deck) elevation is +12.00 and drilling contractor has confirmed this elevation at the first of project.

As a matter of fact if drilling executed at elevation +12.00, then Xmas Tree would had clashes with topside piping , therefore we requested from jacket/topside contractor to shift the TDAD elevation from +12.00 to +10.00 and now everything is ok.

Now two contractor has conflict with each other and they say the other side is responsible for this rework/cost impact.

Topside contractor says that drilling contractor has confirmed elevation +12.00 and drilling contractor says that why Jacket/topside contractor did not request for Xmas tree specifications/Dwgs?

Now would you please guide me who is responsible for this conflict? Drilling contractor or Jacket/Topside contractor.


Looking forward for your reply
Best Regards

 

[BigInch]

It would appear that the Jacket Contractor has the reasoning behind him. What isn't clear if the Jacket Contractor had any contractual obligation to request drawings from the drilling facility contractor before he set the original 12 meter elevation, but it would also appear that it would not matter much, if in fact the drilling deck contractor confirmed that the 12 m elevation suited his purposes.

The BIG problem here is the phrase, "we requested" the move to +10 meters. That means, You, having specifically requested the deviation to drop from 12 to 10, after it was already set and confirmed, must now pay the Jacket Contractor for his extra work to lower from 12 to 10 meters. That much seems perfectly and absolutely clear to me, given what I am reading above.

I don't think that you have any obligation to pay the drilling deck contractor, since he apparently first agreed with the 12 m elevation. But it might depend on what his Approved for Construction (AFC) drawings say. Do his drawings say 12 m or do they say 10 m? If they say 12, I would not pay for his changes. If his AFC drawings say 10, pay him too. If they say nothing, and especially if there is written evidence that he once agreed to 12, don't pay him anything.

Independent events are seldomly independent.

 

[BigInch]

If the jacket contractor had an obligation to request drawings and verify no conflicts with the drilling deck fabricator, then don't pay him either.

Independent events are seldomly independent.

 

[LittleInch]

I think the jacket designer is at fault as your key phrase to me is that the xmas tree clashed "with topside piping". Unless the jacket designer can show that they sent the drawing to the drilling contractor which included ALL the relevant piping, then how was the drilling contractor supposed to know about the topside piping.

It will take a bit of forensic checking of messages, transmitals, which revision drawing was sent etc etc to sort this mess out.

I think the responsibility lies with the jacket designer to ENSURE the drilling kit would fit once he started to add pipework. If he didn't send drawings and dimensions to the drilling contractor then its his fault. You are now in the middle and will pay somewhere down the line, so broker a deal unless you find proof one way or another.

Good luck.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[BigInch]

I think he did check, "elevation is +12.00 and drilling contractor has confirmed this elevation". Why did the drilling contractor not object at that time.

Independent events are seldomly independent.

 

[racookpe1978]

I sort of agree with Big Inch here, but ...

What was the ORIGINAL "outline" of the envelope that all parties working on the platform design group were given? Not what they assumed or used for their preliminary bid or planned on or finally used used for their different detailed designs, but what was the original envelope for the original working area AND all of its interface points? (Did that design envelope including ALL: Lift heights, removal paths, flanges, joints, sizes, etc. )

Unfortunately, it is very likely you will find that everybody owes everybody else money. 8<) But, somebody, at some point in time, found that they could not integrate (build and operate) the final platform inside the two envelopes original specified. Since the operation (construction and drilling) cannot make money until the platform actually operates ...

See, a 12.0 or 10.0 baseline or platform height sets the baseline, and should never be changed without explicit contract negotiations by all parties. But, the interferences are around the envelope, and the change in baseline height is intended to eliminate interferences by increasing clearance height above the Christmas Tree, right? So, what was the original clearance distances, and where was it hitting and what was hitting and when was the hit identified (by who) and what did that party do to try to eliminate or work around the interference?

(Remember, the person or company IDENTIFYING the interference should be "hero" (and NOT the villain) in this problem! It is that person or company that identified the problem (before operation and testing began) that is saving the customer money now by forcing design changes at this state. The problem was always present (until now) it just wasn't known about until now.)

If the answer is "I cannot lift the pipes and operate the platform within this envelope, AND, that envelope cannot be increased without cost and delays" then whatever group approved the original envelope must pay for the correction. Or accept the limited envelope and its subsequent problems. If the answer is "I cannot make my original design work within the original contract envelope" then that company that cannot make its envelope work is responsible for the cost changes.

Example: A standard pipe length is 40 feet, right? If a standard 40 foot pipe and standard drill could not be used or moved or lifted within the original envelope, then the original envelope is at fault. The company (or client) who decided on the original envelope (the 10.0 baseline height) is at fault and must pay. If a "new" drill adapter or "new" clamp is needed that is too tall or too wide to go through a planned door or hatch is designed, and that hatch is already planned to be 36 x 36 inch, then the company that decided it needed a 48 dia tool is responsible for convincing the client that the advantages of a 48 inch dia tool out-weigh the problems of rebuilding the original 36 x 36 hatch.

If one company CROSSED an envelope already accepted by the working group, then that company is responsible for the required changes. Or that company needs to re-design it's interferences or machinery and lifting points and rigging or whatever to make it's equipment work inside the original envelope.

 

[LittleInch]

Drilling contractor may not have seen the drawing that showed the topsides piping so it might have looked ok at that point. Depends when this piping was designed, before or after the drilling contractors confirmation. As I said earlier, it will take a careful timeline of what was sent from and to each party and when to make some sense of it all....

You can see both sides and it's fairly evenly balanced in my view...

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[payaam2000]

Thank you Sirs

Kindly be informed elevation of +10.00 m was obtained from clarrification meetings and we (as client) requested from Jacket/Topside contractor to shift the TDAD elevation. In contracts it has not clearly noted that Jacket/Topside contractor shall request for Xmas Tree information, but actually for 3d design of top side Jacket/Topside contractor has to take such data. In the other hand drilling contractor has accepted th Elevation +12.00 at the first of project.

Now if we want to share the cost impact between two contractors what is your idea about the amount %50/%50 or another shares?
Please help me.

 

[LittleInch]

Usually in contracts there is a dispute resoluton procedure. Use that and ask for full details of the claim with dates, drawings, responses from other parties and justification of the costs being claimed.

It is impossible for us (or me anyway) to advise a claim split based on the very small amoutn of information you have privded and not knowing on what basis or information the drilling contrcator accepted 12m - you keep saying "at the first of the project", but what infomration was available then? did the piping design occur after that? Has the clearence provided changed? We don't know, but you might, but the way forward is to ask whoever is claiming money from you to write it all down and justify it.

My motto: Learn something new every day

Also: There's usually a good reason why everyone does it that way

 

[payaam2000]

Thank you LittleInch for your advise.

Unfortunately at the first of project drilling contractor team had not been set up correctly and the manager (who is now is not in access) confirmed the elevation +12.00 based on his own experience.

And during these confirmation topside was beeing designed. As a matter of fact in our project we have two type of platfrom,

One is the main and the other is sattelite platfrom which are different in size. In the main platform we have not subjected to any problem (clash) because it is bigger than sattelite platform.

Actually in the above mentioned confirmation letter, jacket/topside contractor wrote "Is the elevation +12.00 is ok for two both platforms?"

Now we ask from Jacket/Topside contractor that despite this fact that two platforms are different, why you(jacket/topside contractor) consider same TDAD elevation for both platforms? Unfortunately jacket/topside contractor had not a reasonable response.

Main history is such these missunderstandings. Please help me!!!

 

[BigInch]

"Unfortunately at the first of project drilling contractor team had not been set up correctly and the manager (who is now is not in access) confirmed the elevation +12.00 based on his own experience. And during these confirmation topside was beeing designed."

Doesn't much matter what the basis for that acceptance was. When he accepted, he committed his company (apparently unconditionally) to build to that 12m elevation. They cannot change that to 10 m later. There is where the risk was accepted and taken, and the drilling contractor lost that bet.

Independent events are seldomly independent.

 

[payaam2000]

Dear BigInch

So many thanks for your kindness and . But if you wanted to mark a fail number to each of them, what will be your mark:

Jacket/Topside contractor due to considering same elevation for both different topsides and not requesting the Xmas Tree dwg.

Drilling contractor due to confirmation the elevation +12.00 m.

Having your expert opinion on the above mentioned matter would be very much appreciated and of course this will not impose any responsibility on you and you are fully indemnified.


Please Help me to share the cost impact reasonably.
Best Regards

 

[BigInch]

I keep coming back to the drilling contractor. I think the drillers just threw out the confirmation to avoid being blamed for the jacket contractor's stopping work until they could give a meaningful answer. They took a risk that it would cost them less to confirm that 12 m number and build to it, than it would cost if blamed for a stop work. Then the manager left and the ball dropped, they built to 10 and messed it up.

Must the jacket contractor check everything? Is nobody else responsible for what they are doing themselves. If you want to ascribe blame to the jacket contractor for not checking the driller's work, then ascribe equal blame to the drilller for not checking the jacket contractor's work. That put's them on equal footing. Now ask yourself who took the lead to try to get things done. The jacket contractor was the one trying to make progress, doing what he could do, taking the lead and requesting confirmation (there were no driller's drawings to review at the time). What the heck else could he do, except stop work. If he did that, then you would have had to pay him for that too since drilling deck drawings were not available at the time. Then you would have had to attempt to recollect from the driller to cover your loss. Finger on the driller again. Driller get's 80% of the blame. You get 20% for letting the driller get behind on delivering his christmass tree drawings in time to set the jacket elevation properly and then requesting the 10 m elevation without getting the jacket contractor to see if he could do it, and agree to do it without charging extra costs, which you should have worked out before you said " yes do it". Sorry, but that's how I see it from here.

Independent events are seldomly independent.

 

[stanweld]

payaam2000,
The time frame of when the 10 M elevation chamge was made and subsequent notification to the Jacket Contractor of that change is critical in factoring costs. The Owner or Owner's Engineer may be liable for the majority of the cost adds.
Assuming costs are in the millions of dollars, attorneys need to be contacted. I am sure that both Contractors have contacted their attorneys.

 

[dhengr]

This post was originally written for essentially the same OP question in the Structural Forum. That structural OP seems to have gone down the well and disappeared. As mentioned above, I would look (your attorneys should look) at the contracts first for dispute resolution mechanisms. I don’t think this is something you should try do on your own, without legal council; it is just too likely that will get into deeper trouble than you are already in. Your own company should have had some knowledgeable people checking, coordinating and managing these types of project matters, so I doubt that you will get off the hook unharmed.

>It’s called coordination and communication, and everyone has to do it, more or less, on all jobs.
>It’s called coordination and communication, and project management, and someone has to do that too; between all the various subs, who really only care about their part of the work, in the shortest amount of time and least amount of effort, and then getting paid.
>Now, only the attorneys will get rich resolving the situation. And, all parties will spend much more than their part of the original coordination would ever have cost. But, none of the parties should have to think, coordinate, cross-check, manage any longer, should we; we have computers to do that for us. We have relegated this process to non-thinking machines, and in that process really appear to be losing our own ability or willingness to do these functions. I confess, not every job I ever did, or was involved in, went without a hitch.
>Today, we have project management, scheduling, coordination, BIM software, and faster computers, etc.; all intended to save the humans on the project from themselves, and their own inability to pay attention to details, they were probably to busy with their iPads.
>There is no simple answer to your question, “who is responsible for this mess-up?” unless you can find a smoking-gun letter where one party specifically conveyed the appropriate info. to the other, who then completely dropped the ball on his end of the work. And, the attorneys will make much hay out of shuffling this paperwork. With today’s accelerated schedules, and multi-million dollar pieces of the project being pre-fabed, all at the same time, someone damn well better be cross-checking the elevations and exact locations of the mating points.