3. 3
1 Introduction
The aim of this report is to demonstrate the management side of the Spanish Fork Canyon
Pipeline (Reach 2) project, as well as, to show bad and good practises in different areas, such as
change management, financial management and the management of the various relationships
formed during the project. This report focuses on different topics from the early stages to the
project closure, such as tender and relationship between contractor and subcontractor, analysis
of the possible stakeholders, risks and scheduling.
2 Project initiation
2.1 Scope and tendering
As stated in Appendix 1 and 2, the project focuses on the construction of the section of the
pipeline, which connects other parts of the Spanish Fork Canyon Pipeline and thereby finishes
the construction of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) of Central Utah
Project (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Map of Central Utah Project (CUWCD 2010)
From the very beginning it was decided that in conjunction with the construction of the pipeline
it would also be carried out the reconstruction of US-6 highway. Correspondingly, this required
careful planning of time and budget. Generally, before the project initiation it is very important
4. 4
to provide feasibility study which, according to Burke (1999), will not only ensure that project is
feasible, but also will ensure that it can be performed at the best level and best usage of
company’s resources with the planned requirements, boundaries and expected outcomes.
After the feasibility study was finished it was decided to hold a tender for determining the most
suitable contractor. The project owner must provide the necessary information describing all
project requirements for the contractor, as well as at least approximately drawings and
schemes of the expected outcome of the project. The more detailed the information, the
greater the probability of a successful completion of the project, but Laryea (2011) argues that
quite often everything occurs on the contrary. In the tender process, contractors often rely on
subcontract and supply enquiries to calculate their bid prices (Laryea 2009). Considering the
fact that project is funded by the government and sufficiently important for the state, it can be
assumed that for construction companies such projects are of greatest interest, because their
successful completion opens new horizons in the future, as well as, new ties that can be used
for their own purposes. On the other hand, such projects are often quite complex and have
high requirements to contractors. Winner of the tender became Whitaker Construction
Company and approved project budget for reconstruction of US-6 highway and 2.7 miles
pipeline construction was $27 498 000 (CUWCD 2010).
3 Project Planning
3.1 Scheduling
One of the main aspects of each project is the construction of an action plan. This project was
particularly difficult to plan, because essentially it consisted of two separate projects. Maylor
(2010) argues that as complexity of the projects increases, so does the necessity for a
formalized plan. There was a need in smart allocation of resources and time between two parts
of the project. Another issue was whether to conduct construction works at the same time or
separate them and finish the one of them firstly. On the one hand, start of construction of the
pipeline and reconstruction of the highway simultaneously requires more resources and
people, but reduces the time. However, this could cause an uncontrollable situation at the
construction site, such a project would be difficult to manage and it would probably paralyze
car traffic on the highway. One of the ideas behind the road reconstruction was its widening,
which could make life easier for trench excavation for a pipeline, which was scheduled to install
along the way of the highway. Thereby, the decision was made: firstly reconstruct the highway
and then start construction works of the pipeline.
5. 5
3.2 Work Break Structure and Gantt chart
Figure 2: Work Break Structure of the project (personal collection)
Figure 2 illustrates the work break down structure of the project and twelve main activities (for
more details see Appendix 3). The WBS organizes and defines the total scope of the project and
helps to create the required deliverables (Project Management Institute 2004). Road works are
always associated with a high risk for car owners and requires a lot of attention. For a
successful work completion there was a need in establishing of a close relationship with the
Utah Department of Transportation. They were not only responsible for a list of requirements
and their vision the road reconstruction, but also for constantly coordination of all works and
permissions for the partial blocking of road or temporary restriping. Under these conditions,
the project manager had to show all his skills in dealing with people, but more this side of a
project management will be discussed below.
The second part of the project, related with the pipeline was decided to divide into three major
subtasks: fabrication, delivery and pipe installation. Supplier of pipes began fabrication and
delivery in advance, in order to already have a sufficient stock on the site before the start of the
installation. This planning allowed protecting project from unexpected problems of the
supplier, whether it is a stoppage of the fabrication or delivery problems. Moreover, if the pipe
installation works will be ahead of schedule, it also can help to save time and do not depend on
the supplier. According to Kumar (2005) Gantt chart is a simple, but quite powerful visual tool
to understand and easy to construct, that is why it is so widely used by project managers in
project scheduling. Appendix 5 illustrates a project’s Gantt chart, which helps to understand
how project was scheduled.
6. 6
3.3 Risks
Proper planning of the work schedule is not possible without considering and taking into
account risks. Thanhain (2013) states that successful dealing with risks in complex projects is
difficult and requires from project manager to go beyond ordinary analytical approaches. This
project was quite well-planned, as work on determination of possible risks and consequently
proper planning time was carried out. Appendix 4 presents an analysis of the five potential
risks. Even taking into account only one of them, when due to the collapse of an old pipeline
that supplies nearby city with water and its complete renovation took more than a month (for
more details see Appendix 8), the project was almost completed three months ahead of
schedule.
4 Management of relationships
4.1 Stakeholders
The project managers should not only skilfully plan and calculate the components of the
project, but also excellently determine range of people who are interested in it and accordingly
cleverly communicate with them and have for each its own approach.
Appendix 6 illustrates stakeholder map, as well as provides brief analysis of importance and
impact of each stakeholder. Baguley (2003) argues that stakeholders are the people who have
something to gain or lose be the end of the project and they also have an interest, however
indirect. Since the pipeline project was a civil order and some of its sections were built in
reserved or protected areas it had special requirements to preserve the environment and
wildlife. Firstly, several documents, such as feasibility study, were produced by various
departments and organizations related to the protection of the environment, e.g. Department
of the Interior. On the one hand, without their permission the construction project would fail.
But on the other, their role after giving permission is limited, except for regular inspections on
compliance with all rules and violations. In this case, it can be assumed that they can be
stakeholders, but without having really large impact or importance on completion of the whole
project. Another type of stakeholder includes e.g. car drivers, nearby towns and landowners.
Their interest is much higher than the previous group, but their contribution to the project is
still not great. In particular, car drivers are clearly interested in the improvement of the road
surface and its widening, but cannot speed up the construction process. Project managers often
face challenges in the processes of identifying stakeholders and their needs, assessing
stakeholder impacts and their relationships (Mok 2015). One of an example is
telecommunication companies. For them projects that have trench excavation works are often
quite interesting. It is an excellent chance with minimum budget to get permission of the owner
of the project to lay their cables and equipment. This stakeholder could be positioned on the
border between levels 1 and 2 (see. Appendix 6), because he was very interested in this project
and had a fairly high impact in the final tests, however nothing common with the original
purpose of the project. Final type of stakeholders is when person or organization have a very
high impact, as well as are of great importance, e.g. construction companies or Utah
7. 7
Department of Transportation. These stakeholders were at the very beginning of the project
and they were part of its closure.
4.2 Team structure
The author of this report was not involved in the project, thus the analysis below is based on
the information that was available on the Internet in open access. Instead of analysing the
structure of the project team report presents analysis of the structure contractor-subcontractor
and their relationships. Appendix 7 shows the structure of all firms that were involved in the
project of pipeline construction. Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUCWD) was an
owner of the project and after tender the chose the general contractor (Whitaker Construction
Company) and pipe manufacturer (Ameron International Water Transmition Group). On the
third level there are 24 subcontractors that can be divided into four main groups: companies
that participated in the road reconstruction, construction of the pipeline, investigational works
and subsequent quality control, as well as internet providers. Contracting authority of
construction works are usually forced to use services of many companies: possibly there are no
organizations today that can perform full range of construction works due to its quantity and
diversity. Furthermore, each type of work has to be certified. Nowadays, general contractor is
responsible for management of subcontractor and for project as a whole, thereby freeing
contracting authority of unnecessary worries. Choudhry (2012) states that general contractors
rely heavily on the specialized services of sub-contractors and main aim are the cost reduction
and efficiency increase on construction projects. Respectively, there should be both pros and
cons. Advantages should include, firstly, that the contractor is responsible for the construction
as a whole. Secondly, he chooses subcontractors based on established relationships or tender.
He has the opportunity to organize the construction works in the same schedule, which reduces
construction time. In addition, the general contractor performs acceptance of works of
subcontractor and is responsible to the client. At the same time, general contractor increasing
the complexity of services can reduce the number of sub-contractors involving them only on
particularly complex works. However, there are disadvantages, which include primarily an
additional charge. That is, the customer pays the difference between the cost of the work of
subcontractors and the amounts of the proposed payment to the general contractor. Again, the
pursuit of the general contractor to do more on their own as much as possible, in order to
increase working capital and its own profits, could adversely affect the quality of work. In the
implementation of the construction works the contractor and subcontractor relationships are
very difficult to overestimate. They directly affect the speed and quality of construction. Thus,
selecting the right subcontractor essentially contributes to the project’s success (Andreas
2009). A competent contractor will find the same qualified subcontractors.
4.3 Team motivation
Employee labour is one of the main driving forces in the success of the company. In the
construction industry it is especially evident, as manual labour workers affects the competitive
ability and profitability of the company. Any construction company to survive in the market is
forced to continuously improve its activities. Construction, like any other sector of the
8. 8
economy, has its own specifics. Labour of the workers in construction is characterized by the
periodicity and severity, and therefore needs extra motivation. Project motivation is a key
aspect to a successful project (Schmid and Adams 2008). In the available documents of the
construction of the Spanish Fork Pipeline it could be observed regular monthly payments to the
contractor. On the one hand, this fact could have a positive impact on employee’s motivation
and boost their confidence, that they will not be deceived by the next day. Payment of possible
premiums for performing ahead of schedule and doing additional work is also a strong
motivational instrument in the construction industry, because the process of determining the
success of the work is quite simple. But on the other hand, a certain level of wages creates a
certain intensity of work, responsibility and initiative of the employee. Low wages discourages
employee disaccustoms him to work. An employee, who for a long time was paid low wages,
gradually lowers the quality of his work. The same can be said about the constant payment of
premiums, when it is perceived as a regular addition to the salary and employee motivation in
achieving the objective falls. It is necessary to find the right balance between salaries and
bonuses, as well as to determine for which activity employee will be able to receive bonus.
But the financial aspect is not the main motivator among employees of construction
companies. For the project manager it is also necessary to build proper relationships. But what
type of relationship to choose is the main issue. In the case of pipeline construction project, it
can be assumed for the most part project manager communicated with the heads of the
contractor and subcontractors. This required a clear understanding of how to make the general
contractor to perform work on schedule and to help in case of problems. Negotiations are the
part of these relationships and Fells (2012) defines negotiations as a process of trying to reach
agreement and suggests that it also takes some effort. Another issue that seems to be more
complex is how to motivate workers at the construction site itself. After all, essentially the final
result depends on them. TV news usually shows a particular strike of workers who were
dissatisfied with working conditions, delays in salary etc. If the financial aspect of motivating
workers is all more or less clear, but the psychological side remains open. One of the possible
approaches for motivation is Herzbergs’s KITA and Peterson (2007) describes it as “kick-in-the-
pants” approach, as it combines both positive and negative external motivators. Since working
conditions and human nature of workers at the construction site, they would encourage more
explicit authoritative leader who could shout when it is needed for a particular action.
5 Financial management
General contractor monthly presented constructions reports with the description of completed
work and budget. This allowed conducting a small analysis of the financial management of the
project. According to Baguley (2003) project’s budget provides a baseline, a datum level,
against which manager can measure, monitor and control project’s expenditure. Originally
approved by all parties budget was $27 498 000. Considering Figure 3 when all planned
activities were finished, on the one hand, conclusion about sufficiently competent planning of
the project budget can be done. On the other hand, the project exceeded the original budget,
although most of this money was spent on the elimination of a serious accident, which is
9. 9
described in Appendix 8. Also, the author of this report has no information that was in the
contract between the owner and the general contractor of the project. Specifically, the project
was over budget by 5.6% of the original sum, but was it within specified limits or not?
Figure 3: Spanish Fork Pipeline Canyon Pipeline (Reach 2) project expenditures (CUWCD 2010).
6 Conclusion
The Spanish Fork Canyon Pipeline (Reach 2) project was successfully completed by 30
November 2010. It met all planned requirements and standards. Part of the project closure is
not only summary production, but as Williams (2004) states determination of key lessons, that
sometimes occurs to be a very difficult process. Appendix 9 provides a detailed summary of the
projects, as well as presents key lessons learnt.
10. 10
7 References
Baguley, P. (2003). Project management. London: Teach Yourself, p.109.
Burke, R. (1999). Project Management: planning & control techniques. 3rd ed. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd., p.37.
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), (2010). Final Report â„–22. Constructions
Progress Report. [online] pp.1-14. Available at:
http://www.cuwcd.com/cupca/projects/uls/library/pdfs/sfcpReports/reach2_3/SFCPReac
h2November2010.pdf [Accessed 26 Dec. 2014].
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD), (2010). Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water
Delivery System. [online] pp.1-32. Available at:
http://www.cuwcd.com/cupca/brochures/ULS_brochure.pdf [Accessed 26 Dec. 2014].
Choudhry, R., Hinze, J., Arshad, M. and Gabriel, H. (2012). Subcontracting Practices in the
Construction Industry of Pakistan. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
138(12), pp.1353-1359.
Fells, R. (2012). Effective negotiation. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, p.4.
Hartmann, A., Ling, F. and Tan, J. (2009). Relative Importance of Subcontractor Selection
Criteria: Evidence from Singapore. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
135(9), pp.826-832.
Kumar, P. (2005). Effective Use of Gantt Chart for Managing Large Scale Projects. Cost
Engineering, 47(7), p.14.
Laryea, S. (2009). Subcontract and supply enquiries in the tender process of contractors.
Construction Management and Economics, 27(12), pp.1219-1230.
Laryea, S. (2011). Quality of tender documents: case studies from the UK. Construction
Management and Economics, 29(3), pp.275-286.
Maylor, H. (2010). Project Management. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, p.107.
Mok, K., Shen, G. and Yang, J. (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega construction
projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of Project Management,
11. 11
33(2), pp.446-457.
Peterson, T. (2007). Motivation: How to increase project team performance. Project
Management Journal, 38(4), pp.60-69.
Project Management Institute, (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge.
3rd ed. Newton Square: Project Management Institute Inc., p.112.
Schmid, B. and Adams, J. (2008). Motivation in project management: The project manager's
perspective. Project Management Journal, 39(2), pp.60-71.
Thamhain, H. (2013). Managing Risks in Complex Projects. Project Management Journal, 44(2),
pp.20-35.
Williams, T. (2004). Identifying the hard lessons from projects – easily. International Journal
of Project Management, 22(4), pp.273-279.
12. 12
Appendix 1 – Spanish Fork Canyon Pipeline (Reach 2) Project Scope
Scope
The scope of project is the construction of the Spanish Fork Pipeline (Reach 2), which is a part
of the Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act (CUPCA). The place of construction works is located in Spanish Fork Canyon in
Utah County, approximately four miles east of Spanish Fork City, within the right -of-way of U.S.
Route 6 its entire length. The Project connects to the existing end of the Reach 1 and the end of
the Reach 3 of Spanish Fork Canyon Pipeline, which is currently under construction too. The
pipeline will convey water for distance of 2.7 miles. At the same time, the project aims to
reconstruct the US-6 highway, in particular the partial widening of the road and replacement of
old asphalt. Road works are expected to begin on May 19, 2009, while pipeline construction on
June 30, 2009, and project has to be completed by November 30, 2010 within the budget of
$27 498 000.00.
Project Need
The ULS is a component of the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project (CUP). The ULS is
intended to fill many needs, including completion of the Bonneville Unit by delivering an
average annual 101,900 acre-feet of water from Strawberry Reservoir to the Wasatch Front
area for municipal and industrial uses (CUWCD 2010).
According to CUWCD (2010) needs of the ULS are to:
Develop, convey and deliver the remaining Bonneville Unit water supply for municipal
and industrial uses and temporary agricultural supply along the Wasatch Front
Address the remaining environmental commitments of the Bonneville Unit associated
with previously constructed systems.
The author of this report was not involved in the project and all of the available information
below about the project was taken from the Internet resources. Due to the complicity of the
original project only the most important information was extracted and analysed. The original
project did not contain all the necessary documents, therefore documents like WBS, Gantt
chart and Stakeholder map were created by author of this report.
13. 13
Appendix 2 – Project Requirements
The main requirements of the Spanish Fork Pipeline (Reach 2) project are:
1) Construction of 2.7 miles of 96-inch welded steel pipeline (WSP), which should be
buried;
2) Construction of the secondary elements of the pipeline, e.g. blow offs, drains , air vacs,
manways;
3) During the pipeline construction and road works it is important to control car traffic and
temporary relocate some highway reaches, as well as to maintain two lanes of traffic;
4) Highway reconstruction should not affect car drivers, therefore one of the most
important requirements is to maintain two lanes of traffic;
5) Construction of road slope cuts with approximately 500 feet of soil nail wall, as well as
construction of approximately 3,000 feet of temporary retaining walls (CUWCD 2010);
6) Approximately 800 feet of the pipeline will cross an area of open water located on both
sides of the pipeline corridor. These requires special construction techniques to handle
water in the trench (CUWCD 2010);
7) The project includes excavation of hillside slopes in some areas to provide adequate
work area and requires trench shoring to prevent slope movement (CUWCD 2010).
19. 19
Table 2: Stakeholder Analysis
№ Stakeholder How Important?
(Low-Med-High)
What Impact?
(Low-Med-High)
Description and analysis
1 Central Utah Water
Conservancy District
(CUWCD)Construction
companies
High High Central Utah Water manages the vast CUP and District network of water
facilities. Organization is the owner of the project for the construction of Spanish
Fork Canyon Pipeline and is responsible for tendering and supervision of
construction works of the contractor. Construction Manager and Project
Manager are from this organization, so from the early stages of the project it is
necessary to establish close interrelation with the contractor and
subcontractors. Any misunderstanding may negatively affect the project.
2 Construction companies High High Since the project is financed from the federal budget there are some special
requirements for construction companies. But for the winner of the tender it is
only a benefit. The contractor in the future will be able to use obtained
experience and new relations to attract new customers. The construction
company is one of the major stakeholders and more than others is interested in
the successful completion of the project.
3 Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT)
High High Construction of the pipeline was decided to carry simultaneously with the
reconstruction of the highway US-6. Respectively, this means the need in close
cooperation with the Department of Transportation. The Department gave
consent to those or other road works as well as partial overlapping of the
highway. The Department also had to monitor the flow of car traffic and quickly
respond in case of accidents.
4 The Bureau of Reclamation High High The Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for weekly reviewing contractor and
subcontractor payrolls to verify compliance with the labour standards provisions
in the contract.
5 US Department of the Interior
(DOI)
Med High Department of the Interior is responsible for National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) compliance and implementation of the Utah Lake System. This
department was present at the first negotiations with the contractor and only
then gave permission to start construction work.
6 Landowners Med Med In this project, the pipeline throughout its length was laid along the federal
highway, so probably did not cross anyone's land. But other parts of the main
project could cross and it immediately includes a new stakeholder. It is
necessary to discuss the possibility of excavation works, as well as the possibility
of renting fee.
20. 20
7 Nearby towns Med Med The ULS is intended to fill many needs, including completion of the Bonneville
Unit by delivering an average annual 101,900 acre-feet of water from Strawberry
Reservoir to the Wasatch Front area for municipal and industrial uses. (CUWCD
2010)This project is vital for small remote towns, because of the relief it is
difficult for water to get there, these can explain their interest.
8 Car drivers Med Med On the one hand, almost a year car drivers were hostages of road works and
difficult traffic. But on the other hand, they were interested in the
reconstruction of the highway, because not only the road surface was replaced,
but also some areas were widened.
9 Telecommunication companies Med Med Projects that are related with the trench excavation are quite popular among
telecommunication companies. For them it is a chance to replace their outdoor
facilities and hide them under the ground.
10 Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science
Low High It is the decision of the Assistant Secretary to select the Proposed Action and to
approve DOI’s cooperation with the District and the Mitigation Commission, to
execute the necessary contracts and agreements (CUWCD 2010).
11 SWCA Environmental
Consultants
Med Low The pipeline alignment places within the boundary of the former location of the
Castilla Hot Springs Resort. The responsibility of SWCA was the preparation of a
treatment plan to detail the efforts of the ULS project to mitigate any adverse
effects on Castilla Hot Springs Resort.
12 Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission
Low Med Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission is responsible for
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance and implementation of
the Utah Lake System. This department was present at the first negotiations
with the contractor and only then gave permission to start construction work.
13 South Utah Valley Municipal
Water Associations (SUVMWA)
Low Low The Spanish Fork Canyon Pipeline would convey, on a space-available basis, up
to 10,200 acre-feet of Strawberry Valley Project water shares contractually
assigned or made available to SUVMWA in southern Utah County. (CUWCD
2010)This organization was no very interested in the progress, but the final
result is important for them.
14 Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources
Low Low This organization has been actively involved in feasibility study and as a result
throughout the project monitored all possible threats that it could cause for the
wildlife.
15 US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
Low Low This organization has been actively involved in feasibility study and as a result
throughout the project monitored all possible threats that it could cause for the
wildlife.
21. 21
Appendix 7 – Project team structure
Figure 8: Spanish Fork Pipeline (Reach 2) Project team structure (personal collection)
22. 22
Appendix 8 – Project Memorandum
From: Construction Manager
To: Project Manager
Data: 15 January, 2010
At the beginning of the month all scheduled works are being carried out according to the plan:
the pipe supplier is fabricating the 96-inch diameter WSP, Schnabel Foundation Company is
working on the soil nail wall, Zimmerman Well Service is installing cathodic protection and
general contractor is working on the excavation and pipe installation on Lay 2. The contractor
has completed approximately 73% of the project in 50% of time.
But an unforeseen circumstance has made an impact on the plans for the next month. On
January 14, 2010, the Spanish Fork City 30-inch steel pipeline crossing US-6 highway ruptured at
the shoulders of the road. The water was drained and the City was forced to partially restrict
the consumption of water, until a temporary source was found.
On January 15, 2010, the general contractor invited Val Kotter & Sons Company to videotape
the inside of the Spanish Fork City’s existing 30-inch pipeline to determine the present
condition of the pipeline and the best method for repairing it.
Proposed solution: to slip-line the existing pipe with 28-inch HDPE pipe under the highway and
railroad and replace approximately 130 feet of corroded pipe with new one.
Advantages: this method is the most appropriate because it does not require excavations of
the old pipeline, so there will be no need in possible federal highway closures.
Disadvantages: fabrication and delivery of such HDPE pipes is not a fast process and in
combination with field works it will take some time, approximately one or two months. Also
there is a need in transfer of equipment from other sites of the construction that may adversely
affect the performance of work and slow down the process.
Risks: delays in overall performance of the project, additional costs, possible disagreement of
the Union Pacific Railroad to limit train traffic.
Taking into account that contractor is working ahead of the schedule and budget of the project
is exceeded on the insignificant amount of money, and also the fact that due to the accident
the city’s consumption of water is limited, it can be assumed that these repair works do not
affect the overall performance of the project and can be carried out.
Kind Regards,
Construction Manager
23. 23
Appendix 9 – Project Closure Summary Report
Summary
The purpose of this project was the construction of the pipeline section. The Spanish Fork
Canyon Pipeline (Reach 2) project was successfully completed by 30 November 2010, as
planned. This reach connects the remaining two sections of the pipeline, thereby allowing
transferring the remaining Bonneville Unit water supply for municipal and industrial needs. In
addition to the installation of 2.7 miles the pipeline, there was conducted a reconstruction of
US-6 highway. In particular, road surface replacement and a partial widening of the road were
conducted. During the feasibility study of the construction of the pipeline specific requirements
were identified, such as construction works were carried out in the vicinity of protected areas
and special requirements for preservation of the environment have been put forward. As a
result, the organizations that were responsible for control did not reveal any violations, and the
project was officially completed.
It should be noted that the decision to divide the project into two parts proved to be correct. As
a consequence, the construction of the pipeline was initiated after the reconstruction of the
highway. This allowed more competently plan the project schedule and not to work in
deadlines. It had a positive impact on the quality of the performed work. Even serious accident
that occurred during the project has not moved the scheduled end of the project. This suggests
that there was a thorough work on the study of the possible risks and that they were included
in the planned time frames. Also, analysis of possible stakeholders helped to avoid serious
conflicts during construction and all of the interested parties were satisfied.
The work of the general contractor did not cause any complaints and from the very beginning
there were established trusting relationships. In particular, general contractor always received
regular payments according to the contract, which indicates that interests of both parties were
satisfied. The initial amount of the budget was exceeded by 5.6%, but these amendments were
approved by senior management.
Final testing of the system and quality control showed that project met all planned
requirements and standards.
Key lessons learnt:
The technology of using two excavators and a slide rail shoring system for pipe
installation proved to be quicker and easier than the use of a conventional crane;
Need a more careful planning of the budget to include the cost of possible serious
accidents
Use of a large number of subcontractors helps to better assign responsibilities and
improve the quality of the final result
