Basic Civil Engineering first year Notes- Chapter 4 Building.pptx
FOCUS XP_Team 08.pptx
1. WORLD WIDE CHEMICALS
FOCUS XPTM
Submitted To:-
Dr. Ali Mostafavi
Submitted By:-
Aniket Kamble
Deepak Ramchetti Janakiramana
Disha Das
Mayur Pawar
2. Introduction
World Wide Chemicals (WWC) is a Chemical company which
produces a variety of chemical products by using Non-
Proprietary Chemical Process.
It has got a reasonable market share at International market with
low profit at domestic market.
Now, the corporate has come with a business strategy to
introduce a new chemical product named “FOCUS XP” and
construct its market in both domestic and international level.
FOCUS XP has a good demand at both Domestic and
International Market with a huge demand especially at Southeast
Asia.
WWC has developed a “Capital Programme” with the funding of
$1.0 Billion Annually and almost 250 People in the Organisation.
3. Requirements
As FOCUS XP is an all-new product in the market, the company has
proposed to launch the product out within 30 Months.
Capital Estimate of this whole project is estimated to be $130 to $160
Million.
To withstand the huge market, demand the production of FOCUS XP
should be 300 million lbs per year after two years of operation.
The selected site and technology should be able to produce at least 15
Percent Rate of Interest.
WWC wants the project to be constructed in such a way it will support any
Future Expansions or Modifications.
4. Objectives
Safety: The construction should be completed with zero OSHA
Recordable Incidents.
Schedule: The Concept phase, Scope of the project, Designing,
Procurement, Construction and Production of product should be
completed within 30 Months.
Cost: Total cost of the project should not exceed $160 Million,
Board approval required to proceed over the scheduled budget.
Capacity: The facility should be designed in such a way that it
produces FOCUS XP up to 300 million pounds per year with an
expected yield of more than 90 Percent.
Start-up Plan: Initially the facility can produce 225 million
pounds in the first six months, later 270 million per year by the
first year and by the end of Second year the facility should be
able to produce 300 million pounds.
5. Analysis of Alternatives
WWC has proposed 2 Alternatives for both Technology and
Location. The alternative we selected should serve all the
requirements based on the project objectives.
Technology:
APEX - License by PITS with modifications by Our R&D Team.
In-house – Developed by our R&D Team.
Location:
Texas – Greenfield Site.
California – Mothballed Facility.
6. Site Selection
Sr. No. Site Objective Site Characteristics CA TX
1 Minimizing Construction Time Location requiring minimum construction cost + -
2 Flexiblity in Technology Selection Location easily adaptible to technoloy - +
3 Access of acquiring raw material Lcation easily accessible to feedstock - +
4 Minimizing Construction cost Location with minimum construction cost - +
5 Minimizing Environmental impact Loaction with minimum environmental impact - +
6 Permit Time Location that requires minimum permit time - +
7 Access to Market Location with best internation market connectivity + -
8 Minimizing Corporate Tax Location with minimum tax - +
9 Existing availablity of Facility Location having old facility available - +
10 Availablity of Basic Bulding Design Location available with ready basic design - +
TOTAL 2 8
7. Technology Selection
S.no Issue Information Needed Potential Cost
Impact
Potential Schedule
Impact
Potential
Economic impact
1 Long Term Sustainability How Sustainability is the
technology in terms of Future
Expansion?
HIGH MODERATE HIGH
2 Health, Safety and
Environmental Studies
Time and cost to finish the HSE
Report?
MODERATE MODERATE MODERATE
3 Development of Inhouse
Technology
Time and Cost for Developing
this New Technology?
Success Probability?
HIGH HIGH HIGH
4 Operation and
Maintenance
Skilled Manpower to operate
and maintain the New
Technology
HIGH HIGH MODERATE
5 Modifications for APEX
Technology
Time and Cost for licensing and
modifications for APEX
Technology?
Success Probability?
MODERATE HIGH LOW
6 Impact on Rate of
Interest
Change in Rate of Interest if
using Inhouse Technology
HIGH LOW HIGH
8. Decision Matrix
SR. NO. FACTOR WEIGHTAGE
1 Economics 20
2 Access to Market 12
3 Supply of Raw Material 12
4 Schedule 12
5 Health & Saftey 10
6 Techology Flexiblity 10
7 Construction Cost 10
8 Legal Considerations 7
9 Environmental Impact 4
10 Site Availablity 3
100
TOTAL
ALTERNATIVES LOCATION TECHNOLOGY
1 Texas Inhouse Technology
2 Texas APEX Process
3 California Inhouse Technology
4 California APEX Process
LOCATION TECHNOLOGY SCORE
0 0 1
- 0 2
0 - 2
- 1 3
1 - 3
0 1 4
1 0 4
1 1 5
Factors Considered Alternatives Score Strategy
10. Project Delivery and Contracting Strategy
Factor Preference Relative
# Selection Factor Action Statement (see table FO-1) Rank Score Weighting
1 Control cost growth
2 Ensure lowest cost 2 90 23%
3 Delay or minimize expenditure rate
4 Facilitate early cost estimates
5 Reduce risks or transfer risks to contractor(s)
6 Control time growth 1 100 25%
7 Ensure shortest schedule
8 Promote early procurement 3 70 18%
9 Ease change incorporation
10 Capitalize on expected low levels of changes
11 Protect confidentiality
12 Capitalize on familiar project conditions
13 Maximize Owner's controlling role 6 30 8%
14 Minimize Owner's controlling role
15 Maximize Owner's involvement
16 Minimize Owner's involvement
17 Capitalize on well defined scope 4 60 15%
18 Efficiently utilize poorly defined scope
19 Minimize number of contracted parties
20
Efficiently coordinate project complexity or innovation
5 50
13%
11. PDCS # Rating PDCS Designer Constructor CM (Agent) PM (Agent) Contractor Supplier
11 86.8 Turnkey
Competitive
Lump Sum
7 86.3 Design-Build or EPC
Competitive
Lump Sum
8 80.5 Multiple Design-Build or EPC
Competitive
Lump Sum
12 73.0 Fast Track Cost + Fee Cost + Fee
2 68.8
Traditional (DBB) with Early
Procurement
Cost + Fee
Competitive
Lump Sum
Competitive
Lump Sum
6 63.3 CM @ Risk Firm Price GMP
5 57.3
Traditional (DBB) with Early
Procurement and CM
Cost + Fee
Competitive
Lump Sum
Cost + Fee
Competitive
Lump Sum
1 40.8 Traditional Design-Bid-Build (DBB) Firm Price
Competitive
Lump Sum
9 32.8 Parallel Primes Cost + Fee
Competitive
Lump Sum
Competitive
Lump Sum
4 31.8
Traditional (DBB) with Construction
Manager
Negotiated
Lump Sum
Competitive
Lump Sum
Negotiated
Lump Sum
3 32.3
Traditional (DBB) with Project
Manager
Firm Price
Negotiated
Lump Sum
Negotiated
Lump Sum
10 21.5
Traditional (DBB) with Staged
Development
Competitive
Lump Sum
Competitive
Lump Sum
Cost + Fee
Competitive
Lump Sum
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
11 7 8 12 2 6 5 1 9 4 3 10
PDCS Rating PDCS Option
11 7 8
Ensure lowest cost Cost 80 80 80
Control time growth Schedule 100 90 80
Promote early procurement Schedule 100 100 100
Maximize Owner's controlling role Other 0 10 20
Capitalize on well defined scope Other 100 100 90
Efficiently coordinate project complexity or innovation Other 90 100 80
Rating: 87 86 81
PDCS Result
12. Risk Register
Type of Risk Risk Description Oc. Sr. Dr. Score Level Responsible Party Risk Mitigating Action
Permit Approval
As it is a Chemical
based manufacturing
facility Getting permits
from the government. 6 6 5 180 Owner Moderate
Frequent followups and
if possible hiring a 3rd
party firm to complete
the process
Product Risk
As FOCUS XP is a new
product there is always
a Risk for the success in
the market 3 7 3 63 Owner Low
By performimng more
tests on the accurate
yield of the product we
can achieve this risk
Chemical Plant
Many hazardious waste
will be exposed from the
facility while
manufacturing this 6 9 4 216 Owner High
Various aspects should
be considered
environmentally before
manufacturing the
Contract is unclear
As of now the contract
we have selevcted is
unclear in terms of
agreement. There is 3 6 3 54 Contractor Low
Proper agreements
should be done by the
owner and contractor to
maintain the project
Proper coordination
Lack of communication
between the teams 6 6 5 180 Owner/Contractor Moderate
good coordination and
planning should be
maintained between the
teams.
14. Project Cost
LABOR MATERIAL TOTAL COST
$ Million $ Million $ Million
Process Units 5.6 28.9 34.6
Infrastructure 6.4 10.4 16.9
Buildings 1.6 2.4 4.0
Total Direct Field Cost 13.7 41.8 55.5
Indirect Field Cost 14.5
Engineering/Design/Management Costs 30.0
Other Costs 15.0
Contingency 19.3
Total Project Cost 134.2
CATEGORY
16. Project Definition Rating Index
Score
Max
Score
Section 1 - Basis Of Project Decision 205 499
Section 2 - Basis Of Design 248 423
Section 3 - Execution Approach 55 78
508 1000
PDRI TOTAL SCORE
(Maximum Score = 1000)
Overall
TOTAL
Normalized Score
50.80%
508
Score
Max
Score
1. B1. Products 33 56
2. B5. Capacities 21 55
3. C1. Technology 21 54
4. C2. Processes 8 40
5. D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required 14 29
6. B2. Market strategy 5 26
7. D1. Project Objectives Statement 18 25
8. B3. Project Strategy 9 23
9. D2. Project Design Criteria 6 22
10. A1. Reliability Philosophy 14 20
149 350
PDRI BUSINESS SCORE
Top Ten - Business
TOTAL
42.57%
Score
Max
Score
1. G1. Process Flow Sheets 26 36
2. F1. Site Location 32 32
3. G3. P & ID's 8 31
4. G2. Heat & Material Balances 10 23
5. F3. Environmental Assessment 15 21
6. F5. Utility sources With Supply Conditions 8 18
7. G9. Mechanical Equipment List 18 18
8. G6. Specifications - Process / Mechanical 12 17
9. G8. Plot Plan 17 17
10. H1. Equipment Status 12 16
158 229
PDRI TECHNICAL SCORE
TOTAL
69.00%
Top Ten - Technical
17. Recommendation & Conclusion
• Based on several objectives that we expect our site to follow- Minimizing
the construction time, minimizing environmental risks, easy access to the
market etc., Texas was observed to be a more feasible option as compared
to California. So, we recommend Texas to be the desired site.
• From the Risk Analysis and on the basis of the time period for the
completion of the project, APEX technology has proven to be a more
suitable option than the Inhouse Technology, as it is an old one and
successful in the market. Based on these observations, we recommend
APEX Technology.
• From the PDCS Rating generated by Compensation approach according to
CII Tool it is shown clearly that we got two Delivery methods almost with the
same Rating of 86.8 and 86.3 “Turnkey” and “Design Build or EPC”
respectively.
