Bidding a Nuclear Project 1

[Sparkette]

Help me to understand what is common practice when bidding a nuclear project.

a. I work at a construction contractor that has been in the nuclear business for at least 50 years.

b. We are in the process of bidding a contract.

c. About a week ago it was made clear that the contract is for the purpose of our client obtaining licensing from the NRC. Up until now we had believed that the documentation we were to present was only for the purpose of bidding the contract, not licensing. For those who may not know, licensing documents must be 'near perfect'.

d. Now, we are all working overtime to ensure that our documents meet the client's requirements.

My question is this: Is it common practice for a client to use the initially presented (that is, before the detail design phase) documentation for the purpose of licensing with the NRC when the contract is for a nuclear facility of any kind?

When I have worked at other companies doing 'regular 'ol' construction the initial documentation was for bidding only and was somewhat less than perfect as it did not need to be perfect.

I am somewhat of a novice when it comes to understanding contracts so help me out a little.

Thanks, all!!

 

[jjf1]

Hello Sparkette,

I have never worked on a nuclear project (I assume this is a power project?), but have worked on a number of large projects (including power)

What I have seen, for a high risk project, is the owner likes to get as many participants into bed with them. There are a number of reasons for this:

Easier to finance - the finacial community likes to see a group of participants (especially if they are well known in the industry) as it tends to lend more credibilty to the project (this occasionally backfires - example ENRON)

Better access to techincal expertise - the owner may not have the in-house capability to develop/finance/design/build the project, thats' where you come in.

Power Plant permitting is a very complicated process (I can only imagine nuclear!) the early effort must be as near to the final design as possible or major problems will occur. Imagine the lawsuits if the project fails to meet the power/emmisions/schedule/availability guarenties that were promised!

Good Luck! (I've got to assume you are trying to permit in the US, if so, I know a lot of power guys are waiting to see if it goes through!)

jjf1

 

[Sparkette]

Thanks, jjf1. Your answer provides me with some insight into contract negotiation that I did not know before. Always stuff that is good to know.

I would like an answer specific to the nuclear industry, as in what is directed (dictated) by the NRC. Does the NRC expect to view licensing documents the first time (as in, when the initial submittal is made by the company seeking to have the facility built)or do they allow for typical bid documents (less-than-perfect) to be submitted for review only (no licensing) and, at a later time, have the owner/operator submit for licensing? What is the NRC's common practice?

As always, thanks,all!
Sparkette

 

[RDK]

It’s very common for a client, even knowledgeable ones, to start out at a basic level of work and then change their minds into having a final or higher stage of work done.

They appear to think that they can get a better price or at least not pay any extra by asking for a low level work and then changing to a higher level work midstream.

For example I was once contracted to provide an opinion on how drainage would work for a residential development. This was necessary to determine if the downstream capacity was sufficient to allow the development to go ahead without changing the downstream structures to allow the drainage.

I recommended that I do a more detailed field survey so that I would not have to go back and redo the survey for final design. The cost difference was about $1,000 for the more detailed survey. The client decided and when the project did proceed to final design did not want to pay for a full re-survey of the area to allow for detailed design. Then all he was willing to pay was the difference.

It tool a lot of explaining to convince him that the initial rough survey was wasted since it did not have sufficient detail for the final design and the complete survey would have to be redone. Luckily I had sent an email advising the client that I recommended a full survey first and that I had told him that if the project went ahead then the survey would have to be redone with more detail.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com