W6_Hamed_A Study to Determine Feasible Options for Conducting Site Inspections
Problem Statement:
The
Project Implementation Department is conducting monthly site visits to monitor
projects that are being constructed. Because OPWP is only the buyer of
utilities (power and water) and these projects are being financed fully from
the private sector, it is a great challenge to monitor the physical progress of
the projects to ensure safety and reliability. More frequent and surprised
inspections tend to reveal the real status of the project. Because the
inspection activities are independent of the owner’s scope, this blog examines the
possible ways of monitoring the construction activities by the client.
Feasible Alternative:
The
following feasible options can be utilized in monitoring current and future
construction activities by OPWP:
1) Having permanent presence
on site by a full-time engineer from the team.
2) Having Weekly site
visits.
3) Having monthly site
visits (This option is currently being used).
4) Hiring a consultant to be
permanently present on site.
Outcomes of the Alternatives:
The
feasible alternatives will be compared between each other based on a few attributes.
It is important to note that cost is a big factor as the more frequent site visits,
the higher the cost. This blog aims to optimize between benefits of having
frequent of more site visits against the costs associated with doing so.
Acceptance Criteria:
The
acceptance criteria between the alternatives are as following:
Table 1: Selection criteria of the
feasible options of monitoring construction projects
- Cost: How much it costs to send a representative to the site (weekly,
monthly, permanent)
- Quality of Work: The quality of information being collected every time interval (Reports,
observations, meetings …etc)
- Availability of the engineer for office-related tasks: Balancing
between site visits and office work.
- Travel Frequency: Frequency of traveling between office and site
Acceptance Criteria against
the Feasible Alternatives
The
feasible alternatives will be compared against each acceptance criteria as
following:
Attribute /Alternatives
|
Full-time Engineer (A)
|
Weekly Visits (B)
|
Monthly Visits ( C )
|
Permanent Consultant (D)
|
Cost
|
(RO 500/month) Medium
|
Low ( RO 300/month )
|
Low Low ( RO 100/month)
|
High ( RO 2000/month)
|
Quality
|
High
|
Medium
|
Low
|
High
|
Availability
at Office
|
Low Low
|
Medium
|
High
|
High
|
Travel
Frequency
|
Low
|
High
|
Low
|
Low
|
Non-compensatory model: Lexicography
Approach.
Using the Lexicography Approach in
evaluating different alternatives and based on the ordinal ranking of the
attributes, the following conclusion can be achieved:
Attribute
|
Rank
|
Relative Ranking of Alternatives (from the best option )
|
Cost
|
3
|
C > B > A > D
|
Quality
|
4
|
A= D > B > C
|
Availability at Office
|
2
|
C = D > B > A
|
Travel Frequency
|
1
|
A = C = D > B
|
From the above, it’s concluded that, based on Lexicography Approach, bidder A and C captured most
of the attributes/ criteria of the evaluation. But this approach does not tell
how much these two options are better than the others.
Compensatory
approach: Additive Weighting Technique. ( with ranks from 1 (Low) to 3 (High))
Attributes
|
Relative Rank
|
Normalized Weight
(X)
|
Option A
(X*A)
|
Option B (X*B)
|
Option C (X*C)
|
Option D (X*D)
|
||||
Quality
|
4
|
0.4
|
3
|
1.2
|
2
|
0.8
|
1
|
0.4
|
3
|
1.3
|
Cost
|
3
|
0.3
|
3
|
0.9
|
3
|
0.9
|
3
|
0.9
|
1
|
0.3
|
Availability
at Office
|
2
|
0.2
|
2
|
0.4
|
1
|
0.2
|
3
|
0.6
|
3
|
0.6
|
Travel
Frequency
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
1
|
0.1
|
3
|
0.3
|
3
|
0.3
|
Sum
|
10
|
2.6
|
2
|
2.2
|
2.5
|
Benefit to Cost analysis:
Option
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
Cost
|
RO 500/month
|
RO 300/month
|
RO 200/month
|
RO 2000/month
|
Score
|
2.6
|
2
|
2.2
|
2.5
|
Benefit to Cost Ratio
|
2.6/0.5 = 5.2
|
2/0.3 = 6.6
|
2.2/0.2 = 11
|
2.5/2 = 1.25
|
Comparing
the Outcomes and Selection of the Best Alternatives
The additive
weighting technique from the compensatory approach tells us how much each
option is differing from the other by providing quantitative comparison. We can
see that there is no a big difference between option B and C (2.2 vs. 2.2)
which they suggest to either have a weekly or a monthly site visit (in this
case, the more visits, the higher the quality of information higher costs). While
options A and D scores higher (2.6 vs 2.5), which they suggest having a
permanent presence on site. In this case stud, option A seems to be the best in
terms of score. However, option C has the highest value for money ratio but to
ensure high quality is being preserved, the best option will be B since it has
the second highest value for money ration.
How to utilize the
best approach in the procurement process
Depending on the assigned project
and budget and to ensure that the best option is being selected, the Project Implementation
Department may have to adopt the compensatory approach when evaluating the
different options to get quantitative measures of how each option is differing
from another.
Based on the above analysis, is
concluded that having weekly site visits does not only ensure high quality of
work being presented to the management, but also represent a good investment.
Reference:
1) Guild of Project Controls Compendium and Reference (CaR).
(2015). Retrieved fromhttp://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective
2) Construction
Site Inspection. (June 2017). Design Building Wiki. Retrieved from
3) The 10 Pros and Cons of Construction Site Inspections. (August
2017). GenieBelt. Retrieved from
` https://geniebelt.com/blog/10-pros-and-cons-construction-site-inspections
Great case study and analysis, Hamed!!! Cannot see anything you've missed here.....
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work!!!
BR,
Dr. PDG, Jakarta