certified directory search <\/a>on the CWB website. The directory lists all companies that are certified by the CWB to CSA W47.1 and other CSA standards, worldwide.
<\/p>\n\n\n\nRemember, the purpose of SQS is a risk management function, not a quality management function<\/strong>. This meant that the SQS could be performed using different strategies \u2013 not that intensive and invasive inspections should be required.
<\/p>\n\n\n\nSome would argue that intensive and invasive inspections should be required in this case, and that documentation requirements should be entirely revamped. For example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Additional QVPs are applied, and all materials and welding processes are inspected throughout production on a regular basis (e.g., bi-weekly or daily); and,<\/li>
- All documents produced and used during production are submitted for engineering review and approval (e.g., coating procedures and reports, MTRs, NDE and welding procedures, and personnel certifications).<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Increased inspection and documentation requirements could require a CO if demanded by the supplier, which would delay the schedule and increase cost. The sub supplier would likely require a larger budget and more time to comply with the additional requirements. On the surface, this appears to be a minor nuisance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Beware! This could be the first of many dominos to fall; what could follow is a costly high risk domino effect. Documentation revision requirements would include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The RE<\/strong> would need to:
<\/p>\n\n\n\na. Prepare and issue a revised MR for the SOS to include additional documentation and QVPs, and to change the QS level; and,
b. Acquire approval for expenses associated with additional person-hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The buyer<\/strong> would need to:<\/p>\n\n\n\na. Negotiate the new SOS and its budget, and obtain approval for the cost;
b. Issue a CO; and,
c. Acquire approval for expenses associated with additional person-hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The sub-supplier <\/strong>would need to submit the additional documentation for review and approval;<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe project team<\/strong> would need to:<\/p>\n\n\n\na. Review and approve the additional documentation;
b. Document review is often an iterative process, requiring more than one review cycle to address all review comments; and,
c. Acquire approval for expenses associated with additional person-hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The SQS coordinator<\/strong> would need to:<\/p>\n\n\n\na. Collaborate with the RE to revise the SQS plan\u2019s inspection requirements and QVPs;
b. Update the inspection assignment, supervise additional inspection activities, and issue more inspection reporting (e.g., bi-weekly or daily);
c. Prepare a revised budget for inspection and obtain approval for the cost; and,
d. Acquire approval for expenses associated with additional person-hours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The inspector <\/strong>would need to:<\/p>\n\n\n\na. Make additional visits to perform the required inspections, including the original and new QVPs; and,
b. Submit additional reporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to extra expenses, each work process would require additional time. Approval for schedule delays may also be required, which could also affect construction costs and schedules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The above does not include anything unforeseen. As you can see, this is much more than a nuisance or inconvenience. Instead, this aptly demonstrates the iron law of (mega)projects: over budget, over schedule, over and over again<\/em>.[1] If these details are managed poorly, this could result in disaster for the project and have deleterious, far-reaching, serious consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n6.2 Preparing an Inspection Cost Estimate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Projects often estimate that the cost of inspection will be 2% of the total material and equipment cost. The actual percentage varies widely depending upon many factors, including the product\u2019s cost and criticality, and the project\u2019s location, type, and supply chain. Some products require no inspection and others require continuous inspection. Generally, actual inspection cost is up to 5% of equipment and material cost.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, a 2% budget to inspect a CAD$ 200,000 product equates to CAD$ 4,000 or about 40 hours. This estimate uses an inspection rate of CAD$ 100\/h. This rate accommodates various types of inspection services and includes a contingency for currency exchange, transportation, and increased inspection (i.e., the result of an action item such as problematic or systemic defects or deficiencies) or unplanned expenses (e.g., accommodations, meals, or toll fees). The actual inspection service rate may be about CAD$ 60 to CAD$ 95. When SQS plans are prepared, many factors may be unknown (e.g., the exact amount and type of inspection needed, and where it is required if the supplier (or sub-supplier) is not yet known. Hence, SQS plans may need to be changed to accommodate new risk before and after PO award, as described in this case study.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Adjusting an inspection cost estimate is easy because the SQS budget will include contingency funds. And there are always occasions when more inspection is needed for something<\/em> but less is needed for something else<\/em>. Projects, however, like any business, do not have unlimited funds. The answer to every problem cannot be spend more money<\/em>. Inevitably, when more resources are required somewhere<\/em>, less resources are available somewhere else<\/em>. At some point, compromise must be made. In this way, estimating the cost of inspection is like purchasing insurance: both offer protection against risk. So, how much is just right, not enough, or too much? That ultimately depends on who will pay for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n6.3 A New Risk Assessment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Because of the new risk with an overseas sub-suppler, a new risk assessment was required to prepare a revised SQS Plan. The SQS coordinator did not engage the project team to review the risk matrix again. Rather, best practices and experience were used to identify suitable QVPs and SQS strategies to mitigate the new risk using in process and final inspections. This would allow for timely notification of any action item with increased risk and provide an opportunity to further increase inspection, only if appropriate <\/em>and necessary<\/em>.
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe sub-supplier was certified by the CWB per CSA W47.1. Thus, the project should not duplicate or usurp the CWB\u2019s resources to inspect all operations or review all documentation.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, an engineering review of the welder\u2019s qualifications (there may be dozens, of which only a few may produce work for the project) would not be better than a review by the inspector. As another example, engineering review all coating, NDE, and welding procedures, which are already CWB certified, would not prevent an incorrect procedure from being used. These examples would increase the cost and schedule but would also add little value and fail to reduce the risk that materials may be produced incomplete, incorrect, or late.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The sub-supplier employs QC procedures and welding inspectors as part of their CWB-certified program. CSA W59 requires a final examination of all welds by the fabricator. Thus, the project should not duplicate or usurp these resources to inspect all production and work processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, should continuous daily inspection<\/em> be required to examine every consumable, electrode, joint, and weld before, during, and after production? This could reduce the risk that materials may be produced incomplete, incorrect, or late, but would also significantly increase the cost. This needs further explanation because of how inspection would need to be performed and to counter the argument that the solution is use hundreds of hours to perform additional inspection (i.e., spend more money).
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe inspector lived in the sub-supplier\u2019s local area, but 100 km away. This is a reasonable arrangement if there is no qualified inspector available who lives nearby. This assignment would require a 200 km return trip in a third world country that could not be accomplished by driving 100 kph on a highway. Hence, three hours was budgeted for daily travel time; however, the actual time required could be even greater.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to travel time, the inspector would require 8 h\/d for inspection at the facility and 1 h\/d for reporting: a total of 12 h\/d. If production occurs 5 days per week over 12 weeks, the inspector would need 720 hours (a 3,600% increase). At CAD$ 100\/h that represents CAD$ 72,000. What responsible project could ever increase its budget by that amount?
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Alternatively, could progressive periodic inspection be employed such as bi-weekly (i.e., 2 days per week)? Then the inspector would only need 288 hours (a 1,440% increase). At CAD$ 100\/h, that represents CAD$ 28,800. This was still too much for the project to pay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Continuous or progressive inspection was clearly cost-prohibitive and unreasonable. A compromise was clearly required to prepare a practical and realistic SQS plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
6.4 The New SQS Plan<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The objectives of the new SQS plan were to avoid a CO and use the originally-approved QVPs to manage inspection costs, while also mitigating risk. If needed, due to action items and increased risk, the SQS plan could be re evaluated to add more QVPs, increase the duration and frequency of inspection visits, or a combination.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Because project personnel so often misunderstand the purpose of SQS, it is worth restating its purpose here again. SQS provides a risk management function<\/em><\/strong>, to ensure that equipment and materials are developed complete, correct, and on time. It does not provide a quality management function<\/em><\/strong>, to duplicate or usurp CWB certifications or sub-supplier QC procedures and work processes.
<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe SQS coordinator previously established that the sub-supplier was CWB-certified and should be competent to produce the transmission structures. The sub-supplier had agreed to the QVP for the trial fit-ups to be witnessed and that two QVPs be employed for final inspection. These activities were then included in their ITP. This is discussed further at the end of this section.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The SQS coordinator included these detailed directions and resources in the inspector\u2019s assignment instructions (to which the supplier and sub-supplier are not privy):<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- The inspection hours were moderately increased from 20 to 60 hours, to accommodate additional inspection visits with extra contingency (a 300% increase). That represents a cost of CAD$ 6,000, which was an appropriate amount.<\/li>
- The inspector was directed to:
- Carefully examine all materials and workmanship, and thoroughly review production documentation, while at the sub-supplier\u2019s facility to witness trial fit ups. These four in process inspections would occur early in the production schedule, so the identification of any action item would provide timely notification of the need for corrective action, well before final inspection;<\/li>
- Provide many photographs in the inspection reports. This would assure the project team that the materials and workmanship were being produced with acceptable results. This would also document the transmission structure\u2019s condition at the sub-supplier\u2019s facility prior to shipment and provide a graphic resource in case any damage occurred during trans-shipment from the C cans to flat decks or unloading at site; and,<\/li>
- Contact the SQS coordinator immediately in case of any action items. While this is common inspection practice, the importance of this requirement was highlighted. Inspectors in other countries are often, but not always, proficient with English as a second language. If they are not, another person will need to translate the instructions into their language and their reports into English, which could make communications less effective. <\/li><\/ul><\/li>
- The inspector was provided with detailed information about the codes of construction (international personnel are often less familiar with Canadian codes of construction than those of the United States) including:
- Excerpt of CSA W59 with welding acceptance-rejection criterion;<\/li>
- Similarities and differences between CSA W47.1 and W59, and AWS D1.1; and,<\/li>
- Similarities and differences between CSA G164 and ASTM A123. <\/li><\/ul><\/li>
- The original QVP for a final inspection was to be conducted after all production activities (i.e., welding and coating) were completed, but before packaging for shipment. Everybody, including constructors, suppliers, owners, and projects, want to avoid rework if possible. It impacts the bottom line (i.e., reduces profit) and inevitably leads to overruns in the budget, schedule, or both. Hence, the SQS coordinator approached the sub-supplier with a win-win final inspection strategy that would not affect their schedule or increase their cost. The identification of any welding defects before shipment, but after galvanizing, would require welding and coating repairs. To avoid unnecessary coating repair work, the final inspection was requested be completed in two phases. First, as a final inspection after the completion of welding (in addition to the in-process inspection that would occur during the trial fit ups). Second, as a final-final inspection after galvanizing. This strategy would provide four QVPs with in-process inspection during production and two QVPs for final inspections both before and after galvanizing. This strategy was suitable for all parties. It was key to managing the increased risk and avoiding significant, unnecessary costs.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n
7 Conclusion: It\u2019s a Technical Knockout<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The SQS coordinator\u2019s efforts resulted in the successful supply of the transmission structures to the project \u2013 a technical knockout:<\/p>\n\n\n\n