[PDF]Revised Opinion Memo - Rackcdn.comb1ca250e5ed661ccf2f1-da4c182123f5956a3d22aa43eb816232.r10.cf1.rackcdn.com...
18 downloads
149 Views
612KB Size
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
Revised Opinion Memo
From: To: Date: Re:
Kenji Hoshino, Principal, Project Controls & Forensics, LLC Adam Schiffer, Esq., Schiffer Odem Hicks & Johnson July 5, 2010 AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Rebuttal to Opposing Expert Report of Findings Dated 2/19/10 and, Opposing Expert Supplemental Report and Response dated 5/21/10
1. Introduction
a. Qualifications (See CV Attached as Exhibit A) i. Education 1. B.A. Architecture – U.C. Berkeley 2. M.S. Construction Engineering & Management – U.C. Berkeley 3. J.D. Law – U.C. Berkeley ii. Professional experience: 1. 30 years in project controls and forensic schedule analysis 2. 28 years in private practice 3. First expert testimony in 1982 iii. Professional Certifications 1. Planning & Scheduling Professional (PSP) 2. Certified Forensic Claim Consultant (CFCC) iv. Publication – Recommended Practice for Forensic Schedule Analysis (29R‐03 AACEi, June 2007 & July 2009) v. Selected recent, similar project experience: 1. In Re Superior Offshore International, Inc. Securities Litigation (2010) a. United States District Court Southern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 08‐CV‐00687 b. Evaluation, on behalf of “Plaintiff”‐shareholders, of the practices of “Defendant”, Superior Offshore Inc’s diving support vessel operations and maintenance practices in the Gulf of Mexico in relation to a class‐action suit by the shareholders of the company against its former officers and directors. c. Case is open and analysis is unsubmitted and in progress. 2. Conar Construcciones vs. Conoco‐Phillips Venezuela (2009) a. Centro Empresarial de Conciliacion y Arbitracion ‐ Case 030‐08 b. Defensive analysis on behalf of respondent‐Owner, a claim by the offshore installation contractor of claims of excusable and
DRAFT
1
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
compensable delay during fit‐up and mobilization of an installation vessel for the hook‐up of an FSO in Venezuelan waters. c. Case has been presented in ICC arbitration and analysis is complete and testified. 3. Combisa vs. Pemex Exploracion y Produccion (2006) a. International Chamber of Commerce CASE # 13683 b. Analysis on behalf of claimant‐contractor, prolongation of offshore construction of a production platform and associated costs, including the extended offshore rental of an accommodation vessel, against the respondent‐owner, Pemex. c. Case has been presented in ICC arbitration and analysis is complete and testified. b. Scope of Opinion: Evaluation of the technical merits of Opposing Expert’s Report of Findings, dated 2/19/10 and Supplemental Report and Response dated 5/21/10 in support of “PLAINTIFF’s” Change Order Request #03 Rev 1. c. Foundation i. Primary Sources 1. Opposing Expert Report dated February 19, 2010 2. Opposing Expert supplemental Report & Response dated May 21, 2010 3. Change Order Request #03 and #03r 4. Daily Progress Reports 12/1/08 – 3/8/09 5. Project correspondence 6. Contract 7. Commitment schedules (see table below)
DRAFT
MPP File (VesselSched)
Printed
Bates
082908a
29‐Aug‐08
AMC 029659
092608a
26‐Sep‐08
AMC 006678
rev 081027
29‐Oct‐08
AMC006687‐91
103108a
31‐Oct‐08
AMC003721
110708a
07‐Nov‐08
AMC003737
111408a
14‐Nov‐08
AMC 006680
112108a
21‐Nov‐08
AMC003729
120508a
05‐Dec‐08
AMC003725
121208a
12‐Dec‐08
AMC 028741
121908a
19‐Dec‐08
AMC003731
122908a
30‐Dec‐08
AMC 028742
010509a
05‐Jan‐09
AMC 028738
011609a
16‐Jan‐09
AMC 028739
032009a
20‐Mar‐09
AMC 028740
040309a
03‐Apr‐09
AMC 028737
2
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
ii. Background sources 1. Other Change Order Requests 2. Boa Sub C Ship’s Midnight Reports 3. ‘T‐Hawk Switch’ schedule of April 1, 2009 (“PLAINTIFF” 003741‐42) 4. “PLAINTIFF” Monthly Reports 5. Enbridge Project Documents 6. Deposition transcripts of: a. Clay Thompson b. Tony Quinn c. Chris Adams d. Sturla Magnus e. Helge Roraas f. Stephen Reid g. Michael Doecke h. John Lott 7. Interview with Bruce Malcolm iii. Missing information that should have been supplied by “PLAINTIFF” 1. Tracking spreadsheets by Amanda Guo and here successors 2. Timecards of individuals whose charges appear in the claim
DRAFT
3
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
2. Claim for BOA Sub‐C Under‐Utilization (Ref. Opposing Expert Original pages 22‐27)
a. Causation i. Opposing Expert’s Allegation 1. The change to the Start Date and the abandonment of the process hindered “PLAINTIFF”’s operations. ii. PCF Responses 1. For purposes of this analysis I assumed that change in Start Date and the abandonment of the process did cause “PLAINTIFF”’s vessel scheduling to become disrupted. 2. Our scope of analysis concentrated on answering the question, “Given this assumption, to what extent was “PLAINTIFF” damaged as a direct and exclusive result.
b. Impacts i. Opposing Expert’s Allegations 1. The resulting change and uncertainty caused by “DEFENDANT” required “PLAINTIFF” to commit personnel and reschedule equipment activities during this time period. 2. The resulting change and uncertainty caused by “DEFENDANT” affected the Thunder Hawk project schedule 3. The resulting change and uncertainty caused by “DEFENDANT” impacted “PLAINTIFF”’s Gulf of Mexico operation 4. Changing the schedule of a vessel like BSC typically causes a standby situation in the near term program and 5. Changing the schedule of a vessel like BSC typically causes conflicts with other projects and clients later in the overall vessel program schedule. 6. Changing the schedule also hindered BSC’s timely return to the North Sea and the installation program there ii. PCF’s Responses 1. There is no evidence submitted or any analysis by Opposing Expert quantifying the commitment or personnel and the rescheduling of equipment as a direct result of the ‘change and uncertainty’. 2. It is conceded that the change affected the ‘Thunder Hawk project schedule’. However the question is did that cause “PLAINTIFF” to incur additional uncompensated costs? 3. The fact that these changes typically cause impacts is not enough evidence to entitle “PLAINTIFF” to recovery of damages. Since
DRAFT
4
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
4.
5.
6.
7.
“PLAINTIFF” has access to adequate data they must perform a specific impact analysis. “PLAINTIFF”’s early commitment schedule (Exhibit B) shows that as of August 29, 2008, “PLAINTIFF” had 122 days of ‘slack time’ or uncommitted days during the period from October 31, 2008 through March 31, 2009 which encompassed the performance of Thuderhawk Phase 2 from November 23, 2008 through December 23, 2008. a. Opposing Expert’s protest that the commitment schedules are not contractual is true, but misses the point of their relevance. b. I am using the commitment schedules, not to show what “PLAINTIFF” was obligated to perform, but to show they expectations and state of mind regarding the utilization of BSC. c. Because the claim is for the alleged damages caused by the issues in dispute, one must examine some evidence on what the expectations were prior to the causal events. The commitment schedules are the evidence one must examine for this purpose. An as‐built schedule (Exhibit C) that I prepared from the BSC Daily Progress Reports supplemented by deposition testimony of Stephen Reid shown that the actual count of ‘slack days’ was 33 days. a. Thus it is apparent that the overall Gulf operation, as to BSC, was not adversely impacted. There is no evidence presented that the changes caused a conflict with other projects and clients later in the overall vessel program schedule. My examination of the commitment schedules show that there were no impacts to downstream commitments. (Exhibits D.1 & D.) a. The commitment schedules supplied by “PLAINTIFF” show that the Gjoa project in the North Sea was the only trailing commitment for BSC after Thunder Hawk The fact that BSC’s work on Thunder Hawk overran their targeted departure to the North Sea on April 1, is attributed to: a. “PLAINTIFF”’s unilateral delay in booking the tug for the sail away from February 28, 2009 to March 5, 2009, and b. “PLAINTIFF”’s own performance that led to the extended duration of BSC’s work from a planned duration of 31 calendar days to an actual duration of 42 calendar days through April 19.
c. Mitigation of Damages i. Opposing Expert’s Allegations 1. The official notice on 11/7/08 was approximately one month from the “PLAINTIFF” nominated Start Date.
DRAFT
5
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
a. This afforded little time for “PLAINTIFF” to find alternative near term work for the BSC and resulted in stand‐by of the vessel during several periods of time while “DEFENDANT” tried to fix a new Start Date. 2. In a worst case, this change was a 96‐day shift in the scheduled Start Date (December 2, 2008 – March 8, 2009). Had the offshore vessels been standing by for the 96‐day period at the Annex 2 all‐inclusive rate of $348,721 per day, the cost would be $33,477,216. 3. However, “PLAINTIFF” was able to reschedule some projects such as the Enbridge Project and mitigated over half of the potential exposure to BSC standby costs by keeping the BSC over 50% utilized. ii. PCF Responses 1. The mitigation effort was unlikely solely attributable to “PLAINTIFF”’s conscious efforts specifically caused by the alleged “DEFENDANT”‐ delays but more likely primarily an on‐going effort to maximize the utilization of an expensive asset in the ordinary course of business. 2. As stated above, a comparison of “PLAINTIFF”’s expectations to actual performance indicates that “PLAINTIFF” was not adversely impacted. The August 29, 2008 commitment schedule shows 122 days of slack time during the performance window shown in the schedule. As‐built, the slack has been reduced to only 33 days for the analogous period. 3. Helge Roraas testified (deposition transcript pages 36, line 23) that 80% utilization rate was a reasonable expectation. 4. The as‐built utilization factor was 85% (based on 213 minus 33 = 180 divided by 213), thus exceeding the reasonable expectation of “PLAINTIFF” for vessel utilization. As-Built
As-Planned (8/29/08)
Free Slack Start
End
Duration
Start
End
Duration
1
22-Dec-08
06-Jan-09
16 cd
n/a
n/a
0 cd
2
23-Jan-09
27-Jan-09
5 cd
30-Oct-08
22-Nov-08
24 cd
3
22-Feb-09
05-Mar-09
12 cd
24-Dec-08
31-Mar-09
98 cd
Total Period
33 cd 19-Sep-08
19-Apr-09
122 cd
213 cd
85%
U.F.
Table 1
d. Damages i. Opposing Expert’s Allegations DRAFT
6
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 7.
Analysis of the total days of extension attributed to “DEFENDANT”’s changes after “PLAINTIFF” mitigation is 37.7 days based on Opposing Expert’s old report dated 2/19/10 and 35.86 days based on their supplemental report dated 5/21/10, per examination of BSC’s Daily Project Report. The Contract Rate for standby is $306,700 per day based on the Annex 2 Rates based on Opposing Expert’s old report. Synergy has now revised this by the 5/21/10 supplement to $348,721 In the old report Opposing Expert claims that: a. “PLAINTIFF” was able to mitigate or avoid all charges for the mooring transport vessel and thus it is deducted from the rate. b. Additionally, there is also a credit for fuel consumption based upon actual fuel usage. However, in the 5/21/10 supplement, Opposing Expert maintains that the proper rate is the $348,721 amount that includes a “full spread” including offshore fuel consumption. The claimed cost in the old report is for 37.717 days of standby times $306,700, or $11,567,829 based on Opposing Expert’s interpretation of the rates set forth in Annex 2. The 5/21/10 supplement now calculates the claimed coast at 35.86 days of standby times $348,721 or $12,505,135. In addition, Opposing Expert, on behalf of “PLAINTIFF”, now claims the differential in rental rates between those charged to its three customers during the alleged ‘stand‐by window’ and the $348,721 fully‐loaded rate. a. This results in an additional claim of $5,175,106.
ii. PCF’s Responses 1. My Stand‐by analysis prepared from BSC’s Daily Progress Reports supplemented by other sources (Exhibit E) show that claimed Stand‐By Block #1, 12/22/08 thru 1/7/09 consisting of 15.24 claimed standby days, corresponds approximately with Free Slack Period #1 from 12/22/08 thru 1/6/09. a. Besides this period being too short to accommodate the performance of Thunder Hawk, estimated to take about 30 days by “PLAINTIFF” at that time, it is a hiatus between BOA SubC's performance of jumper installation for Enbridge. Thus the start and the end of the slack period are hemmed in by commitments to Enbridge. b. Stephen Reid, project manager for “PLAINTIFF” on the Enbridge project, testified (deposition transcript starting on page 20) that
DRAFT
7
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
the Enbridge project encountered problems during this period that necessitated BSC to demobilize temporarily from the offshore field until a solution for the problem was found. Opposing Expert’s representation that BSC could have gone back to finish the work at Enbridge whenever it wanted to is contradicted by the testimony of Stephen Reid (deposition transcript pages 23, 33 & 34). Stephen Reid testified (deposition transcript page 33 & 34) that new equipment that would remedy the problem at the Enbridge project was loaded onto BSC at this time on‐shore. This leads one to believe that the in‐port time was necessary for the completion of work for Enbridge. i. Also, during this time, the Daily Progress Reports represent that the crane wires went through maintenance. Stephen Reid testified (deposition transcript pages 23 through 26) that he was not aware why Enbridge was not charged for this work hiatus that was apparently caused by problems out of “PLAINTIFF”’s responsibility or control. i. It appears that “PLAINTIFF” voluntarily released Enbridge from responsibility for the stand‐by period. Given the above, I am not aware of ANY legitimate argument why “DEFENDANT” would be responsible to pay “PLAINTIFF” for ‘stand‐by’ during this period. When this period is removed from consideration as a ‘free slack’ for purposes of calculating the utilization factor for BSC, the calculation, as shown below, results in 92% utilization.
As-Built
As-Planned (8/29/08)
Free Slack Start
End
Duration
Start
End
Duration
1
n/a
n/a
0 cd
n/a
n/a
0 cd
2
23-Jan-09
27-Jan-09
5 cd
30-Oct-08
22-Nov-08
24 cd
3
22-Feb-09
05-Mar-09
12 cd
24-Dec-08
31-Mar-09
98 cd
Total Period
17 cd 19-Sep-08
19-Apr-09
122 cd
213 cd
92%
U.F.
Table 2
DRAFT
8
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
2. Examination of Daily Progress Reports provided by “PLAINTIFF” (see attached Exhibit B) show that Claimed Stand‐By Block #2, 1/18/09 thru 1/28/09 consisting of 9.11 claimed standby days, corresponds approximately with Free Slack Period #2 from 1/23/09 thru 1/27/09. a. This period is also too short to accommodate the performance of Thunder Hawk. b. Stephen Reid testified (deposition transcript pages 35 and 39) that “PLAINTIFF” was compensated for the period through January 22nd by CO #4 issued on the Enbridge project i. The DPRs of the first five days and the last day of this claim block are clearly annotated with performance of demobilization from other projects. c. Arguably, January 23rd thru 27th, a 5‐day period may be claimed as a stand‐by period for which no apparent work was done for other projects. d. However, in order to be entitled to payment for this period, “PLAINTIFF” would still have to show actual expenditure of additional uncompensated cost directly and solely attributable to “DEFENDANT”. In view of the fact that “PLAINTIFF” was not damaged in the overall entitlement for compensation for this period is, at best, very difficult. 3. Examination of Daily Progress Reports provided by “PLAINTIFF” (see attached Exhibit B) show that claimed Stand‐By Block #3, 2/21/09 thru 3/7/09 consisting of 11.51 claimed standby days1, corresponds approximately with Free Slack Period #3 from 2/22/09 thru 3/5/09. a. Most of the DPRs during this block are clearly annotated with performance of mobilization work for Thunder Hawk for which “PLAINTIFF” has already received contractual compensation. b. “PLAINTIFF”’s Commitment Schedule issued on March 20, 2009 shows in the as‐built portion of the chart that on March 6, 7 and 8 “PLAINTIFF” was installing aquatic reels necessary of the Thunderhawk campaign onto BSC. This would indicate that they were not ready to go offshore until after March 8, which would negate their entitlement to compensation based on the doctrine of concurrent delay. c. Arguably, February 22nd through 25th, a 4‐day period may be claimed as a stand‐by period for which no apparent work was done for other projects. Had “PLAINTIFF” installed the reels
1
Based on Opposing Expert’s Supplemental report it is unclear which hours of which days during this period constitute11.51 days. Exhibit B shows what my assumptions are for Opposing Expert’s quantification.
DRAFT
9
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
prior to February 22nd they may have received some consideration for compensation for stand‐by payments during this 4‐day period. d. Extrapolating from the actual time charged against Thunderhawk mobilization on their DPRs (8 days) “PLAINTIFF” should have started mobilization at the latest on February 21st if February 28th was the designated sail‐away date. e. In any case, in order to be entitled to payment for any period, “PLAINTIFF” would still have to show actual expenditure of additional uncompensated cost directly and solely attributable to “DEFENDANT”. In view of the fact that “PLAINTIFF” was not damaged in the overall entitlement for compensation for this period is, at best, very difficult. 4. Opposing Expert’s assertion that “PLAINTIFF” is entitled to be paid a differential in rates during the time it was on hire for other clients is patently ridiculous and does not merit serious rebuttal. a. Apparently Opposing Expert, on behalf of “PLAINTIFF”, has abandoned one nonsensical claim (Operational Flexibility) and added in its place a new claim equaling the former in lack of sound reasoning. 5. The stand‐by rate claimed, of $348,721 per day, is not consistent with the nature of dockside standby. a. The claimed daily rates are labeled “Stand‐by Rates – Mooring Line Installation” or “Stand‐by Rates – FPU Installation”. Neither one of these operations was on‐going during the claimed stand‐by periods and therefore did not involve the stand‐by of the auxiliary equipment constituting ‘the spread’. BSC was allegedly on stand‐by at dock. b. Even if they were off shore, the rates cannot be contractually applied until AFTER mobilization, which did not occur until early March. c. The most appropriate rate in the table is the one labeled, “Stand‐By Rates – Primary Vessel” at $146,667 per 24‐hour day. i. Opposing Expert claims that this is not a valid rate since it is labeled in the table as “For Reference Only”. But, then the question is for what referential purpose does the contract list the rate among the other stand‐by rates? I opine that the rate is a reference for use in situations where the other rates do not apply. ii. This claim is precisely such situation.
DRAFT
10
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
d. Even at this rate of $147,667, “PLAINTIFF” will be recovering significant additional monies over its cost between $70,000 and $80,000 per day rental that it pays to the owners of BSC (Roraas deposition transcript page. 6. When the $146,667 rate is applied to the 5 days of arguable stand‐by days, the total is $733,335. 7. Should “DEFENDANT” be successful in its claim for liquidated damages for delayed mobilization, the claimed amount of $500,000 should be deducted from the stand‐by total. a. The net total claim would be $233,335 as shown below:
Hoshino's Opinion of 'Best Case' for AMC 5.0 cd 146,667 733,335
BSC Stand-By
2/28/09-3/8/09 less 4 5 cd SBMA LD Claim Offset
100,000 500,000
Net Claim Value
233,335
Table 3
8. If the same calculation is performed using the average approximate cost of the vessel to “PLAINTIFF” ($75,000 per day) the net total claim would be negative $125,000, as shown below: Using Approximated Rental Cost 5.0 cd 75,000 375,000
BSC Stand-By
2/28/09-3/8/09 less 4 5 cd SBMA LD Claim Offset
100,000 500,000
Net Claim Value
-125,000
Table 4
DRAFT
11
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
3. Claim for Loss of Operational Flexibility (Ref. Opposing Expert page 27‐29)
DRAFT
a. Abandoned Claim i. Opposing Expert’s Allegation 1. In its old report, Opposing Expert stated that “With the contractual ability to make the last three call downs for the Start Date Window, “PLAINTIFF” is provided the scheduling flexibility to perform work for other clients and keep the BOA Sub C utilized until just prior to the Thunder Hawk Start Date.” 2. In its 5/21/10 supplement Opposing Expert withdrew this claim. ii. PCF Responses 1. Since the claim was withdrawn, a response is moot. However, my responses to this claim from my initial report are still valid, should “PLAINTIFF” decide to resurrect this claim. 2. As I stated in my initial report, this claim appears to be an attempt to cover up their potential exposure to “DEFENDANT”’s counterclaim for “PLAINTIFF”‐caused delayed mobilization as is often the case with a contractor’s nonsensical claims used as a diversionary tactic or a ‘throw‐ away’ offset against a more legitimate claim by the owner. a. The claimed time window for this claim includes the period 2/28/09 to 3/8/09 which is the same period claimed by “DEFENDANT” in its liquidated damages counterclaim 3. As I said earlier, apparently Opposing Expert, on behalf of “PLAINTIFF”, has abandoned this nonsensical claim and added in its place a new claim (Rate Differential Claim) equaling the former in lack of sound reasoning.
12
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
4. Claim for Added Project Mgmt & Engineering (Ref. Opposing Expert pages 19‐ 22) a. Causation i. Opposing Expert’s Allegation 1. “In addition to the 75‐day extension to the Project Team, “PLAINTIFF” expended additional time in November and December trying to resolve issues arising out of the change in Start Date. “DEFENDANT” did not hand‐over the FPU on February 28, 2009, but rather handed over the FPU on March 8, 2009, thus adding additional days to the actual schedule extension.” ii. PCF’s Response 1. This is a compensable delay claim that requires a showing of ‘but‐for’ in the form of absence of concurrent delay or cause that would prolong the involvement of these people. b. Impact i. Opposing Expert’s Allegation 1. 75‐day of extended “extra work” to the Project Team. 2. “PLAINTIFF” expended additional time in November and December trying to resolve issues arising out of the change in the Start Date. ii. PCF’s Response 1. There is no basis to Opposing Expert’s bald assertions that this Project Team was idly waiting for 75 days. 2. Although they allegedly performed re‐scheduling tasks, Opposing Expert doesn’t account for the fact that re‐scheduling was also necessary due to delays and sequence shifts by projects other than Thunder Hawk. a. This task, even under circumstances not involving any alleged delays by “DEFENDANT”, would be further complicated by the fact that the rescheduling effort involves another vessel‐asset, Boa Deep Sea, operating in the same Gulf of Mexico area. 3. If this is intended to recover the cost of the administrative and engineering personnel purely as a function of extended project duration, “PLAINTIFF” must show that these costs would have been incurred but for the alleged “DEFENDANT” delays. Opposing Expert had not done so.
DRAFT
13
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
c. Mitigation of Damages i. Opposing Expert’s Allegations 1. “It was not feasible for “PLAINTIFF” to temporarily reassign its personnel for a short period of time to another project than re‐mobilize them when the Start Date was finally determined by “DEFENDANT”. Therefore it is reasonable for “PLAINTIFF” to request payment in a Change Order Request for the cost of the Project Team due to the change by “DEFENDANT” of the Start Date and the resulting schedule extension.” ii. PCF’s Responses 1. Opposing Expert’s allegation that the staff could not be reassigned is inconsistent with their argument in the flexibility claim that a small window of time (14‐days) still gives “PLAINTIFF” the flexibility to gainfully reassign the vessel for other projects. 2. Opposing Expert now alleges that it could not mitigate because the Contract between “DEFENDANT” and “PLAINTIFF” prohibited the re‐ assignment of personnel to other projects. a. Assuming that to be the case, given competent notice and a request for temporary re‐assignment, I cannot think of a good reason why “DEFENDANT” would refuse to waive the alleged contractual restriction, given that it is a prudent mitigation measure. b. No such notice or request is on record. 3. Stating a slightly different argument, in answer to a deposition question, “You say you had to carry them. Weren't they also used on other projects in the Gulf of Mexico during the delay period?”, Chris Adams testified, “No. They could not be committed to other projects. They were the core team. The key personnel for the core team and if I would have committed them, we would, in essence, jeopardized our readiness.” a. Note that he did not testify that the Project Team was completely idled, awaiting mobilization of Phase 2. b. Note also that he did not testify to temporary re‐assignment. He only testified to “commitment to other projects”. c. Nor did he talk about re‐assignment to project outside of the Gulf of Mexico. d. Even if he had testified to the above, this would make sense only if the period of delayed mobilization completely unknown. But that is not the case. It is my opinion that “PLAINTIFF”
DRAFT
14
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
received adequate notice from “DEFENDANT” to temporarily re‐ assign its staff. d. Damages i. Opposing Expert’s Allegation 1. “An analysis of the labor hours and cost for the “PLAINTIFF” Project personnel from November 2008 (when “DEFENDANT” notified “PLAINTIFF” of the change to the Start Date) through February 2009 is provided in the following table. This breakdown indicates the percentage of time spent on lump sum work and the percentage of time spent on Change Order work during the extended Project schedule. “PLAINTIFF”’s hours and cost attributable to lump sum work are excluded from the quantified cost.” ii. PCF’s Responses 1. Because “PLAINTIFF” has not produced the timecards of charges made by the claimed individuals, a detailed evaluation of the legitimacy of the charges cannot be performed. Questions that remain unanswered include: a. Were they charged to the Thunder Hawk project? b. Were they charged to COR 03, some other CO or any CO? c. Doesn’t the mark‐up on the COR cover these claimed administrative expenses? d. What was specifically performed for those charges? e. Where were these people located? f. Were these actual expended or accrued costs? 2. Given the fact that the above argument was made in my previous report, it is extremely telling that “PLAINTIFF” still refuses to release the timecards of the individuals being charged in this claim. 3. The claimed ‘expenditure’ does not fit the nature of dockside standby. a. Dockside standby is not ‘extra work’ or ‘engineering’, yet “Extra Work” rates are used from Annex 3
DRAFT
15
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
5. Conclusions (Ref. Opposing Expert Supplemental Report Pages 5‐7) (It is assumed that the conclusions in Opposing Expert’s Supplemental Report supersede those contained in their Original Report. If they do not, my rebuttals to their original conclusions should be considered still valid.) a. 1st Bullet: Countdown windows are commonly used i. Response: Agreed, but the specific language providing for the countdown window in this particular Contract allows the specification of only the start date of installation within the window as opposed to the total duration of installation within the window. b. 2nd Bullet: Deviation typically results in a Change Order i. Response: Agreed, but only upon showing of actual damage in the form or additional cost paid or incurred rd c. 3 Bullet: Contract allows for a Change Order i. Response: Agreed, with same caveat as ‘b’ above d. 4th Bullet: “DEFENDANT” failed to follow the countdown procedure i. Response: Agreed th e. 4 Bullet: “DEFENDANT” unilaterally extended Phase 2 delivery date i. Response: Agreed f. 4th Bullet: “DEFENDANT” extended the project duration i. Response: Disagree. ii. The actual project duration is the period during which BSC was working on Phase 1 and Phase 2. December 16, 2008 to February 28, 2009 is the alleged period during which the start of Phase 2 was delayed. iii. The causes of the extension of duration during the performance of Phases 1 and 2 are multiple and cannot be attributed solely to “DEFENDANT”. g. 4th Bullet: “DEFENDANT” increased “PLAINTIFF”’s cost for personnel & equipment i. Response: Disagree. ii. Opposing Expert failed to show this and apparently is lacking in source documentation from “PLAINTIFF” to make this determination. th h. 4 Bullet: “DEFENDANT” limited “PLAINTIFF”’s ability to commit to other Projects prior to April 20, 2009
DRAFT
16
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
i.
i. Response: Agreed, but such limitation would have occurred even if the Contract was completed without any delays. ii. Opposing Expert failed to reasonably quantify the degree of limitation and actual damages proximately caused by such limitation. th 5 Bullet: From a construction management perspective, “PLAINTIFF” should be compensated for “DEFENDANT”’s change in start date i. Response: I am not aware of any construction management perspective that allows for the receipt of ‘compensation’ without the recipient establishing clear nexus between the allegedly un‐compensated cost and the payer’s action or inaction.
j.
5th Bullet: From a construction management perspective, “PLAINTIFF” should be compensated for “DEFENDANT”’s abandonment or procedure i. Response: I am not aware of any construction management perspective that allows for the receipt of ‘compensation’ without the recipient establishing clear nexus between the allegedly un‐compensated cost and the payer’s action or inaction.
k. 6th Bullet: It was reasonable for “PLAINTIFF” to request a CO for the cost due to the change by “DEFENDANT”. i. Response: Agreed, upon showing of actual cost incurred and direct causation th l. 6 Bullet: It is customary industry practice to resolve contract deviations by mutually agreed change order or contract amendment. i. Response: Agreed. th m. 6 Bullet: Where the deviation consists of the failure to meet a start date or the failure to follow the countdown procedure, it is common for standby rates to apply. i. Response: Agreed, but the rate must be appropriate for the circumstances. th n. 7 Bullet: The applicable Annex 2 rate is $348,721. i. Response: Disagree. The appropriate rate is $146,667. th o. 8 Bullet: “PLAINTIFF” mitigated the fully compensable standby charges that would have otherwise been due from “DEFENDANT”. i. Response: Disagree that such standby charged would have otherwise been due but for the mitigation.
DRAFT
17
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 158 Y 00165 09 Revised Preliminary Opinion Memo of Kenji Hoshino July 5, 2010
p. 8 Bullet: Such mitigation consisted of committing BSC to other clients during the alleged standby period. i. Response: Agree as to the fact that such practices had the effect of preventing BSC from being underutilized. ii. However, such practice is not conducted for the sole purpose of mitigating damages and would be practiced in the normal course of business. th q. 8 Bullet: Value of the impact of the change in start date & deviation from procedure is $18,416,783 i. Response: Disagree. r. Overall Observation and Conclusion i. If “PLAINTIFF” is allowed to recover using Opposing Expert’s arguments, they would be in better shape than if the Contract did not experience any problems. 1. Any interpretation of a Contract that would allow a party to be enriched by the failure of the conditions of the contract would encourage the thwarting of conditions and would be against the very essence of commercial enterprise. ii. Opposing Expert’s position is that proof of actual damage is unnecessary and irrelevant to recover, as evidenced by its effort to ignore the commitment schedules and its apparent disregard for personnel timecards. 1. My understanding is that proof of actual damages is a basic, fundamental requirement. iii. SBM’s claim is an effort to recover monies for thwarted overoptimistic, unreasonable and speculative expectations; it is not about redressing actual harm; it is about satisfying simple greed. th
DRAFT
18
PRELIMINARY
AAA 70 0 158 Y 00165 09 Revised d Preliminary O Opinion Memo o of Kenji Hosh hino Ju uly 5, 2010
6. Limiting Co onditions •
•
•
Representation of facts con ntained in thiss report on w which the anallysis and concclusions are b based arre assumed to o be correct b based on our knowledge aand belief thaat they were o obtained from m so ources consid dered reliablee and correct. However, no liability or w warranty for tthe accuracy of th he informatio on is assumed d by or imposeed on us for tthe information, and it is ssubject to co orrection and d/or withdraw wal if addition nal or refined information is obtained. his report waas prepared so olely for the p purpose, funcction and partty so identifieed in this repo ort. Th Th his report maay not be reprroduced, in w whole or in paart, and the findings of thee report may n not bee utilized by aany person orr entity not party to the diispute for anyy purpose, without prior exxpress written consent of Kenji P. Hosh hino. No chan nge of any iteem in any of this report shaall be ne other than m made by anyo n Kenji P. Hosshino or his duly authorized agent. Anyy such changee will seerve to autom matically void the entire reeport. Exxcept for thosse produced by the parties during the p project, any d digital files that may be produced in co onjunction wiith this matteer, and any haardcopy printouts generated from the digital files or aattached hereeto are the so ole and exclusive propertiees of Kenji P. Hoshino, Pro oject Controls and FForensics, LLC C (PCF), CMR o of Nevada, an nd its parent licensor, Agin ncourt Teechnologies, Ltd. They aree protected b by United Stattes copyright laws and inteernational treeaty provisions. Th hey are provid ded solely for the convenieence of the reecipient for th he sole and exxpress purpose of examinaation of the ccontents. You u agree not to o disassemblee, decompile,, reeverse engine eer, or create derivative diigital files. W When produceed, each digitaal file shall bee trreated like an ny other copyrighted mateerial except th hat you may (a) make one copy of the fiiles so olely for backkup or archivaal purposes, aand (b) transfeer the digital files to a singgle hard disk provided you kkeep the original solely forr backup or archival purpo oses. You mayy copy the haardcopy mate erials accomp panying the digital files only for the purrpose of admiitting them ass arrbitration exh hibits, provideed they are not altered.
End of Report
Kenji P. H Hoshino, PSP, CFCC Princcipal Memberr Project Conttrols & Forensics, LLC
19 DRAFT
PRELIMIN NARY
KENJI P. HOSHINO PSP, CFCC PROFESSIONAL PROJECT CONTROLS & FORENSICS, LLC f.k.a. CMR / CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT RESOURCES PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT – MAJORITY MEMBER, Since 1982 Construction Management, Scheduling, Claims Consulting & Expert Witness
CMR PUBLISHING, INC. GENERAL MANAGER – OWNER, 1992 - 1997 Scheduling Software Development, Publishing & Marketing
GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Watsonville, CA PIPELINE & PLANT DIVISION PROJECT ENGINEER, COST & SCHEDULING, 1980 - 1982 Project Cost & Scheduling Controls / Claims Preparation
EDUCATION U.C. BERKELEY, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING MASTERS IN SCIENCE (MS) - June 1980 Construction Engineering & Management
U.C. BERKELEY, BOALT HALL SCHOOL OF LAW JURIS DOCTOR (JD) - May 1980 Law
U.C BERKELEY, COLLEGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN BACHELOR IN ARTS (BA) – With Highest Honors - March 1977 Architecture
CERTIFICATIONS & OTHER QUALIFICATIONS ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COST ENGINEERING, INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED PLANNING & SCHEDULING PROFESSIONAL (PSP) June 2004 / Renewed & Current
ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COST ENGINEERING, INTERNATIONAL PROJECT MANAGER, RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR FORENSIC SCHEDULE ANALYSIS June 2003 – Present
ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF COST ENGINEERING, INTERNATIONAL CERTIFIED FORENSIC CLAIMS CONSULTANT (CFCC) July 2007 / Current
Page 1 of 6
Major Claims Prosecution Assignments Include . . . Trial Testimony Alameda County Hospital Cogeneration Facility – Heathorn Mechanical (Alameda) API-Tosco Hydrogen Plant – Kingston Constructors, Inc. (Contra Costa) Chevron Penhex Project - Kingston Constructors, Inc. (Contra Costa) Rancho Cotate Junior High School - TriCounty Electric (Sonoma) Lockheed Sunnyvale Plant Site Utilities - J Amaral & Sons (Santa Clara)
Arbitration Testimony Diegan Hotel – Highland Partners Co. (AAA) Pemex Cantarrell EPC-22 – KBR, Inc. (ICC) Highway 198 @ Visalia – R.L. Brossamer (OAH) Downtown Ferry Terminal – Miller Thompson (AAA) Newport Beach Public Library - Koll Construction (Private Arb) G.M. Wentzville Assembly Plant - T. L. Cholette (AAA) Buchanan Fields Driving Range - Krump Construction Co. (AAA) Coronado Point Condominiums - Nielsen Construction Co. (Judge Pro Tem) Colfax Elementary School - RJT Construction, Inc. (AAA) Oak Court Office Building - Taylor-Woodrow of America (JAMS) LARTD 7th & Flower Station - Granite Construction Co. (LARTD DRB) Cal State Prison at Corcoran - Swinerton & Walberg (OAH) Golden Gate Bridge Deck Rehabilitation - Dillingham-Tokola Joint Venture (JAMS) Brock Residence Inn - SBD Construction (AAA) North Shore Sewage Pumping Station - Granite Construction Co. (AAA)
Mediation Presentation Encina WWTP Admin & Maintenance Bldg – Jaynes, Inc. (Gibbs) Aloha Self Storage – MST Corporation (Wulff) McCarran Central Car Rental Facility – PCL Corporation (Piazza) Mendocino College, Ukiah – Fidelity Guaranty Ins Co (Gibbs) War Memorial Library – Arntz Construction (Timpane) Benicia-Martinez Bridge Toll Gate Complex – West Bay Builders (Wulff) Puget Sound Transit Contract 700 & 810 – Kiewit Pacific Construction (Piazza) Sanderson Pumping Station – Fidelity & Deposit of Maryland (Brown) Las Vegas Airport Terminal D Expansion – Sletten Construction (Piazza) Contra Costa County Juvenile Hall – Arntz Construction (Wulff) San Diego Children’s Hospital Cogeneration Facility – AO Reed (Gibbs) SFO Extension Traction Power @ Daly City – Kingston Constructors (Wulff) Port of Oakland Intermodal Service Facility – Desilva Gates / Gallagher Burke (Wulff) Fresno Airport Concourse Expansion – R. J. Lanthier (Shane) Clarke Performing Arts Center – Soltek Pacific (Brown) White Hill Slide Repair & Bridge – West Bay Builders (Gibbs) March Avenue Grade Separation – R. M. Harris (Wulff) Los Altos Marriott – S.D. Deacon (Gibbs) Evergreen Community College – Arntz Construction (Gibbs) Highway 1 @ Lompoc – Sully Miller Construction (Wulff) Seattle Public Library – Hoffman Construction (Piazza) DeSilva Island – Parrott Mechanical (Malpassuto) Richmond Parkway Castro Street Improvements – DeSilva Gates (Wulff) Fremont Police Facility – Koll Construction (Griffith) CSU Long Beach Parking Structure – Ninteman Construction (Wulff) DWR Pear Blossom Pumping Station – Torno America, Inc. (Shane) Bureau of Reclamation Towaoc Reach Canal - Torno America, Inc. (Wulff) State Highway 58 Barstow - Torno America, Inc. (Shane) Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant - Brayer-Abbett Joint Venture (Piazza)
Page 2 of 6
TOSCO/UPI Hydrogen Facility - Kingston Constructors, Inc. (S/C Contra Costa) SF MUNI J-Line Connection Project - Homer J. Olsen (S/C San Francisco) EBMUD Headquarters Building - East Bay Municipal Utility District (Piazza) EBMUD Plant Expansion Site Work - V. A. Blair, Inc. (Piazza)
Settled After Deposition Malibu Slide Stabilization – PKB / Drill Tech Drilling City Place Long Beach – Oltmans Construction San Diego Convention Center Expansion – California Drywall Associates Solutia AN7 Acrylonitrile Plant – Fluor, Inc. Linda-Cirby Confluence Flood Control – Rutherford & Smith Academic Surge Building – Allen Bender, Inc. Berry St. Mall Landfill Closure – The Mark Group SF MUNI Castro Double Crossover Contract - Kingston Constructors & Stacy Witbeck West County Sludge Detention Works - McGuire & Hester
Negotiation Presentation Sharp Memorial Hospital, San Diego – Gilbane Building Co. Alfred Merit Smith Water Treatment Facility – Sletten Construction of Nevada North Block Lofts – Taylor Frager Construction City of LaQuinta Golf Course – Weitz Construction NAS Fallon BEQ – Roman Construction Orleans Hotel & Casino – Dynalectric of Nevada Richmond Parkway Contract 8A & 8B – Benco Engineering Contractors Bremerton Hammerhead Crane Lead Abatement & Painting – Westar Engineering, Inc. US Courthouse Sacramento – Azteca Construction Miramar Centrifuge Facility – Nielsen Dillingham Builders CSU Long Beach Parking Garage - Ninteman Construction UCLA Anderson Graduate School of Management - Kirkwood-Dynalectric Co. Kaiser Oakland Medical Office Building - Smith Rausch Electric Co. Alice Arts Center - TLC-Fields Joint Venture Monterey Regional Sewage Treatment Facility - Mortenson-Natkin Joint Venture EBMUD Headquarters Building - Sumitomo Construction of America Hetch Hetchy Microwave & Fiber Optic Project - Amelco Electric Co. John Muir Hospital Expansion - Dillingham Construction, Inc. SF International Airport Terminals A, B & C - Rosendin Electric, Inc. Hyperion WWTP Energy Recovery & Carver Greenfield Facilities - Rosendin Electric, Inc. Port Hueneme Naval Medical Clinic - Harold J. Younger, Inc. Sandia National Lab Earthquake Retrofit - Harold J. Younger, Inc. Center High School - Paschal & Tanaka S.F. Cable Car System Rehab Contracts 829/831 - Underground Construction Co. K-Mart Vacaville Store - Teichert Construction Co. Wastewater Transport Culvert C3 – Underground Construction Co.
Analysis and/or Report Only Pemex Cadereyta Refinery, Mexico – SKE&C Cardinals Stadium, Phoenix – Kiewit Western U.S. Federal Building, San Francisco – Dick-Morganti JV Nanhai Petrochemical Plant Waste Water Treatment Facility – Montgomery Watson Las Vegas Strip Monorail – Bombardier-Granite NYPA Poletti Power Plant – Slattery Skanska Newington Power Project – Duke / Fluor-Daniel Travis AFB Squadron Operations Building – Kilgallon Construction Co. Las Vegas Club Expansion – Dynalectric of Nevada Sonoma Main Adult Detention Facility II – Peterson Mechanical Valencia Water Reclamation Plant Stage 4 - Rosendin Electric, Inc. Yerba Buena Theatre & Visual Arts Center - Rosendin Electric, Inc.
Page 3 of 6
Sonoma County Main Adult Detention Facility - Dillingham Construction, Inc. De Anza College Parking Garage - J. H. Pomeroy Kaiser Riverside Medical Center - Dillingham Construction, Inc. SMUD Energy Management Center - Rosendin Electric, Inc. Cerritos Reclaimed Water Irrigation Pipeline - Gates & Fox, Inc. EBMUD Stone Valley Road Pipeline - Hydrotech Pipeline, Inc. New Hogan Dam Power Project – McGuire & Hester Lake Mendocino Power Project - Underground Construction Co. State Building in San Francisco - Vanucci Brothers, Inc. Moscone Convention Center - Rosendin Electric, Inc.
Major Claims Defense Assignments Include . . . Trial Testimony Claim by Zachry – Port of Houston (Harris Co., Texas) Chapin Residence / Claim of Nolan – Jane E. Chapin (Napa Co., California) CSU Fullerton Telecommunications Upgrade Project – Amelco Electric (Orange Co., California) Creekview Apartments – Zumalt Construction (Contra Costa Co., California) UCSF Medical Center Ophthalmology Offices - American Bonding Co. (San Francisco Co., California)
Arbitration Testimony Burgos Gas Pipeline & Facilities, Mexico – El Pas Gas (ICC) Corocoro FSO, Venezuela – Conoco-Phillips (ICC) Bonanza Diesel Generation Facility, Guatemala – Duke Energy (ICC) Placer Corporate Center – Sierra Holdings, Inc. (AAA) S. Novato Blvd. Median Improvements – North Bay Construction (AAA) Green River Water Treatment Plant – Westates Construction (Water Board Hearing) Cabrillo Mole Improvements – City of Avalon (AAA) California State Prison at Riverside – Dept. of Corrections (OAH) I-880 San Leandro Soundwall - C. C. Meyers, Inc. (AAA) Milipitas Holiday Inn - Dillingham Construction, Inc. (AAA) WMATA Anacostia River Tunnel - Hitachi Heavy Industries (AAA) Highway 4 Railroad Bridge - Bay Cities Paving & Grading (OAH) Scianamblo Residence - Michael Scianamblo, DDS (AAA)
Mediation Presentation Santa Rosa JC Main Library – Santa Rosa Junior College (Wulff) Tahoe Forest Hospital Central Plant & Western Addition – TFH District (Person) City Golf Course Club House – City of Antioch (Wulff) Geysers Pipeline – City of Santa Rosa (Wulff) Central Maintenance Facility – City of Fremont (Shane) Valley Presbyterian Hospital – Fireman’s Fund (Frank) Lodge at Torrey Pines – Evans Hotels (Frank) Staples Arena, LA – NBBJ, Inc. (Wulff) North Beach Garage – MH Construction Management (Wulff) City View Terrace – Telacu Affordable Housing (Gibbs) Hwy 80 Soundwall at Roseville – Teichert Precast (Wulff) Livermore Police Facility – Allen Bender, Inc. (Kongsgaard) West Coast Consolidation Project – Schilling McCormick (Harris) Cowlitz Falls Hydroelectric Project - Lewis County P.U.D. (Piazza) Elizabeth Ustach Middle School - Teichert Construction Co. (Piazza) S.F. Federal Building @ 88 Kearny - Swinerton & Walberg (Fannin)
Negotiation Presentation Piedmont Elementary School – Piedmont Unified School District
Page 4 of 6
California State Prison at Coalinga – Dept. of Corrections O’Connor Woods Retirement Housing & Care Project - St. Joseph’s Health Care San Antonio Manufacturing Facility - VLSI Technologies
Settled After Deposition Watsonville Millenium High School – Pajaro Unified School District New Bay Bridge YBI Anchorage – West Bay Builders Chapin Residence / Claim of Nolan – Jane E. Chapin San Diego MWWD Digesters at MBC – Limitorque UC Davis Food & Agricultural Building - UC Davis Office of Architects
Analysis and/or Report Only Lake Hodges Pump Station – San Diego Water Authority Vacaville Waterlines Upgrade – City of Vacaville BART Coliseum & Walnut Creek Station Improvements - United Pacific Insurance Los Angeles Convention Center Expansion - JWP University Mechanical American River College Student Services Building - Carissimi Rohrer & Associates Cherry Eleanor Pump Station - SF Public Utilities Commission San Jose Convention Center - San Jose Redevelopment Agency Alvarado Water Treatment Facility - Union Sanitary District
Major Claims Mitigation & Scheduling Support Assignments Include . . . Mediation & DRB DRB Member: Hwy 237 & 880 Interchange – Caltrans & Desilva Gates Mediator: Natividad Medical Center – Swinerton & Walberg & CRSS Constructors
Scheduling & Schedule Review Berry Creek Rancheria Casino – Tyme Maidu Tribe Fantasy Springs Casino – Hainline & Associates Chukchansi Gold Casino – Cascade Entertainment Group Aladdin Hotel & Casino Mixed Use Development – Aladdin Gaming, LLC 98 Bond Fund Program Master Implementation Schedule – Clark County School District 201 Post Earthquake Retrofit – Trinty Properties San Joaquin Transportation Corridor - Kirkwood Dynalectric Co. Shell Martinez Clean Fuels Project - UCI Construction, Inc. Merck BTMC Phase 1 Pharmaceutical Facility - JWP Advanced Technologies, Inc. Carmel Reclaimed Water Facility - K. G. Walters Construction Co. New Denver International Airport Underground Fueling System - Trautman & Shreve I-880 Davis/Lewelling Widening - O. C. Jones & Sons BART Colma Yard Retaining Wall - O.C. Jones & Sons SF Sheriff’s Facility Addition - Lera Electric, Inc. Hyperion Full Secondary Head Works - Rosendin Electric, Inc. Cal State Prison @ Pelican Bay - Rosendin Electric, Inc. UC Davis Memorial Union Expansion - UC Davis Office of the Architect Coast Guard Two Rock Training Center - Wright Contracting, Inc.
Claim Mitigation & Dispute Audit Matter of J. A. Jones – Fireman’s Fund Hawaii Power Center - Hygrade Electric, Inc. UC Berkeley Haas Graduate School of Business - UC Berkeley Office of Architects Moscone Convention Center Addition - Brayer Electric, Inc. USS-Posco Pittsburg Rolled Steel Plant Modernization - US Steel IBM Almaden Research Center - Rosendin Electric, Inc. San Francisco Hilton Tower Addition - Rosendin Electric, Inc. Portman Hotel - D. Zelinski & Sons.
Page 5 of 6
Seminars, Presentations & Consultations ABA Forum on Construction Annual Meeting 2010, Austin AACEI Annual Meeting 2008, Toronto AACEI Annual Meeting 2007, Nashville AACEI Annual Meeting 2006, Las Vegas AACEI Annual Meeting 2005, New Orleans FHwA Standard Schedule Specification Modernization & Enhancement AACEI Annual Meeting 2004, Washington DC AACEI Annual Meeting 2003, Orlando Lorman Seminar 2002 & 2003 Federal Highway Administration, Denver, CO AACEI Annual Meeting 2002, Portland AACEI Annual Meeting 2000, Calgary Sletten Construction, Las Vegas, NV AGC San Diego Chapter 1997 North Bay Construction, Petaluma, CA AGC San Diego Chapter 1996 Primavera Users Group of Sacramento Primavera Users Group of San Francisco Project Management Institute Symposium ’95, New Orleans, LA CALTRANS District 4, Oakland, CA UC Extension / Jim Tario, Pleasanton, CA Oliver de Silva, Inc., Hayward, CA Don Dowd Co., Sebastopol, CA Olsen Electric Co., San Francisco, CA UC Regents, San Francisco & Los Angeles, CA Rosendin Electric, Inc., San Jose, CA Teichert Construction Co., Sacramento, CA Toyota Motor Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN
In-House Scheduling & Automation UCI Construction, Martinez, CA California Homes, Inc., Santa Rosa, CA Dillingham-Nielsen, San Diego CALTRANS Photogrammetry Division, Sacramento, CA
Page 6 of 6
Exhibit B
August 29, 2008 Commitment Schedule August 29, 2008 Commitment Schedule
DRAFT
PRELIMINARY
19-Feb-09
5
20-Feb-09
6
21-Feb-09 22-Feb-09 23-Feb-09 24-Feb-09 24 Feb 09 25-Feb-09 26-Feb-09 27-Feb-09 28-Feb-09 01-Mar-09 02-Mar-09 03-Mar-09 04-Mar-09 05-Mar-09 06-Mar-09 07-Mar-09
7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
08-Mar-09
1
T-Horse
See Reid depo pages 16 & 17
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
See Reid depo pages s 20 & 23
7
18-Jan-09 19-Jan-09 20-Jan-09 21-Jan-09 22-Jan-09 23-Jan-09 24-Jan-09 25-Jan-09 26-Jan-09 27-Jan-09 28-Jan-09 29-Jan-09 30-Jan-09 31-Jan-09 01-Feb-09 02-Feb-09 03-Feb-09 04-Feb-09 05-Feb-09 06-Feb-09 07-Feb-09 08-Feb-09 09-Feb-09 10-Feb-09 11 Feb 09 11-Feb-09 12-Feb-09 13-Feb-09 14-Feb-09 15-Feb-09 16-Feb-09 17-Feb-09 18-Feb-09
Free e Slack #1 (Stand-by for or Enbridge)
17-Jan-09
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 15:21:00 19:30:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 7:00:00
Client Project Name Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs
17:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE / GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 SW Pass GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC GC-650 650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650 GC-650
24:00:00
GC-650
Enbr
x
x
14:05:00 6:00:00 3:45:00 1:00:00 1:00:00
GC-650 CORE-M CORE-M CORE-M CORE-M CORE-M CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE T-HRSE GOM Transit to Mobile Transit to Mobile CORE-T CORE-M CORE-M CORE-M CORE M CORE-M CORE-M CORE-M CORE-M CORE-T CORE-T CORE-T AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD AMSD / Transit
Enbr Enbr / AMC Enbr / AMC Enbr / AMC Enbr / AMC AMC AMC AMC C AMC AMC Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thrs Thwk
x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x
Thwk
Shenzi
11:15:00
8:39:00 4:30:00
Per Reid pages 33 & 34: Remobilize to Enbridge after receiving new procedures and equipment
Per Reid pages 39, 42 & 43: Demobilize extra equipment used in revised Enbridge procedure
2:00:00 4:00:00
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 00 00 24:00:00 24:00:00 12:00:00
12:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 2:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 23:20:00 1:10:00
22:00:00
0:40:00 22:50:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 3:13:00
20:47:00
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 21:10:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 18:00:00
Aquatic Reels Installation
2:50:00
6:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
BOA Sub-C Sub C Midnight Reports Logo At Top
Vessel Location
Enbrdg
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
9:55:00 18:00:00 20:15:00 21:00:00 19:00:00 Fre ee Slack #2
3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6
SBMA
09-Dec-08 10-Dec-08 11-Dec-08 12-Dec-08 13-Dec-08 14-Dec-08 15-Dec-08 16-Dec-08 17-Dec-08 18-Dec-08 19-Dec-08 20-Dec-08 21-Dec-08 22-Dec-08 23-Dec-08 24-Dec-08 25-Dec-08 26-Dec-08 27 Dec 08 27-Dec-08 28-Dec-08 29-Dec-08 30-Dec-08 31-Dec-08 01-Jan-09 02-Jan-09 03-Jan-09 04-Jan-09 05-Jan-09 06-Jan-09 07-Jan-09 08-Jan-09 09-Jan-09 10-Jan-09 11-Jan-09 11 Jan 09 12-Jan-09 13-Jan-09 14-Jan-09 15-Jan-09 16-Jan-09
T-Hawk
12:45:00
Free Slack #3
2
(De)Mobe for Thawk
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
SBMA
08-Dec-08
(De)Mobe for Others
Thund nderhorse
2 3 4 5 6 7 1
Enbridge
01-Dec-08 02-Dec-08 03-Dec-08 04-Dec-08 05-Dec-08 06-Dec-08 07-Dec-08
AMC Standby
Incidental To
Embridge
As-Built Schedule
From Boa Sub C C's s Daily Progress Reports
As-Built Bar Chart
Thunderhorse
Exhibit C
Sh En Hr Ak x x x x x x x
Hire
Location
Wind
Sea
Weather
Crew
Subs & Other
On On On On On On On
SW Pass Anchor Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse
NNW 20 SE10 SSW18 20 NNE6 NNW21 15
1-1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5-2 2 1.5 1.5
P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy Stable M Cloudy P Cloudy
50 50 50 51 51 51 51
40 39 39 35 34 34 34
51
44
51 51 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 47 48 48 53 53 53 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52
44 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 43 43 43 28 19 18 18 18 18 18 17 18 16 16 12 12 17 18 18 24 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 45 45
Thrs / Enbr
x
x
On
T-Horse, GC-650
25-30
2-3
Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port In Port Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr Enbr
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On Off On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On
GC-650 SW Pass Anchor SW Pass Anchor Block 550 Block 550 Block 650 Block 650 Block 650 Block 650 Block 650 Block 650 Block 650 Mobile Ship Channel Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Mobile Port Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi 650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650 Shenzi-650
SSE28 NW22 NW30 NE15 SSE23 SE18 S10 SSE13 SE14 SE18 SSW6 SW12 N36 E11 SE17 S3 SE10 SSE13 S11 NW10 N5 WSW11 NNE14 ENE4 S6 SSW14 Light S6 NW10 S18 E7 S23 SW16 NNE21 NNE13 N16 NE6 NE23 NE17
3 2 2 1 1.5 1.5 1 .5 1 1 .2 .6 2
.5 .1 1.5 1.5 1.5 1 1 .3 1.2 1-1.5
On
Transit to Mobile
NE15
1
On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On Off On
Mobile State Docks Theodore Channel Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse SW Passage SW Passage Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Thunderhorse Gulf of Mexico Gulf of Mexico
N7-9 WNE35 NNW11 Var 2 S4-6 SW4-6 N7-9 Var1-3 SE7 S11 N10-15 N20 N20 Var4 E25 N28 WSW20 NE10 10 SSE20 SE15 SE20 SE30-35 SE35-40 10 15-Oct SSW20 SE15 20 E15-20 E15 SW20
0 1.5 1.5-2 .3 2.5 2 1.5 1.5-2 1 1 1.5-2 2 4 5-6 4 1 2 1.5 1.5 2 1.5-2 1.5-2
On
Gulf of Mexico
N25
Thwk
On
Mobile Core Industries
Light
Thwk AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On
Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Mobile Core Industries Blank Blank Blank
SW10 N15 NE10 SE12 SE4 S12 S12 NW15 Blank Blank Blank
AMC
x
On
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
M Cloudy Showers Cloudyy P Cloudy Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy M Cloudy Cloudy Fog Fog Cloudy Cloudy M Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy M Cloudy Fog Rain Fog P Cloudy Rain P Cloudy Clear P Cloudy Rain Overcast Overcast P Cloudy P Cloudy M Cloudy M Cloudy P Cloudy
52
45
P Cloudy M Cloudy P Cloudy Clear Clear P Cloudy Overcast Overcast Fog g M Cloudy
52 52 52 59 51 51 45 45 45 45
22 22 19 20 18 18 18 18 18 17
M Cloudy P Cloudy P Cloudy T-storms Cloudy P Cloudy Clear Clear Clear
52 51
27 29
51 51 51 51 50 82 52 52 52 52 52 49 48 48 48 48 48 47
34 26 26 35 35
2
47
25
.1
48
25
Blank Blank Blank
50 50 50 51 49 50 50 Blank Blank Blank
25 25 21 21 21 20 20 Blank Blank Blank
Clear Showers
P Cloudy Cloudy Cloudy Cloudy Blank Blank Blank
33 33 33 33 33 31 31 31 30 28 28 25
Exhibit D.1
No Impact to Tailing Commitments No Impact to Tailing Commitments Part 1 of 2
DRAFT
PRELIMINARY
Exhibit D.2
No Impact to Tailing Commitments No Impact to Tailing Commitments Part 2 of 2
DRAFT
PRELIMINARY
Synergen / Aker Claim
Exhibit E
98 cd
"Standby" Claim
T-Hawk
T-Horse
Enbrdg
Shenzi
Possible AMC Standby
(De)Mobe for Others
(De)Mobe for Thawk
T-Hawk
T-Horse 24:00:00 24 00 00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 12:45:00
12:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 15:21:00 19:30:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 7:00:00
9:55:00 18:00:00 20:15:00 21:00:00 19:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 12:00:00
3:13:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 21:12:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 18:00:00
868:26:00
0.5 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 1 0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 0.6 cd 0.8 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 0.3 cd
12:00:00
8:39:00 4:30:00
17:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 14:05:00 6:00:00 3:45:00 1:00:00 1:00:00
0.4 cd 0.8 cd 0.8 cd 0.9 cd 0 8 cd 0.8 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 0.5 cd
0.1 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 0.9 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 0.8 cd
36.2 cd
Free Slack #1
2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
From BSC DPR's
Incidental To
2:00:00 4:00:00
12:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 22:50:00
0:40:00 22:50:00
171:57:00
3:13:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 21:10:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 18:00:00
Aquatic Reels Installation 503:59:00
1848:00:00
294:50:00
8:48:00
120:00:00
5.0 cd
523:31:00
282:23:00
2:00:00 4:00:00
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE T HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE / GC-650
Thrs / Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
SW Pass
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC 650 GC-650
Enbr E b
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
6:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 459:39:00
282:50:00
8:50:00
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
AMSD
In Port
AMSD
In Port
AMSD
In Port
AMSD
In Port
AMSD
In Port
AMSD
IIn Port P t
AMSD
In Port
AMSD
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
CORE-T
In Port
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC 650 GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
GC-650
Enbr
CORE-M
Enbr / AMC
CORE-M
Enbr / AMC
CORE-M
Enbr / AMC
CORE M CORE-M
Enbr / AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs Thrs
T-HRSE
Thrs
Gulf of Mexico
Thwk
Transit to Mobile
2:50:00
170:47:00
Client Project Name
T-HRSE
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 20:47:00
1848:00:00
Vessel Location
GC-650 GC 650
12:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 2:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 23:20:00 1:10:00
22:00:00
2:48:00
11:15:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24 24:00:00 00 00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
17:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 14:05:00 6:00:00 3:45:00 1:00:00 1:00:00
12:00:00
Reels should have been installed starting on 2/21 to allow for scheduled sail‐away on 2/28 and to make subsequent period aa compensable stand‐by compensable stand‐by
6:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd 1.0 cd
Shenzi
8:39:00 4:30:00
9:55:00 18:00:00 20:15:00 21:00:00 19:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00
1:10:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 20:47:00
24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 15:21:00 19:30:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 24:00:00 7:00:00
Enbrdg
Free Slack #2
01-Dec-08 01 D 08 02-Dec-08 03-Dec-08 04-Dec-08 05-Dec-08 06-Dec-08 07-Dec-08 07 Dec 08 08-Dec-08 09-Dec-08 10-Dec-08 11-Dec-08 12-Dec-08 13-Dec-08 14 D 08 14-Dec-08 15-Dec-08 16-Dec-08 17-Dec-08 18-Dec-08 19-Dec-08 20-Dec-08 20 Dec 08 21-Dec-08 22-Dec-08 23-Dec-08 24-Dec-08 25-Dec-08 26-Dec-08 27 Dec 08 27-Dec-08 28-Dec-08 29-Dec-08 30-Dec-08 31-Dec-08 01-Jan-09 02-Jan-09 02 Jan 09 03-Jan-09 04-Jan-09 05-Jan-09 06-Jan-09 07-Jan-09 08-Jan-09 09 Jan 09 09-Jan-09 10-Jan-09 11-Jan-09 12-Jan-09 13-Jan-09 14-Jan-09 15-Jan-09 16-Jan-09 17-Jan-09 18-Jan-09 19-Jan-09 20-Jan-09 21-Jan-09 22 Jan 09 22-Jan-09 23-Jan-09 24-Jan-09 25-Jan-09 26-Jan-09 27-Jan-09 28-Jan-09 29-Jan-09 30-Jan-09 31-Jan-09 01-Feb-09 02-Feb-09 03-Feb-09 04-Feb-09 05-Feb-09 06-Feb-09 07-Feb-09 08-Feb-09 09-Feb-09 10-Feb-09 11-Feb-09 12-Feb-09 13-Feb-09 14-Feb-09 15-Feb-09 16-Feb-09 17-Feb-09 18-Feb-09 19-Feb-09 20-Feb-09 21-Feb-09 22-Feb-09 23-Feb-09 24-Feb-09 25-Feb-09 26-Feb-09 27-Feb-09 28-Feb-09 01-Mar-09 02-Mar-09 03-Mar-09 04-Mar-09 05-Mar-09 06-Mar-09 07-Mar-09 08-Mar-09
PCF Observations of BOA Sub-C Daily Progress Reports
Free Slack #3
Standby Analysis
Logo At Top Sh En Hr Ak x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Thwk
Transit to Mobile
Thwk
CORE-T
Thwk
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-M
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
CORE-T
AMC
AMSD
AMC
AMSD
AMC
AMSD
AMC
AMSD
AMC
AMSD / Transit
AMC
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Hire On O On On On On On On On On On On On On O On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On Off On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On Off On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On On
PCF Notes Based on DPRs and Commitment Schedules weather h standby db weather standby, project activities project activities jumper installation jumper installation jumper installation jumper installation transit, EFL installation jumper installation weather standby weather standby weather standby, jumper installation jumper installation jjumper installation i t ll ti jumper installation jumper installation jumper installation jumper installation jumper installation demob jumper installation, transit preparing demob of Enbr & Thrs eqmt / awaiting customs for eqmt offload offload Enbr & Thrs eqmt / crane wire maint offload Enbr & Thrs eqmt / crane wire maint offload Enbr & Thrs eqmt / crane wire maint (Christmas Day) crane wire maintenance crane wire maintenance crane wire maintenance preparing demob of Enbr & Thrs eqmt transit to CORE, demob of Thrs demob of Thrs / Standby at Core 'alongside alongside CORE facility, AMC stand-by' stand by 'Stand by for AMC' 'Stand by for AMC' 'Stand by for AMC' 'Stand by for AMC' transit, mob/demob to Enbridge transit, jumper installation jumper installation jumper installation, equipment breakdown jumper installation, equipment breakdown jumper installation (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) jumper installation, weather standby (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) jumper installation, weather standby (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) jjumper p installation,, equipment q p breakdown (Shenz ( Clamp p Delayy on 1/5/09 Schedule)) jumper installation, equipment breakdown (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) jumper installation, transit to Alabama State Docks (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) transit from Enbridge to Alabama State Docks, mob/demob from Enbridge, (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) transit from Alabama State Docks to CORE, mob/demob from Enbridge, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) transit from Alabama State Docks to CORE, mob/demob from Enbridge, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) mob/demob of Enbridge, Shenzi, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) mob/demob of Enbridge, Enbridge Shenzi Shenzi, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by / (Shenz Clamp Delay on 1/5/09 Schedule) AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by Project j = BP Jumper p Recoveryy / mob for Thunderhorse transit transit, project activities project activities project activities client standby, project activities, transit still at Thunderhorse, standby is at Thunderhorse field client standby standby, project activities activities, transit project activities transit, project activities project activities project activities weather standby, project activities weather standby weather standby weather standby, project activities project activities project activities project activities still at Thunderhorse, standby is at Thunderhorse field still at Thunderhorse Thunderhorse, standby is at Thunderhorse field / AB for Chain Loadout for T-Hawk on 03-20-09 Schedule Chain measuring, chain transfer Chain measuring, chain transfer Chain measuring, chain transfer at CORE, mob for Thunderhawk, chain inspection Remove chain & wire, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by mob for Thunderhawk, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by Shenzi demob after customs clearance, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by mob for Thunderhawk, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by mob for Thunderhawk, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by mob for Thunderhawk, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by mob for Thunderhawk, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by transit from CORE to Alabama State docks, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by mob for Thunderhawk, AMC Vessel Dockside Stand by (AB for Aquatic Reel Instl on 03-20-09 Schedule) mob for Thunderhawk (AB for Aquatic Reel Instl on 03-20-09 Schedule) vessel on hire, mob for Thunderhawk (AB for Aquatic Reel Instl on 03-20-09 Schedule) vessel on hire, transit(AB for Aquatic Reel Instl on 03-20-09 Schedule)
Exhibit B
August 29, 2008 Commitment Schedule August 29, 2008 Commitment Schedule
DRAFT
PRELIMINARY
