|
|
Enron Mail |
----- Forwarded by Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT on 02/27/2001 08:57 AM -----
Ron Tapscott 02/27/2001 08:08 AM To: Richard B Sanders/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Subject: Doyle Peaking Plant #1 Unit, Monroe, GA - Mechanical Breakdown fyi per earlier e-mail. thanks, ron. ---------------------- Forwarded by Ron Tapscott/HOU/ECT on 02/27/2001 08:08 AM --------------------------- James L Bouillion 02/08/2001 09:30 AM To: Ron Tapscott/HOU/ECT@ECT, Russ Porter/Corp/Enron@ENRON cc: David Marshall/HOU/ECT@ECT Subject: Doyle Peaking Plant #1 Unit, Monroe, GA - Mechanical Breakdown Hopefully this provides what you are looking for, however, there is more to come. Please note the fourth paragraph requesting the total labor and expenses for the "big picture". This was discussed at our first meeting and hopefully, you can produce same or make it available to him for inspection. Also, we need to quickly resolve the "missing System 700 book". If it exists, lets produce it. If not, we need to advise that it was miscommunication or whatever, but we need to do so soon. I thought we were going to advise that we had appointed a "point" person to deal with extracting information from the subcontractors. Apparently this was not communicated to Claude. Do you want to re-consider allowing him to go direct? ---------------------- Forwarded by James L Bouillion/HOU/ECT on 02/08/2001 09:15 AM --------------------------- "Chandler, Claude" <claude.chandler@fmglobal.com< on 02/07/2001 04:07:41 PM To: Jim Bouillion - Enron <james.l.bouillion@enron.com<, Russ Porter - Enron <Russ.Porter@enron.com<, Ron Papscott - Enron <ron.papscott@enron.com< cc: Ray Ward - JL Wortham & Son <rward@jwortham.com<, "Whitt, Russell" <russell.whitt@fmglobal.com<, "Henderson, David" <david.henderson@fmglobal.com<, "Meyer, Paul" <paul.meyer@fmglobal.com<, Tom Trueb - Dean-Oliver <ttrueb@dean-oliver.com< Subject: Doyle Peaking Plant #1 Unit, Monroe, GA - Mechanical Breakdown Jim/Russ/Ron, This will confirm our tele-conference this AM on the pending claim filed on behalf of Doyle. Unfortunately, my meeting at Dean-Oliver did not fully take place on the intended scope as Charlie McCorkle had to take his wife to the doctor on an unexpected trip. I am out of town until Friday, but we do plan on meeting Friday afternoon, I will respond on any additional information outstanding. (Charlie had Kelly McKenzie's book with him) You had ask that I further explain our deductions on the reduced Craft Labor hours detailed in my last letter. In our December meeting it was noted that NEPCO was in a support roll to Elliott on the rebuild. NEPCO had their most involvement at the very beginning and very end of the repairs. The repair area had its own trailers, parts warehouse and staging area. We discussed in the meeting that the support roll essentially would take a Supervisor and three employees per shift or about eight per 24 day. In review of the submitted labor it is noted that an average of three Start-up Employees charged their full day to this job from 6/15 up to 7/3, then 4 up to 7/17, then 6+ up to the final completion of repairs, 7/23. At the same time, Office Staff employees averaged charging up to 8 employees per day, day shift, during the repair time and continued to charge labor up to a month after. The Craft Labor group charged an average of 11 employees per day charging all of their work day to the repairs. When you average it out, you had around 13 support personnel for an Elliott crew on every shift (24 hours), when the Elliott crew consisted of about 13 to 15 persons. This would account for between 25 to 30 people (without consultants & sub-contractors) time charged working every hour, 24 hours the entire time. Add the consultants/subcontractors and it goes up to a minimum of 30 people. This is unrealistic by any standard and cannot be explained away as an inefficiency of site versus shop work. One of our requests in our meeting in Houston was that additional information concerning the total labor and expenses charged to the entire site be made available to see the "big picture" of the site labor and expense charges on a weekly or monthly basis. This additional information or it's location has not been forthcoming to date. There has to be some type of summary cost details which Doyle was billed on a per Unit basis. I also noted that I would comment on differences in scope of repair, thus a lesser measurement of the loss & payable claim. I have been commenting on differences in scope since my first letter and subsequently as information has been made available. The major scope differences are: 1. Partial vs. full stationary and rotor blades 2. Repaired versus replaced 1st Stage Turbine Buckets & Nozzles 3. Use of "old" designed stub shaft vs. purchase of "new" designed stub shaft 4. Overscope of repairs by Preco on work completed in their shop. 5. Elliott overscope of repairs associated with some of the above items, misalignment and other items noted in my e-mail of 1/24 (including work completed on Units #2 & #3). 6. NEPCO labor charges noted above. There are a number of lessor items. If the meeting this Friday takes place, I will respond as fully as possible to the claim next week based on documentation we have received to date. It is unfortunate that there was no "System 700" or similar type book completed on the repairs. Our discussions in Houston and up until recently indicated that this was an SOP at NEPCO. As I noted the Kelly McKenzie book is not a complete view of the repairs made. The request to directly contact sub-contractors to discuss their scope of work in my last letter has not been responded to. Once again, I will e-mail you after our meeting Friday with any requested support items that were to be included in this e-mail. Claude
|