Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Study-3 (Malacca Conundrum)
Case Study-3 (Malacca Conundrum)
Case Study-3 (Malacca Conundrum)
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Disclaimer
This case was written by K. Lakshmanan, Chittaranjan Sahoo, Chakradhar Iyyunni under the supervision of
Prof. Homayoun Khamooshi and Prof. Sanjay Jain, School of Business, The George Washington University,
Washington, D.C., USA towards partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Level-3 program in Strategic
Project Management conducted by Larsen & Toubro Institute of Project Management (L&T I’PM,
http://www.LNTipm.org/), Vadodara, India. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or
ineffective handling of managerial situations and the case has been created to facilitate class-room
discussion for practicing project managers in L&T. The authors may have disguised certain names and
other identifying information to protect confidentiality. The data presented shall be treated as
confidential and shall not be used for teaching outside L&T.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission of L&T I’PM. For communication, please contact ipminfo@LNTipm.org.
Introduction
It is 8 months into the project and the site team is under tremendous pressure
as the early works planned are delayed to a great extent. Entangled with the
stringent QHSE (Quality, Health, Safety and Environment) Policies and
Specifications in the Contract, and, accommodating the local contents as per
the Bumiputera (Son of the Soil) philosophy - a unique concept as per the laws
of the Republic of Malaysia, the project team is unable to cope with the
pressure as the local Subcontractors deployed are unable to perform.
Though the team landed early at the site, they were yet to establish the
Project office and associated infrastructure. Even the local subcontractors
recommended by the customer, who are supposed to have been more
experienced in the locality / demography, could not yield any desirable result.
Added the woes, of a key subcontractor deployed to carry out certain critical
early activities had abrupt demobilization without any prior notice.
The Project Team reeling under tremendous pressure from all corners – the
owner, PMC (Project Management Consultant), and the Consortium Partners,
was highly demoralized as in spite of their hard effort they are unable to catch
up with the schedule. It was clear that the delay if not mitigated, is likely to
lead to heavy penalties in terms of money and credibility. The Project
Management Team has been summoned for an emergency meeting at the
Project Manager’s office to brainstorm and plan the path forward.
Overview
The Hydrocarbon Division of Larsen & Toubro Limited (L&T), the largest
construction company of India has been executing several EPC Projects
(Engineering, Procurement and Construction) in the field of oil & gas terminals,
petrochemical refineries, cross country pipelines, fertilizers, power plant etc.
With a clear focus to expand business, L&T is trying to expand its wings beyond
the Indian subcontinent mainly to the Middle East and South East Asia. In
recent past, it has tied up with various international engineering companies for
technology transfer and obtained approval of many renowned licensers. The
PETRONAS MG#3 Project came at the right moment and L&T grabbed the
opportunity with a focused effort.
Though L&T had executed several critical units in oil refineries viz. fluid
catalytic cracker, vacuum distillation, diesel hydro-desulphurization,
hydrocracker etc. it did not have any proven track record of executing a lube
oil plant. Hence it decided to look for partners in order to satisfy stringent pre-
qualification criteria.
After a lot of deliberations with various parties, L&T forged alliance with Lurgi
AG (Germany) and a local construction company named KQKS Sdn Bhd
(Malaysia) on scope and liabilities sharing basis. Lurgi was elected the leader of
the consortium, as they had executed a similar lube base oil plant in Poland.
However L&T had the major stake in monetary terms (approximately 68%) and
was responsible for major engineering (except for the Diesel Hydro-treater &
In order to beat the stiff competition from established global EPC players like
Samsung, Technip, Hyundai, Toyo and Daelim, the strategy for formulating a
cost-competitive bid was formulated by the consortium in the early stages.
Satisfied with the capabilities of the consortium partners, the price and overall
project schedule, the job was finally awarded by the client to the consortium
in December 2005 to achieve the PAC (Performance Acceptance Certificate –
issued after the Test run of the Plant) within 29 months of the job being
awarded. The approximate order value was US $ 350 Mn with L&T’s share at
about 68%. Majority of construction work was to be executed by L&T with no
prior experience in executing EPC projects in Malaysia. L&T hence had to
depend on Malaysian sub-contractors and vendors for mobilization of resources.
The execution of MG-3 project was quite a challenge right from the beginning
due to stringent QHSE, and technical requirements, work volume spread over
22 units through the entire length and breadth of the refinery, tight schedule,
multi-lingual/multi-cultural location, consortium working for the first time on
such a huge project and above all, an extremely demanding customer& Project
Management Consultant.
The first task after receipt of the LOA (Letter of Award) was to revisit the
composition of the team and ensure the availability of key task members’ right
from the beginning. The other immediate task was to identify sub-contractors
to execute temporary facilities such as the owner’s and contractor’s site
office, warehouse and development of laydown yards. The job was awarded to
one of the local sub-contractors for construction of site office in line with
contractual requirement of encouraging “Bumiputera” agencies based on local
During the execution of works, it was realized that the sub-contractors engaged
for site office and other facilities did not have capabilities and resources to
execute the works on fast track basis and the site offices could not be handed
over till 8 months after award of contract.
During this period, L&T’s site team had allocated certain temporary
infrastructure work to few local subcontractors referred by various entities
they came across viz. the local JV Partner ( who has a larger interest in
financial management than project execution), The owner, Indian Consulate,
etc. Due to the uncomfortable feeling in managing these subcontractors, the
administrative team was asked to evaluate whether the law of the Republic is
flexible to accommodate more resources from elsewhere(India in
particular);however, it was not allowed under Bumiputera law. This has put
L&T in a difficult position as there was no other option but to get the work
done through the existing sub-contractor for construction of project site office.
L&T had been struggling with the permutation and combinations of the
subcontracted works amongst the existing ones so as to draw a balance but
unfortunately the allocation/assignments did not deliver the desired result.
The starting troubles created misconception in minds of the owner and the PMC
with respect to contractor’s capabilities in mobilizing the right sub-contractors
for the project. As a result, the sub-contractors proposed by the contractor for
Status Report
Schedule Actual
Activity Description Completion / Completion/ Remarks
planned to date status
(32nd week)
Subcontracted to Vendor –
Establishment of Project Office 24th Week On-going, 90%
A
completed
The site team was clueless as to what’s wrong with the subcontractors – the
rates are reasonable and in some cases even much better than the prevailing
market rates. Also the payments are done in time. It was also not clear if any
action should be taken since a group of L&T’s construction team members state
Unit 75,
Fire water pedestals,
Unit 51,
Unit 72 drains,
Near unit 49, and
Existing drains.
Such works need a definite skill set of workmen and supervisors having
adequate experience on safety aspects as well as making make shift
arrangements so that the ongoing operation is not affected. Further socialized
Piling Scope
Process units 18, 19 ,31 and adjoining off-site pipe-rack and sleepers
Piling in unit 75 and pipe rack and sleeper in that area
LSWR
With the frontage available in terms of Engineering and clear site, L&T
awarded a part of the civil works to sub-contractor- Dafter going through the
documents produced by him. The subject work being part of the Main Plant was
important and the owner/ consortium partners and PMC had great hopes that
with its sound track record in India, L&T will catch up with the schedule on this
part of the project. The site team was excited and put in hard work, but one
fine morning, the subcontractor demobilized all his resources overnight,
without any prior notice. The site team was absolutely puzzled and quite
apprehensive of the customer’s reaction. In any case, this news was
communicated to all the stakeholders.
The civil supervisor, the focal point to deliver the field activities appears to be
lost in the woods, unable to understand as how to proceed, says “ It is difficult
to work here – we have to find a way out to get people from other countries as
these subcontractors are not trustworthy, neither I can rely on them. Should
we try out by direct recruit of workmen and buy new construction equipment?”
The Project Cost Controller jumps on to argue “We do not have such provision;
It shall be too costly and not viable. It will be a huge problem as we are likely
to reinvent the wheel! We have not planned facilities for such a huge
workforce (to build on our own) and if we start now, the temporary facilities
One of the owners’ superintendent points out “It does not look like that this
subcontractor can execute this job, they may be great guns in their soil, but
cannot become an International / Global EPC player.”
There have been few meetings on motivating the subcontractor, with offers
such as an incentive scheme for timely completion, award on safety
compliances etc. The Project team had been trying different ways to retain the
subcontractor including higher rates than prevailing market rate and making
the billing schedule more attractive. In a few cases, mobilization advances
were paid to sub-contractors by going beyond accepted practice. In spite of all
such motivating factors, the subcontractors were miserably failing. One of the
L&T supervisors commented that it looks like that the subcontractors had taken
L&T for granted since it was totally dependent on them.
L&T had executed a project in northern part of Malaysia ~4 years back, there
was no history of any delayed payment. The Sub-contractors in Melaka refinery
were not aware of L&T or its track record on payment.
In the upcoming monthly review meeting the project manager has to present
the progress and come out with an achievable catch-up plan. It is a crucial
meeting and everyone is aware that plan should be demonstrable as practical.
The works are spread over many areas consisting of process units, utilities,
offsite, associated facilities and ancillary systems for the production of MG-3.
These elements in the Plant lay-out are divided in following areas:
What should be the short term strategy to manage the ongoing works, do
we have to offload some works from the existing subcontractor – engage
additional contractors?
What are the checks, balances and measures for subcontractor
management on a long term basis – should we follow our proven process
of Indian context ?
How do you assure the other subcontractors will not run away?
From where and how will you get capable contractors adhering to the
contractual stipulations?
What should be the right strategy to have right number of sub-contractor
for better management of projects of this scale and nature?
21.1 CONTRACTOR may upon written approval by the OWNER, enter into
SUBCONTRACT for the performance of parts of the WORK.
CONTRACTOR shall ensure that the terms and conditions as well as the
remuneration paid to any SUBCONTRACTOR shall be fair and
reasonable. CONTRACTOR shall provide OWNER with copies of unpriced
SUBCONTRACT documents which OWNER desires to receive, identifying
therein the mandatory clauses CONTRACTOR is required to insert into
said SUBCONTRACTS pursuant to this CONTRACT. CONTRACTOR shall
engage. Wherever possible, Malaysian SUBCONTRACTORS approved by
OWNER and shall in the case of such SUBCONTRACTORS provide priced
copies in accordance with the requirements of Article 28.
21.2 CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract any of its obligations related to the
WORK to any party not specifically named in CONTRACTOR's PROPOSAL.
In the event the SUBCONTRACTOR named in the CONTRACTOR's
PROPOSAL is unable, for whatever reason, to undertake that portion of
the WORK to be subcontracted, CONTRACTOR shall inform OWNER of
the reasons and seek approval from OWNER as regards CONTRACTOR's
intention to appoint a replacement SUBCONTRACTOR.
21.3 CONTRACTOR shall not be relieved from any obligation under this
CONTRACT by entering into a SUBCONTRACT and CONTRACTOR shall be
responsible for the acts, defaults and neglects of any SUBCONTRACTOR,
its employees, agents, representatives, servants, or workmen as fully
as if they were the acts, defaults or neglects of CONTRACTOR, its
employees, agents, representatives, servants or workmen.
21.4 No SUBCONTRACT shall bind or purport to bind OWNER and each
SUBCONTRACT shall provide for the possibility of its immediate
termination at any time. Without prejudice to the provisions herein
contained CONTRACTOR shall hold harmless and indemnify OWNER
and/or PMT from and against any action, damage, claim and/or
demand whatsoever by any SUBCONTRACTOR.
21.5 CONTRACTOR and SUBCONTRACTOR shall not without OWNER's prior
written consent, engage any personnel who are already employed by
any other contractor in privity of contract with OWNER or directly
employed by OWNER unless such personnel obtain clearance in writing
End of Article – 28
MALAYSIAN PARTICIPATION
Construction Contracts:
Reference PROJECT SPECIFICATION Part IV, Section 5, Construction
Procedures and Requirements. BIDDER shall identify the basis of its proposed
SUBCONTRACT Strategy in regard to the extent of its proposed
subcontracting. Engineering disciplines to be SUBCONTRACTED are to be
identified. BIDDER to provide a list of potential SUBCONTRACTORS
containing a list of not more than 3 nominations for each SUBCONTRACT.
Selection of potential Sub-Contractors shall be made from the Project Sub-
Contractor List in PROJECT SPECIFICATION Pad IV, Appendix 7.
BIDDER shall include in its PROPOSAL full details of the procedures and
criteria by which it proposes to evaluate SUBCONTRACTORS, with reference
to Procedure S-1651-00-PR-0305, Evaluation and selection of
Sub-Contract Strategy:
The Sub-Contracting strategy outlines the division of the Scope of Work into
various packages according to plant area or specialization specific criteria.
1) Pre-Qualifications of Sub-Contractors:
Based on the pre-bid Sub-Contract strategy keeping the Type of Contract, Site
team prepared the Bid document with scope of work, technical and commercial
terms and conditions with all complete relevant details as required for the
bidder for execution of work. The tender document was reviewed by in-charges
Sub-Contracting Bids were opened at the specified date and time in presence of
at least 3 members of the tender committee and the top sheets shall be signed
off by all attendees.
Commercial bids were reviewed by the concerned tender team with respect to
deviations and assumptions from the bid document requirements.
Comparative statement for all the items for all bidders with the in-house
estimates based on the productivity norms were prepared for discussions with
the bidders.
Based on the Technical evaluations the All / Selected bidders were called for
Techno-Commercial discussions. The following points were discussed.
Based on above, the final Techno-commercial evaluation was prepared and the
Sub-Contractor offering the best technical services with competitive price were
selected.
Kick-off meeting were conducted with a week’s time of issue of LOI wherein
Sub-Contractor’s Project Manager with their key personnel consisting of HSE
Manager, QA/QC Manger, Planning Manager, Construction Manager, etc.,
presented their plan to successfully execute the sub-contract package.
Day to day meetings were conducted at supervisory level on day’s plan and
progress issues etc.
Project Manager and Site engineers strived hard to ensure that work front and
materials are issued to the Sub-Contractors as per the agreed plan. Status of
availability and future release of work front was reviewed in detail during
weekly review meetings and appropriate corrective actions were taken if there
be any deviation from the original plan.
A schedule for the billing and payments cycle for the Sub-Contractors was
prepared and mutually agreed by Execution, Planning and Accounts
departments and the same was communicated to the Sub-Contractors for timely
submission of running invoices by the Sub-Contractors.
All concerned ensured that Sub-Contractor running invoices are processed and
payment was released as per the planned date.