Fxhibat Mo S0A-320
`
`Docket Mea. 1S05-348.004 of al .t RCA Docket Moa. P-O8-% o al,
`
`age | ol 2
`
`SR AFE Audit
`Scope Inputs
`
`| inquired of certain Owner alternates as 1o areas of rigk and interast from their
`parspective for purposas of scoping this auwdit.
`
`- Thamwmwmdrrmsnzumumammmmamnm :
`transparant ta her and therefore is unsure whether this is working as
`intended. Therafore, was not sura if the 3 smaller AFE's ware baing
`fundad corractly.
`
`= Concemed that baseline costs and non SR AFE costs are creeping
`into SR AFE's and vice versa.
`
`= |3 the 5020 scope being followed for charging of costs? In other
`words, are the costs charged to S020 consistent with the approved
`
`. Tmmm:fdtsma.finaamsm1 would go forward regardless of
`S020. The allocation schema was Initiated to allocate S020 costs oul to
`these smallar AFE's as it was felt certain work on S020 could be done in
`confunction with these smaller AFE's. Example baing cartain tranching
`wouild have a alectrification (S020) purpose, and also a fire safety or
`security purpose (smaller AFEs). However, what about when thess
`trenches served one purpose (a8g. security)? Were they stiil changed to
`S020 and allocated oul, or were they charged specifically to the smalier
`AFE's as they should have been. In other words, did the allocation
`scheme fit the actual circumstances.
`
`» Scope issues — Things were put in S020 that BP didn't want (like security),
`
`If some work could be done concurrently than OK in S020. But using the
`trenching example, If more trenching had to be done that what was
`absolutely needed for S020 it needed to be carved out and BP suspects It
`was not carved out separately.
`
`o Also, Owners feel Alyeska doesn't manage scope changes well.
`m'.rnflrsthmghrmfhad put a lid on out of scopes but concem is
`additional work creeps in. Another example is card readers. It was
`BPF's understanding that card readers would be at the gate. |t now
`appears card readers are in each module. If true, BP feels this
`scope change wasn't adequataly communicated.
`
`o [Periodically, the altermates would be asked for scope clarifications.
`Michael stated these wera given but no subsequent discussions as
`1o whethar they were implementad. In other words, ha felt there
`ware failed communications to clarify scope.
`
`* Michael also stated the PS5 5 audit issuas cama home 10 roost.
`
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY CORSISICN
`Dockst Mo, S00-348-004
`
`oo 109
`
`Coy kit s
`Dl Addrribee -5} R
`
`TSRCOPI2S4 TS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fxhibl Mo S00A.329
`Diocket Mo, 1500348004 et al ; RO A Dociost Mos. P05 €1 al
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`Meeting with Jeff Ray on 1/24/07
`
`= Scopa growth around S020. Acknowledged there was a lack of scope
`definition eary on and this may have been a valid excuse, but past 18
`months it was clear in Ownaers eyes there were lo be no scope increases
`without discussiona/approvals. The SR Team would feel something
`needed to be done to complate the project and do it without a
`corrasponding discussion/approval before the fact.
`
`+ Felt that MOC re: scope changes was weak.
`
`= Allocation methodology to S036, 38 and 41. COP and EM felt these ware
`separate scopes from S020. Jeff did not feel the allocation assumpltions
`refleciad or were modified to reflect actuality.
`
`« Felt that crews at PS 3 and 4 remained too large after decision to scope
`back on 3020. Unsure what projects they were working on and whather
`coding was appropriate.
`
`= Suggestad looking at S028 which he falt had a very specific scope but that
`scope subsequently changed.
`
`» Security plece of S020 Is similar to above. What was intended to me
`ralativaly minor grew significantly.
`
`» Concerned thal Program staff has grown to approx. $6M per year, Feels
`that is excessive. Suggested looking at the pool of people making up the
`Program team and seaing i t makes senae.
`
`= Suggpested looking at the KPI's. He said the KPI's did not identity red flags
`timely. @.g. look at reported contingency. ~
`
`LA S
`
`TERCOPODO26480
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`