FACULTY OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

OIL AND GAS ENGINEERING

PETROLEUM PROJECT MANAGEMENT
(CGE 671)

OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL

QUALITY CHECK FINAL
REPORT
Prepared for :
PM IR DR NADIAHNOR MD YUSOP

Group :
EH 2437 – GROUP 1

Submission Date :
20 DECEMBER 2019
Prepared by :
NAME STUDENT ID
MUHAMAD AFIF BIN AHMAD MURAD 2016691754
MOHAMMAD AFFENDY BIN ASRI 2016691748
NOOR SHAMIMI BINTI RAMLI 2016691668
NURSHAZWANI SYUHADA BINTI ALBADRI 2016691734
NUR ANIS BINTI AHMADI 2016691726
TABLE OF CONTENT

NO. ITEMS PAGE

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-2
2. OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSELS PARTICULARS 3-4
3. OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL IMMEDIATELY 5
NOTABLE ITEMS
4. OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL GRADING DATA 6-9
5. OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL GENERAL QUALITY 10-13
CHECK OUTCOME
6. REFERENCES 14
7. APPENDICES 15-33
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ALPHA and BETA Offshore Support Vessels are platform supply vessel owns by
AB Company built to a good standard under sample class supervision by Sample
Shipyard in Cardiff and delivered to Malaysia in January 2010 and has been active in
oilfield since June 2013. The vessel is flagged in United Kingdom soon changed upon
arrival in Malaysia but remains classed with sample class and are of conventional
design with a large strengthened working deck area and facilities for the carriage of
passenger and fuel and fresh water.

General quality checks for the two vessels were conducted at the same
time from (5th December 2019 until 7th February 2020) with the total duration of
47 days. The vessels were found to be in good and well maintained condition
with no condition based discount applicable. No significant defects were
found or reported by the project team.

The external hull was found to be in good condition, freshly painted

and free of visible defects for both vessels. The focs’le, poop and main deck
areas were seen to be in good and well-maintained condition. Minor defects
were found on the main deck area of ALPHA, including a missing section of
timber deck cladding, a minor oil leak on a deck capstan and corroded defects.
While for BETA, the ballast tanks were mainly full and could not be accessed,
however the forepeak tank was entered and found to be in good condition,
with coatings largely intact and no significant structural defects seen.

For both vessels, the accommodation was found to be clean, spacious

and well maintained. The bridge was found to be in good condition, properly
equipped and with no defects seen or reported. The engine rooms, main and
auxiliary machine were found to be in good condition. The main engines were
inspected while static, and the two auxiliary engines for each vessel were seen
while running. All of them were found to be within the planned maintenance
intervals as per ship management system requirement. Cargo systems were
found to be in good order and all are operational.

1
 Project team performance were found to be very good and both of the
vessels to be managed with the required system properly implemented aboard.
The ALPHA and BETA Offshore Support Vessel Quality Check turns to be
very good, with no deficiencies raised during the operation. Thus, the project
is managed to be terminated by integration with all the project goals is
successfully established. The project was able to be finished on schedule and
meeting the budget with the full commitment and cooperation given by project
manager and project team.

2
2.0 OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL PARTICULARS

2.1 ALPHA PARTICULARS

Ship’s Name ALPHA

Previous Name SAMPLE 1

IMO Number 1111111

Ship Type OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL

Flag ALPHA

Registered Owner AB COMPANY

Technical Manager AB COMPANY

Builder SAMPLE SHIPYARD, CARDIFF

Date of Delivery 01 JANUARY 2010

Deadweight 100.00 MT

Gross Tonnage 100.00

Length Overall 100.00 M

Breadth 100.00 M

Depth 100.00 M

Summer Draught 100.00 M

Lightweight 100.00 MT

3
 2.2 BETA PARTICULARS

Ship’s Name BETA

Previous Name SAMPLE 2

IMO Number 2222222

Ship Type OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL

Flag BETA

Registered Owner AB COMPANY

Technical Manager AB COMPANY

Builder SAMPLE SHIPYARD, CARDIFF

Date of Delivery 01 JANUARY 2010

Deadweight 100.00 MT

Gross Tonnage 100.00

Length Overall 100.00 M

Breadth 100.00 M

Depth 100.00 M

Summer Draught 100.00 M

Lightweight 100.00 MT

4
3.0 OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL IMMEDIATELY NOTABLE
ITEMS

3.1 ALPHA IMMEDIATELY NOTABLE ITEMS

DESCRIPTION ACTION/TIMELINE COST

Timber deck Missing deck timbers to be MYR 2,000.00
cladding missing over replaced as soon as operations
approximate 10 sq allow (OPEX).
m.
Minor oil leakage on deck Oil leak to be rectified as soon as MYR 500.00
capstan winch possible (OPEX).
Corroded walkway gratings Corrosion to be arrested by crew MYR500.00
on main deck area as soon as possible to avoid
further costly repairs later
(OPEX).

3.2 BETA IMMEDIATELY NOTABLE ITEMS

DESCRIPTION ACTION/ TIMELINE COST

In accordance with the regulations current MYR 20,000.00
on the date of this report, Ballast Water
No Ballast Water Treatment plant must be installed by the
Treatment System vessel’s IOPP renewal survey on 26
installed. September 2022. The estimate provided
includes purchase and installation of the
system (Regulatory upgrade).

KEY TO “FINDING” RATING

A significant notable A significant defect Medium/low-cost An exceptional

item, highlighted for affecting class, management defect, feature,
immediate attention insurance or detainable likely PSC or vetting design
of the client. by PSC, or a high comment,recommended advantage or

5
future cost, although for upgrade. benefit of the
not a current defect. vessel.

6
4.0 OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL GRADING DATA

4.1 ALPHA GRADING DATA

NO.CATEGOR
Y

VESSEL CONDITION (OSV-ALPHA)

1 Hull Condition

2 Foc’sle & Poop Deck

3 Main Deck & Fittings

4 Ballast Tank & Void Spaces

5 Galley & Accommodation

Navigating Bridge & Communication

6
Equipment

7 Engine Room Machinery & Machinery Spaces

8 Fire & Safety Appliances

9 Lifesaving Equipment

10 Safe Working

11 Pollution Control

12 On-board Management & Crew Motivation

13 Cargo Systems

VESSEL CONDITION SUBSCORE: 82

7
NO.CATEGOR
Y

VESSEL MANAGEMENT (OSV-ALPHA)

1 Forthcoming Regulatory Compliance

2 Crew Welfare

3 Crew Performance

4 HSEQ Systems

5 Management Systems

6 Classification & Certification

7 Vetting/PSC Performance/Records

VESSEL MANAGEMENT SUBSCORE: 83

OSV-ALPHA OVERALL SCORE 83 - GOOD

8
 4.2 BETA GRADING DATA

NO.CATEGOR
Y

VESSEL CONDITION (OSV-BETA)

1 Hull Condition

2 Foc’sle & Poop Deck

3 Main Deck & Fittings

4 Ballast Tank & Void Spaces

5 Galley & Accommodation

Navigating Bridge & Communication

6
Equipment

7 Engine Room Machinery & Machinery Spaces

8 Fire & Safety Appliances

9 Lifesaving Equipment

10 Safe Working

11 Pollution Control

12 On-board Management & Crew Motivation

13 Cargo Systems

9
 VESSEL CONDITION SUBSCORE: 83

NO.CATEGOR
Y

VESSEL MANAGEMENT (OSV-BETA)

1 Forthcoming Regulatory Compliance

2 Crew Welfare

3 Crew Performance

4 HSEQ Systems

5 Management Systems

6 Classification & Certification

7 Vetting/PSC Performance/Records

VESSEL MANAGEMENT SUBSCORE: 83

OSV-BETA OVERALL SCORE 83 - GOOD

10
5.0 OFFSHORE SUPPORT VESSEL GENERAL QUALITY CHECK
OUTCOME

5.1 ALPHA GENERAL QUALITY CHECK OUTCOME

The external hull was found to be in good condition with no significant defect noted.
The hull freshly painted within any coating breakdown. All hull markings were found to be
clearly and freshly painted.

The foc’sle and poop deck areas were seen to be in a good overall condition with the
towing, anchoring and mooring equipment in apparent good working order with no defects
visible or reported by crew. Mooring machinery and deck fittings were seen to be generally
free of corrosion, and in good well-maintained condition. The foc’sle storeroom was seen to
be clean and tidy with evidence of good housekeeping seen.

Minor defects were found on the main deck area including a missing section of timber
deck cladding, a minor oil leak on a deck capstan and corroded effects. This will need to be
rectified in the near future to avoid more extensive repairs at a later case.

The forepeak tank was inspected and found in good condition in terms of both
structure and coating. Anodes were found to be in good order with approximately 10%
diminution. The recent Special Survey report from class reports the ballast tanks as being
“Good”.

The overall condition of the galley was seen to be good. No significant defects were
seen or reported by crew. Good levels of hygiene and general housekeeping were noted

11
throughout. During the recently dry docking, the galley subfloor was renewed and one stove
still remains to secured.

The navigation and communication equipment was found in good condition. The
vessel has a single ECDIS installed and uses approved electronic navigational charts as
navigation aid, although paper charts remain the primary means of navigation on the vessel.
The vessel is equipped with duplicated controls laid out with conventional but modern
control consoles. No significant defect was noted or reported by crew.

The vessel is equipped with two engines, two azimuth thrusters, one emergency
generator and2 shafts generators which were reported to be fully operational. In general, all
machinery spaces were found tidy, clean and well managed with no leakage. All ancillary
equipment was reported as operational during the inspections. All electrical equipment was
reported as operational. The azimuth/ Bow thrusters were recently overhauled. All
outstanding machinery defects were also rectified. Overall condition noted as good with no
reported major mechanical defects.

In general, all fire and safety appliances found in good condition. All portable and
fixed firefighting equipment found to be as the per fire safety plan and all serviced. The
emergency fire pumps were observed in operation located forward and vessel also had both
main engines attached power take off pumps capable of supplying enough power.

In general, the lifesaving equipment was found maintained and ready for use. The
rescue boats 5 yearly load tests and annual survey was carried out in line with the class
renewal of the cargo ship safety equipment certificate.

The level of safe working conditions during inspections was noted as good and vessel
took all necessary enclosed space and PTW system procedure prior to inspection of the fore
peak tanks. The SMS as per ISM had been implemented throughout the vessel and
emergency instructions are in English. All crew were observed to be following safety
instructions and found wearing correct detections and alarm systems is well maintained.

Pollution control equipment was found to be in good order. The vessel has an
approved SOPEP and SMPEP. The oily water separator was found to be in good conditions.
Garbage management was found to be properly implemented aboard with appropriate
receptacles used segregate waste as required. The vessel is not VGP compliant and not carry
any Class approved Inventory of Hazardous Materials documentation. Ballast water treatment
is not installed, and will need to retrofitted by the next vessel’s IOPP renewal survey.

The vessel appeared to be well managed both on board and from ashore. Crewing
level were found to be good, with good complement. The vessel’s Port State Control
inspection history was found to be very good, with no deficiencies raised during last
inspections.

The open deck areas, deck crane and dry bulk room were inspected and found to be in
good condition. Apart from the section missing deck cladding mentioned earlier, no
significant defects were noted.

12
 5.2 BETA GENERAL QUALITY CHECK OUTCOME

The external hull was found to be in good condition with no significant defect noted.
The hull freshly painted within any coating breakdown. All hull markings were found to be
clearly and freshly painted.

The foc’sle and poop deck areas were seen to be in a good overall condition with the
towing, anchoring and mooring equipment in apparent good working order with no defects
visible or reported by crew. Mooring machinery and deck fittings were seen to be generally
free of corrosion, and in good well-maintained condition. The foc’sle storeroom was seen to
be clean and tidy with evidence of good housekeeping seen.

The main deck area was found to be in good conditions. The main working area is
covered in wooden cladding, designed to protect deck plating from damage. Overall is in
good conditions.

The ballast tanks were mainly full and could not be accessed. However, the forepeak
tank was inspected and found in good condition in terms of both structure and coating.
Anodes were found to be in good order with approximately 10% diminution. The recent
Special Survey report from class reports the ballast tanks as being “Good”.

The overall condition of the galley was seen to be good. No significant defects were
seen or reported by crew. Good levels of hygiene and general housekeeping were noted
throughout. During the recently dry docking, the galley subfloor was renewed and one stove
still remains to secured.

The navigation and communication equipment was found in good condition. The
vessel has a single ECDIS installed and uses approved electronic navigational charts as
navigation aid, although paper charts remain the primary means of navigation on the vessel.
The vessel is equipped with duplicated controls laid out with conventional but modern
control consoles. No significant defect was noted or reported by crew.

13
 The vessel is equipped with two engines, two azimuth thrusters, one emergency
generator and2 shafts generators which were reported to be fully operational. In general, all
machinery spaces were found tidy, clean and well managed with no leakage. All ancillary
equipment was reported as operational during the inspections. All electrical equipment was
reported as operational. The azimuth/ Bow thrusters were recently overhauled. All
outstanding machinery defects were also rectified. Overall condition noted as good with no
reported major mechanical defects.

In general, all fire and safety appliances found in good condition. All portable and
fixed firefighting equipment found to be as the per fire safety plan and all serviced. The
emergency fire pumps were observed in operation located forward and vessel also had both
main engines attached power take off pumps capable of supplying enough power.

In general, the lifesaving equipment was found maintained and ready for use. The
rescue boats 5 yearly load tests and annual survey was carried out in line with the class
renewal of the cargo ship safety equipment certificate.

The level of safe working conditions during inspections was noted as good and vessel
took all necessary enclosed space and PTW system procedure prior to inspection of the fore
peak tanks. The SMS as per ISM had been implemented throughout the vessel and
emergency instructions are in English. All crew were observed to be following safety
instructions and found wearing correct detections and alarm systems is well maintained.

Pollution control equipment was found to be in good order. The vessel has an
approved SOPEP and SMPEP. The oily water separator was found to be in good conditions.
Garbage management was found to be properly implemented aboard with appropriate
receptacles used segregate waste as required. The vessel is not VGP compliant and not carry
any Class approved Inventory of Hazardous Materials documentation. Ballast water treatment
is not installed, and will need to retrofitted by the next vessel’s IOPP renewal survey.

The vessel appeared to be well managed both on board and from ashore. Crewing
level were found to be good, with good complement. The vessel’s Port State Control
inspection history was found to be very good, with no deficiencies raised during last
inspections.

The open deck areas, deck crane and dry bulk room were inspected and found to be in
good condition. Apart from the section missing deck cladding mentioned earlier, no
significant defects were noted.

14
6.0 REFERENCES

1. Project Management The Managerial Process, Fifth Edition by Erik W.

Larson and Clifford F. Gray
2. Bureau Veritas Inspection Fees for Dillard’s Vendors, Effective Date
March 14, 2013
3. Sample Tanker Inspected at Singapore, 1st January 2018, Reported by Mr.
Idwal Marine
4. Sample Bulk Carrier Inspected at Coquimbo, Chile, 26 th September 2018,
Reported by Mr. Idwal Marine

15
7.0 APPENDICES

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The project is to have a quality check of two offshore support vessel at the same time. The
old project only required one of offshore support vessel which cause the delay to other
offshore support vessel

PROJECT APPROACH
The project is to make inspection and maintenance on two offshore support vessel twice
annually

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1. To maintain the quality of offshore support vessel
2. To prevents hazard by doing the maintenance

MAJOR DELIVERABLES
1. Vessel schedule(Docky Date)
2. Proritize which part that need to be inspect
3. To provide the offshore support vessel structure (P&ID)

LIMITATIONS
1. Limititation of docky yard
2. The resources or data of the support vessel

RISK & FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

The primary risk is when the doctory taking too long due to maintenance and inspection

16
which effect the company profit. Other than that, it will interference with client schedule

17
 WORK BREAKDOWN SUPPORT VESSEL QUALITY CHECKS

STRUCTURE L1

PROJECT SYSTEM GAP ANALYSIS SPARE AND PROCUREMENT EQUIPMENT TRAINING/TEST BUREAU
INSPECTION AND REPAIR PARTS INSTALLATION DRIVE VERITAS, etc.
MANAGEMENT EVALUATION

 Operation Inspection and  Price Surveying for Needed

L2  Equipment
Evaluation Repair or Change Parts
 Services
 Inspection and Evaluation  Price Comparison
 Project Charter  Facilities  Approval
Support  Purchase Equipment
 Document Tracking Application
 Test Facilities
and Control
 Quality Assurance  Insurance
 Material Tracking and  Equipment Parts  Bureau
Control Conversion Veritas, etc
 Risk Management  Maintenance  System Assembly Inspection
 Detailed Assessment  Change  Contractor
 Inspection and Equipment (If) Technical Support
Evaluation Needed
Facilities/equipment
 Hull Structure
 Auxiliary System
L3  Outfit and Furnishing
 Intergration/Engineering
 Vessel Assembly and 18
Support Services
 RACI

PROJECT MECHANICA INTEGRITY INSPECTION MAINTENANC MAINTENANC PROCUREMENT

SAFETY ENGINEER
  MANAGER L ENGINEER ENGINEER ENGINEER E ENGINEER E TECHNICIAN ENGINEER
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT                
Material Tracking and Control I C     R     A
Document Tracking and Control I R       C A  
Risk Management I C A   R R    
Detailed Assessment I A     R R   C
Inspection and Evaluation
I R   A       C
Facilities /equipment
SYSTEM INSPECTION AND
               
EVALUATION
Operation Inspection and
I C   A   R    
Evaluation
Inspection and Evaluation
I C   A R      
Support
Quality Assurance I C A   R      
GAP ANALYSIS                
GAP ANALYSIS I A     R R   C
SPARE AND REPAIR PARTS                
Maintenance I R     R A   C
Change Equipment (If) Needed I C     A R   C
PROCUREMENT                
Price Surveying for Needed
C R     R   A  
Repair or Change Parts
Purchase Equipment C I R     I A  

19
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION                
System Assembly/ Contractor
I   A R   R   C
Technical Support
TRAINING/TEST DRIVE                
Equipment I C R     R   A

Services I C A     R    
Facilities I C A   R R    
BUREAU VERITAS                
Approval Application C     A R I    
Insurance C   R A   I    
Bureau Veritas Inspection C R   A   I    

20
NETWORK SEQUENCE FOR DURATION & RESOURCES

21
PROJECT OVERALL COST ESTIMATE

Estimate Report Example

Description Unit Estimate (MYR) Basis

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Material Tracking and Control   400.00 RM/duration

Document Tracking and Control   400.00 RM/duration

Risk Management   400.00 RM/duration

Detailed Assessment   400.00 RM/duration

Inspection and Evaluation Facilities/equipment   400.00 RM/duration

Sub Total 2000.00
 
SYSTEM INSPECTION AND EVALUATION

Operation Inspection and Evaluation

Hull Structure 6000.00

  RM/duration

Auxiliary System 6000.00

  RM/duration
Outfit and Furnishing 6000.00
  RM/duration

Intergration/Engineering 6000.00
  RM/duration

Vessel Assembly and Support Services 6000.00

  RM/duration

Inspection and Evaluation Support 20,000.00

  RM/duration

Quality Assurance 10,000.00

  RM/duration

Sub Total 60000.00

 

22
GAP ANALYSIS 2250.00
  RM/duration

Sub Total 2250.00

 

SPARE AND REPAIR PARTS

     
Maintenance 24,000.00
  RM/duration

Change Equipment (If) Needed 24,000.00

  RM/duration

Sub Total 48,000.00

 
PROCUREMENT
     
Price Surveying for Needed Repair or Change
1,500.00
Parts   RM/duration
Purchase Equipment 100,000.00
   
Sub Total 101,500.00
 
EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
System Assembly/ Contractor Technical
9,600.00
Support   RM/duration
Sub Total 9,600.00
 

TRAINING/TEST DRIVE

Equipment 300.00
  RM/duration
Services 300.00
  RM/duration

Facilities 400.00
  RM/duration

Sub Total 1000.00

 

BUREAU VERITAS

Approval Application 1,200.00

  600 per application
Insurance 200.00
  100 per insurance
Bureau Veritas Inspection 1,600.00
  RM/duration
Sub Total 3,000.00
 

23
Total Basic Cost
  227,350.00
10
Contractor Mark-Up
% 22,735.00
Total Cost Estimate
  250,085.00
15
Contingency
% 37512.75

Overall Total Cost Estimate

  287,597.75

24
EARNED VALUE ANALYSIS

Total Basic Cost TBC MYR 227350

Contractor Markup (10%)   MYR 22735
Total Cost Estimate TCE MYR 250085
Contigency (15%)   MYR 37512.75
Overall Total Cost Estimate BAC MYR 287597.75
Assume; 5 days working in one week;
Project Duration     47 Days(9.4 Weeks)
Forecasting for 12% complete after one week;
Planned Value PV MYR 30595.51
Earned Value EV MYR 34511.73
Actual Cost AC MYR 14000
Cost Variance CV MYR 20511.73
Schedule Variance SV MYR 3916.22
Cost Performance Index CPI   2.465123571
Schedule Performance Index SPI   1.128
Estimate at Completion EAC MYR 116666.6667
Estimate to Complete ETC MYR 102666.6667
To Complete Performance Index TCPI   0.92502961
To Complete Performance Index TCPI   2.465123571
Variance at Completion VAC MYR 170931.0833
Cost Schedule Index CSI   2.780659389

25
 40000

35000 34511.73
30595.51
30000

25000

20000
COST (MYR) PV
15000 EV
14000 AC
10000

5000

0
0 1 10
WEEK

300000
287597.75

250000

200000

150000
COST (MYR)
BAC
116666.67
100000 EAC

50000

0
0 9.4
WEEK

Conclusion
Based on the cost variance and cost performance index, our project is currently under budget.
While based on the schedule variance and schedule performance index, our project is currently ahead schedule.
The Estimated Cost at Completion is MYR 116666.67

26
RISK
IDENTIFICATION :
RISK BREAKDOWN
STRUCTURE

INPUT GAP
INSPECTION SURVEY EQUIPMENT REPAIR BUY INSTALL TEST RUN MARINE INSPECTION
DATA ANALYSIS

R3 : R13 :
R1 : Potential of R5 : R9 : Unsafe Delayed R19 :
R7 : Opportunity for R15 : Lack in training R22 : Fail to achieve
Insufficient leaking - Insufficient working delivery Incomplete
cheaper equipment - contractor requirement
data fuel, diesel, data collected condition /shippin assembly
gally g
R2 : R6 :
R4 : Unsafe R10 : Low R14 : R20 : Not
Human Misinterpreta R8 : Inavailabality of R16 : Problem with R23 : Fail to obtain
working technical Low working as
error-key tion data of required equipment installation certificate renewal
condition expertise quality targeted
in wrongly result
R11 : Pollution R21 : Unsafe
R17 : Unsafe working
        - Oil and   working  
condition
sound condition
R12 : Fire and
          R18 : LOTO    
safety

27
28
 LIST OF RISKS

R11 : Pollution - Oil and R21 : Unsafe working

R1 : Insufficient data
sound condition (test run)
R22 : Fail to achieve
R2 : Human error-key in wrongly R12 : Fire and safety
requirement
R13 : Delayed R23 : Fail to obtain
R3 : Potential of leaking - fuel, diesel, gally
delivery/shipping certificate renewal

R4 : Unsafe working condition (inspection) R14 : Low quality

R15 : Lack in training -

R5 : Insufficient data collected
contractor
R16 : Problem with
R6 : Misinterpretation data of result
installation
R17 : Unsafe working
R7 : Opportunity for cheaper equipment
condition (install)

R8 : Inavailabality of required equipment R18 : LOTO

R9 : Unsafe working condition (repair) R19 : Incomplete assembly

R10 : Low technical expertise R20 : Not working as targeted

29
30
 PROBABILIT PROBABILIT PROBABILIT
Y Y SCORE IMPACT Y SCORE

VERY LOW 0.1 1 NEGLIGIBLE 0.1 1

LOW 0.3 2 LOW 0.3 2

MODERATE 0.5 3 MODERATE 0.5 3

HIGH 0.7 4 SEVERE 0.7 4

CATASTROPHI
VERY HIGH 0.9 5 C 0.9 5

RISK REGISTER

PROBABILITY IMPAC IMPACT FINAL

ID RISK PROBABILITY SCORE T SCORE SCORE CATEG

R1 Insufficient data 0.3 2 0.3 2 4  

Human error-key in
R2 wrongly 0.1 1 0.7 4 4  

Potential of leaking-
R3 diesel,fuel,gally 0.3 2 0.9 5 10  

Unsafe working condition

R4 during inspection 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

               

               

               
Insufficient data collected
R5 for Gap Analysis 0.3 2 0.3 2 4  
Misinterpretation data of
R6 result 0.3 2 0.7 4 8  
Opportunity for cheaper
R7 equipment 0.7 4 0.1 1 4  

31
 Inavailability of required
R8 equipment 0.1 1 0.5 3 3  
Unsafe working condition
R9 during repairing work 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

               
R1
0 Low technical expertise 0.1 1 0.5 3 3  

R1
1 Pollution-oil and sound 0.5 3 0.5 3 9  

               

               

R1
2 Fire and safety 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

32
R1 Delayed delivery of
3 shipping 0.3 2 0.7 4 8  
R1
4 Low quality of equipment 0.1 1 0.7 4 4  
               
R1
5 Lack in training-contractor 0.1 1 0.7 4 4  

R1
6 Problem with installation 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

               
R1 Unsafe working condition
7 during installation 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

               
R1
8 Lock Out Tag Out 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

R1
9 Incomplete Assembly 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  
R2
0 Not working as targeted 0.1 1 0.5 3 3  

R2 Unsafe working condition

1 during test run 0.1 1 0.9 5 5  

               

R2 Fail to achieve Marine

2 Department requirement 0.3 2 0.5 3 6  
R2 Fail to obtain certificate
3 renewal 0.1 1 0.7 4 4  

33
34
POST MORTEM
REPORT

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A general quality inspection of the support vessel was conducted from 5th December 2019 until 7th February 2020.
The project is managed to be terminated by integration and addition with the project goals is successfully established.
The project was able to be finished on schedule and meeting the budget. Deliverables generated also were able to
satisfy the client with project output can be used for further operation with no pending in any of deliverables.
In conclusion, the project goals were fully achieved with the full commitment and cooperation given by
manager and project team.

THE GOOD:
1.    The quality check on both of the support vessels were able to be completed on time and within approved budget.
2.    The vessels were found to be in good and well maintained condition. There is no significant defects were
found reported by project team.
3.    The external hull was found to be in good condition, freshly painted and free of visible defects.
4.    The accommodation was found to be clean, spacious and well maintained.
5.    The engine room, main and auxiliary machinery were found in good condition.
6.    The vessels do not hold any inventory of hazardous materials documentation.
7.    Cargo systems were found to be in good order and all operational.
8.    The ballast tanks were mainly full and could not be accessed, however the forepeak tank was entered and
found to be in good condition with coatings largely intact and no significant structural defects seen.
9.    Project team performance was found to be very good and the vessel to be well-managed with all
the Marine Department Service requirement were all fully occupied.

THE BAD:
Three worst factors that impeded the teams to meet project goals:
1.    Minor defects were found on the main deck area, including a missing section of timber deck cladding.
2.    A minor oil leak occurred on a deck capstan and corroded walkway grating.
3.    Drag operation in terms of delayed installation caused by delayed shipping.

RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT:

1.    To collect all input data needed from many trusted sources, instead of depending only on one source.
2.    To provide training for the project team to improve their skills thus improve project performance.
3.    To tighten the safety regulation for working condition.

35