Company Name Project Name Project ID Project General Information CII Refining Company Eagle Ford Expansion A TENO52831 Project Location Victoria, Texas Project Type Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Project Nature Addition, Expansion Capacity 22,5 BPD Local (212) Chicago (213) Midpoint of Phase 4/12/212 Total Project Cost USD 5,, USD 58,76, Forecasted Total Duration 59 Weeks Phase Cost USD 2,18, USD 21,18, Phase Duration 2 Weeks Input Measures Planning Organizing Leading Controlling Design Efficiency 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 6 64% 7 6 65% 7 6 67% 7 6 61% 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 52% 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 N=82 N=84 N=81 Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max 15% 52% 67% 92% 28% 58% 64% 69% 82% 9% 59% 68% 76% 92% 28% 56% 63% 69% 83% 3% 31% 49% 68% 78% Human Resources Quality Sustainability Supply Chain Safety 1 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 8 7 6 62% 8 7 6 57% 8 7 6 76% 8 7 6 68% 8 7 6 77% 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 N=85 N=83 Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max 15% 53% 61% 68% 85% 1% 49% 61% 72% 87% 53% 63% 8 1 2% 53% 66% 89% 41% 72% 77% 82% 88%
Thousand USD / Day Weeks / Thousand BPD Weeks / Thousand BPD Percentage (%) Thousand USD / BPD Thousand USD / BPD Percentage (%) Output Measures Forecasted Project Cost Efficiency Construction Cost Efficiency Construction Cost Growth 18 12 16 16 14 1 12 12 8 8 1 8 6 6 4 4 9,47% 4 2 N=8 2,61 2 N=8,93-4 -8 N=63 Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max.1.5.73 2.25 16.67.1.2.46 1.52 1. -34.2% -5. 7.7% 27.3% 133.3% Forecasted Project Schedule Efficiency Construction Schedule Efficiency Construction Schedule Growth 3,5 1,4 12 3, 1,2 8 2,5 2, 1,5 1, 2,61 1,,8,6,4,86 4-4 -18,7%,5,2-8, N=8, N=8-12 N=66 Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max.16.37 1.11 1.79 3.33.4.21.46 1.19 1.23-73.7% -5. 4.7% 22.4% 98.4% Construction Phase Burn Rate TRIR DART 45 35,35 4 35 3 3 25,3,25 25 2,2 2 15 1 5 N=57 154,54 15 1 5 N=35 2,18,15,1,5, N=46, Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max.5 18.88 47.68 18.85 49.88.5.63 2.8 9.8 31.93.....3
Craft Workers / Million USD FTE / Million USD (Low Complexity Projects) Craft Work Force / Construction Phase Cost 35 Output Measures Project Management Team Size / Total Project Cost 5, Capacity Efficiency 3 25 4, 2 15 1 5 8,33 3, 2, 1, C N=61, N=22,22 Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max Min 1Q 2Q 3Q Max.8 1.91 3.38 9.35 32..3.13.23 1.1 4.62 NA NA NA NA NA Input Measures Comparison Criteria Input Measures Industry Group Phase Project Type Respondent Type Planning Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production All Organizing Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Leading Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Controlling Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production All Design Efficiency Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Human Resources Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Quality Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production All Sustainability Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Supply Chain Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production All Safety Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Output Measures Comparison Criteria Industry Respondent Capacity Output Measures Group Phase Project Type Type Unit Forecasted Project Cost Efficiency Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner BPD Construction Cost Efficiency Industrial Construction All All BPD Construction Cost Growth Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Forecasted Project Schedule Efficiency Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production All BPD Construction Schedule Efficiency Industrial Construction All Owner BPD Construction Schedule Growth Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Construction Phase Burn Rate Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner TRIR (Total Recordable Incident Rate) Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner DART (Day Away, Job Restriction or Transfer) Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Craft Work Force/Construction Phase Cost Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production Owner Complexity Group Project Management Team Size/Total Project Cost Industrial Construction All All Medium Capacity Efficiency Industrial Construction Oil/Gas Exploration/Production All BPD te - Forecasted Project Cost Efficiency = Forecasted Project Cost / Capacity - Construction Cost Efficiency = Construction Cost / Capacity - Construction Cost Growth = (Actual Construction Cost Planned Construction Cost ) / Planned Construction Cost - Forecasted Project Schedule Efficiency = Forecasted Total Duration / Capacity - Construction Schedule Efficiency = Construction Duration / Capacity - Construction Schedule Growth = (Actual Construction Duration Planned Construction Duration ) / Planned Construction Duration - Construction Phase Burn Rate = Construction Cost / Construction Duration - TRIR = (Total Number of Recordable Cases 2,) / Total Site Work-Hours - DART = (Total Number of DART Cases 2,) / Total Site Work-Hours - Capacity Efficiency = (Capacity / Reference Project Capacity) / (Installed Quantity / Reference Project Installed Quantity)
Question. Input Measure Question N Responses 19 Did the major project objectives change during construction? 4 25% (Minor Change) (Major Change) 2 This project experienced a high number of: Scope chanage/creep 4 Project development changes 4 Deviation notices 4 n-conformance reports 4 Major equipment list changes 4 Program changes 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 25% 5 25% 5 21 Was a turnaround involved in the scope of this project? 3 1 22 Construction was well integrated with the turnaround. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 25 Please characterize how project meetings were conducted. Including appropriate representation of stakeholders 4 Effective mechanisms for resolving project related issues 4 Occuring with a frequencey that meets the project's needs 4 Having meaningful output that justifies my time investment 4 26 What was the typical foreman to craft ratio? 27 5:1 3 6:1 ~ 8:1 3 9:1 ~ 12:1 3 13:1 3 Which of the following statements characterized the decisions made by the manager(s) of this project? (check all that apply). Considered final and not revisited 4 Collaborative and inclusive 4 Made at the lowest approriate level in the organization 4 Communicated promptly to the team 4 Made in a timely and effective manner 4 Consistent with the delegation of authority 4 28 This project used the following methods (please check all that apply): Plan Percent Complete 4 Workface Planning/Last Planner 4 Work Packaging 4 Subcontractor Prequalification 4 Ongoing Craft Training Programs 4 Substance Abuse Training 4 Preassembly 4 Prefabrication 4 Modularization 4 Offsite Fabrication 4 5 2 4 6 8 67% 33% 1 1 1 1
Question. 29 Formal (classroom) safety training was attended: Input Measure Question N Responses Monthly 4 Quarterly 4 Annually 4 Initial / Once 4 Never 4 25% 3 Was there a formal new hire safety orientation process? 4 25% 31 Did an owner representative participate in the safety orientation? 4 25% 32 Overall how many workers per safety professional were typically (i.e., in terms of the average workforce) on site? 1 : 2 4 1 : 21 ~ 4 4 1 : 41 ~ 6 4 1 : 61 ~ 1 4 1 : over 11 4 25% 33 Did the original primary contractor(s) complete the project? 4 25% 34 Was safety performance a criterion for contractor and subcontractor selection? 4 25% 35 Were safety toolbox meetings held daily? 4 1 36 Were accidents, including near misses, formally investigated? 4 1
Question. Input Measure Question N Mean SD 43 Project cash flow was managed well during construction. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 5 5 45 The project team including project manager(s) had skills and experiences with similar projects / processes. 5 5 46 The project experienced a minimum number of project management team personnel changes. 5 5 48 Project safety procedures were well defined and strictly followed. 5 5 5 Subcontractors provided the majority of the construction craft workers. 5 5 52 Key project team members understood the owner's goals and objectives of this project. 5 5 56 This project experienced a minimum amount of labor disruption. 5 5 58 Leadership effectively communicated business objectives, priorities, and project goals. 5 5 63 Resources were allocated according to project priorities. 73 Regulatory requirements (e.g., permitting and environmental issues) were properly managed and construction is in compliance. 74 Site materials management was effective. 75 The project employed regular safety audits or observations. 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 78 The customer was satisfied with the construction deliverables. 5 5 38 The owner level of involvement was appropriate. 53 The interfaces between project stakeholders were well managed. 55 Project team members had the authority necessary to do their jobs. 59 The key stakeholders (owner, designer, vendors and suppliers) were fully aligned during construction. 6 Project leaders were open to hearing "bad news," and they wanted input from project team members.
Question. 61 62 Input Measure Question N Mean SD Plan and progress, including changes, were communicated clearly and frequently amongst project stakeholders. The project's startup objectives were appropriately communicated to the relevant project team members. Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 66 Project team members had the information they needed to do their jobs effectively. 69 When issues arose, there were effective mechanisms to ensure they were resolved. 7 The project encountered many problems associated with the late delivery of equipment and bulk materials. 71 A dedicated process was used to proactively manage change on this project. 39 The owner and primary contractor(s) maintain a longstanding partnering arrangement. 4 4.. 1 37 The availability and competency of craft labor was adequate. 4 3.25 1.69 25% 25% 5 49 Project management team members were clear about their roles and how to work with others on the project. 4 3.25 1.69 25% 25% 5 51 People on this project worked effectively as a team. 4 3.25 1.69 25% 25% 5 57 The owner and primary contractor(s) maintained positive working relationships. 4 3.25 1.69 25% 25% 5 65 The project's work processes and systems (e.g., document management, project controls, business and financial systems) supported project success. 4 3.25 1.69 25% 25% 5 41 A formal startup execution plan, including operations and maintenance philosophy, was incorporated in construction. 4 3. 1. 5 5 8 Sustainability was an important consideration for the construction of this project. 4 3. 1. 5 5 54 Engineering deliverables were released in a timely manner and in a proper sequence. 4 2.75 1.69 64 A high degree of trust, respect and transparency existed amongst companies working on this project. 4 2.75 3.19 25% 25% 5 68 To what extent were the engineering deliverables complete and accurate (with minimal errors and omissions)? 3 2.67.89 33% 67% 42 The work planning and scheduling processes were effective. 4 2.5 2.25 5 5
Question. 47 67 Input Measure Question N Mean SD All of the necessary, relevant project team members were involved in an effective risk identification and management process for construction. Project leaders recognized and rewarded outstanding personnel and results. 4 2.5 2.25 4 2.5.75 Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Disagree 5 5 72 A formal project Quality Management System was used on this project. 4 2.5.75 4 The project team members were familiar with the project execution plan (PEP), and they used it to manage their work. 4 2.. 1 44 The construction execution plan addressed community relations issues. 4 2. 1.5 25% 25% 5 77 The project team members attended sufficient professional training directly related to their work in construction. 4 2.. 1 76 Materials and equipment were typically received on time, without damage, and per design specification. 4 1.75 1.69 79 The cost of quality was determined during the construction of this project. 4 1.5.25 5 5