Page 53 - impiantistica_3_2015

Table 1 - Suggested ranking table

Score Adjudication

6 to 7 Highest Ranking i.e. most convenient from the COMPANY’s
point of view

3 to 5 Middle Ranking

1 to 2 Lowest Ranking i.e. least convenient from the COMPANY’s point
of view
are obtained and duly analyzed, cross-combination
Table 2 Example of how to use the scoring tables analysis, and possible intersection of those
alternatives, may be explored in a qualitative manner.
Parameter Weight Alternative 2 Alternative 1 Working side by side with the Company is a
7 fundamental prerequisite for the successful set
Parameter 1 45% 3 5 up, sharing and implementation of the described
4 methodology. Based on experience, the most
Parameter 2 5% 2 3 effective and genuine contribution of parties can
B be gathered through dedicated and interactive
Parameter 3 30% 1 workshops.

Parameter 4 20% 6 In essence, the methodology applies a
sequential approach under which the
Results: A
contracting alternatives
A and B correspond to the weighted sum of the scores multiplied by the (split in packages, split in SoW,
compensation schemes and take over
associated weight, and then divided by the max score i.e.:
A: [(3 × 45%) + (2 × 5%) + (1 × 30%) + (6 × 20%)] / 7 = 42% schemes) are evaluated
B: [(7 × 45%) + (5 × 5%) + (4 × 30%) + (3 × 20%)] / 7 = 74% independently from each other. This
enable their individual assessment using
Table 3. Evaluation of alternatives for the split of SOW typical project dedicated evaluation matrices. Once the

EPCSm + S EPCmSm + C + S ECmSm+C+PS results of each individual matrix
are obtained and duly analyzed, cross-
3 54
combination analysis, and possible
7 41 intersection of those alternatives, may be

7 42 explored in a qualitative manner

6 44 Overall steps of the methodology

7 42 • Step 0 – Formation

3 57 Design a scoring system such
• that sufficient flexibility is given to the evaluation
7 41
panel;
7 42 • that the final comparison between options is

4 77 readily understandable.

7 42 Construct independent matrixes to evaluate each
alternative, on the basis of relevant parameters
7 31 and weights. Health, safety, environment, ethics
and quality are considered to be non-negotiable
6 41 values and therefore, they are not subject to any
relaxation i.e. for this reason they are not needed to
92% 59% 30% be included into the matrices.

definitions and a common standardized agreed- • Step 1 – Identify the most beneficial split in
upon approach. packages.
This is a key task that enables setting up a
conscious, versatile and easy to share tool that • Step 2 – Identify the most beneficial split in
allows gathering feedbacks and sanctioning the SoW.
elements underlying a given scoring and finally a
strategy. An effective and efficient management of • Step 3 – Identify the most beneficial contractual
this task allows minimizing biases and future time compensation scheme for each SoW.
consuming revisions.
In essence, the methodology applies a sequential • Step 4 – Identify the most beneficial taking
approach under which the contracting alternatives over scheme.
(split in packages, split in SoW, compensation
schemes and take over schemes) are evaluated • Step 5 – Consolidation and analysis.
independently from each other. This enable their
individual assessment using dedicated evaluation
matrices. Once the results of each individual matrix

Impiantistica Italiana - Maggio-Giugno 2015 51