Woodside Boss Remarks on Scaffolding (1 Viewer)

So the rate for modifications is at a higher rate to the client?

With all the works on reimbursable?

So obviously the scaffolders get more money for mods too?

Sounds like a Carlsberg commercial to me!
 
What these fellahs also don't realize just how much scaffold is required on major jobs they always under estimate then whinge about cost,I am on a job now and the amount of scaffolding erected is truly huge .As for insufficient erection in my experience that comes from incorrect information given to the scaffs in the first place,as for reworks well mods always have to done installing pipe work , vessels ect.
I priced up a big job years ago and it was tight price ,I recall my boss at the time saying to me I will take a sharp pencil to that meaning he was going to cut it further .
I was horrified ,any way we did not get the job obviously some one went in even cheaper
 
Last edited:
Yes, I’m afraid that these major operators have little or no idea about how to estimate what scaffold they will use on large projects, nor do they have someone who can see it, or if they do, they ignore the advice, just to see the right figure on the bid document.
Through bitter (but good), experience with one large Petro-Chemical construction company working on a large project in the Middle East about 13 years ago, I found out that after 6+ weeks of hard work in evaluating various bids for the scaffolding contract on the project, all get thrown out of the window by some ‘suit’ in an office back at HQ, just because the figure on the bottom line isn’t what he wants to see.
Out of the original 4 companies asked to bid, only two were found to meet the final bidding criteria. Both were well known names, with a Worldwide presence.
One (A) had bid at around $2.6m and one (B) at $2.8m, but (B) had included all levels of all pipe racks and a number of smaller tanks and vessels, whereas (A) had not. They were both asked to re-tender along equal lines and with a few other things included, that I had identified, but that had been left off the original tender specifications.
The new bids were (A) - $3.1m and (B) - $3.2m, with (A) still saying that they did not think that some of the work listed on the tender document would have to be done and excluding it from their bid, listing it as works to be carried out under day rates if it was required, which it obviously was going to be, because how exactly were our piping, painting and insulation contractors going to access the pipe works on the 4th and 5th levels of the pipe racks, not off ladders methinks !
Anyway, I sent my evaluation to HQ, saying that in my opinion, (A) were muddying the waters and that, if awarded to them, the final bill from them would be nearer $4m, and possibly a bit more, whereas (B) would come in at around $3.5m, including a few unforeseen extras thrown in.
The local contract guy just commented that HQ were looking for a figure of $2m, or possibly a bit more and that anything over that they would not be happy with.
A few weeks later and the contract was awarded and you can guess who had won it. (A) were victorious and the figure ? $2m exactly, which was a complete joke? They had apparently been told that $2m was what was being looked for, had gone out, removed all the pipe racks except level 1 & 2 and various vessels from the contract price, leaving all that work to be carried out under day rates. Total value of the invoice at the end, $4.5m !
Thankfully, I had kept very, very tight records, with photographic evidence of much of it and after lengthy end-of-contract negotiations, the final cost was reduced to $3.6m, but all of this would have been un-necessary, had the ‘pen pushers’ at head office listened and used their common sense instead of purely looking for a bottom line figure on the first page and not looking at what was behind on the other pages.
What with Accountants and Contract Managers like that, companies that do not employ someone to take charge of the scaffolding on the project and discipline supervisors who do not discuss with those scaffolding supervisors which is the best way to tackle a job with the minimum of mods, etc, it is no wonder that the ‘trade’ gets a bad name and that guys like Peter Coleman of Woodside complain bitterly about the costs.
The answer lies with them, manage it properly and the rest will follow. Look at properly estimated figures and know what to expect, not have figures dreamed up by someone with no knowledge of the trade, just to look good on a piece of paper to be presented to the company board.
I rest my case !
 
So the rate for modifications is at a higher rate to the client?

With all the works on reimbursable?

So obviously the scaffolders get more money for mods too?

Sounds like a Carlsberg commercial to me!

Most projects there have scaffolders on an hourly rate. When the project is originally tendered the QS have looked at a set amount for scaffolding. There would also be a budget for modifications which often is exceeded. We also had occasions where a small hop up etc would be requested and we had to do it on the schedule of rates. This hop up would need another scaff tag and we would not be paid for any works that might have had to be done to the original scaffold. For example if a small cantilever was requested from an already standing scaffold we would not get paid for removing existing boards for underslings etc or removal of existing h/rails we would only be paid per metreage of tube and boards and number of fittings of the new part.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:36 AM ----------

Yes, I’m afraid that these major operators have little or no idea about how to estimate what scaffold they will use on large projects, nor do they have someone who can see it, or if they do, they ignore the advice, just to see the right figure on the bid document.
Through bitter (but good), experience with one large Petro-Chemical construction company working on a large project in the Middle East about 13 years ago, I found out that after 6+ weeks of hard work in evaluating various bids for the scaffolding contract on the project, all get thrown out of the window by some ‘suit’ in an office back at HQ, just because the figure on the bottom line isn’t what he wants to see.
Out of the original 4 companies asked to bid, only two were found to meet the final bidding criteria. Both were well known names, with a Worldwide presence.
One (A) had bid at around $2.6m and one (B) at $2.8m, but (B) had included all levels of all pipe racks and a number of smaller tanks and vessels, whereas (A) had not. They were both asked to re-tender along equal lines and with a few other things included, that I had identified, but that had been left off the original tender specifications.
The new bids were (A) - $3.1m and (B) - $3.2m, with (A) still saying that they did not think that some of the work listed on the tender document would have to be done and excluding it from their bid, listing it as works to be carried out under day rates if it was required, which it obviously was going to be, because how exactly were our piping, painting and insulation contractors going to access the pipe works on the 4th and 5th levels of the pipe racks, not off ladders methinks !
Anyway, I sent my evaluation to HQ, saying that in my opinion, (A) were muddying the waters and that, if awarded to them, the final bill from them would be nearer $4m, and possibly a bit more, whereas (B) would come in at around $3.5m, including a few unforeseen extras thrown in.
The local contract guy just commented that HQ were looking for a figure of $2m, or possibly a bit more and that anything over that they would not be happy with.
A few weeks later and the contract was awarded and you can guess who had won it. (A) were victorious and the figure ? $2m exactly, which was a complete joke? They had apparently been told that $2m was what was being looked for, had gone out, removed all the pipe racks except level 1 & 2 and various vessels from the contract price, leaving all that work to be carried out under day rates. Total value of the invoice at the end, $4.5m !
Thankfully, I had kept very, very tight records, with photographic evidence of much of it and after lengthy end-of-contract negotiations, the final cost was reduced to $3.6m, but all of this would have been un-necessary, had the ‘pen pushers’ at head office listened and used their common sense instead of purely looking for a bottom line figure on the first page and not looking at what was behind on the other pages.
What with Accountants and Contract Managers like that, companies that do not employ someone to take charge of the scaffolding on the project and discipline supervisors who do not discuss with those scaffolding supervisors which is the best way to tackle a job with the minimum of mods, etc, it is no wonder that the ‘trade’ gets a bad name and that guys like Peter Coleman of Woodside complain bitterly about the costs.
The answer lies with them, manage it properly and the rest will follow. Look at properly estimated figures and know what to expect, not have figures dreamed up by someone with no knowledge of the trade, just to look good on a piece of paper to be presented to the company board.
I rest my case !

Exactly right jonny. i was on a project where the original scaffolding budget and tender was 3 million pounds. At the end of the job this had escalated to close on 50 million pounds through contract variations etc,. My boss the owner was a very happy man.
 
FWW Pluto,

Extensions and Modifications

extensions at set standard labour rate

modifications at multiplied rate

FWW/EPCM's generally Scaff guys did not care and in some cases know how to protect the client so mod rates ruled the day = Woodside whinge.

Johnoneeye is right, trying to demystify scaffolding to the head shed is a waste of time but the old story of the Emperors New Clothes is what we have at present and eventually the ind eng guys will spin our trade into another category, i.e. P & I or Mech budgets to disapear costs and keep the Centurion Card holders happy.

It comes down to this scaffolding is classed as a non-deliverable or consumable item running a budget item that is not visible post project that costs 3-4% generally, of overal project cost.

Australian Projects do not understand or respect the value of good access, this is the root of the cost blow out and it suits the scaffold companies to keep it this way too, and its hard to blame them.

too many vested interests to change things down here, you'll get your head shot off if you try!
 
Trouble is, with almost every company that i've worked for, in whatever role, none of them seem to want the cost of providing a means of safe access, whether its scaffolding, cherry pickers or whatever else, it always seems to be an inconvenience to them that they need it.

It has never failed to amaze me, that through my working life, falls from height have been the main cause of injury amongst construction and maintainence workers and yet when the cost of providing the correct scaffolding or whatever is mentioned, the 'bean counters' try to find some way of minimising the cost, which generally means a partial cut in the amount of scaffold, or in fact the use of ladders. Generally their attitude is appalling in this regard.

I once attended a conference in the Middle East which had as it's core theme, safety in oilfield construction. After it was over and everyone was milling around drinking coffee and chatting, a senior contracts manager of a large Middle Eastern construction firm got chatting to me. He said at one point, ' ....there is very good profit in the safety'. It didn't really make sense to me, but i assumed that he meant that if their previous projects were completed with no safety related problems, then more work followed on from that, really a good selling point when they were bidding. However, my understanding was not quite correct, because he went on to say that when they bid for a project, they put nice high figures in for what they were going to spend on promoting and monitoring safety on site (because oil companies and the like would never try to chip away at those amounts), including providing scaffolding for everything and at very high standards, but once they had won the job, a load of the budgeted amount was chopped out and put into the profit margin. With major companies thinking along those lines, it's no wonder that figures get twisted early on and end up staggeringly high.

Everyone in the industry needs to get real, but the major engineering companies have only themselves to blame if they do not accept the need for and agree to pay for whatever is necessary to complete these projects properly. Woodside and the like, start listening and negotiate the contracts openly and above board, then we'll all be happy ....oh, and safe, even the painters, god bless their little cotton socks !

Anyone from Woodside listening......................? Probably not.

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 AM ----------

Exactly right jonny. i was on a project where the original scaffolding budget and tender was 3 million pounds. At the end of the job this had escalated to close on 50 million pounds through contract variations etc,. My boss the owner was a very happy man.

I would imagine that this type of figure might give rise to a tidy profit margin for the boss man................and maybe a house in the Phillipines for others...ho, hum....................

PS Is it finished yet ? Hopefully not affected by the recent storms out that way ?
 
The corporations and their head engineers are in a position to reduce real costs and improve real safety at design level,

Jetty's with monorails built in for maintenance, gas trains with more grid meshed levels, especially through some of the pipe racks.

Built in safety anchorages, etc

the expectancy that the scaffold companies are to reinvent the wheel every time is based on the absolute fact that a lot of industries avoid significant change because their bosses may ask, why didn't you think of that 10 yrs ago.

if it aint broke dont fix it and for fecks sake never make a decision!

yes minister bloke said it best, "thats a very courageous decision Minister"
 
Trouble is, with almost every company that i've worked for, in whatever role, none of them seem to want the cost of providing a means of safe access, whether its scaffolding, cherry pickers or whatever else, it always seems to be an inconvenience to them that they need it.

It has never failed to amaze me, that through my working life, falls from height have been the main cause of injury amongst construction and maintainence workers and yet when the cost of providing the correct scaffolding or whatever is mentioned, the 'bean counters' try to find some way of minimising the cost, which generally means a partial cut in the amount of scaffold, or in fact the use of ladders. Generally their attitude is appalling in this regard.

I once attended a conference in the Middle East which had as it's core theme, safety in oilfield construction. After it was over and everyone was milling around drinking coffee and chatting, a senior contracts manager of a large Middle Eastern construction firm got chatting to me. He said at one point, ' ....there is very good profit in the safety'. It didn't really make sense to me, but i assumed that he meant that if their previous projects were completed with no safety related problems, then more work followed on from that, really a good selling point when they were bidding. However, my understanding was not quite correct, because he went on to say that when they bid for a project, they put nice high figures in for what they were going to spend on promoting and monitoring safety on site (because oil companies and the like would never try to chip away at those amounts), including providing scaffolding for everything and at very high standards, but once they had won the job, a load of the budgeted amount was chopped out and put into the profit margin. With major companies thinking along those lines, it's no wonder that figures get twisted early on and end up staggeringly high.

Everyone in the industry needs to get real, but the major engineering companies have only themselves to blame if they do not accept the need for and agree to pay for whatever is necessary to complete these projects properly. Woodside and the like, start listening and negotiate the contracts openly and above board, then we'll all be happy ....oh, and safe, even the painters, god bless their little cotton socks !

Anyone from Woodside listening......................? Probably not.

---------- Post added at 04:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 AM ----------

Exactly right jonny. i was on a project where the original scaffolding budget and tender was 3 million pounds. At the end of the job this had escalated to close on 50 million pounds through contract variations etc,. My boss the owner was a very happy man.

I would imagine that this type of figure might give rise to a tidy profit margin for the boss man................and maybe a house in the Phillipines for others...ho, hum....................

PS Is it finished yet ? Hopefully not affected by the recent storms out that way ?

Indeed jonny it did!! Almost finished just some external painting and odd snagging to do. Should get some more photos today so will post!!

Back to the original subject great emphasis is put on working at height, and rightly so, with every safety manager, officer and his brother-in-law becoming an expert.
On the Woodside project certainly access went over budget. However I notice the chairman made no mention of the 80 metre high flare stack that had to be constructed twice because the original was not cyclone rated!! There was also no mention of the miles of piping that had to have insulation stripped and refixed because the insulation done in Thailand was not up to spec. This was done under Woodside quality control!! Obviously these rectifications involved scaffolding thus raising the overall access costs!! He didnt mention that maybe becausethe shareholders wouldnt like to hear that. Instead focus on scaffolding the usual whipping boy!!
 
not to mention the steeplejack costs!

this can only be changed from the inside out, not the EPCM as they also are reimbursable.

the client/stakeholder if they want change must have a contemporary policy on access.

not a TW perspective nor a MAS one. games of Golf in Thailand will not improve our standing in industry.

and worse numpties as scaff superintendents on the biggest project advising Mr Kerr that 70% t&f and 30% K stage is the right product ratio in Australia to scaff 3 trains, Jesus H

the whole thing is rotten, the ACCC should be looking at.
 
not to mention the steeplejack costs!

this can only be changed from the inside out, not the EPCM as they also are reimbursable.

the client/stakeholder if they want change must have a contemporary policy on access.

not a TW perspective nor a MAS one. games of Golf in Thailand will not improve our standing in industry.

and worse numpties as scaff superintendents on the biggest project advising Mr Kerr that 70% t&f and 30% K stage is the right product ratio in Australia to scaff 3 trains, Jesus H

the whole thing is rotten, the ACCC should be looking at.

Wasnt the decision to go 70% t&f and 30% Layher engineered by a FWW superintendent who shot through pretty quickly? Layher pushed the point that their scaffolding was cyclone proof although this was quickly disproved once the many tie downs occurred. Of course work in the train did not exactly follow the Woodside/FWW policy that all scaffolds outside of steel work by more than I think it was 1.5m should be deboarded.
 
Top Bottom