Project R4K2: G7/EU Action Plan Ukraine

In the framework of the G7/EU Action Plan for Ukraine's energy sector, the EU TACIS programme was financing the definition of a modernization and safety upgrading programme for the 2 VVER 1000 reactors Rovno 4 and Khmelnitsky 2.

In this context one activity relates to the basic engineering and a corresponding contract was concluded between the European Commission and a Consortium of Engineering organizations including KIEP (Ukraine), MOHT (Russian design institute) and ENAC (consortium of Western companies) with KIEP as a leader. This consortium was referred to Engineering Group (EG).

The main outputs expected from EG was a set of documents to enable Goskomatom to award contracts (supply, studies, constructions, erection, commissioning) for the completion and modernization of Rovno 1000 MW VVER unit 4 and Khmelnitsky 1000 MW VVER unit 2. These documents were to be provided under the TACIS Contract UK 95.02/02.03/B001.

On the other side, the Commission had a contract with the Consortium EdF - Tractebel - IVO (TACIS contract no. UK94.02/03.01/13001). Under this contract the Project management Group (PMG) composed of Goskomatom and the Consortium was created, which also supervised the Engineering Group activities.

The project was carried out according to the objectives stated above. Specifically:

Work of the PMG:

The Consortium (EdF - Tractebel - IVO International) implemented the general Assessment in about 3 months after the beginning of the engineering studies made by EG by setting up an Assessment Dossier.

This Assessment Dossier was made up of a descriptive note giving a clear indication of EG's progress and quality works and the following appendices:

• EG organization effectively set up.
• EG schedule of their documents delivered so far showing exact progress of EG works.
• EG internal data exchange status showing the progress of these exchanges.
• Summary of PMG supervision activities carried out and the corresponding file of PMG comment sheets.
• PMG recommendations to improve the current situation in view to keep EG outputs delivery in line with Project targets especially for timely issuance of documents of internationally recognized quality. They may affect scopes of works within EG, schedules, contractual relations.

Work of the Engineering Group:

The Engineering Group organizations lent their full support to the general Assessment, according to the Terms of Reference of their TACIS Contract.

Work of the Consultant:

The Consultant hired by the European Commission (EC) in accordance with the ToR, reviewed the documents prepared by the PMG relating to the assessment of EG activities, participated to the General Assessment meeting(s), and gave to the European Commission opinion on the progress and the quality of the EG activities taking into account the assessment undertaken by PMG.

The work of the Consultant was structured so as to complement and extend the scope of work undertaken in the frame of the general Assessment by the PMG. It comprised 6 main elements, as described below, each of which was the subject of a separate section within the final report of the Consultant:

1. Examine if the organization of the Engineering Group defined in their TORs has been set up as foreseen and if the interfaces ( i. e. data exchanges) necessary to fulfill their tasks were functioning well.
2. Conduct an independent audit of the general assessment of Engineering Group activities performed by the Project management group. This included examination of the outputs described in section Work of the PMG, and a review of the outcomes defined in the supervision ToR.
3. Review and assess the progress and the quality of the Engineering Group work as defined in the relevant engineering support ToRs. Provide a summary statement of each output, available until now, noting progress against target, and the reasons for any significant shortfalls.
4. Select, in coordination with PMG and with the advice of the Commission, a shortlist of 3 or 4 priority outputs defined in the Engineering Group ToR's, and conduct for each one an in-depth analysis of performance, confirming to the following basic principles:
   • Establish whether a target and a programme for achieving the output exist.
   • Provide a statement of progress against target, based upon independent checking. Analyze the reasons for any significant shortfall, with special reference to organizational factors, interfaces and communications.
   • Identify the responsibility for the output, and comment whether it is accepted, understood by all necessary parties and functioning.
   • Comment on the organizational features associated with achieving the output, and recommend appropriate courses of action, organizational or otherwise, to recover any identified shortfall.
5. Conduct an audit of the operation of the engineering Group Coordination Unit. This unit was a key organizational feature made necessary because of the unique management complexities of the project. The audit examined the functioning of the unit against the requirements described in the ToRs, and comment on its overall effectiveness. It also addressed the following specific points: membership and representation, frequency of meetings, records of meetings, completion of actions undertaken. The Contractor was present at one meeting of the unit at least, and had access to all its records.
6. Produce a summary list of recommendations for improvements to the existing arrangements for management and coordination of the work of the Engineering Group.