Skyler Harris

Landry Horimbere
Nicole Heinlein
Jenn Kwong

Executive Summary
The proposed Wind Turbine Project consists of the installation of a 6 new wind
turbines in the ocean off the coast of New England. The turbines will be using new
technology that will allow them to float while anchored as opposed to being put deep
into the ocean floor. This allows them to not have to deal the rough ocean floor and
allows them to be farther from the coast and more out of sight. 10 miles of cords are run
their substation to the nearby power grid. The completion of this project will relieve two
major concerns. First, it will give community members an alternative, cleaner form of
electricity. Second, it will be able to power an inconsistent grid that was recently
decimated by Hurricane Sandy.
GreenTek approached this proposal by utilizing a decision matrix, a budget and a
schedule. All four of us initially worked on a decision matrix and a unanimous
consensus was reached to take on the turbine project. After considering our interests
and the potential that could be achieved for the project it was a no-brainer. The budget
development showed the most cost effective approach was to optimize the use of
available resources in our company, and only subcontracting as necessary. Additionally,
instead of constructing the turbines ourselves, we chose to buy them from a vendor. We
considered the quantities derived from the conceptual and detailed designs and unit
prices for all items of works. The total project cost amounts to $166,332,151. This figure
includes contingency costs and allowance. In the implementation schedule, we propose
to complete the project within around 2 years, culminating in an end party to honor
everyone who contributed so much.

Skyler Harris
Landry Horimbere
Nicole Heinlein
Jenn Kwong

Contents
Executive Summary
Title Page
Section One - Background
Section Two - Introduction to Team
Section Three - Project Selection
Section Four - Technical Approach
Work Breakdown Structure
WBS-OBS Plot
CPM Schedule
PERT Schedule
Budget
Section Five - Risk Management
Section Six - Project Management
Section Sevel - Project Team Work Contributions and Actions
Appendices....................................................................................................................................25
Appendix A - Assumptions
Appendix B - Works Cited
Appendix C - OBS
Appendix D - Decision to Use New Technology
Appendix E - Attached Gantt Chart and According Tables

Section One Background

GreenTek was hired by New England Power Company, an American subsidiary
of National Grid, to build a 24 megawatt offshore wind farm to supply the their northeast
customers with clean renewable energy. This projects parameters incidentally aligned
well with our firms goals; containing challenges and opportunities that are well within
our firms scope.
As GreenTek, we view the main objectives of this new offshore wind energy
installation to be as follows: to provide electrical power to the population of the north
east, reduce the regional power industrys carbon footprint, expand the regions
renewable energy market, and expand our companys market share in the wind power
industry. In order to accomplish the listed goals, the project team identified and
conducted extensive research to guide final decisions on project location selection, wind
turbine technology selection, the type of support structure to be used, terrain
considerations, project scheduling, risk management, and other items that may impact
the project execution and completion.
The selection of the project location was the main technical decision driver. It was
primarily based on the cost analysis of a locations wind power potential versus the cost
of installing wind turbines at the location. According to Department of Energy data, wind
speed and wind energy production potential grows as you move away from the cost;
concurrently, according to NOAA bathymetric data, ocean depth generally increases.
Higher wind energy concentrations reduce the number of turbines necessary to achieve
our wattage requirements while ocean depth adds to the cost of support structures and
installation. Through careful consideration of such parameters our team decided to
forgo conventional turbine support structures in favor of ballast stabilized floating
support structures secured to the ocean floor by cable. This decision virtually removed
ocean floor and support structure installation cost considerations from our decision
parameters, providing us with unprecedented flexibility in our location selection and
system design.
Now relatively free from some major geographic and technical restrictions, we
then focused on satisfying our project stakeholders; namely our client (the utility
company), the population of the New England cost and local maritime interests. Doing
so will enhance our reputation in the renewable energy industry and will put us in good
standing with the local community. To meet our clients wattage requirements while
limiting our construction expenditures we decided to build 6 turbines, each producing 4
megawatts. These state-of-the-art systems can have diameters of around 120 meters,
with towers of comparable height and drafts that can be almost one third longer.
Consequently, ocean depths of about 160 meters are necessary and can, coincidentally,
be achieved at only 16 kilometers (10 miles) off the Massachusetts Atlantic cost;
depending on the exact location since some areas can be substantially shallower.
Nevertheless, to accommodate the coastal communitys desire not to have a wind
power installation marring their scenic seascape, the turbines (not the substation) must
be pushed farther offshore to over 40 kilometers (25 miles) so as to no longer be visible
with the naked eye, according to research from Argonne National Laboratory. Building
so far offshore also evades any conflicts with regional maritime interests.

The project team also identified concerns that could affect the completion of the
project. These concerns included changes of weather conditions that might affect the
projects execution. The team also considered the possibility that the public may
nevertheless have a negative reaction to this project. Therefore, to assure public
understanding of the benefits of the new installation, several educational workshops will
be offered to the affected community to emphasize the positive impacts this new source
of clean, sustainable and domestic energy.
Another item that might impact the project progress is a possible delay in
obtaining permits. This risk is being countered by requesting all necessary permits
considerably in advance of when other activities could even start so as to hedge against
delays in the process and not effect construction. Additionally, there is a risk that
available equipment may face failure or malfunction. If this is the case, the projects
budget and schedule would be impacted. Consequently, our firm has invested in the
most advanced and reliable technology and equipment, providing dependability and
giving a margin of safety.
GreenTek is working aggressively to anticipate and preempt any hazards,
obstacles or barriers to achieving this projects objectives. GreenTek recognizes and
understands that building an innovative wind energy installation is a project which will
take the commitment and cooperation of the entire team if it is to be complete in a
satisfactory and timely manner.
We are a firm dedicated to innovation and environmental responsibility. We are
reliable and always produce projects that consistently exceed our clients expectations.
Citation
"National Grid." National Grid. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012. <
http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Businesses/electricity_distri>.
"Maine Stalls On Statoil Floating Wind Turbine Project." The Energy Collective RSS.
N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
<http://theenergycollective.com/namarchetti/121416/maine-stalls-statoil-floating-windturbine-project>.
"Bathymetry Data Viewer | Ngdc.noaa.gov." Bathymetry Data Viewer | Ngdc.noaa.gov.
NOAA, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/>.
"Offshore Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances." Offshore
Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov.
2012. <http://visualimpact.anl.gov/offshorevitd/>.
"MAIN PUBLICATION :." Offshore Support Structures. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-i-technology/chapter-5-offshore/windfarm-design-offshore/offshore-support-structures.html>.

"Resource Assessment & Characterization." Wind Program: Resource Assessment and

Characterization. Department of Energy (DOE), n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/resource_assessment_characterization.html>.
"Index of /mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/NK_19-5." Index of
/mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/NK_19-5. NOAA National Geophysical Data Cente, n.d.
Web. 19 Nov. 2012. <http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/NK_195/>.

Section Two Introduction to the Team

The following four rising engineers are those who put together this team for
GreenTek, and the company has complete faith in their abilities to get the task done
right and on time. Their wealth of experiences will aid in their competence to do this
wind turbine project, and were handpicked by the president of GreenTeks Alternative
Energy Division to spearhead GreenTeks first project in New England.
Skyler Harris is the lone Mechanical Engineering major on the team, and is a
versatile contributor to the project. He has hands-on experience with the subject at
hand, taking classes in Electronics & Instrumentation and having done research his
freshman year into alternative energy. With more experience interning at JB&B, an
engineering consulting firm in lower Manhattan, Skyler has seen and interacted with
Project Managers first hand, both as a contributor and as the one managing others.
Having worked in the fast paced New York environment, keeping up with the project
shouldnt be a problem for him. Additionally, as an executive board member of his
fraternity Sigma Chi, having responsibility and delegating it are no strangers to him.
With his help as PR chair and now chairman of Sigma Chis annual philanthropy Derby
Days, everyone contributing was able to keep constant tabs of its events and there was
an important level of transparency. With his help and organization, the week-long
philanthropy was able to raise $30,000 for the Childrens Miracle Network, building
positive relationships with the surrounding community all the while. His experiences and
unique skill set should be useful tools to completing this project properly and on time.
Jennifer Kwong is a double major in Geography and Civil Engineering,
specializing in transportation systems, with a minor in Environmental Economics and
Policy. She has worked for Maryland Department of Transportations Office of Freight
and Multimodalism as an intern, gaining experience with the undertaking of large-scale
capital transportation projects, along with freight policy issues; and also, she has
worked as an undergraduate research assistant for the Center for Smart Growth
Research and Education on campus, where she gained knowledge about concepts in
urban planning. She is also active on campus, as a former member of the Student
Government Associations Finance Committee, and has served on the executive board
of Terpwushu, a campus sports club, as secretary and treasurer in consecutive years.
These experiences have led to a greater understanding of what is required to manage
projects adequately, especially through sitting in on project meetings at MDOT and
overseeing the details of the annual tournament that Terpwushu hosts each year.
Nicole Heinlein, a Civil Engineer with a concentration in environmental and water
resources, has a diverse engineering background that makes her an excellent asset on
the team. Her coursework in Aerospace Engineering has equipped her with knowledge
of aerodynamics that is valuable for evaluating the energy produced by the wind
turbines rotor blades. She is also well versed in renewable energy resources due to her
major concentration, allowing her to contribute valuable information about the
characteristics of wind turbines. Nicole also works at the Space Telescope Science
Institute, where she independently organizes and analyzes research projects. Through
this work, she has developed excellent organizational skills. Her position at Space
Telescope also involves leading numerous workshops and programs teaching educators

and children about the fundamentals of science. This has made her adept at
communicating the importance of science and research to a non-technical audience.
Although Nicole enjoys working as a part of a team, she also participates in her own
independent studies. In the past, she has collected and analyzed cosmic ray data,
which has bolstered her ability to apply her knowledge of electronics. Overall, Nicole is
a well-rounded individual who brings a unique level of enthusiasm and technical
knoweldge to the team.
Landry is a Civil Engineering major specializing in structures and minoring in
International Engineering. He has interned at E-Structors, an electronics recycling
company and now works at Gordon Contractors, a waterproofing contractor. He has had
experience in a variety of business, industry and construction environments and is well
equipped with the skills necessary to work in teams and complete challenging projects.
He is also a College Pack Scholars citation recipient, having successfully completed the
two year Environment, Technology and Economy (ETE) Program. Central to the
completion of the program he presented his research and internship portfolio at the
2012 College Park Scholars Academic Showcase. He also worked on an investigation
of the potential for wind power off the mid-Atlantic cost. He is currently active on
campuses, namely with the University of Maryland chapters of the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Black Engineers Society (BES) and Engineers Without
Borders (EWB). He is a member of the ASCE Concrete Canoe construction team and a
paid member of BESs annual fundraising banquet coordinating committee. He is
heavily involved in all aspects of Engineers Without Borders, from researching new
projects, to fundraising, to travelling abroad for implementation. His experience and
range of skills will be indispensable to successfully designing, implementing and
completing this project.
These four team members have met enough times to feel comfortable knowing
each others strengths and weaknesses that they can delegate responsibility to one
another when the time is right. Additionally, their cohesion was noted by the VP of
human resources expressly, and it is their ability to be on the same page at all times
that will help the project flourish. With this knowledge, they can feel comfortable sharing
the work load over the course of the entire project and use each of their very different
backgrounds to GreenTeks advantage. The group is clearly aiming to overachieve and
the community members in Massachusetts that will be benefitting from the new wind
turbines will most certainly be thankful for such an attitude.

Section 3 Project Selection

Evaluation Criteria
Alignment with company
goals
Increase in Market Share
Risk

Expected time frame

Cost
Establishment of New
Markets

Tech. development
required
Competition
Payment Schedule
Regulatory Approval
Human resources impact

Public reaction
Potential profit/return on
investment

Evaluation Criteria
Alignment with company
goals
Increase in market share
Risk
Expected time frame
Cost
Tech. development
required
Establishment of new
markets
Competition
Payment Schedule
Regulatory Approval
Human resources impact
Public reaction
Potential profit/return on

Option A (Pipeline)
Consistent with business
mission, attempting to
diversify from oil
Medium
High pipeline is
controversial with public

Option B (Wind Farm)

Consistent with business
mission, attempting to
expand into green energy
High
Medium using new
technology

Long regulatory approval

expected to be long,
construction
High
Low company is already
known for pipeline
construction, few
opportunities left
Low all techs available

Medium regulatory
approval

Low
Good cost reimbursement
Lots of permits required
Medium company is
working on similar project,
would have to share
workers / contract out
Negative
Low

Medium
High attempting to expand
into green energy

High trying out new

system
Medium
Good cost reimbursement
Some permitting required
Low

Positive
High

Option C (Roadway)
Consistent with business
mission, have expertise in
field
Low
Low building a road that
has already been approved
and public is in favor of
Short - has been proposed
for many years, fairly
straightforward
Low
Low lots of other firms in
business, in region that co.
does not concentrate in
Low all techs available
High
Good federal/state
money
Some permitting required
Medium company is
working on similar project,
would have to share
workers / contract out
Positive
Medium

Weight

Pipeline

Wind Farm

Roadway

1
2
1
2

2
3
3
3

1
3
2
2

3
1
1
1

1.5

1.5

0.5
1
1
2
1
3

1
1
3
2
2
2

1
1
2
1
1
1

2
1
1
2
1
2

investment

Total weighted sums

47
30
31.5
In order to select the project that our company would execute, we constructed two
decision matrices. The first was qualitative, whose data was then converted to quantitative
evaluations of our options. Each project received a score quantifying the positives and
negatives of each project. The score was formulated by ranking each project within each
evaluation criteria, with a score of 1 indicating that the project would be the highest or most
beneficial to the company, and 3 the lowest, and then summing all the ranked scores, multiplied
by a weighting factor, . Tied scores are possible, indicating at that rank, between the tied
projects, there is no difference in benefits to the company. The project with the smallest score
would then be selected. The most important factors to our company in selecting projects are the
potential profit/return on investment, and alignment with company goals, which were assigned
the highest weight factor of 3.
In picking projects, our decisions were decided through our companys business
mission, along with evaluating potential risks and the potential for profit, as shown in the first
table. GreenTek as a company is a large multi-national engineering firm and has divisions that
cover all three types of projects in the United States. However, the company is currently looking
to expand and increase its market share in alternative energy division, and focus less on the
pipeline division, which is currently the largest division of GreenTek in the country. As the
pipeline and roadway divisions of GreenTek are currently working on similar projects, it would
also pose a problem in creating a project team to work on either the pipeline or roadway if
selected, as some of the principal engineers would have to split their time between multiple
projects instead of focusing on one.
The projects were also evaluated based on a couple of major risks which included
regulatory approval, the amount of technological development required, public reaction to the
project, and the expected time frame for construction to be completed (which includes delays in
work due to labor issues, natural disasters, or regulatory/legislative approval). The pipeline
project dropped out of the selection process under those evaluation criteria, as it clearly had
higher risks due to difficulties with public sentiment about the project and regulatory approval
requirements, along with higher costs.
Between the wind farm and the roadway, the scores were in a similar range, with the
wind farm only narrowly edging out the roadway project however, the wind farm project edged
out the roadway project in selection, for a couple of factors. While the roadway project offered
less risk in terms of costs, familiarity with the type of project, and less technical development
required, it also provided less opportunity to profit, and was also located in a region of the
country where GreenTek had no offices in.
After going through all the criteria, the wind farm was selected because it would provide
the company an opportunity for growth, without major risks, other than the implementation of a
new turbine type in the US, which could also prove to be a benefit to the company in the future,
and was also more in line with the companys current goals of expanding its alternative energy
division.

Section Four Technical Approach

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

The WBS for the wind farm project is structured into 5 major sections of work:
administrative, design, procurement, construction, and review/close out. Administrative
tasks as a whole give the structure of the project. Within the section, team organization
is the first major task, in which the project and project members responsibilities are
articulated for a clear understanding of each persons contribution to the project and the
overall picture. Implementing a risk management strategy and cost analyzing, with more
detailed project cost accounting is also included within this section. Design is
decomposed into conceptual design and detailed design. The conceptual design phase
includes the surveying of all available locations for the wind farm, and the analysis of
the wind data in those locations, and is completed with the proposal of designs. In the
detailed design phase, a final design and location is selected, along with a vendor for
the turbines. The work items in the procurement section gather the necessary resources
for the project. Those resources include procuring the right-of-way for the cables, the
land for the substation and the turbines, and the permits for the wind farm. It also
includes acquiring all materials, equipment, labor (including contracting out labor and
tasks to subcontractors), and facilities for the project, complete with transportation for
moving all required resources. Construction was divided into preparing the site for
construction, which includes access roads to the site, clearing the area for assembly
(prepping a staging area, essentially), excavating offshore for the foundations, and preassembling the main part, and then turbine and substation construction, and finally,
putting the electric cables in place. Lastly, the turbines, substation, and cables are
subject to testing to make sure that they are functioning correctly. The final section is
review/closeout. This includes a review of the farm, to make sure that it fits within the
acceptance criteria, finalizing monetary matters are finalized, and evaluating the project.
The last item is a project close out party to celebrate the end of the project, and the
close-out phase is concluded when the party ends. The work breakdown structure is as
follows below:
1. Administrative
1.1. Team organization
1.1.1. Identify preliminary responsibilities
1.1.2. Identify where subcontracts are needed
1.2. Implement risk management strategy
1.3. Create cost analysis
2. Design
2.1. Conceptual
2.1.1. Survey and analyze available locations
2.1.2. Analyze wind data
2.1.3. Propose designs
2.2. Detailed

2.2.1. Select final design and location for farm

2.2.2. Select turbine vendor
2.2.2.1. RFP Preparation/Submission
2.2.2.2. Bid Acceptance/Evaluation/Approval
3. Procurement
3.1. Legal/Real Estate
3.1.1. Right-of-way for cables
3.1.2. Land acquisition
3.1.3. Permitting (federal, state and local)
3.2. Resources
3.2.1. Labor
3.2.2. Materials
3.2.3. Equipment
3.2.4. Facilities for construction
3.2.5. Transportation of materials
3.2.6. Subcontractors
4. Construction
4.1. Preparation
4.1.1. Access roads to site
4.1.2. Clear area for assembly
4.1.3. Excavation offshore
4.1.4. Main parts pre-assembled
4.2. Turbine Installation
4.2.1. Foundations installed offshore
4.2.2. Main components transported to offshore site
4.2.3. Tower in place & rotor installed
4.2.4. Connect electrical cabling
4.3. Substation Construction
4.3.1. Foundation installed offshore
4.3.2. Main components transported to offshore site
4.3.3. Install transformers (power, instruments and auxiliary)
4.3.4. Install switches, relays, circuit breakers, and switchgears
4.3.5. Connect electrical cabling
4.4. Testing
4.4.1. Performance trial for power output
4.4.2. Check data acquisition
5. Review/close-out
5.1. Verify acceptance criteria
5.2. Finalize payments
5.2.1. Collect client payments
5.2.2. Finalize subcontractor payments
5.2.3. Compensate resources
5.3. Evaluations
5.3.1. Team evaluations
5.3.2. Customer evaluations
5.3.3. Review project

5.3.4. Project close-out party

Work Breakdown Structure / Organizational Breakdown Structure Chart

GreenTeks Alternative Energy Division works mostly on individual large scale
projects, and as this wind farm is the only project currently in the pipeline for the rather
small division, no members of the project team are shared with any other group. This
organizational structure of the division is reflected in GreenTeks autonomous project
organizational structure, which is included within Appendix B. When an employee or
position is assigned multiple tasks, it is because it lies within the employees field of
Human
Resources
VP of HR
Legality and Law
Comprehension
VP of Legal Services

GreenTek
Alternative
Energy Divison
President

Marketing
VP of
Marketing
Finance &
Administration
CFO

Legal Oversight and

Advisement
GreenTek Attorney

Wind Farm Project

Project Manager
Procurement
Procurement
Manger

Risk Assessment
Risk Manager
Resource
Acquisition
Purchasing
Manager

Design
Design Manager
Concept
Engineering
Lead Engineer

Mechanical/Electrical
Subcontracting
Managing Mechanical
Engineer
Civil Subcontracting
Managing Civil
Engineer

Subcontractors
Subcontracting
Manager

Tran
and
L
M
Construction
Construction
Manager

Electrical W
Connection
Installatio
Managing Elec
Engineer

Turbine Installa
Turbine Vend
Liaison

Substation
Constructio
Systems Engin

expertise, or the assigned tasks do not take place simultaneously within the projects
lifespan. The following diagram is a cross-plot of the organizational structure of
GreenTek and how the work breakdown structures items are assigned to individuals.
CPM Schedule
This is an abbreviated form of our projects Critical Path. In the attached
appendices there is a specific Gantt Chart that traces the project from initiation to
completion that highlights the critical path in red.

PERT / Probabilistic Schedule

Wind Turbine Project

Most
Likely
260

PROJECT START

Weeks

1.1.1.1 Identify Preliminary Responsibilities

1.1.1.2 Identify where subcontracts are
needed
1.1.2 implement Risk Management
Strategy
1.1.3 Create cost analysis
1.2.1.1 Survey and analyze available
locations
1.2.1.2 Analyze wind data
1.2.1.3 Propose designs
1.2.2.1 Select final design and location for
wind farm
1.2.2.2.1 RFP Preparation/Submission
1.2.2.2.2 Bid acceptance/evaluation/approval
1.3.1.1 Right of way for cables
1.3.1.2 Land acquisition
1.3.1.3 Permitting
1.3.2.1 Labor
1.3.2.2 Materials
1.3.2.3 Equipment
1.3.2.4 Facilities for Construction
1.3.2.5 Transportation of materials
1.3.2.6 Subcontractors
1.4.1.1 Access roads

Optimis
tic

Pessimi
stic

Expect
ed

Varian
ce

Std.
Dev.

Total
Slack

0
days
0
days
0
days

1.33

0.11

0.33

1.33

0.11

0.33

0 wks

3.17

0.25

0.50

0 wks

2.33

0.11

0.33

0 wks

12

16

12.00

1.78

1.33

1 wk

12

16

12.00

1.78

1.33

12

8.00

1.78

1.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.11
4.00
11.11
106.7
8
69.44
106.7
8

0.33
2.00
3.33
10.33

2
12
24

2
4
6

4
16
26

2.33
11.33
21.33

52

46

108

60.33

40

30

80

45.00

52

46

108

60.33

16

8.67

4.00

2.00

16

20

15.33

4.00

2.00

12

8.00

1.78

1.33

4.33

0.11

0.33

2.33

0.11

0.33

10

7.67

1.00

1.00

8.33
10.33

0
days
0
days
0 wks
0 wks
4 wks
0
days
0 wks
260
days
52
wks
52
wks
0
days
0
days
0 wks
46
wks

1.4.1.2 Clear area for assembly

1.4.1.3 Excavation offshore
1.4.1.4 Main parts pre-assembled
1.4.2.1 Foundations installed offshore
1.4.2.2 Main components transported to
offshore site
1.4.2.3 Tower in place and rotor installation
1.4.2.4 Connect electrical cabling
1.4.3.1 Foundation installed offshore
1.4.3.2 Main components transportation
1.4.3.3 Install transformers
1.4.3.4 Install switches/relays/circuit
breakers/switchgears
1.4.3.5 Connect electrical cabling
1.4.4.1 Performance trial for power output
1.4.2.2 Check data acquisition
1.5.1 Verify acceptance criteria
1.5.2.1 Collect client payments
1.5.2.2 Finalize subcontractor payments
1.5.2.3 Compensate resources
1.5.3.2 Team evaluations
1.5.3.2 Customer evaluations
1.5.3.3 Review project
1.5.3.4 Project close-out party
Total

2.67

0.44

0.67

1.17

0.03

0.17

3
24

3
12

5
36

3.33
24.00

0.11
16.00

0.33
4.00

34
wks
0
days
0 wks
0 wks

12

14

11.67

1.00

1.00

0 wks

2
2
8

2
2
6

4
4
10

2.33
2.33
8.00

0.11
0.11
0.44

0.33
0.33
0.67

12

14

11.67

1.00

1.00

2.33

0.11

0.33

0 wks
0 wks
0 wks
40
days
40
days

32

30

52

35.00

13.44

3.67

0 wks

4
2

3
2

6
4

4.17
2.33

0.25
0.11

0.50
0.33

12

16

11.33

4.00

2.00

12

16

11.33

4.00

2.00

4.00

0.44

0.67

3.00

0.11

0.33

3.83

0.25

0.50

3.83

0.25

0.50

1.17

0.03

0.17

2
2
678

1
1

3
3
691

2.00
2.00

0.11
0.11

0.33
0.33
67.33

0 wks
0 wks
62
wks
0
days
0 wks
48
wks
48
wks
48
wks
0
days
0 wks
0 wks
678

Budget

Category

Subcategory

1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2,

1.3, 2.2.1,
2.2.2.1, 2.2.2.2

Administrative

Design

Conceptual

Procurement

Legal/Real
Estate
Resources

Construction

WBS Item #'s

2.1.3
2.1.1
2.1.2

3.1.3
3.1.1,3.1.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.2.4
3.2.5
3.2.6
4.1.1, 4.1.2,
4.1.3, 4.1.4

Itemization

Salaries^
Labor Overhead

Cost

Section Total:
Proposals for designs
Location analysis
Wind data analysis
Section Total:

$3,948,000
$592,200
$4,540,200
$750,000
$250,000
$250,000
$1,250,000

Permitting
Land acquisition, right-of-way
Labor %
Materials
Equipment
Construction facilities
Transportation of materials
Subcontractors
Section Total:

$1,090,276
$5,000,000
$22,500,000
$25,000,000
$300,000
$660,000
$750,000
$1,360,000
$56,660,276

Preparation

$10,000

4.2.1, 4.2.2,
4.2.3
4.3.1,4.3.2,4.3.3,
4.3.4
4.2.4, 4.3.5
4.4.1, 4.4.2

Review/
Close-out

Turbine installation

$28,116,400

Substation construction
Cabling
Testing
Section Subtotal:
Allowance (Indirect Costs)
Section Total:

$9,331,200
$15,000,000
$1,000,000
$53,457,600
$5,924,780
$59,382,380

5.1

Verify acceptance criteria

$10,000

5.2.1, 5.2.2,
5.2.3

Finalizing payments

$10,000

5.3.1, 5.3.2,
5.3.3
5.3.4

Evaluations
Project close-out party
Section Total:
Project Subtotal

$1,000
$1,200
$22,200
$121,855,056

Contingency costs
Massachussetts cost
adjustment
Project Total
Profit Allowance
TOTAL BUDGET

$24,371,011
$12,185,506
$158,411,573
$7,920,579
$166,332,151

Assumptions for the budget are listed in Appendix A

The budget for the project was assembled via costs from information given, research,
and estimations. Assumptions for the budget were made, along with the references
used, which can be found in appendix A. The budget was adjusted for costs in
Massachusetts, and a contingency cost (of 20% of the budget) was included to cover
potential issues the team may encounter. A profit allowance was also included, as the
payout that the company will earn for the project.

Section Five Risk Management

In order to ensure that the project is running smoothly and that there are no pitfalls
around the corner, risk management is a crucial component in GreenTeks success. By
definition, risk management aims to reduce time to market, reduce re-doing designs and/or
activities, identify risks (to reduce their chance of occurring), and avoid not being able to
guarantee customer satisfaction. With so many stakeholders in this turbine project, it is
important that all risks are accounted for. That way nothing is overlooked and everyone involved
is able to emerge with no fines, uninjured, not delayed, and with great morale.
The way GreenTek will be able to manage risk so successfully is through its ability to
involve as many of its project resources as possible. By gaining insight from more than just the
project manager, the executive board, and the customer, the greatest amount of things can be
taken into account and the most catastrophes can be avoided. In order to involve as many of
our resources working on the project as we can to establish good risk management, the project
manager will delegate several committee heads to work with different subcontractors and
employees to brainstorm both potential risks and ways to avoid them. For instance, by
delegating someone to find risks that exist that may prevents GreenTek from getting the
required permits; the chance of not getting those permits in time is reduced considerably. In this
example, the procurement manager would be the risk committee head, as the construction
manager would be for the substation, turbines, and electrical engineers. The project manager
will work with this group that has conglomerated all possible risks, and then ensure we have
done all in our power to prevent them from occurring, or know how to deal with the risks if they
are out of our control.
Being able to trust someone to delegate risk management successfully is crucial, and
with our system of delegation, the elements of risk identification, assessment, handling, and
monitoring are all covered. This would be too much for a one man job, especially for such
project of this scale, so having a team who is going to be experiencing first hand in the field
what the risks will be is incredibly useful. The team will be the ones identifying the risks,

assessing how they need to be approached, and handling them if/when they occur. However,
risk monitoring can be done before the project even begins, and that is where building a risk
matrix becomes important.
On the next pages we use a risk matrix to illustrate what risks have come to our
attention, what we know about how they will affect the project, and how we will to our best to
make sure they do not. It allows us to organize it in such a way that the things GreenTek is most
worried about in the project will have attention addressed to them from the beginning so that
any damage caused by risks can be minimal. Additionally, the above committee heads will be
required to send around updated reports on known risks and newly recognized risks in order to
know for certain that there will be no surprises. That way, the project does not have to be
perfect, but if any risk does come to fruition, there is an effective contingency plan available to
deal with it.

Risk

Consequence

Community
Opposition to
Project

Delay of
project,
unhappy
stakeholders

Weather
Affecting
Construction

Delay of
project,
possible
damage to
unfinished
materials

Boating
Accident
on/near
Construction

Delay of
project,
damage to
materials, may
harm
personnel

Chance of
Occurrence
(L,M,H)

Impact
(L,M,H
)

Action Trigger

Responsibility

Negative
questionnaire
returns,
protests

VP of
Marketing

Forecast
predicts
inclement
weather

Project
Manager

Collision of
boat with
turbine or
substation

Risk Manager

Response Plan

Identify what
community is
most fearful of
through surveys
in order to avoid
it, be
transparent to
community and
publicize
positives of
finished project.
Keep up to date
with forecast,
commit to doing
most of
construction
during least
hazardous time
of year.
Ensure turbines
and substation
are well lit at all
times, work with
coast guard to
ensure correct
precautions are
taken.

Worker Strike

Permit
Approval
Delays

Time delay in
fabrication,
installation, or
construction

Price
Fluctuation/
Going Over
Budget

Testing
Reveals
Design
Problems

Delay
construction,
threat to
completion of
project

Delay the start

of construction

Union workers
not showing
up to work,
picket lines.

Permit request
declined or
not received
when
expected

Unsatisfied
customer, may
delay project
enough to
justify project
termination

Increasing
budget,
disappointed
customers,
reduced
profits

Construction
may have to
be halted,
restarted,
removed, or
redone

Failure of
unique turbine
design

Failure of
project, ruined
reputation,
lost money

Finished
Product does
not satisfy

Customer is
unsatisfied,
reputation

Benchmarks
are missed,
stakeholders
question
necessity of
project
Over budget
very early in
the project,
projected
budget does
not parallel
actual costs
and
purchases

Evaluations of
equipment
reveals
problems

Floating
turbine loses
stability and is
damaged
irreparably/
dynamic
stresses prove
too much and
the turbine
falls apart
Customer
calls meeting
and declares

VP of HR

Associate
Engineer

Managing
Mechanical
Engineer

CFO

Managing
Electrical
Engineer

Be open and
willing to work
with needs of
unions. Keep
tabs on morale
of workers.
Delegate
responsibility to
expert with
history of
success in
getting permits
approved.
Identify factors
that cause
delays, ensure
there is enough
contingency to
deal with delays
Target more
affordable
resources,
constantly check
completeness of
projected
budget, delegate
responsibility to
manage budget
Test and
examine for
design flaws
early, avoid
implementing
anything that
was not
evaluated in full.

Liaison to
Vendor

Work with
outside sources
to confirm
success of new
technology; do
decision
analysis for the
choice to use
floating turbines.

President

Ensure
transparency
exists between

customers
need

Lightning/Fire
Damage/
Explosions

damaged,
future work
threatened

that project
was done in a
way contrary
to what was
expected

company and
customer, keep
lines of
communication
open. Ensure it
is clear from
beginning what
results are
expected.

Damage to
equipment,
can hurt
personnel

Electrician is
on site
installing
turbine and
lightning
strikes,
causing
explosion and
hurting worker

Never have
someone on site
with threat of
thunderstorms,
incorporate
safety protocol
to avoid injuries
to employees

Risk Manager

Section Six Project Management

GreenTeks approach to managing the project was to have one overall lead (the
project manager) that would then be supported by a bevy of employees from the
company. Directly below him are five employees the Procurement Manager, the
Design Manager, the Construction Manager, the Chief Financial Officer and the
Subcontracting Manager.
The finance department under the Chief Financial Officer watches the budget;
keeps track of the planned budget and compares it with the actual budget. The finance
department also makes sure that everyone gets paid. The Human Resources
department keeps track of everyone that is hired. The subcontracting department is not
as straight forward; it is broken down to ensure the project runs smoothly and everyone
knows what role they play.
The project management department is broken down into four teams: the design
team, the procurement team, the construction team, and the close-out team. Each team
is then broken down further into sub teams.
The design team is led by the Design Manager. The Engineering Manager, the
Proposal Manager, and the Risk Manager all report back to the Design Manager. The
Engineering Manager is in charge of working on and perfecting the conceptual design.
This includes surveying the construction location and drafting a design proposal. The
Proposal Manager takes over after the conceptual design has been formed, to create
the detailed design. This entails creating a specific design and working with the Finance
department to establish the accounting for the project. The Risk Manager is in charge of
creating the risk matrix and analyzing the risks to decide which are most likely to occur.
He is also the one who comes up with plans to alleviate the consequences if the risks
should occur.
The Procurement Team is headed by the Procurement Manager. The
Procurement Manager has the task of keeping the Purchasing Manager and the
Engineering Law Manager in line. The Purchase manager oversees the resource
acquisition. He is in charge of making sure all people, facilities, and equipment have
been hired and are available when needed. The Engineering Law Manager deals with
all legal oversight. He must ensure that the off shore construction, environmental and
legislative permits have been acquired.
The Construction Manager will lead the construction team. He is to oversee the
Field Engineering Manager, the Quality Engineering Manager, and the External
Relations Manager. The Field Engineering Manager is in charge of the support structure

and turbine erection operations. The Quality Engineering Manger does quality checking
on the construction. The External Relations Manager is in charge of outsourcing
oversight.
The fourth team is the Close-Out team, led by the Reporting Manager. He comes
in at the end of the project to direct the Inspection Manager, the Evaluation Manager
and the Accounting Manager. The Inspection Manager deals with contract assurance.
The Evaluation Manager does the project assessment. The Accounting Manager works
with the finance department to do the financial close-out.
These four teams are directed by a Project Manager. The Project Manager
chosen to lead this project, Jane Doe, has been a project manager on similar projects.
She has worked in the consulting field for 30 years and has been a valuable team
member on 23 projects, many of them multiyear and experimental experiences. Doe
was a project manager on 8 of the projects and an indispensable resource on the rest.
Doe is best known for taking over as the project leader on building the offshore
wind farm of the Eastern Shore of the State of Maryland providing clean, renewable and
local energy to the Baltimore Washington metropolitan area. She came in on the
project that was in the works for over a decade. She has been acknowledged for
restructuring the team members to better accomplish the project. The Eastern Shore
wind farm received a lot of negative attention, but Doe held town meetings to try to put
the citizens at rest. Although the project was very controversial, Doe did an excellent job
of handling the situation, which is just one reason why she has been chosen to lead this
project.
This approach benefits the client because everyone has very defined roles and
knows what they must do. The organizational structure is broken down so that one
person is in charge of a manageable amount of work and people. With such a clear and
organized structure, the project will have no issues in the organizational structure. If
something goes wrong, it responsibility is easily identifiable. The same being true for
work that goes according to plan.
Jane Doe is an experienced project manager who has worked on similar
projects. This benefits the client because by looking at these past projects, she knows
what has gone wrong in the past and she will not make the same mistakes. She also
knows what the team did right, so she will be able to duplicate the results. Doe is the
manager of the project, but she does not micromanage everything. Doe lets the people
on her team do the job the way they want to. By doing this, Doe ensures that people are
committed to the project and do not resent being put on her team. The attitude of the
team members benefits the client because the team will work hard and get the job done.

Section Seven Project Team Work Contributions and Actions

Skyler
My contribution to GreenTek was a wide variety of tasks. Many of them involved learning
new concepts and applying them to help out the team. From the top down in the format, I
designed the cover page logo and set up the format. I wanted something that would promote the
concept of GreenTek but looked professional so that was what I got. Next, I compiled section 2,
the introduction to the team. I kept my team members up to date about what they were
supposed to write for that section and once I received each members blurb about themselves,
I wrote a preface, put them together, and wrapped up how we were to work together. After
meeting with the team and coming to understand which project we wanted to be a part of, Jenn
and I put together section 3 Project Selection. I designated the different categories I thought
GreenTek would care the most about when choosing a project and started a basic ranking
system that would be understandable and would lead to our choosing the turbine product. It was
Jenn that made it look more professional and be more instantly understandable.
I also did several things in the largest section, Section 4 the technical approach. I
worked with Nicole and Jenn to figure out the WBS, and after we were on the same page I
helped organize it, and made the graphic with the OBS that Jenn and I had tweaked several
times over the course of doing the project. For the CPM schedule, I used Microsoft Project to
plot the Gantt chart and the critical path and wrote the description about Nicoles abbreviated
CPM. Additionally, I made the risk management matrix from scratch and did the entire write-up
about GreenTeks risk management approach.
I learned a lot from this project, probably more than I thought I would. I often assume any
new technology will come easy to me, but unfortunately Microsoft Project proved to me that I
cannot take any new, unused tools for granted. After some practice and YouTube videos I was
able to figure it out, but it took more time than I would have guessed. As for the big picture, I
came to understand how in project management there is a ton of time management and
balance in every level of what is done. Balance between letting someone do something all on
their own and micromanaging, pushing something off to be done later, and waiting until the last
second, etc. Although I no longer am minoring in Project Management due to schedule
constraints this class and this project taught me how important it is to be organized, punctual,
and not take projects or others for granted.

Jenn
My contribution as a team member consisted of a few tasks. Section five required the
creation of a list of possible risks for the project; this task was accomplished with collaboration
from the other three team members, since everyone participated in a brainstorm technique.
Another task was to describe the teams risk management approach; my main goal was to
create a proactive contingency plan to perceive risks and react accordingly. For a better
monitoring and control of risks during the life of the project, I created a risk matrix that included
identified risks, its consequences, degree of impact and likelihood, necessary action trigger,
assignment of responsible person, and specific response plans for each risk. By implementing a

risk matrix, I gained more knowledge about the process of how to assess projects risks. For
instance, merely identifying risks are not enough. I had to decide who might be harmed and
how, to evaluate the risks and decide on precautions, to record findings and implement them,
and finally to review our assessments and update them if necessary. These were essential
considerations to decrease negative impacts on the projects budget, schedule, and
deliverables. Assigning specific consequences for some risks was challenging, as they would
affect several interdependent activities.
Another one of my tasks was to write the executive summary of the project; this task allowed me
to become more familiar with the team projects approach to the problem, budget, and schedule.
My third task was to focus on Section one, the background. In this section I stated the teams
familiarity with the project along with the projects goals and objectives.
Being part of this assignment helped me to understand the complexity of working on a
team in charge of a large project because there is a big difference in learning project
management from books and class than from learning it in real life. The team took advantage of
available tools; such as, Facebook, e-mails, Google Doc. These tools assisted my team
members to have an effective communication. For instance, I learned how to use Google Doc,
which is a convenient resource. I will certainly use it again in future group projects. Also, I
learned from other team members with more experience on project management. Overall, this
assignment has enhanced my quality as a team player and made me aware of other aspects of
my personality that need improvement.
Landry
Throughout the duration of the project, the team collaborated relatively well together.
Tasks were delegated according to experience, interest and background. Due to my interest and
my extensive knowledge of the wind energy industry was tasked with doing most of the
background and detailed research to help actually decide what kind of offshore wind project to
pursue. Doing this research taught me about the complicated structure of offshore wind
projects. They are a lot more complicated than one might think at first. Because, wind power in
a relatively new and expensive energy it usually encounters substantial obstacles in its
implementation. These usually come from unplanned stakeholder conflicts or complicated
financing structure.
I also established our first lines of communication, assembling everyones contact
information and dispersing it throughout my group, so we could start to discuss and divide tasks.
When we had started working I established and shared Dropbox folder so we could work on a
synchronized and up-to-date set of information.
When the work breakdown structure WBS was being assembled, I used the information I
had assembled about real offshore wind projects to help make ours more realistic. I also
established how our decision to use floating support structures help us save time and money
though fewer transportation and offshore construction costs.
I also established our project management structure. This involved defining
compartmentalized responsibilities for the project and assigning department and sub teams to
complete each responsibility. I used my experience working with project managers at Grodon
Contractors to build a management structure that I felt could effectively execute this project.

Niki

Upon completion of the offshore wind turbine farm, our team has gained much
experience. In the beginning, responsibilities were assigned dependent upon each members skill
set and personality. I made sure each member had an equal amount of work, and set up a review
system so that we could all check each other to assure everyone was on the same page. After
assigning responsibilities, I began researching the necessary steps in creating an offshore wind
turbine farm. This began with studying the current wind turbine farms in order to learn from their
mistakes and gain from their success. After a thorough understanding of the best practices for
the foundation and installation of the turbines, it was time to start creating the steps in the WBS.
The best way I found to do this was through research on current projects and completed
successful ones. It was also necessary to find the legal requirements and the steps which would
require subcontractors. However before we could do this, we needed to decide upon a location.
The entire group researched wind patterns in the New England area, and decided upon an area
with public approval and that complimented our design. After we had decided upon the location,
we were able to begin filling in the specific details in the work breakdown structure. This proved
to be the most difficult part due to the number of steps involved and time commitment of each
step. While maintaining team organization and progress, I used government websites, plans from
previous, successful wind farms, and many other reliable sources in order to create the WBS with
specific work packages. After finalizing the WBS with the team, I was able to create a network
diagram and organize what tasks could be done concurrently in order to save time and money. By
learning from previous firms mistakes, we were able to combine multiple steps in order to have
an economically efficient project. Once I developed the network diagram and estimated the
duration of specific activities, we were able to create the critical path. This was then sent to the
team in order for them to review and improve anything they felt necessary. After I created the
work breakdown structure, network diagram, and critical path, we were able to work together
and develop the PERT schedule and other various components using Microsoft project. Our team
worked well together and had a good system of reviewing each other in order to ensure accuracy
and achieve the best outcome. By respecting one anothers opinions, we were able to find a
cooperative way to combine the best of all our ideas, in order to achieve the best deliverable of
our project. We were able to accomplish much of the work in a shorter period of time due to our
cooperative attitudes as well. Also, our team avoided many errors and inconsistencies since we
were able to review one anothers ideas.
Overall, our team had a very successful experience with completing this project.
Everything remained under control from start to finish and the organizational structure we
developed facilitated the process significantly. However, next time we plan to spend more time
on planning and research on newer technologies. Wind turbine farms are a fairly new technology,
so the information was limited. If we could have spoken with more specialists it would have
benefitted us for future projects and with innovative ideas. The main thing we learned was that
organization, team work, and cooperative attitudes can affect the project greatly. Everything went
smoothly due to our team having the characteristics and the project deliverable came out better
than we expected.

Appendix A: Assumptions

The cost assumptions below form the basis of the estimate for budget
1

The cables will be installed under water and connected to an existing shore based
substation

The terrain provides no apparent problems.

3
4

The costs estimates are adjusted for New England costs.

The company is an electrical contractor and it may have its own equipment and the cost
data we have are the historical data for their latest project so we assume that the
equipment cost has been considered into the labor cost.
5 There will be no adjustment for escalation. We assume that both projects happen in the
same year.
6 No adjustment for quality is being made. We assume that both have the same quality.
7 As this estimate is based on limited information (Historical data from similar project) and
the off shore conditions and survey have not been accomplished, we assume 20% as a
contingency plan to cover the potential risks.
8 Tax is not being considered in the estimation.
9 * Assume that identifying responsibilities, implementing risk management, creating a
cost analysis, selecting a final design/location, selecting a turbine vendor all fall within
project team basic duties.
10 ^ Calculated by the average yearly engineer supervisor salary in Massachussetts * the #
of work days in the project critical path converted into years * amount of people in the
project (Salary found via simplyhired.com, searching for supervising engineer in Boston,
MA)
11 % Calculated by the average yearly construction worker salary in Massachusetts * the #
of work days in project critical path converted into years * 40 workers (Salary found via
simplyhired.com, searching for construction worker in Boston, MA)
12 Other costs derived from :
a http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-3-economics-of-windpower/chapter-2-offshore-developments/
b http://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/econdev/smallbusiness/~/media/Files/CDD/E
conDev/PermittingGuides/ed_sbs_building_2012.ashx for the permitting costs
c Page 16. FIGURE 5
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/ETD-UT-2009-12455/WALL-MASTERS-REPORT.pdf

Appendix B: Works Cited

"Bathymetry Data Viewer | Ngdc.noaa.gov." Bathymetry Data Viewer |
Ngdc.noaa.gov. NOAA, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
<http://maps.ngdc.noaa.gov/viewers/bathymetry/>.
"Index of /mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/NK_19-5." Index of
/mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/NK_19-5. NOAA National Geophysical
Data Cente, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/maps/finals/NK_19-5/>.
"MAIN PUBLICATION :." Offshore Support Structures. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov.
2012. <http://www.wind-energy-the-facts.org/en/part-itechnology/chapter-5-offshore/wind-farm-design-offshore/offshoresupport-structures.html>.
"Maine Stalls On Statoil Floating Wind Turbine Project." The Energy Collective
RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
<http://theenergycollective.com/namarchetti/121416/maine-stallsstatoil-floating-wind-turbine-project>.
"National Grid." National Grid. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
<http://www.nationalgrid.com/corporate/Our+Businesses/electricity_di
stri>.
"Offshore Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances."
Offshore Wind Turbine Visibility and Visual Impact Threshold Distances.

N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.

<http://visualimpact.anl.gov/offshorevitd/>.
"Resource Assessment & Characterization." Wind Program: Resource
Assessment and Characterization. Department of Energy (DOE), n.d.
Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
<http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/resource_assessment_characteriza
tion.html>.

Appendix C: Organizational Breakdown Structure (Autonomous Project

Organizational Structure)
1. GreenTek Alternative Energy Division (President)
1.1. Human Resources (Vice President of HR)
1.2. Marketing (Vice President of Marketing)
1.3. Finance and Administration (CFO)
1.4. Legality and Law Comprehension (Vice President of Legal Services)
1.4.1. Legal Oversight, Advisement, and Permitting (Engineering Law Manager)
1.5. Wind Farm Project (Project Manager)
1.5.1. Risk Assessment (Risk Manager)
1.5.2. Procurement (Procurement Manager)
1.5.2.1. Resource Acquisition (Purchasing Manager)
1.5.2.2. Transportation and Logistics (Logistics Manager)
1.5.3. Design (Design Manager)
1.5.3.1. Concept Engineering (Lead Engineer)
1.5.3.2. Finalizing Plan and Paperwork Completion (Associate Engineer)
1.5.4. Construction (Construction Manager)
1.5.4.1. Substation Construction (Systems Engineer)
1.5.4.2. Turbine Installation (Turbine Vendor Liaison)
1.5.4.3. Electrical Wire Connection & Installation (Managing Electrical
Engineer)
1.5.5. Subcontractors (Subcontracting Manager)
1.5.5.1. Civil Subcontracting (Managing Civil Engineer)
1.5.5.2. Mechanical/Electrical Subcontracting (Managing Mechanical
Engineer)

Appendix D: Table used to make decision regarding new technology:

Structure

Examples

Use

Notes

Monopile

Utgrunden (SE),
Blyth (UK), Horns
Rev (DK), North
Hoyle (UK), Scroby
Sands (UK), Arklow
(IE) Ireland, Barrow
(UK), Kentish Flats
(UK), OWEZ (NL),
Pricess Amalia (NL)
Beatrice (UK),
Alpha Ventus (DE)

Shallow to
medium
water
depths

Made from steel tube,

typically 4-6 m in diameter ,
Installed using driving
and/or drilling method,
Transition piece grouted
onto top of pile

Medium to
deep
water
depths

Tripod

Alpha Ventus (DE)

Medium to
deep
water
depths

Gravity base

Vindeby (DK), Tuno

Knob (DK),
Middlegrunden
(DK), Nysted (DK,)
Lilgrund (SE),
Thornton Bank (BE)

Shallow to
medium
water
depths

Floating
structures

Karm y (NO)

Deep to
very deep
water
depths

Made from steel tubes

welded together, typically
0.5-1.5 m in diameter ,
Anchored by driven or
drilled piles, typically 0.82.5 m in diameter
Made from steel tubes
welded together, typically
1.0-5.0 m in diameter ,
Transition piece
incorporated onto centre
column,
Anchored by driven or
drilled piles, typically 0.82.5 m in diameter
Made from steel or
concrete,
Relies on weight of
structure to resist
overturning, extra weight
can be added in the form of
ballast in the base,
Seabed may need some
careful preparation,
Susceptible to scour and
undermining due to size,
Still under development,
Relies on buoyancy of
structure to resist
overturning,
Motion of floating
structure could add further
dynamic loads to structure,
Not affected by seabed
conditions,

Jacket

Appendix E: Microsoft Project Material

Task Name

Duration

Wind Turbine Project

520 days

Administrative
Team Organization
Identify Preliminary
Responsibilities
Identify Where Subcontracts are
Needed
Implement Risk Management
Strategy
Create Cost Analysis
Design
Conceptual
Survey and Analyze Available
Locations
Analyze Wind Data
Propose Designs
Detailed
Select Final Design and Location
for Wind Farm
Select Turbine Vendor
RFP Preparation/Submission
Bid
Acceptance/Evaluation/Approval
Procurement
Legal/Real Estate
Right-of-Way for Cables
Land Acquisition
Permitting (federal, state, and
local)

Start

Thu
11/15/12
Thu
20 days
11/15/12
Thu
5 days
11/15/12
Thu
1 wk
11/15/12
Thu
1 wk
11/15/12
Thu
3 wks
11/22/12
Thu
2 wks
11/22/12
Thu
240 days
12/13/12
Thu
60 days
12/13/12
Thu
12 wks
12/13/12
Thu
12 wks
12/13/12
Thu
8 wks
12/13/12

Finish

Wed
11/12/14
Wed
12/12/12
Wed
11/21/12
Wed
11/21/12
Wed
11/21/12
Wed
12/12/12

Predecessors

4SS
5

Wed 12/5/12 6SS

Wed
11/13/13
Wed 3/6/13
Wed 3/6/13 5,6,7
Wed 3/6/13 10SS
Wed 2/6/13 11SS

180 days Thu 3/7/13

Wed
11/13/13

2 wks

Wed 3/20/13 11,10,12

Thu 3/7/13

Wed
11/13/13
12 wks
Thu 3/7/13 Wed 5/29/13
Wed
24 wks
Thu 5/30/13
11/13/13
Thu
Wed
260 days
3/21/13
3/19/14
Thu
Wed
260 days
3/21/13
3/19/14
52 wks
Thu 3/21/13 Wed 3/19/14
Wed
40 wks
Thu 3/21/13
12/25/13
180 days Thu 3/7/13

52 wks

14SS
16

14
14

Thu 3/21/13 Wed 3/19/14 14

Reso
Nam

Resources
Labor
Materials
Equipment
Facilities for Construction
Transportation of Materials
Subcontractors
Construction
Preparation
Access Roads to Site
Clear Area for Assembly
Excavation offshore
Main Parts Pre-Assembled
Turbine Installation
Foundations Installed Offshore
Main Components Transported to
Offshore Site
Tower in Place & Rotor Installed
Connect Electrical Cabling
Substation Construction
Foundation Installed Offshore
Main Components Transported to
Offshore Site
Install transformers (power,
instruments, and auxiliary)
Install Switches, Relays, Circuit
Breakers, and Switchgears
Connect Electrical Cabling
Testing

Thu
3/21/13
8 wks
Thu 3/21/13
16 wks
Thu 3/21/13
8 wks
Thu 3/21/13
4 wks
Thu 3/21/13
2 wks
Thu 3/21/13
8 wks
Thu 3/21/13
Thu
390 days
3/21/13
Thu
120 days
3/21/13
2 wks
Thu 5/16/13
1 wk
Thu 5/30/13
3 wks
Thu 6/6/13
24 wks
Thu 3/21/13
Thu
120 days
6/27/13
12 wks
Thu 6/27/13
80 days

2 wks

Wed 9/4/13
Wed 5/29/13
Wed 6/5/13
Wed 6/26/13
Wed 9/4/13
Wed
12/11/13
Wed 9/18/13

29
32
33
29SS

34

Thu 9/19/13 Wed 10/2/13 37

Wed
38
10/16/13
Thu
Wed
8 wks
39
10/17/13
12/11/13
Thu
Wed
260 days
6/27/13
6/25/14
12 wks
Thu 6/27/13 Wed 9/18/13 37SS
Thu 10/3/13

2 wks

Thu 9/19/13 Wed 10/2/13 42

32 wks

Thu 10/3/13 Wed 5/14/14 43

4 wks

Thu 5/15/14 Wed 6/11/14 44

2 wks

Thu 6/12/14
Thu
6/26/14
Thu 6/26/14
Thu 6/26/14
Thu
9/18/14
Thu 9/18/14
Thu
9/25/14
Thu 9/25/14

60 days

40 days

Verify Acceptance Criteria

1 wk

Finalize Payments

20 days

Collect Client Payments

20SS
24SS
25SS
26SS
27SS
28SS

2 wks

Performance Trial for Power Output 12 wks

Check Data Acquisition
12 wks
Review/close-out

Wed
7/10/13
Wed 5/15/13
Wed 7/10/13
Wed 5/15/13
Wed 4/17/13
Wed 4/3/13
Wed 5/15/13
Wed
9/17/14

3 wks

Wed 6/25/14
Wed
9/17/14
Wed 9/17/14
Wed 9/17/14
Wed
11/12/14
Wed 9/24/14
Wed
10/22/14
Wed

45

46,44,45
48SS

49,48

51

Finalize Subcontractor Payments

4 wks

Thu 9/25/14

Compensate Resources

2 wks

Thu 9/25/14
Wed
10/8/14

Evaluations

25 days

Team Evaluations

1 wk

Thu 10/9/14

Customer Evaluations

2 wks

Thu 10/9/14

Review Project

2 wks

Thu
10/23/14

Project Close-out Party

1 wk

Thu 11/6/14

Project Completed

0 days

10/15/14
Wed
10/22/14
Wed 10/8/14
Wed
11/12/14
Wed
10/15/14
Wed
10/22/14

53SS
53SS
55
55
57SS

Wed 11/5/14 58

Wed
59
11/12/14
Wed 10/8/14 Wed 10/8/14