Provision of Master Civil Consultancy Services for

Changi East Development at Singapore Changi Airport

Quality Package A
Project Understanding and Methodology Proposal

3. Project Execution Plan (PEP)

3. Project Execution Plan (PEP)

 Changi Airport Group
Project Execution Plan

10. Design Management, Review and Acceptance

10.1 Design Management Plan

The MCC will develop a Design Management Plan which will address how the design activities will be
managed, coordinated and integrated across the MCC Members and Specialist Sub-consultants, in
accordance with the Delivery Strategy included in Appendix C of this PEP. It will also address how design
activities and design packages will be coordinated across different geographical locations and reviewed by
various stakeholders.

The Design Management Plan in Appendix H of this PEP will be a subordinate management plan, integrating
with the other management plans.

10.2 CAG Review and Approval

The Design Review and Acceptance process is outlined in Section B5 of the tender documents and is
described in more detail in Appendix D of this PEP. The process is based on the following principles:

• Internal reviews by CAG and any required Peer Reviews will be undertaken concurrently within the
schedule review periods.

• External reviews by third party stakeholders and regulatory authorities will be undertaken as
scheduled by CAG.

The MCC will record and track all CAG’s review comments at each stage and demonstrate that all comments
have been appropriately addressed and incorporated into the next stage of the design. Protocols for
categorisation of comments will be prepared for the design reviews and managed per this protocol. These
protocols will include the other related projects and information transfer requirements. Design expeditors will
be appointed for closing out comments expeditiously.

The protocols will include the requirements for re-submission of the Design Report, with an anticipated
resubmission only occurring if there is a material change to the certain elements of the design.

CAG will progressively review, comment and accept the design deliverables, facilitated and tracked through
the EDMS. CAG’s will provide their response through the allocation of review codes to each submittal:

• Code 1 – not reviewed

• Code 2 – rejected

• Code 3 – accepted with comments

Master Civil Consultancy Services Page | 26

 Changi Airport Group
Project Execution Plan

• Code 4 – accepted

Notwithstanding CAG’s comments, the MCC remains responsible for providing a fully coordinated design for
each submission and at each design stage.

10.3 Peer Review

The MCC will make provision for formal Peer Reviews to be undertaken by independent experts working on
behalf of CAG, to be undertaken concurrently with the CAG review. The MCC will support the Peer Reviews
by arranging workshops and presentations to present the current design with a view to propose opportunities
to optimise the design.

10.4 QP Permitting

The MCC will make provision for concurrent review by the QP permitting team and timely submission.

Figure 6: Summary Design Review and Acceptance

The MCC Design Review and Acceptance process is outlined in Appendix D of this PEP.

Master Civil Consultancy Services Page | 27

 3. Project Execution Plan (PEP)
Appendix H: Design Management Plan

3-9 | PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (PEP) | CHANGI AIRPORT GROUP

 PEP Appendix H: Design Management Plan (Draft)

Executive Summary
This Design Management Plan is an overarching management plan to ensure that the design
solutions are in accordance with the quality standards, interfaces and integration requirements and
is delivered to reduce risk. The Design Management Plan is divided into 2 main components:
Section A: DESIGN CONTROL AND PROCESS
Section B: STRENGTHENING DESIGN INTERFACES AND MANAGEMENT

A. DESIGN CONTROL AND PROCESSES

A.1 Design Management

Prior to commencement of the Design, MCC Design Management Team will produce a Design
Management Plan (DMP). The DMP will form a general framework for the design process. The
plan will be a comprehensive description of how design and interfaces are to be organised and
managed to result in a compliant, safe, constructible, co-ordinated and cost effective design that
achieves the designated phase and programme milestones. The plan will also define how the
design will be checked/ approved. The figure below gives an overview of the process.

As the various Design Consultants are engaged they will be required to produce a Design Input
Statement to detail how they will execute their design activities in line with MCC DMP and will also
be required to clarify, articulate and agree the roles, responsibilities and deliverables. MCC
processes and procedures will be used to manage at Project level, however, the most effective and
efficient design execution approach is for the Design Consultant to utilise their own detailed design
processes and procedures. The figure below gives and overview of the DMP.

Design Management Plan 1

A.2 Project Control Implementation and Operation
The management systems will
comprise a suite of plans and
procedures that will be prepared,
implemented and maintained
throughout, thereby ensuring that the
planned requirements will be
controlled with procedures and
schedules readily available to meet
key delivery dates. The Project Quality
Plan will be compliant with ISO 9001
and will also include for Singapore
Construction Standards. Each key
function responsibilities will be
described in the Project Quality Plan
and reference will be made to the
organisation structure to ensure that
lines of communication are known and
maintained.
MCC, with CAG consent, will appoint key personnel to each project with the knowledge, skills and
experience to assure robust quality management throughout the project lifecycle. Quality
Management of Designers is critical to the design integrity that all comments are captured, tracked
and solved at each design stage gateway, and that each stakeholder has clarity of their
expectations and agreements for the design to progress through to approval for construction.

Design Management Plan 2

A.3 Planning, Programming and Progress Management
MCC approach to management of the Planning and Scheduling environment is based on five major
scope elements:

Schedule Content, Data Hierarchy and Summary;

Development and Maintenance;

Planning Software Configuration, Architecture and Administration;

Assurance and Analysis Framework; and

Robust change control process.
MCC Project Controls function provides the effective delivery of Planning and Scheduling, giving
assurance to internal and external stakeholders. MCC will supplement the procedure document with
detailed process maps and work instructions as required during the course of the project. The data
hierarchy shall follow the Stakeholder requirements regarding scheduling data management, and
will utilise weekly and monthly validation of progress through bespoke trackers, critical design
deliverables tracker update and monthly program updates, providing most currently available project
status as required. MCC will establish and seek approval for a Project Management Consultant
(PMC) Program Controls and Reporting Plan.
Integrated, interactive inter-disciplinary review sessions shall be carried out in this period with all
appropriate parties to establish as fully as possible the project scope and delivery strategy. A full
integrity check and gap analysis shall be carried out to determine compliance with the Contract,
delivery strategy, scope, driving paths of each Contract milestones, resources, etc., and a Project
level critical path shall be established. The outcome of this exercise shall be that the Original
Baseline shall be established. It will be MCC single source of truth, used to drive delivery, monitor
and control performance and inform all management schedules, for example Procurement
Management Schedule, Quality Audit Programmes, etc.
The schedule elements of this are also addressed in Section C in relation to the Roadmap for
Delivery.

A.4 Progress, Reporting and Control

MCC approach to Project Reporting is to provide guidance on the process of Project Status
Reporting and to describe the process overview, requirements, best practices, inputs, outputs,
responsibilities, etc. MCC approach forms the basis for the assurance of the Designers and
Contractor’s reporting management system and defines the expectation in terms of their reporting
management process and procedure. This section covers off ‘Module 2 - Project Reporting’ within
MCC IPC approach. Project Status Reports are regular, formalised reports on the Project progress
against the Project Baseline.
Its purpose is to effectively and efficiently communicate project status at regular intervals to project
stakeholders. This allows MCC to support successful project delivery by establishing an
environment of ‘Dynamic Certainty’; making sure that issues are identified and analysed and
actioned early to keep the Project ‘on track’.
The Designers (and later Contractors) are required to produce a Daily Report, for each area of work,
a Weekly Progress Report and a Monthly Progress Report. The Contractual and content
requirements of these reports are detailed in the reporting module document. The key information
from the monthly progress reports is summarised and presented as part of the monthly progress
report in a Dashboard Report format, agreed with you.
MCC approach also requires Contractors and Designers to submit with each Monthly Progress
Reports, Design Deliverable Progress Report, Key Quantity Tracker (KQT), Milestone and Float
Tracker Report, Cash Flow Report, Early Notification and Variation Order Report, Project
Performance Report. MCC will use these documents to validate project status and then provide

Design Management Plan 3

CAG with Monthly Dashboards, progress payment reports, cash flow reports, Key Milestone and
Float Tracker Report, Monthly Schedule Report, Project Performance Report, etc. MCC will also
maintain a Project Controls notice board to reflect the latest progress of the Project.

A.5 Cost / Budget Management

The budgeting process establishes a means for documenting and tracking the cost goals for all
contractually authorised work. MCC will track the cost evolution/movement within and between WBS
elements in the P6 schedule and cost structure. The project budget shall be reviewed and
appropriately updated as the project evolves through the construction life cycle and more
information becomes available ensuring clarity of Current Budget Baseline (CBB). Performance
Measurement Techniques will take account of CAG weightage for each element of the works and
will include:

Milestone techniques;

Units Complete (Including Subcontractor works);

Physical Percentage Complete; and

Level of Effort (LOE).
These will be applied on the basis of the most appropriate for a given context and in agreement with
you. In addition to the mandated reporting requirements, MCC recommend the use of anticipated
final cost (AFC) modelling. If in agreement, MCC will establish a robust AFC process. In this context,
a dynamic Early Notification process that assures the visibility of any event that could potentially
change the design, scope, schedule or cost, i.e. any item that may result in a deviation from the
approved baseline. The process shall include the early identification of all changes that are
unavoidable (Firm) or changes that are emerging and may be mitigated or avoided (Potential). To
provide assurance that the budget is managed efficiently, MCC introduce a number of commercial
reporting tools, which provide confidence that any variations to the Approved Budget are highlighted,
as soon as possible, and appropriate actions taken. MCC implement Commercial Dashboard where
MCC highlight the top five variations, potential claims from the Contractor and overall status of the
AFC. In addition, MCC will run cash flow and cost flow forecasts on a periodic basis.

A.6 Change management

A key element underpinning accuracy of reporting and optimised delivery will be a robust change
management system. MCC Change Management approach will assure that changes are managed
appropriately for their level and urgency and that appropriate time is allowed for the process. It is
important that consideration of changes does not become a cause of delay. MCC will establish a
formal prioritisation of potential change to ensure, with CAG support, changes are reviewed,
decisions taken promptly and appropriate authorisation received timeously (Routine, Urgent, and
Emergency).
MCC have successfully implemented the integrated change register on Doha Metro Red Line PMC
Contracts, and will utilize this experience to agree how best to implement for Changi East to track
the progress of the changes, which will be linked to variations and claims registers. The actions
against each change will be discussed at the weekly meeting. This provides clear ownership to the
team members and facilitates routine change management decisions. MCC will manage ‘Urgent’
and ‘Emergency’ changes via a fast track system to avoid unnecessary delays to the project.
Changes may be required during the project, taking into account new circumstances, overcoming
problems, and taking opportunities for improvement, but changes are also a major source of risk on
such projects.
MCC Change Management Plan and process assures that the integrity of the baseline used for the
measurement of performance is maintained and is fully reconcilable. The objective is to provide a
clear understanding of how change shall be managed and communicated to reduce the risks to the

Design Management Plan 4

project and the programme and assure effective control in terms of review, approval or rejection and
implementation. The scope of this procedure includes any:

Request to deviate from the formally stated parameters of any activity, including its
requirements, standards, specification, design, interfaces, verification and validation, cost,
timescales, quality, health and safety, security, environment, risk and commercial issues such
as Contract terms and conditions;

Proposed change to a contractual document, electronically recorded item or piece of software
(e.g. tools, models, embedded software), which has reached an issued, accepted, approved or
base-lined status; and

Proposed change to a component, product, assembly, sub-system, system or other physical
item, which has been accepted for incorporation into the programme. The Change Management
module covers these changes regardless of who initiates the request for a change (e.g.
Employer, Engineer, PMC, Contractor, etc).
It is envisaged that there shall be two levels of change approval governance:

Programme Level; and

Project Level.

The detailed procedure focuses on the Project Level process. A proactive approach to change
assures the change register is established early in the project. The levels and roles of change are
covered in detail in the full version of the procedure, including proposed variations, proposed
implementation changes, proposed internal changes, claims, waivers and deviations. MCC see the
effective management of contract changes, as being key to controlling costs and a significant risk
that may result in claims. Changes may be required during project packages, as a result of new
circumstances, problems, and opportunities for improvement. However change is a major source of
project risk. MCC Change Management system will be utilised to assure that the integrity of the
baseline used for the measurement of performance is maintained and is reconcilable. The objective
is to provide CAG with a clear understanding of how change will be managed and communicated to
reduce the risks to the project and provide effective control in terms of review, approval or rejection
and implementation.

Design Management Plan 5

A.7 Risk Management
MCC Project Director and wider team will work with CAG and
the relevant Stakeholders to develop a Risk Management
Plan at the outset, which will be updated on a regular basis
to manage these issues critical to success. The focus of this
will be to make sure that appropriate identification, evaluation,
treatment and on-going management of risk occurs
throughout the lifecycle of the project.
The risk management governance structure provides a
mechanism for communication, oversight, and guidance on
all risks. Considering the complexity of the project, MCC risk
governance structure as illustrated opposite will provide the
appropriate channels in which risk data and information flows
will occur.
MCC will apply the following key principles as part of the risk
management assurance process:

MCC will monitor, evaluate and report on the
effectiveness and quality of the Design Consultant’s
procedure, process and outcomes;

Risks will be assessed based on the initial scope and costs as set out in the contract. This will
be the Risk Exposure Reference point;

MCC will monitor movement from this exposure reference point, in terms of risks or pursuing
opportunities; and

Will be specifically mindful of risks that may impact material/component sourcing, manufacture,
fabrication, delivery and Contract works and potential impact on wider Schedule milestones.

A.8 Information Management

MCC information management approach, including communications and document control,
identifies the different communications and document control processes. MCC will use a web-based
document management system to store all project related information and manage documentation.
Due to the lack of information how is CAG’s EDMS and EIMS, MCC will only be able to finalized the
Information Management Plan (IMP) after contract award. Summary of the IMP to refer to the PEP.

A.9 Training
MCC understand that procedures and processes are only robust and reliable if they are used
correctly and the information taken from them is interpreted in the correct manner. Working with
CAG, MCC will take the design processes and procedures ‘package’, which MCC assume will be an
amalgam of CAG existing procedures and new/augmented ones based on ours, a construct a
training programme around this. Initially, this will be focused on CAG team, with different emphasis
and scale for different levels in CAG organisation.
In terms of the design consultants, MCC primary objective will be to embed processes and
procedures into their working environment so that CAG can have confidence in the quality of
information and data that is flowing. MCC will adopt a ‘train-then-mentor’ approach in this initial
phase to ensure complete understanding and implementation, rather than simply an audit-and-
comply position, which is ultimately less effective in meeting the required outcomes.
MCC will bring this into an Overall Training Plan, which MCC envisage will also cover elements
such as safety, security and sustainability and CAG programme objectives/outcomes.

Design Management Plan 6

B. STRENGTHENING DESIGN INTERFACES AND MANAGEMENT
Frank Bingham will lead this aspect. Frank brings his experience as a qualified engineer,
together with his skills in engineering/design interface to the role. Frank has been at the core
of managing the design and physical, spatial, organisational and stakeholder interfaces for
many large scale long running projects.

B.1 Introduction & Context

Changi East will be a unique project, combining the very highest operational standards
together with an unsurpassed passenger experience to reinforce Singapore’s position as a
‘World City’ and Asia’s premier aviation hub. MCC specific experience in managing both the
design and the complex interfaces that only exist in an Airport environment, alongside MCC
experience in world-leading, signature design projects, is perfectly aligned to the
requirements and challenges of CAG project.
Whilst the approach to managing large, complex programmes is reasonably well understood
by the industry, the uniqueness of the Changi East project means that there is no complete,
existing system that can just be cut and pasted – it requires a combination of the very best
industry tools, alongside expert, creative thinking to refine and evolve processes which
respond to the requirements and challenges of this project.
Therefore, MCC will set out approach to strengthening design interfaces and management
based on:

An overview of common issues on major programmes (this section);

The Design System and Solution Maturity (B.2);

Proposed Design Interface & Management Tools (B.3);

Progressive Design Assurance (B.4); and

Lessons Learned and Specific Watch-points for Changi East T5 Project:(B.5).

B.1.1 Common Issues with Complex Programmes:

The table below captures some well-known issues encountered in the design of mega-
projects. Whilst they are largely accepted by the industry in hindsight, entrenched
behaviours around approaches to scope, contracts and procurement and ensuing time and
cost pressures often mean these are repeated:

Design Management Plan 7

B.2 The Design System and Solution Maturity
In order to strengthen Design Interfaces and Management, the Package Managers and
Design Team Leads must establish the holistic ‘Design System’ for the Changi East
Programme. Only with the Design System established is there a true, visible and auditable
roadmap for a successful outcome for the project, where effective Requirements
Management and GAP and Risk Analysis can be carried out.

The Design System will generally catalogue the programme of works at two levels. The
higher Level 1 is owned by the client (CAG) and comprises:

The Functional Brief;

The Concept of Operations (CONOPS); and

The Business Case.
The Level 2 elements are generally those owned by the Management Services-Project
Manager (through Design and Interface Management) and the Designers themselves.
The Functional Brief and Concept of Operations (CONOPS) are distilled into the Target
Operational Model (TOM) which in turn feeds into the Business case where Benefits
Realisation can be tracked and modelled. Level 1 generally applies to the entire programme
and all sub-programmes
Stakeholder input can occur at either Level 1 or Level 2 depending on the stakeholder’s
relationship with the client.
Design System Hierarchy

The central to the strengthening of design interfaces and management is the process of
‘Requirements Management’ which, in a traditional context, allows the emerging design to
establish detailed system requirements (Level 2) that the client organisation wants an asset
to satisfy (downstream). However, successful requirements management will also allow the
Client’s functional business requirements (Level 1) to be validated by the emerging design
(upstream) helping to mitigate some of the common issues of major programmes as
described previously, and in particular, help determine the level of Solution Maturity required
within the design phase. The use of outcomes (as distinct from outputs) is very effective
during the early stages of design and interface management, particularly in respect of those
areas of scope that are less deterministic. This can avoid ‘over-design’ or abortive work
where design disciplines do not necessarily need to reach the same level of design maturity
(as per points 4 and 5 in the table).

Design Management Plan 8

MCC will achieve Solution Maturity Management by adopting the principles set out in the
following steps:

Note: Design development phase being Schematic Design

B.3 Proposed Design Interface & Management Tools

The success of the Design Management role is highly dependent on accurate and holistic
classification of the programme elements as part of establishing the Design System. In
specific terms, MCC Design and Interface Management approach will address this project at
three levels:

Firstly, the directly related multi-disciplinary design scope for the Master Civil (MC)
scope;

Secondly, the adjacent sub-programmes of T5 or MA packages such as the Terminal &
Satellites buildings, including the GTC, and Tunnels, where all ‘touch-points’ must be
understood; and

Thirdly, the wider ‘global’ interfaces, some perhaps non-aviation related, that may
impact the design, e.g. legal or environmental issues, wider traffic network and utilities
issues.
Detail of the Interface Management Plan to refer to PEP.

On MCC recent commissions for the £1bn Manchester Transformation Programme and
Heathrow 3rd Runway Programme, MCC have had to manage the design of multi-
discipline, multi-package programmes with significant and wide ranging interfaces from
the strategic regional road networks, to the terminal wifi systems.

B.3.1 Key Internal Tools

MCC will add to the extensive work already carried out by CAG in forming the current
reference design, and overlay MCC framework and processes to ensure project success. As
described in the previous section, at the heart of this is the creation and implementation of a
robust and holistic Design Management Plan that strengthens and underpins the ongoing
design management of the entire programme and sub-packages, and captures and resolves
all design interfaces in a timely and methodical manner.

MCC will apply several internal tools to aid the workstreams in collaborating and
communicating efficiently to manage and control the design process. They demonstrate a
structure and organisation for Design Managers to follow and achieve project success.

Design Management Plan 9

Design Management Plan

MCC will prepare and regularly update this document to reflect the current project status,
and it should be read by every member of the Design Team. This will ensure smooth running
of the project from high level coordination and issuing of information to the detailed design of
elements.

Design Issues Tracker

This tracker is a central register managed by MCC to identify, track, and address design
concerns that need resolution within MCC team in discussion with CAG, making the
respective workstreams accountable for the issue raised and identifying interfacing
workstreams with which they require coordination. It also clearly tracks design progress and
can provide early detection of impeding design concerns. It is structured to identify Risks /
Assumptions / Issues / Dependencies (RAID), rank issues based on a Red / Amber / Green
(RAG) assessment, and identify issues which may require an RFI, EWN or CE.

Interface Control Document (ICD)

The ICD is a central register managed by MCC to assist in capturing design interfaces,
guiding coordination, and formalising agreement of design interfaces between workstreams
or packages. The ICD will be a live document, which is reviewed and updated through the
design process

B.3.2 Key External Tools

Request for Information (RFI)

RFIs will be managed by MCC via the EIMS in conjunction with Project Document
Management System (DMS). The DMS will control the deadlines imposed for the RFI and
allows the request to be referenced in any future EWNs or CEs to create a storyboard for
changes.

Early Warnings (EWNs) and Compensation Events (CEs)

MCC will manage EWNs and CEs process through the Management Services team.

Stakeholder Engagement Log

This log is a central register manage by MCC to identify engagement undertaken with
internal and external stakeholders. Through assistance by CAG in their liaison with
stakeholders, the workstreams are required to seek input to the design proposals to define
requirements and support the process of achieving sign-off to the developed design.

IDR/IDC Record
The IDR Review Record & Integration Schedule establishes a common template to log
comments / actions coming out of the Integrated Design Reviews (IDRs). The records
include:

List of Attendees, Apologies and Copies to;

Identification of Key Design Changes since the last review and reason for change;

Review Checklist including:
- Workstream Scope Reviewed;
- Deliverables List Reviewed;

Design Management Plan 10

 - Current Deliverables Reviewed;
- Design Issues Log Reviewed;
- Interface Control Document Reviewed;
- Safety in Design / CDM Reviewed;

Identification of interfacing workstreams for actions;

Workstream Responses to actions (to be completed before subsequent IDRs / IDC);
and

Action Status and Closed Date.

QDR/QDC Log

In the context of the Changi East programme, MCC propose a Qualitative Design Process
accounts for not only the Fire Authority but all interfaces in regard to authorities where
permits, licenses or consents may be required. The Qualitative Design Reviews / Qualitative
Design Checks (QDR / QDC) Log establishes a common template to log and track
presentations, comments, attendees, and dates of meetings held. The QDR process is
closely linked to Requirements Management where specific operational standards need to
be met, and these are to be captured in the ‘Basis of Design’.

B.4 Progressive Design Assurance

B.4.1 Requirements Management

Over the course of the developed design, key physical or operational metrics will be
captured and developed into a Requirements Management Log and ultimately fed into the
Construction Documentation. Requirements Management will need to be developed
throughout the developed design stage as Stakeholders and Authorities become engaged
and crystalise their expectations through the QDR process or through analysis of the
developing Business Case. MCC will facilitate this process.

Show and Tells

The ‘Show and Tell’ sessions provide a forum for informal information sharing of workstream
design development. They can include the wider CAG business and stakeholders. The Show
and Tells provide an opportunity to confirm ‘Direction of Travel’ of design and encourages
feedback that informs the brief and stakeholder requirements. MCC will record the output
and add to the appropriate registers. The format of the Show and Tell is intended as Pin up
and Presentation.

Deliverables and Design Assurance input from the Design Consultants:

Design Input Statements

The Design Input Statements (DIS) identify the activities that will be undertaken as part of
the design stage works as well as the risks and assumptions to be taken forward. A Design
Input Statement will be developed for each/all workstreams.

Basis of Design

This Basis of Design (BOD) has a number of purposes which are defined as follows:

To describe the project, the principles and summarise the scope of each workstream;

To present the design criteria upon which the workstream’s detailed design will be
undertaken;

Design Management Plan 11


To present a review of options undertaken to date;

To list and identify the design assumptions and risks;

To list the primary design standards and specifications to be used on the project; and

To demonstrate that functional brief and stakeholder requirements have been
addressed in the design.

End of Stage Report

The End of Stage Report is the closing document produced by the Design Consultants. It
recognises the formal end of the Design Stage and includes ‘Next Steps’ for the forthcoming
design stage.

B.4.2 Design Management Tool Hierarchy

SDR

The Single Discipline Review (SDR) is a technical assurance process completed by each
design discipline. It is largely an internal process achieved through management of Design
Logs and QA procedure (e.g. CRA-V). MCC will structure these to address the requirements
set out in the Design Input Statement and Designers’ Risk Register and review the elemental
components of the Brief (e.g. Engineering Services Brief or Technical Standards). SDRs can
be supplemented by peer review as required.

SDRs should ideally be coordinated in advance of the Inter-disciplinary Review (IDR),

allowing time to resolve any preliminary design concerns in before the IDR. They provide an
opportunity to strengthen the design proposals before further evaluation with the extended
design team.

Design Management Plan 12

IDR / IDC

The Integrated Design Reviews (IDRs) / Integrated Design Checks (IDCs) are held to ensure
that interfacing designers can satisfactorily develop their respective designs. This also
includes addressing each team's requirements and ensuring that they can meet the overall
systems integration requirements for the Project. MCC will ensure that the focus of the IDR
is to demonstrate coordination between design disciplines and should not be confused with
other forums for external stakeholder input.

The IDR / ICD process demonstrates workstream coordination across all disciplines by:

Setting out Basis of Design and Stakeholder requirements;

Review of Design Issues / Interfaces incl. Peer Review items; and

Review of Design for Safety (DfS).
Topics to be covered during the review are:
1. Workstream Scope;
2. Deliverables List;
3. Current Deliverables (drawings / models as applicable to demonstrate the design);
4. Design Issues Log;
5. Interface Control Document; and
6. Safety in Design.
Attendees for IDR / ICD should include:

C.A.G./ Jacobs / Workstream Lead;

Execs / PMs / Design Leads;

Interfacing workstreams; and

Internal C.A.G. stakeholders.

Design Management Plan 13

QDR / QDC

The Qualitative Design Reviews QDRs / Qualitative Design Checks QDCs encompass the
regulatory review process for the project. Historically the QDR / QDC process equates to
Fire Authority Review but MCC will use this to encompass all regulatory interfaces

In MCC experience, Consents, Permits and Licensing are high risks for major projects and
programmes. To manage the risks, QDR / QDC process is likely to comprise early pre-
consultations with the authorities and several different workshops at numerous stages. The
QDR / QDC process is generally an informal part of the approval process and not part of a
formal statutory submission (e.g. BCA / LTA / PUB).

GAP Analysis

It is appreciated that CAG is an experienced operator/client and indeed CAG have put a
significant amount of work into the current reference design solution. However, it is
undoubted that there will be scope gaps, or better described in the design maturity context,
areas where there is only embryonic scope. In addition, as with any early stage concept for a
major project and highly sophisticated building, there will be some ambiguity or anomaly
whereby a detailed solution or ‘fit’ is simply not possible until a later and more developed
stage of design.

Peer Review and Independent Checking

Full independent checking may not be required until during the next stage of design being
completed by the Contractor unless directed by CAG on an ad-hoc basis.

CRA-V

As part of MCC internal QA procedures, it is mandatory for a document which constitutes a

formal deliverable to be Checked, Reviewed, Approved and Verified (“CRA- V’d”) to ensure
that it is sound, follows good practice and meets the required objectives. Peer Review may
be facilitated via verification through the Project Principal and the CRA-V process however
the concept of ‘not marking your own work’ needs to be managed. This unique process is
highly valued by MCC clients in providing demonstrable robustness in complex design
situations.

B.5 Lessons Learned and Specific Watch-points for Changi East T5 Project:

MCC have provided peer review, independent check and due diligence reviews on many
mega-projects including major Aviation Operators and their assets. From this experience
there are some recurring themes and lessons learned that MCC will bring to CAG project.
Establishing a Universal Digital Environment for Surveys & BIM
As part of a robust Information Management Plan, all digital drawing data in regard to the
Changi East programme should conform to a consistent approach in terms of Global

Design Management Plan 14

coordinates. A consistent GIS policy, grid and datum points should be established if not
already. As with most mega-projects, there will be additional watch points such as allowing
for earth curvature on long, linear measurements. It is common that in a multi-package
programme as vast as Changi, the Client or Management Services-Project Manager will hold
the ‘Control Base Dataset’ within EDMS so that individual parties cannot accidentally edit it.
In addition, with the growing influence of BIM, an early strategy regarding Asset
Management should be defined.
Utilities

Many mega-programmes overlook the impacts/constraints on the wider utility network until a
‘knock on’ problem arises. For Changi, this will relate particularly to power and possibly site-
wide drainage. Early functional concepts for the utilities network that encompass all
packages and sub programmes as well as future-proofing exercises be carried out early in
the design phase.
Wider Security Issues

Singapore has unique and specific requirements and constraints around the wider security
and civil defence environment. Input and dialogue regarding this issue must be ever-present,
fully understood, and not addressed as fixes or compromises later on.
Standards, Innovations, Opportunities

Good Design Management will allow for inevitable, but managed change, and, for a long and
complex programme, such change will often come through wider socio-economic impact
such as technology or new legislation being introduced over the lifecycle of the project. For
Changi East, MCC recommends CAG to form a ‘Standards and Innovations Board’ that will
assess external trends, emerging standards or legislation that presents opportunities for
CAG and ensure that the project does not find itself outdated on its opening day. This
approach is superior to having a pre-occupation with ‘Future-proofing’ a design.
Understanding BAU (Business as usual)
For an existing, operational Airport, the BAU stakeholder is of paramount importance. The
BAU stakeholder may comprise multiple sub-parties but this function relates to coordination
with existing operations rather than new facilities, for example:

Minimising impacts on Airside and Landside safety and security operations;

Minimising disruption to passengers and staff;

Maximising existing throughput and revenue;

Assessing critical levels of operational resilience; and

Coordinating BAU capital projects/maintenance with new works to achieve efficiencies.
Approvals, Permits & Licensing
Another common issue on large Aviation programmes is the approvals and permits required
from legislative bodies without which a new facility cannot come into service and be fully
operational. Such approvals are often time-consuming, requiring much pre-consultation, and
to some degree can be ‘subjective’ in the eyes of the approving party leaving significant risk
of delay due to non-compliance and high costs through loss of income or significant
corrective work.
There are numerous international examples but those of recent note include the delays to
the opening of both New Doha International Airport (NDIA) and Berlin Brandenburg airport,
both related to approvals from the Fire Authority and/or flawed design to Fire Protection
systems in the face of evolving regulations.

Design Management Plan 15

Similarly, the licensing of Aviation operations must be subject to constant dialogue with the
authorities regarding airspace management and aerodrome permits – these will involve
consultation with both regional/national and international bodies.
To tackle this issue head on from the very beginning, MCC has formed a Permitting Team
led by Permitting Team Lead to ensure approvals, permits and licensing can be obtained
with minimal disruption.

Design Management Plan 16