14th May,2019

Ref: Discussion 26th April,2019

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Dar

GM FWEL Pakistan.

Subject : RFQ for RCM(3) Study of Wind Farm Power House

Please find herewith our proposal for the systematic approach to conduct Reliability-centered Maintenance analyses
of critical asset systems. We have studied the RFP and its requirements and offer our systematic approach which
includes Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM3TM) to achieve the maximum reliability and reduce break down
maintenance. Our proposal includes the necessary stakeholder introduction, RCM training and consulting services to
conduct the RCM3 analyses on the equipment as detailed in the RFP.

We are focused on world-class physical asset management solutions and has extensive experience implementing
Risk and Reliability solutions for physical assets in every endeavor known to mankind. We have an outstanding track
record of success providing services related to the RCM methodology since 1986 and with the recent additions of
our risk-based methodologies, Aladon continues to lead the industry in risk and reliability training and consulting
services. Aladon’s RCM (RCM2TM and RCM3) has been applied on more physical assets than any other RCM process.
Significant Aladon RCM projects have included the award winning strategic Facilities Asset Management Program
(FAMP) for the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and projects for the Alyeska Pipeline Company, United
States Air Force, Orange County Sanitation District (CA), Denver Water Board (CO), Caterpillar, McCain Foods and
many other Blue-chip companies.

We are confident that We will be able to deliver outstanding service to you & ensure the correct approach for
establishing a reliability culture and for sustainable results. Our qualifications and proposed costs and time-line are
detailed in the proposal attached.

Sincerely yours

Rabeel Shahid.
Head of Operations
MIRA PAKISTAN.
 CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2
Systematic Approach ................................................................................................................................. 2
Objectives and Desired Outcome .............................................................................................................. 2
SECTION 2 - BRIEF PROFILE ...................................................................................................................... 3
SECTION 3 - brief description of ALADON .................................................................................................. 3
SECTION 4 - BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RCM AND RCM3TM.................................................................................. 3
SECTION 5 - SYSTEMATIC APPROACH ........................................................................................................ 4
SECTION 6 - RCM OVERVIEW AND MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION .............................................................. 4
SECTION 7 - ASSET REGISTRY AND VERIFICATION ....................................................................................... 6
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Asset Verification Process ......................................................................................................................... 6
Deliverables ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Benefits of Asset Verification ..................................................................................................................... 6
SECTION 8 - RCM3 3-DAY INTRODUCTORY TRAINING ................................................................................. 7
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 7
Benefits of attending the RCM3 Introductory training course .................................................................... 7
SECTION 9 - RCM PROJECT PLANNING ...................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 8
Benefits of proper project planning ............................................................................................................ 8
SECTION 10 - RCM3 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 9
The RCM3 Process .................................................................................................................................... 9
Prepare RCM Projects ............................................................................................................................. 15
Perform RCM Projects ............................................................................................................................. 15
The Reliability Strategy Selection Diagram ............................................................................................. 16
SECTION 11 - ANALYSIS AUDIT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 16
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Benefits of preparing Audit File and presenting results ........................................................................... 17
SECTION 12 - IMPLIMENTATION PREPARATION AND ASSISTANCE ............................................................... 17
Maintenance Effectiveness ...................................................................................................................... 17
Work Identification Methodologies ........................................................................................................... 18
Work Identification and Work Planning .................................................................................................... 18
SECTION 13 - IP CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................... 20
Key Intellectual Property (IP) Conditions ................................................................................................. 20
CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 20
 Training .................................................................................................................................................... 20
Course Material ........................................................................................................................................ 20
SECTION 14 - RCM3 Software (REW) ......................................................................................................... 21
SECTION 15 - Price schedule .................................................................................................................... 21
SECTION 16 - SCHEDULE AND PROPOSED TIMELINE ................................................................................... 21
SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND

To ensure and continue the safe and efficient use of its assets, FWEL I & II having Power Plant of 40 Wind Turbines
decided to perform Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) analyses on Wind Farm that are not performing to their
full design capability. The reasons for this are stated as follows:
➢ existing preventive maintenance program is inadequate,
➢ unplanned failures of equipment,
➢ current maintenance program requires excessive man-hours to maintain the equipment.

In order to improve and correct this, FWEL I & II wants to refine its preventive and predictive maintenance program
for these Engines. The outcome and recommendations should focus on critical assets and risk-based activities. FWEL
I & II anticipates that a risk-based program focused on the right maintenance tasks at the correct frequency will reduce
cost and improve reliability.

Predictive maintenance is all about saving the system from potential downtime. For example: the gearbox, generator,
or the main bearing of the turbine drive train are the subsystems that account for more than half of the downtime, in
Wind Turbine systems, worldwide. Now, in real-time though, it is not just the replacement of the failed part that could
cause the downtime; it could be affected by the availability and lead time, or the need for special equipment.
Ironically, Predictive analytics systems do not take such factors into consideration, except for identifying the failing
part – The rate at which a component fails are determined by the equipment installed, maintenance performed, and
external conditions to which the part is exposed. And large turbines are subject to a lot of external factors, such as
Wind Speed and Velocity Pressure, Wind directionality, etc., Such scenarios beg the need for a clear focus area for
condition monitoring efforts; And that is exactly where RCM steps-in. It tells us where we need to focus our monitoring
efforts, and what maintenance methodology should be used.

Systematic Approach
To achieve this, we propose a step-by-step approach starting with an asset criticality assessment/review. The following
steps are proposed:
1. RCM overview sessions (Stakeholders, Engineering and O&M)
2. RCM3 Introductory training course
3. RCM3 analyses workshop planning
4. RCM3 analyses of Wind Farms
5. RCM3 analysis report and recommendations (presentation of results and recommendations)

Objectives and Desired Outcome

The objectives and desired outcome of this project should achieve lowest life-cycle cost, while:
➢ minimizing risk (physical and economic),
➢ increasing uptime through reliability and availability, and
➢ managing consequences and associated risks of failure.
The desired outcome is only possible if FWEL I & II performs a zero-base review of the asset performance starting with
an asset prioritization followed by an RCM analysis of the asset. The outcome will produce a focused maintenance
program (apply resources where they matter most) and a proactive maintenance program to preserve the functional
requirements (what the users want) of the assets in the most effective way.
SECTION 2 - BRIEF PROFILE
We are expert in Engineering, Consultancy and Training services provider and help customers in the development
and implementation of maintenance strategies.

“Our goal is to deliver best engineering solutions and innovates new ways to solve engineering problems
inconsideration of safety and environment regulation and International standard.”

SECTION 3 - BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ALADON

We are specialized in managing risk and reliability of physical assets and the implementation of asset management
programs. We are specializing in providing training and consulting services in the field of risk and reliability
management. We have developed a strong specialization for implementing risk and reliability solutions in industries
and organizations with distributed assets including public sector organizations, industrial plants, oil and gas, chemical,
nuclear, transportation, manufacturing and mining. Our approach is designed for application on all asset types and our
supporting software is designed to capture and manage the information of physical assets.

We are global network of asset reliability professionals, certified in the delivery of a team-based approach for
improving the risk and reliability of all key assets in an organization. Our network has successfully helped clients apply
RCM-based practices globally over the past three decades - delivering change management through extensive training
and expertise along with world-class asset care strategies.

SECTION 4 - BRIEF OVERVIEW OF RCM AND RCM3TM

Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM) was developed in the commercial airline industry through many years of
research performed by the Maintenance Steering Group (MSG). In 1978, MSG led by F.S. Nowlan and H.F. Heap,
released the report which was called Reliability-centered Maintenance1 (released by the US Department of Defense).
Since the release of the report and the widespread use of the term RCM, many forms and derivatives of RCM were
created but not all of these conveyed the original intent of the work done by Nowlan and Heap, many fail to achieve
the goals of Nowlan and Heap and some are actively counterproductive.
Industry felt the need for a standard and the RCM standard (SAE JAE 10112) was released and published in August
1999. The SAE standard sets out the criteria for what any process must comply with in order to be called RCM. John
Moubray’s book called RCM23 is a key reference in the SAE standard.
Since the groundbreaking work that was done with RCM2 by John Moubray, Aladon continued to lead the industry
with the development and application of risk and reliability (RCM-based) training and consulting services. Our RCM2 TM
methodology has been implemented on more sites and on more assets than any other RCM process. Since the release
of the ISO 310004 and ISO 550005, Standards for Risk Management and Asset Management respectively, Aladon
developed RCM3TM, a risk-based RCM methodology that places managing the risk and reliability of physical assets
mainstream with other business management systems in an organization. RCM3 fully complies and exceeds the
requirements of the SAE Standard and fully aligns with the frameworks of the ISO Standards.

NOTE: The RCM process described in this document is the Aladon risk-based RCM3 process although we use the
term RCM and RCM3 interchangeably (unless otherwise specified). Attachment B provides more detail about the
RCM3 process.

1
Reliability-centered Maintenance – F.S. Nowlan, et al, December 1978
2
SAE JA1011 - Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Processes, August 1999
3
RCM2 Second Edition - John Moubray, 1997
4
ISO 31000 - Risk management - Principles and guidelines, 2009
5
ISO 55000 - Asset management - Overview, principles and terminology, 2014
SECTION 5 - SYSTEMATIC APPROACH
To implement a sustainable RCM-based improvement program, we propose a systematic approach as detailed below.
This detailing of activities is in line with the proposed schedule included in SECTION 1.
RCM yields the best results if it is applied by groups of operations and maintenance (O&M) people working under the
direction of experienced RCM facilitators, rather than by single analysts working on their own. Furthermore, the
outputs of the RCM process are much more likely to yield substantial and enduring business benefits if the RCM review
group members are the people who know the equipment best, the same people that operate or maintain the assets.
As a result, over more than three decades Aladon has developed a specialization in training and consulting services that
transfer the knowledge (change the way people think) and knowhow (practical experience) as efficiently as possible. This
consists of the following elements:
➢ a reliability improvement program starting with an overview session of the principles and objectives of RCM
➢ asset/equipment verification (to ensure the install base is accurate and information is up to date)
➢ RCM Introductory training for review group members (engineers, operators and maintainers)
➢ RCM project planning (plan RCM training and schedule resources)
➢ RCM analyses (perform zero-base analysis on the assets within the system boundary)
➢ advice and guidance on the management of RCM projects (our network has helped companies to apply RCM
successfully on thousands of sites globally)
➢ implementation assistance (to ensure successful implementation for sustainable results) and ever greening
through continuous review and improvement
RCM projects are most likely to succeed if they focus not only on the asset review process, but also on the necessary
change management. Changing the way people think about maintenance is an important change management process
and we recommend the following to achieve this:
1. Training/Certification: Arrange a 3-day on-site RCM Introductory course for a cross-section of managers,
engineers, maintenance and operations staff. The Introductory training will not only change the way people think
about maintenance but also teach them a common language understood by maintenance and operations.
When the RCM project(s) have been completed, FWEL I & II will be in a position to evaluate the results and roll out
RCM in areas where the investment of time, effort and money looks worthwhile, based on an evaluation of what it
achieves when applied to its own assets by its own people.
The stages of an RCM project are discussed in more detail in the following sections of this proposal. SECTION 8 sets
out our Terms and Conditions and Assumptions if you were to engage us to assist you.

SECTION 6 - RCM OVERVIEW AND MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION

The world of maintenance is in a state of flux. Fourth-generation Maintenance requirements result in new
expectations, new asset management standards, new patterns of equipment failure and new maintenance
techniques. It also describes how these have given rise to a growing need, felt not only by yourselves but throughout
industry, for a new strategic risk-based approach to maintenance.
A coherent review of maintenance strategies can only be undertaken by carrying out a zero-based review of the
maintenance requirements of each item of equipment in its operating context. This is because these requirements
have changed dramatically in the light of modern thinking.
The evaluation of maintenance policies and the selection of maintenance tasks is a key aspect of maintenance
management and most engineers do it continuously. But the range of options is now so great and new techniques are
emerging so rapidly that it is no longer possible to do it informally. RCM solves this problem with a strategic framework
that permits the evaluation and selection process to be done quickly and confidently. To our knowledge, it is the only
technique of its kind in existence and it leads to extraordinary improvements in maintenance performance wherever
it is applied in the following ways:
 ➢ RCM places at least as much emphasis on the consequences and associated risk of each failure as it does on its
technical characteristics.
➢ RCM integrates a review of operational failure consequences with the evaluation of safety and environmental
hazards bringing safety and the environment into the mainstream of maintenance decision-making.
➢ RCM continually focuses attention on the maintenance activities that have the most effect on the performance
of the assets, which means that every dollar spent on maintenance is spent where it will do the most good.
➢ RCM recognizes that all types of maintenance have some value and provide rules for deciding which is most
suitable in every situation. By doing so, it helps to ensure that the most effective forms of maintenance are
chosen for each machine, and avoids the constraints and distortions that always follow the adoption of a single
asset-wide maintenance policy.
➢ If RCM is correctly applied to existing maintenance systems, it reduces the amount of routine maintenance work
(usually by 40% to 70%). On the other hand, if RCM3 is used to develop a new maintenance system, the
scheduled workload that results are much lower than it would be if the system were developed by traditional
methods.
➢ RCM provides a common, easily understood technical language for everyone who has anything to do with
maintenance. This gives O&M a better understanding of what maintenance can (and cannot) achieve and what
must be done to achieve it. This in turn improves both effectiveness and morale.
➢ An RCM review of the maintenance requirements of each asset in its operating context provides a firm basis for
establishing labor policies, associated training programs and for deciding what spares should be held in stock.
➢ RCM has been used successfully in several industries around the world. However, it is still new to industry in
general, so companies which apply it now could enjoy a competitive advantage, at least to the extent that
maintenance affects competitive standing.
➢ Although RCM is new to industry, RCM has been used for fifty years in what is probably the most demanding
maintenance arena of civil aviation. This means that it has been tested and refined in the field to a much greater
extent than any similar techniques.
➢ RCM can be implemented by your own staff (after suitable training), which reduces the need for expensive
outsiders. Drawing O&M into the decision-making process also means that both sides are more inclined to work
together, and the results are more likely to endure.

What RCM cannot do is lift the reliability of any item of equipment above the levels established by its design and the
manufacturing processes that produced it. No form of maintenance can achieve this. However, RCM is exceptionally
effective in helping management to achieve inherent reliability levels very quickly (hence its name). It also reveals
when problems are beyond the scope of maintenance and redesign should be considered. For these reasons, RCM
could become a central feature of the maintenance of all assets and systems at FWEL I & II
The above paragraphs suggest that if RCM is applied to critical and important assets used by FWEL I & II it could be of
great value in terms of equipment reliability, safety, environmental integrity and maintenance cost-effectiveness.
However, the RCM process itself takes time and effort and also embodies a great deal of new thinking, much of which
is surprisingly counter-intuitive. As a result, it is wise for organizations new to this process to approach it in stages. This
approach is built around the concept designed to enable the organization to learn:
• exactly what RCM achieves in your business environment and how quickly it achieves it. This in turn
will enable you to decide, before committing yourselves to the large-scale application of this
process, whether the return justifies the investment.
• how to apply RCM correctly and safely from a purely technical point of view.
• what sort of people (skills) need to be involved directly in its application.
 (The RCM process referred throughout this proposal complies fully with
SAE standard JA1011: 'Evaluation Criteria for Reliability-centered Maintenance Processes'.)
To provide the personnel of FWEL I & II with an overview of the principles of the RCM process, we recommend at
least a 3-4 hour overview presentation of RCM to all stakeholders prior to the RCM project commencing. Attachment
C provides detail of the RCM overview session agenda.

SECTION 7 - ASSET REGISTRY AND VERIFICATION

Introduction
Asset registers and hierarchies are rarely complete or correct. This may be for many reasons ranging from incorrect
data entry or asset modifications and/or replacements. To verify that the asset registry contained in SAP and the install
base are true reflections of one another, we recommend performing a table-top and field verification. We will review
and compare the information and data contained in SAP with the equipment installed through the Asset Verification
(AV) process and notify the project team of any anomalies or discrepancies.

Asset Verification Process

The AV process includes both a table-top review of the data and information contained in SAP as well as field
observation and verification. We will use the information provided by FWEL I & II in the Asset Load Template to verify
the assets exist and that there is no duplicate, missing or obsolete assets. The AV process includes a qualitative
condition assessment where obvious and relevant findings will be shared with the project team. These may include
evidence of leaks, corrosion, vibration, exposed wiring, hazards, loose connections and fittings, obsolescence, missing
warning signs and safety equipment, etc. The AV process follows the following steps:
➢ What equipment is included? (asset identification and location)
➢ Asset classification and priority as given by failure category
➢ Equipment attributes and information (make, model, manufacturer, serial number, specific asset
information)
➢ Standalone or redundant system (primary or secondary system)
➢ Protective devices and safety systems

Deliverables
Following Asset Verification, FWEL I & II will have an accurate record of the critical asset systems. Each asset registry
verification will produce a list with anomalies (if any) and urgent findings (if any).

Benefits of Asset Verification

➢ Single source of information kept in a single data base (Maximo or Any CMMS)
➢ RCM analysis focused on the correct equipment information and configuration
➢ No duplication or omissions of assets
➢ Obsolescence identified early on in the process (no need for RCM review and analysis)
➢ Asset performance criteria verified (important for defining functions in the RCM process)
➢ Secondary functions identified and recorded (important for defining secondary functions in
the RCM process)
➢ Qualitative condition assessment leads to proactive failure management strategy - even
before the RCM process recommendations are available
SECTION 8 - RCM3 3-DAY INTRODUCTORY TRAINING
Introduction
RCM embodies a great deal of new thinking, much of which is contrary to what many maintenance people believe - or
may have even been taught. As a result, one of the most critical success factors in the application of RCM is not only
to apply the structured RCM methodology, but also to change the way people think. We have found that if too little
emphasis is placed on this aspect of the change management process, the organization either applies RCM incorrectly
or it simply rejects any new maintenance regime that emerges from the RCM process (often both), and the associated
investment is wasted.
For this reason, we have found that any application of RCM3 should start with a 3-day RCM3 Introductory course. This
course is not only intended for key participants in the process, but also for people (usually managers and supervisors)
who are going to be asked to release people to participate in the process and to apply the results. In this context, the
objectives of our 3-day RCM3 Introductory course are as follows:
➢ to provide review group members with enough of an understanding of the basic principles of
RCM for them to be able to participate meaningfully in the process
➢ to ensure that first line supervisors have a sufficient grasp of the objectives and technical
content of RCM for them to be able to participate sensibly in planning an RCM project and
subsequently in helping to ensure that it is completed as planned
➢ to provide RCM analysis reviewers and auditors with the necessary background of the principles
of RCM to enable them to audit the recommendations and to ensure the recommendations are
sensible and defensible. The results and recommendations of each analysis are audited by the
area manager or asset owner for technical correctness and worth doing (effectiveness) prior to
implementation.
For the above-mentioned reasons, we provide a 3-day RCM3 Introductory training course for:
o RCM3 review group members (based on the RCM3 project planning)
o Key stakeholders that need to understand the RCM3 process
o RCM Project Manager(s) and Maintenance Planners
o Anybody else who will be involved in the process (We will assist in identifying delegates that
need to attend)

Benefits of attending the RCM3 Introductory training course

The RCM3 Introductory course provides the review group members (Engineering and O&M) a common language and
set of values to reach consensus during the RCM analysis process. The training course also provides enough details to
understand complex failure modes and how to manage them – these are applied to a case study of a wastewater
pumping station. The course further provides a rigorous approach for determining inherent risks, details on how to
manage protective systems and delegates will be asked to complete an exercise to demonstrate their understanding
of hidden functions. The delegates also learn how to apply the RCM3 decision logic for developing proactive risk
management strategies (predictive and preventive maintenance) and what to do if failures cannot be predicted or
prevented (default actions). The course material includes:
➢ Aladon RCM3 binder
➢ Aladon notepad and pen
➢ Comprehensive RCM3 Course Manual (soon to be released as a book)
➢ RCM3 Decision Diagram and Risk Matrix
➢ Exercises and Case Study (wastewater pumping station)
Attachment D provides detail of the RCM3 Introductory course and training agenda.
SECTION 9 - RCM PROJECT PLANNING
Introduction
As with any moderately resource intensive initiative, the first critical success factor is to ensure that the RCM project
is planned as thoroughly as possible before work starts. To ensure that the plan is realistic and to secure a
reasonable degree of ownership of the plan, the plan must be prepared in close consultation with the managers and
supervisors of the areas affected. In preparing the plan, the following questions need to be answered:
➢ what equipment will be covered by the project?
➢ to what extent is equipment duplicated?
➢ how many RCM meetings are needed to analyze each item?
➢ how many people at each level will be directly involved in review groups?
➢ how many different review groups are needed? (The answer to this question is governed by
the answers to the previous questions)
➢ how many review groups will each facilitator work with at once (in other words, how many
review projects will be in progress at once)?
➢ what other factors might have a bearing on the manning, the start date and the duration of
each analysis (such as vacation and other training commitments of key people, parallel
initiatives, shutdowns, shift arrangements, etc.)?
➢ on what basis are the reviews to be audited and by whom is this to be done in each section?
A second objective of this exercise is to establish the objectives of the RCM projects as clearly as possible and to
agree how management would decide whether these had been achieved at the end of each project.
The actual amount of time that needs to be spent on this planning exercise depends on the number and sizes of the
areas selected as well as the complexity of the assets. This having been said, we are usually able to develop a
reasonably thorough plan in a period of three days, of which two are normally spent on-site and one off-site
preparing a written report. We will assist FWEL I & II with planning the RCM projects and resources.

Benefits of proper project planning

Proper planning of the RCM3 project ensures that project risks are identified and effectively managed or mitigated.
Over and above the benefits of mitigating the risks, our experience shows that the following benefits can also be
achieved:
➢ Resources are identified, and participants are trained in advance
➢ Project scope and analysis boundaries are well defined and agreed upon prior to start of the
project
➢ Expectations are managed throughout the project with stakeholder involvement at all levels
(deliverables, performance criteria, etc.)
➢ Project timelines are met more often (activities are planned and scheduled)
➢ Logistics are planned and review group meetings are scheduled in advance to avoid conflicts
➢ Audit meetings are scheduled in advance to ensure proper attendance
➢ Any deviation from plan can be addressed appropriately and timely
SECTION 10 - RCM3 METHODOLOGY
Introduction
We studied the RFP - Reliability Centered Maintenance for FWEL I & II critical asset systems and wish to offer our
RCM3 methodology for the training and analysis of the critical systems. Figure 1 explains the eight questions of the
RCM3 process, which is defined as:
A process used to define the minimum required safe amount of maintenance, engineering and other failure
management policies to ensure the minimum tolerable level of safety and environmental integrity and cost effective
operational capability as specified in the organization’s asset management system.

The RCM3 Process

The RCM3 process requires eight questions for each asset or system under review:

1. Describe the operating context (how the equipment or system is being

used).
2. What are the functions and associated performance standards of the
asset in its present operating context?
3. In what ways does it fail to fulfil its functions (failed states)?
4. What causes each functional failure (failure modes - cause and
mechanism)?
5. What happens when each failure occurs (failure effects and consequence
severity)?
6. In what way does each failure matter (inherent risk 'quantified')?
7. What MUST be done to reduce intolerable risks to a tolerable level)?
8. What CAN be done to reduce tolerable risks in a cost-effective way?

Figure 1: The eight questions of the RCM3 process

RCM3 is a well-defined process and fully complies with the outline specified in the RFP for developing long-term
maintenance plans for critical assets and to our knowledge, RCM3 is the best process for determining risk mitigation
and maintenance strategies for critical assets.
2. Operating Context, Functions and Performance Built-in capability
Standards (what the asset can do)
The RCM3 process starts by defining the
operating context (operating context is discussed Maintenance must cause
later in more detail) and goes on to define the the asset to continue
user requirements or the system’s functions. To to function in this zone
apply a process that ensures that equipment
continues to do what user want it to do, we must Desired performance

Capability
start by defining what the user wants and ensure (what the user wants it to do)
the equipment is capable of doing it.
The functions and desired performance standards Maintenance cannot raise
are recorded as Primary Function(s) (reason why the performance of the asset
the asset or system exist) and Secondary beyond its built-in capability
Functions. The Primary Function(s) normally (or inherent reliability)
describes the reason why the asset exists.
Performance standards are quantified where
possible and may include absolute standards,
variable standards, upper and lower limits and Age
standards for protective devices. In some cases,
only qualitative standards may apply. Figure 2- Functions (CAN/WANT)

Typical Secondary Functions are additional user requirements which deal with:
• Environmental Integrity • Safety and Structural • Containment, Comfort, Control
Integrity

• Appearance • Protection • Efficiency and Economy

• Superfluous Functions • Insurance • Security

The Operating Context is an important and first step in the RCM3 process. Similar equipment will perform
differently, experience different failure modes and effects and the consequences of failure may be completely
different if the operating contexts are different. Criteria for considering when developing the operating context
are:
• Safety standards and regulatory requirements • Batch process or flow process
• Quality standards • Redundancy and redundant systems
• Automated or manual processes • Spare part and stocking policies
• Shifts and shift arrangements • Demand (variable daily and seasonal demands) and
asset utilization
• Skills available and logistics (for maintenance • The environment, environmental standards and
and repair tasks), contracting arrangements regulations

3. Once the Operating Context, Functions and desired standards of performance have been defined, it is possible
to define exactly how these functions fail. This is called the Functional Failures or Failed States and is the third
step in the RCM3 process. Failed States are recorded as follows:
a. General Failed State (Where user requirements exceed capability or design integrity does not meet the
user requirements)
b. Total Failed State (asset fails completely – no capability)
 c. Partial Failed State (asset is still working but no longer meets performance standards)
4. Once the Functional Failures have been defined, it is possible to define exactly what causes it to fail. This is the
fourth step in the RCM3 process and referred to as Failure Modes. Failure Modes are caused by random events
and degradation (root causes and mechanisms) preventing the asset or system from doing what the users want
it to do and the following are considered:
d. failure modes that occurred on the same or similar equipment in the past,
e. failure modes that have not yet occurred but are thought to be real possibilities in the operating context
under consideration, and
f. failure modes that are currently being prevented by existing maintenance program.
5. To determine the consequences of the failure, it is important to record exactly what happens (physical effects)
when the function fails. The failure effects should be described in enough detail for the review group to assess
the consequences. The fifth step in the RCM3 process considers the Failure Effects:
g. When is the failure most likely to occur?
h. What evidence (if any) that the failure has occurred?
i. In what ways (if any) it poses a threat to safety or the environment?
j. In what ways (if any) it affects productions or operations?
k. What physical damage (if any) is caused by the failure?
l. What must be done to repair the failure?
m. Does it cause any secondary damage?
n. What is the revenue loss (if any)?
6. Once the physical effects of each failure have been defined, it is now possible to determine whether the failure
matters. This is the sixth and an important step of the RCM3 process and referred to as Inherent Risk. The RCM3
process considers the following:
o. Hidden Economic and Hidden Physical Consequences (normally associated with protective devices and
redundant systems; failure of these systems may lead to catastrophic consequences if they are not available
when needed)
p. Safety and Environmental Consequences (failures impacting health and safety and/or damage to the
environment). Regulatory, Safety and Environmental compliance fall into this category.
q. Operational Consequences (failures cause downtime, lost revenue, overtime, lost sales, eroding customer
confidence, etc.)
r. Non-operational Consequences (failures that affect the cost of maintenance, repair and spare parts only)
7. This step in the RCM3 process considers the Inherent Risk posed by the failure on its own (or the multiple failure
where functions are protected). Each failure mode is analyzed using a predefined risk matrix provided by Aladon
(or alternatively and preferably the OGDCL Sinjhoro Filed (Power Plant) defined risk matrix) and when the risk
exceeds the tolerable level as determined by OGDCL Sinjhoro Filed (Power Plant) stakeholders, the analysis team
will use the RCM3 decision logic to seek ways to reduce the risk to a tolerable level or eliminate it completely.
When inherent risks are tolerable (due to design integrity or inherent reliability), further optimization could be
possible and should be considered. However, to save valuable time and resources, this may be left over for
analysis at a later stage (outside the review meeting).
8. The next step considers proactive maintenance as a measure to predict or prevent failures before they happen.
To consider any routine maintenance task, the task must be both technically feasible and worth doing. To be
technically feasible, the task must address the technical characteristics of the failure mode as defined by the six
failure patterns. In order to be worth doing, the task must deal successfully with the consequences and associated
risk as described in the previous paragraphs. The six failure patterns are shown in Figure 3 below.
 Pattern A: The “Bathtub Curve” - High degree of start-up failure
rate, then a low level of random failure, then a wear-out zone

Pattern B: The “Traditional View” Random failure then a wear-out

zone

Pattern C: Steady increase in the probability of failure

Pattern D: A sharp increase in the probability of failure settling

down to random failure.

Pattern E: Random Failure - No relationship at all between how

old it is and how likely it is to fail

Pattern F: The “Reversed J Curve” High degree of start-up failure

then random failure

Figure 3: The Six Failure Patterns

9. The following will be considered as Proactive Risk Management Strategies:

s. Predictive or Condition-based Maintenance tasks
t. Preventive Maintenance Tasks (scheduled repair or scheduled replacement tasks)
u. Failure-finding Tasks or Functional Testing (for hidden failures)
v. One-time changes
The proactive tasks must be both technically feasible and worth doing to be considered. Each task will describe
exactly what must be done, by whom and how often. Spare parts are evaluated and, where applicable, spare
parts strategies will be developed for critical failures.
10. The last step in the RCM3 process will determine the actions that deal with tolerable risks. These are typically
failure that do not have an intolerable risk (non-operational):
w. Spare part strategies
x. Run-to-failure of No scheduled maintenance
The RCM3 process will provide FWEL I & II with a well-defined rigorous approach to develop a maintenance program
for critical assets to ensure all relevant equipment continues to do whatever the users want them to do throughout
their useful life. The maintenance program and associated performance standards developed through RCM3 provide
the criteria for keeping the assets in a state of good repair to fulfill their functions as well as the baseline for
continuous improvement.

Prepare RCM Projects

Under our guidance, FWEL I & II project manager and the O&M staff will prepare for the RCM projects. This includes
activities such as setting up meeting rooms, scheduling the meetings for the review group members (liaising with
their supervisors/managers, etc.) and collecting appropriate technical information on the asset systems to be
analyzed. (It is essential that all review group members are trained on a 3-day RCM3 Introductory course.)

Perform RCM Projects

Aladon facilitator(s) will facilitate the RCM projects. The analysis of each system consists of the following steps:
 • the maintenance requirements of together with an evaluation of the
the equipment in each system are benefits of RCM in relation to the
assessed by teams made up of time and effort needed to apply it
operations and maintenance (with special reference to the
people who know the equipment specific objectives of each analysis,
best in that section. Each team as outlined earlier)
works under the guidance of an • when the review has been
RCM facilitator. approved, steps are taken to
• when the RCM analysis has been ensure that the tasks are
completed, it is formally audited by performed as required, as
the senior managers who have discussed below.
overall responsibility for the assets
concerned. Their role is to satisfy RCM3 FACILITATOR

themselves that the maintenance

MAINTENANCE
program arising from the analysis is OPERATION
SUPERVISOR SUPERVISOR
sensible and defensible.
• we recommend that the projects
end with a formal presentation to OPERATOR MAINTAINER
top management. The facilitators
or review group members should
SPECIALIST
give this presentation. It should
provide a summary of the findings
Figure 4- Typical RCM3 Review Group
and conclusions of each group,

The people who knows the equipment best participate in the RCM analysis workshops. Specialists or specialist
information such as OEM, Vendors and Suppliers, Warehouse staff, Safety Officers, Regulators etc. may be required
to provide input into the system analysis. These individuals may not necessarily take part in the analysis on a full-
time basis but may be called upon to provide clarification or information. Drawings, data books, performance data,
manuals, failure history, etc. are also part of the information that would be required.

The Reliability Strategy Selection Diagram

The first step in the process is to evaluate the asset(s) using an asset prioritization methodology. Aladon’s asset
prioritization methodology described in SECTION 6 considers safety, environmental and operational consequences
along with probability of failure to quantify both the impact of failure (Consequence Priority Number) and the impact
of non-reliability (Relative Risk). The Reliability Strategy Selection (RSS) diagram shown in Attachment F then takes
the results of the asset prioritization exercise along with other inputs to select which methodology to use; RCM3 or
MTA. The RSS diagram graphically describes the process used to select the risk appropriate methodology to solve
asset performance gaps or to review/revisit an existing asset reliability program. It can be used on an asset by asset
basis or at the plant level to schedule the development of a rolling multi-year reliability improvement strategy.

SECTION 11 - ANALYSIS AUDIT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
Once the RCM/MTA projects are completed, the facilitators and project manager should present the results to the
management team. Based on the results, plans are then typically made for implementing the recommendations and
updating of information in the WMS (SAP). The RCM facilitator will prepare an audit file which contains the following
information:
➢ Background information and analysis objectives
➢ Asset Verification and relevant findings (if any)
➢ Operating Context (including performance standards)
➢ RCM3/MTA Analysis (FMECA)
➢ Recommendations for implementation and action plans
➢ Next steps and plans for continuous improvement
The manager or asset owner who has overall responsibility for the assets under review should familiarize him/her
self with the contents of the RCM analysis audit report. The asset owner’s responsibility is to ensure that all decisions
and recommendations are both sensible and defensible.
Aladon’s standard practice is to arrange a 2-3 hour audit review session to present the findings, recommendations
and next steps. The asset owner, RCM facilitator, FWEL I & II PM, RCM review group members and anybody else who
has something legitimate to say about how the asset should behave should attend the audit meeting. The facilitator
will lead the meeting and typically discuss the urgent findings and major changes from the current maintenance
program. Any compulsory one-time changes (e.g. redesigns or modifications) will be highlighted and plans will
typically be made to implement those as soon as possible. Another important topic for discussion in this meeting is
whether or not the objectives of the RCM project have been achieved. If these have not been achieved, the next
step will be to discuss what the requirements are to achieve those.

Benefits of preparing Audit File and presenting results

Many RCM analyses and reliability improvement initiatives are never implemented and remain on shelves in binders
collecting dust. Two independent studies by the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP) and
Reliabilityweb.com stated that less than 15% of all RCM analyses are properly implemented. This survey includes
RCM analyses from multiple RCM service providers. We pride ourselves with a much higher implementation ratio
and our success is based on our systematic approach which includes implementation preparation and assistance (see
SECTION 13). The audit file and audit presentation yield the following benefits:
➢ Managers are involved throughout the process
➢ Recommendations are audited for effectiveness and efficiency improvement
➢ Goals and expectations are set up front and managed throughout the process – objectives are
evaluated during the audit meeting
➢ O&M see the interest and are encouraged by the involvement from the management team
➢ O&M involvement lead to real empowerment and sustainable results
➢ Ensures the RCM process is not perceived as another flavor of the month initiative
➢ Any recommendations that need changing can be done quickly with all stakeholders present

SECTION 12 - IMPLIMENTATION PREPARATION AND ASSISTANCE

Maintenance Effectiveness
Efficiency of the asset reliability process is a result of how well the execution of the asset care activities are planned,
scheduled and supported. This can be related to the percentage of work planned and scheduled and the percentage
of available time that is wrench time. Efficiencies come from adherence to the reliability process, the
implementation of easy to use systems, access to enterprise wide information and standardization of repetitive
tasks. The identification and reduction of work inefficiencies translate into more available manpower and less
equipment downtime due to maintenance activities.
Effectiveness is a result of how pertinent the tasks are to maintain the asset operating at the desired level of
performance. An effective asset reliability program translates knowledge into actionable information and is
comprised of activities that reduce the amount of firefighting needed to maintain the plant. This is often referred to
as proactive work and is made up of predictive maintenance, schedule restoration, schedule discard and state
monitoring tasks. This same program must also minimize the amount of non-value-added work that is performed.
With an effective asset care program, as derived using MTA or RCM3, most corrective work is performed before the
asset has functionally failed, reducing the amount of unscheduled downtime and the resulting operational
consequences as well as the amount of secondary damage caused by the failure. Less unforeseen failures and
secondary damage reduces the risk to safety and the environment and results in savings in parts and labor. Less
firefighting also creates a more positive environment to work in.
Technically sound asset reliability programs are created by identifying:
➢ Proper equipment selection and application
➢ Proper operational and maintenance training
➢ How equipment fails, relative to its intended function and required performance levels
➢ The consequences of those failures
➢ Worth-doing actions to mitigate those consequences

Work Identification Methodologies

In order to reduce the level of firefighting, a plant has to change the type of asset care activities it currently executes
to ensure that all tasks are technically feasible and worth doing based on the consequences of failure. Less
firefighting also reduces the load on resources. Asset reliability strategies should be reviewed using a formal work
identification methodology. A formal work identification methodology follows a specific process to determine the
right strategy to mitigate the consequence of failure, which is the right person to perform the task and how often it
should be performed.
Formal work identification methodologies use consistent methods to design asset reliability strategies. The methods
identify and control failure modes that affect the asset’s ability to provide the intended function at the required
performance level. Work Identification practices are applied to target assets. The inputs to Work Identification are
the gaps between the actual asset performance and the required performance targets set relative to business goals.
The outcome of Work Identification (the tasks and actions) is used in Work Planning. These practices systematically
identify and validate the right work at the right time. Without proper Work Identification:
➢ Maintenance resources may be wasted
➢ Incorrect or unnecessary work will be planned
➢ Performance results may not be achieved once the work is executed

Work Identification and Work Planning

Work Identification methodologies produce technically sound asset reliability programs. These are achieved typically
by identifying:
➢ How equipment fails relative to its intended function and required performance levels
 ➢ The consequences of those failures
➢ Worth-doing actions to manage those consequences
Work Planning takes the requirements for the asset reliability program and develops procedures and work order
templates for the work activities. The procedures identify safety precautions, labor requirements, parts and materials
requirements, specialty tools, special work instructions, sequence of activities, permitting requirements, relevant
drawings, check sheets and other documentation to ensure the work can be executed in an efficient manner. By
combining effective asset reliability programs identified through Work Identification and ensuring these asset
reliability programs can be efficiently executed through Work Planning, assets achieve their desired level of
performance.
Once the manager with overall responsibility for the assets is satisfied with the RCM analysis findings and
recommendations, the next step will be to prepare the implementation plan. As mentioned earlier, many RCM-based
reliability improvement initiatives are never implemented resulting in a waste of time and money. To ensure the
recommendations are properly implemented, Aladon developed a suite of tools to assist with the successful
implementation. These can be divided into four categories as follows:
11. PM Tasks
The primary outcome from an RCM analysis is a proactive maintenance (PM) program which includes the
following tasks:
y. Condition-based Maintenance Tasks
z. Preventive Maintenance Tasks (Preventive Maintenance falls into two categories, scheduled overhaul
[repair] and scheduled discard [replacement].)
aa. Condition-based Maintenance Tasks
bb. Failure-finding Tasks or Functional Testing:
12. Corrective Maintenance (CM) Tasks
For many failures there are no effective form of proactive maintenance. Some failures don’t give a warning that
they are in the process of happening (predictive maintenance is not technically feasible) and these failures may
also not be age related (preventive maintenance is not technically feasible). Depending on the failure
consequences, many of these items or components can be allowed to fail (provided the consequences are not
serious). It is our experience with similar systems (wastewater pumping stations), that a run-to-failure (no
scheduled maintenance) strategy is appropriate for approximately 30 - 40% of the likely failure modes.
In order to maintain a high level of availability and system reliability, these functions will have to be restored in a
timely manner through repairing or replacing the faulty equipment. Throughout the RCM3 process, the review
team will identify the failures that fall into this category and address the consequences through appropriate
maintenance actions (corrective maintenance) which may include spare parts. For all run-to-failure
recommendations, CM Tasks will be included as well as the mean time to repair (MTTR), spare part requirements
and overall consequences
13. Spare Parts Optimization (OPTIONAL)
Spare parts are kept to support operations and maintenance at all levels. For every failure mode considered
during the analysis, the spare part requirements will be assessed, and recommendations are made based on the
most economic stocking policy. The Aladon process considers the stockout consequences (effects of not having
a spare part), in order to determine whether a spare part should be kept or not. Optimization of the num ber of
spares to keep is achieved through further analysis which will consider similar and/or redundant systems,
logistics, cost of keeping spare parts, etc.
14. Default Actions
When no proactive task can be found that is both technically feasible and worth-doing and the associated
consequences of the failure is serious (associated risk exceeds the tolerable level), the RCM3 process requires
 the review team to make a recommendation that would reduce the associated risk to within a tolerable level or
eliminate it altogether. These recommendations are normally in the form of a one-time change and can be any
of the following:
cc. Adding protective devices or redundant systems
dd. Redesign or modification of the physical hardware
ee. Revised Operating and Maintenance Procedures
ff. Revised spare part policies
gg. Training of Operator and/or Maintainer
Implementation of these one-time changes will normally fall outside the scope of the RCM analysis process and RCM
facilitator responsibilities, but it is important that these are properly documented and managed. These would
become mini-projects which would require the appropriate level of funding, oversight and project management.

SECTION 13 - IP CONDITIONS
Key Intellectual Property (IP) Conditions
The following applies to all Aladon training materials.
15. Intellectual property rights in all Aladon training materials, including RCM3 and any other Aladon-developed
materials provided by Aladon or used in work done by Aladon in terms of this contract are vested in Aladon.
16. All Aladon training course notes and any other literature or printed material supplied during the engagement
are supplied solely for the use of full-time employees of the client in the course of their normal duties. The
client undertakes that they will not be reproduced in any manner or used to conduct further training of any
kind, nor will they be made available to any contractors, consultants or consulting organizations who may be
employed or have been employed by the client unless such parties have signed a similar stipulation with
Aladon.
17. Aladon will provide FWEL I & II with the necessary course material (exercises and handouts) during the training
sessions. The handouts and exercises will be provided in Letter size paper format. Our price for training includes
the material and shipping to FWEL I & II premises in CA.

CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The proposal is based on the following assumptions:

Training
➢ Training will be hosted on premises provided by FWEL I & II
➢ Training venues will be large enough to seat delegates comfortably
➢ Classroom(s) will be quiet, well ventilated and lighting will be adequate
➢ FWEL I & II will provide the necessary logistics (screen, projector and flipcharts) for conducting the
training
➢ FWEL I & II will provide refreshments suitable for training of this nature
➢ FWEL I & II will provide basic office functions (internet, printer and copier) to conduct the RCM3
projects

Course Material
The material provided as part of the training will be for the exclusive use of FWEL I & II and will only be used for
internal training of FWEL I & II employed personnel. No changes or
additions will be made to the training material without the written consent of Aladon and material will not be
handed to any outside consultant or engineering firm.
SECTION 14 - RCM3 SOFTWARE (REW)
Aldon is a thought ware company, but we understand the importance of software. Aladon developed RCM3 software
for facilitators to assist with the effective facilitation and implementation of the RCM3 methodology.
Aladon will be glad to provide additional information about our software.

SECTION 15 - PRICE SCHEDULE

Activity Unit Price Total Price (USD) Duration

Introduce program with RCM3 TBD
overview presentation, Kick Off Meeting
* for key stakeholders (middle and senior Exclusive of travel
management), engineers and O&M costs, and
Asset Verification and Assessment accommodation.
(e.g. travel,
RCM3 3-day Introductory training* for accommodation,
RCM review group members, RCM food etc.) will be
project manager, planners and RCM charged as per actual
analysis auditors 4 Month to
6 Months
RCM3 workshop planning and project The prices are
Approx.
preparation exclusive of any
type applicable
Perform RCM3 on Defined / Selected taxes
Systems

The price
Review results and evaluate, prepare Excludes license
plan for implementation. present costs for any
results to management types of RCM
Tools/Software

SECTION 16 - SCHEDULE AND PROPOSED TIMELINE

We will adhere to the proposed schedule set forth within the RFP. Proposed schedule and timeline as required by
FWEL I & II

Payment Structure and Work Schedule will be submitting after finalization of

Work Scope
*All payments will be paid in PKR.

Note :
Taxes are WHT + Sindh Sales Tax , These will be added at the time of Invoice according to
Government Policy