CONTACTS 
0201 - Dep Natrl Rscrs & Consvn           406 444 6699 fax 6721
020101 - Mr. Walt Anderson; Hydro Power Section Supervisor =406 444 6659
020102 - Engineering Bureau  fax 406 444 0533

SUBJECTS
Engineering Management, 911011
Replace v. Retrofit, 920120

0404 -    ..
0405 - Summary/Objective
0406 -
040601 - Walt submitted a memo, ref DIT 1 0000, on points to consider in
040602 - deciding whether to replace or retrofit the speed increaser.
040603 -
040604 - He requests comments.  Discussed Tudor's recommendations with Sarah.
040605 -
040606 -
0407 -
0408 -
0409 - Analysis
0410 -
041001 - Wayne's points are addressed in the memo to him. ref DIP 3.
041002 -
041003 - I would like to submit this to Walt and Dave, but Wayne indicated a
041004 - feeling that he would like to get further into Power's performance,
041005 - before we address in great detail our thinking on replacement v.
041006 - retrofit.
041007 -
041008 - Therefore, I did not submit this analysis to Walt or Power.
041009 -
041010 - I did though discuss the matter with Dave before the meeting today.
041011 -
041012 - Dave indicated preliminary analysis indicates the owner should get
041013 - what they paid for:  a helical gear.
041014 -
041015 -     Dave feels a helical gear may cost $500K more than a spur gear
041016 -     because of the greater cost of building the gears themselves.
041017 -
041018 -     Dave indicated that if Voith or other bidders did not specify they
041019 -     were bidding an "alternate design," then they bid the spec.  I
041020 -     tend to agree with this propostion, because otherwise how would
041021 -     the owner make the choice of who is really the low bidder?   How
041022 -     would the owner evaluate different bids, if one is bidding a spur
041023 -     and the other a helical, and this is not known?
041024 -
041025 -     Dave has addressed the technical issues, but not the commercial
041026 -     ones.  I mentioned
041027 -
041028 -
041029 -  ..
0411 -
0412 -
0413 - 1320 Discussion with Sarah
0414 -
041401 - Advised of discovering on 920120 that Tudor's letter on 910816 has
041402 - analysis that might support directing the contractor, Voith, to
041403 - replace the speed increaser. ref SDS 6 8851  We discussed the idea of
041404 - DNRC evaluating Tudor's 910816 letter for detailed support of the
041405 - decision to replace or retrofit the SI.
041406 -
041407 - Sarah recalled that Rick Bondy said Tudor's detailed work plans in
041408 - their letter on 910816 were not well founded.  This aligns with the
041409 - call from Sarah on 911105, ref SDS 1 2572, and with Sarah's letter on
041410 - 911105 that submitted only Tudor's summary cover letter, and not the
041411 - attached support analysis. ref SDS 1 6L4H
041412 -
041413 - Sarah feels that, since the attachments to Tudor's letter on 910816
041414 - provide support for replacing the speed increasor, then DNRC should
041415 - obtain further engineering review to substantiate Tudor's evaluation
041416 - of lost revenue projections that indicate the speed increaser should
041417 - be replaced.
041418 -
041419 -    [...at meeting later today, Rick confirmed his understanding that
041420 -    Tudor's letter on 910816 did not support replacing the speed
041421 -    increaser. ref SDS 9 9054
041422 -
041423 -    [On 920124 Rick Bondy said he never saw Tudor's detailed analysis
041424 -    and so his opinion did not consider it. ref SDS 10 4476]
041425 -
041426 -
041427 -
041428 -
041429 -
041430 -
041431 -
0415 -
0416 -