re : fw : epc negotiation team if we are going to wait until brian moves to transfer to eeos then i think we must go forward now and as long as we think the team is necessary then it can reside in eeos later .
brian
brian
louise kitchen @ ect
02 / 05 / 2001 08 : 37
to : brian stanley / eu / enron @ enron
cc :
subject : fw : epc negotiation team
are we ok to move forward on this ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by louise kitchen / hou / ect on 05 / 02 / 2001 08 : 37 am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : brian redmond / enron @ enronxgate on 04 / 24 / 2001 08 : 06 pm
to : louise kitchen / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : fw : epc negotiation team
louise ,
i have revised the memo to reflect comments from mark h . and joe d . . going forward we will have a rac representative on the team , however , the specific rac person will change based on the deal . i suggest that we need to get this team " officially working " in order to get a lot of the turbopark static out of the system . we need to make turbopark work for the projects and make the projects work for turbopark . getting everyone on the same side of the table will help .
regards ,
brian
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : redmond , brian
sent : tuesday , april 24 , 2001 7 : 53 pm
to : dodson , keith
cc : stanley , brian
subject : re : epc negotiation team
kieth ,
thanks for the input . i agree with the contractor qualification process and will work to get someone from rac involved with the team .
brian
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : dodson , keith
sent : monday , april 16 , 2001 12 : 19 pm
to : redmond , brian
cc : stanley , brian
subject : re : epc negotiation team
brian ,
the memo as written is fine .
i do have a general concern about the need for a rigid and corporate based qualification process for contractors . maybe this is influenced by just visiting dabhol and seeing first hand the problems we have created by using marginally qualified contractors , but to me it would make sense to have a corporate based team including rac for this function . financial positions of engineering and construction contractors are difficult to understand . it is a business that does not neatly fit a yearly reporting concept and requires significant experience to evaluate . i doubt your epc team will have the time to adequately perform this function . a small team continuously working as a committee on the evaluation of contractors could prevent a lot of tears . i believe strongly in looking at new contractors especially private ones with strong leadership , but we need to clearly identify the risk . in addition the entire e & c industry is at risk due to thin margins and / or risk .
keith
brian redmond @ ect 04 / 11 / 2001 10 : 33 am to : keith dodson / na / enron @ enron cc : subject : epc negotiation team
draft memo , as discussed .
brian
>
re : fw : epc negotiation team
if we are going to wait until brian moves to transfer to eeos then i think we must go forward now and as long as we think the team is necessary then it can reside in eeos later .
brian
brian
louise kitchen @ ect
02 / 05 / 2001 08 : 37
to : brian stanley / eu / enron @ enron
cc :
subject : fw : epc negotiation team
are we ok to move forward on this ?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - forwarded by louise kitchen / hou / ect on 05 / 02 / 2001 08 : 37 am - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
from : brian redmond / enron @ enronxgate on 04 / 24 / 2001 08 : 06 pm
to : louise kitchen / hou / ect @ ect
cc :
subject : fw : epc negotiation team
louise ,
i have revised the memo to reflect comments from mark h . and joe d . . going forward we will have a rac representative on the team , however , the specific rac person will change based on the deal . i suggest that we need to get this team " officially working " in order to get a lot of the turbopark static out of the system . we need to make turbopark work for the projects and make the projects work for turbopark . getting everyone on the same side of the table will help .
regards ,
brian
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : redmond , brian
sent : tuesday , april 24 , 2001 7 : 53 pm
to : dodson , keith
cc : stanley , brian
subject : re : epc negotiation team
kieth ,
thanks for the input . i agree with the contractor qualification process and will work to get someone from rac involved with the team .
brian
- - - - - original message - - - - -
from : dodson , keith
sent : monday , april 16 , 2001 12 : 19 pm
to : redmond , brian
cc : stanley , brian
subject : re : epc negotiation team
brian ,
the memo as written is fine .
i do have a general concern about the need for a rigid and corporate based qualification process for contractors . maybe this is influenced by just visiting dabhol and seeing first hand the problems we have created by using marginally qualified contractors , but to me it would make sense to have a corporate based team including rac for this function . financial positions of engineering and construction contractors are difficult to understand . it is a business that does not neatly fit a yearly reporting concept and requires significant experience to evaluate . i doubt your epc team will have the time to adequately perform this function . a small team continuously working as a committee on the evaluation of contractors could prevent a lot of tears . i believe strongly in looking at new contractors especially private ones with strong leadership , but we need to clearly identify the risk . in addition the entire e & c industry is at risk due to thin margins and / or risk .
keith
brian redmond @ ect 04 / 11 / 2001 10 : 33 am to : keith dodson / na / enron @ enron cc : subject : epc negotiation team
draft memo , as discussed .
brian
>