1

Tucson, AZ Solar Power

Plant

Champion Management
Solarizing for the best

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

ENCE320 Summer 2014
Group 1
Alec Desaulniers
Makaya Gittens
Elvina Newton Tryer

2
Alexa Rucinski

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Tucson, AZ Solar Power

Plant

Champion Management
Solarizing for the best

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

ENCE320 Summer 2014,
08-04-2014
Group 1

4
Alec Desaulniers
Makaya Gittens
Elvina Newton Tryer
Alexa Rucinski
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section I: Background
Over the past few decades, there has been a surge in technologies aimed at
increasing our renewable energy sources. Individual solar power production has escalated
into utility scale plants that market to wholesale buyers versus the consumer population.
The benefit of utility-scale solar plants, aside from renewability, is that the fixed-priced
electricity is often less expensive than electricity from fossil fuels during periods of peak
demand and usage. To encourage this trend in renewable energy sources, many states are
adopting their own policies mandating a replacement of a certain percentage of the states
net energy usage with renewable sources. These Renewable Portfolio Standards provide
incentives to electricity producers to include a specified minimum percentage of their
electricity from sources like wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity. As more and
more states adopt these policies, the United States government is leaning towards
adopting a more stringent blanket standard that continues to encourage this practice.
States like California who require electric companies to acquire 33% of their sales from
eligible renewable resources by 2020 are the catalysts for this growing market. Even
without these policies other states are signing up for 15-25 year purchasing commitments
from solar plants exactly like the one we intend to build. Solar Power Plants have been a
target of new commercial business, as they do more than just provide renewable energy.
In addition to meeting new policies and mandates, the construction of these type of plants
have seen benefits for the surrounding area including the creation of up to 400 new jobs.
In order to capitalize on these growing opportunities our company seeks to
complete a solar power plant utilizing 250 acres of panels capable of producing 40 MW
of power, or approximately 55 GWh annually.We intend to begin construction on the
plant in October of 2014 and have the wholesale electricity production capability by
May-June 2015. The solar plant will be constructed in the area of Tucson, AZ, an area
already used by budding solar companies but not yet crowded with large scale plants.
This area is a desert climate which is ideal for solar generation; it has been following a
similar path in solar production as Nevada, another state known for producing the worlds
largest solar farms. Arizona is one of the recent states to adopt a Renewable Portfolio
Standard and considering Tucsons proximity to California and Nevada, our plant would
have the ability to sell electricity to any of these three leading RPS states. By proving our
capability to produce and supply reliable and renewable electricity in an already partially
developed market, we can then forge ahead to establish dominance in new markets as
other states begin to adopt these renewable standards.

Section II: Introduction to the Team

The five team members representing Champion Management on this project are
Jonathan Cole, Alec Desaulniers, Makaya Gittens, Alexa Rucinski and Elvina Newton
Tryer. The project manager of this project, Jonathan Cole, received his undergraduate
degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Maryland, and has both a MS
in Mechanical Engineering as well as an MBA from UCLA. He has attained a Black Belt
in Lean Six Sigma, and is LEED Certified. He has worked as project manager on a
myriad of previous projects for Champion Management.
Alec Desaulniers received his Bachelors of Science in Mechanical Engineering
from the University of Maryland. He went on to earn his PhD from the University of
Maryland where his research topic was the investigation of integration options for
renewable technology into existing energy infrastructure. He went on to gain seven years
of experience with Standard Solar, leading the construction of several commercial solar
farms.
Makaya Gittens, P.E., also received her Bachelors of Science in Mechanical
Engineering from the University of Maryland. She went on to receive her Masters in
Systems Engineering from the University of Maryland, her research required her to
compare the process of delivering solar energy to areas of different populations to
determine its effectiveness. Before joining Champion Management she spent three years
as a project manager for Microgrid (a solar farm company) and is currently a partial
owner of Fertile Ground Solar Array in Christiansted, St. Croix of the US Virgin Islands.
Alexa Rucinski received her Bachelors of Science in Fire Protection Engineering
with a Minor in Engineering Project Management as well as a Masters Degree in Fire
Protection Engineering from the University of Maryland. She went on to complete her
PhD at the University of Edinborough with a thesis on Battery Design. Her research on
battery design and fireproofing strategies for batteries has lead her to do work on
measuring the heat capacity of various components used in power containment structures
and their tendency toward failure under various heating conditions.
Elvina Newton Tryer P.E., received her B.S. in Civil/Environmental engineering,
as well as her M.B.A. from the University of Maryland. She has completed research on
efficient alternative energy and water systems for civil infrastructure. She has also
worked at several utility companies where she was responsible for construction
management, asset management, engineering design reviews, performance testing and
monitoring, commissioning, plant operations and management.
Every single member of the program management team attended the University of
Maryland at some point during their academic career, thus they all share similar work
methods. Superior results can be attained when these similar work ideologies are
combined with each members unique experiences from previous projects. Along with
these previous experiences, Champion Management operates on the Four Zeros: zero

7
loss, zero environmental incidents, zero ethical breaches and zero defects. The
experiences of the team members, along with these core values ensure the success of this
project.

Section III: Project Selection

Please note: Projects can receive a score from 0-10 for each criterion. The product of the Weight and the score for
each criterion is summed to calculate the total score. The higher the rating (Total), the more favorable the project is.

Roadway score

Grocery Store Software

Software score

9
6.5
8
5
7.5
3.5
3
7.25

7.75
5
10
7
6
7.25
7
5

69.75
32.5
80
35
45
25.38
21
36.25

4.5
2.5
3.75
7
5
7
6
5

40.5
16.25
30
35
37.5
24.5
18
36.25

7
1.5
8
7.5
5
6
10
5.5

63
9.75
64
37.5
37.5
21
30
39.88

4
3
7.25
2
2
9.5
8.5
2

36
19.5
58
10
15
33.25
25.5
14.5

8.25

33

32

6.5

26

16

10 Story Apartment Building

Roadway10 Mile Long Solar

Apartment Building score

Solar Plant score

Evaluation Criteria:
Profit
Risk**
Competition**
Government Subsidy
Knowledge/Expertise
Regulatory Approval
Public Reaction
Resources and their
Availability
Positive Environmental
Impact

2
Solar PV Power Plant

Weight (0-10)*

Total
377.88
270
* 0 being no importance, 10 being extremely important
** [0 is very high risk, 10 is no risk] [0 is high competition, 10 is no competition]

328.63

227.75

Champion Management was presented with four potential projects that each
deserved serious consideration. These four projects were: a ten story apartment building
that produces 45% of the power it consumes, a ten mile long stretch of solar roadways, a

8
40 MW solar PV power plant, and a software that enables customers to shop for their
groceries online. Each of these projects come with their own set of risks, benefits, and
opportunities. To ensure that the best project was selected, a specific set of criteria was
created as well as a quantifiable method of evaluating each project against the criteria.
The rating scales and criteria used can be seen in the Project Selection Matrix, Fig__. The
criteria used to evaluate each project is comprehensive, however, the opinions of
individuals within our company, other professionals, and the community were also taken
into consideration.
The ratings selected in each criterion for each project were based on a series of
assumptions and observations made about each project. First, it was assumed that the
online grocery software (for Weis Markets in the Maryland area) would require much of
the work to be outsourced, as we currently do not possess the human resources capable to
create the software itself. This would undoubtedly decrease the morale of our staff as well
as the potential profit. Also, the positive environmental impact of this project is
questionable. However, the competition for acquiring the bid for this project is fairly low,
and little to no government regulatory approval would be needed.
For the Solar Power Plant (Tucson, AZ), our knowledge and expertise on solar PV
technology is not optimal, however our knowledge of power transmission is advanced.
This incurs some risk with this project as our limited knowledge of solar technology
could force us to subcontract halfway through the project lifecycle. On the other hand,
there would be no competition for this bid, as this solar plant would be owned,
constructed, and operated by Champion Management. In addition, profit could be
extremely high as revenue will continue to be produced well after costs are covered. This
will be furthered by government subsidies available to assist in reducing the costs of solar
power plants. Another motivating factor to construct the solar plant was the strong
likelihood of Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) being put forth by the DOE. These
RPSs would require an increase in the sale of electricity produced by electric utility
companies, including Champion Management.
The energy producing Ten Story Apartment building in Vallejo, CA would force
Champion Management to delve into two markets where we lack expertise: renewable
technology and residential construction. The residential construction aspect of the project
would definitely force us to subcontract, decreasing profits and increasing risk. Another
factor that was considered was competition. Contractors with much more experience are
known to be bidding on this project, reducing the possibility of even winning a bid. The
project would produce a very positive reaction from the public however, as the apartment
aligns with the increasingly expansive green movement due to its positive, albeit
limited, environmental impact. Government subsidy would also be available due to the
energy independent nature of the project.
Lastly, the ten mile solar roadway project (connecting Texas 349 to S County Rd
1160) relies on newly developed technology that is largely untested and unproven. This
incurs a very high risk with this project not passing inspection and final quality criteria,
causing the project to fall behind schedule or possibly not becoming operational at all. In
addition, we would be required to adhere to the regulations of the Federal Highway
Administration in order to complete this project. We have little experience with this
government agency, further increasing the risk of this project falling behind schedule.
This project would have a huge public reaction, being completely unique. Upon success,

9
future contracts would be almost guaranteed. Due to the inherent risk of this project, the
competition is low, increasing our chances of winning the bid should we decide to bid on
it. This project can be classified as very high risk, high reward.
Using this information, along with additional input from Champion Management
Senior Executives, other related industry leaders, and Champion Management Project
Staff, scores were attained for each criterion of each project. These scores yielded a total
of 377.88 for the Solar Power Plant on our Project Selection Matrix (Fig__), 49 points
higher than the next closest project. After further polling of our staff regarding the results
of our matrix, it was clear that the 15MW Tucson Solar Plant was the clear frontrunner,
and therefore Champion Management has decided to pursue this project.

Section IV: Technical Approach

OVERALL TECHNICAL APPRAOCH

10

Work Breakdown Structure:

This Level 3 Work Breakdown Structure (Fig___), details all work packages that
must be completed/created in order to complete the proposed 40MW Solar PV Power
Plant.
Commissioned Solar PV Plant (Level 0)
1 Substructure (Level 1)
1.1 Earthworks
1.1.1 Road Leading to Plant Site
1.1.1.1 Topsoil Stripping (75mm depth)
1.1.1.2 804 Gravel
1.1.2 Worksite Excavation
1.1.2.1 Topographical Study (Grade, vegetation)
1.1.2.2 Geotechnical Study (Soil Rigidity)
1.1.2.3 Topsoil Stripping
1.1.2.4 Surface Grading (0 degree slope)
1.1.2.5 AC Cable Trenches
1.1.2.6 DC Cable Trenches
1.1.2.7 Straw Rolls For Erosion (remove after commissioning)
1.1.2.8 Cable Trenches to Grid Connection
1.1.3 Work Site Zoning
1.1.3.1 Perimeter Fencing of Plant
2 Superstructure
2.1 Four Siemens GSU Transformer Stations
2.1.1 Four Excavated Pits
2.1.2 Four Duke Energy Concrete Transformer Pads (5 days curing due to weather)
2.1.3 Four 4 Thick Compacted Sand Sub-bases
2.1.4 Four SPS Transformer Disconnect Stations
2.2 Twenty ABB Turnkey Inverter Stations
2.1.1 Separation of 15cm Between Bottom of Container and Ground
2.1.2 Tilted Surface of 5cm Per 1 Meter Surrounding Station
2.1.3 Hole for Foundation and Cables

11
2.1.4 Geotextile Layering (To prevent mixture of gravel and soil)
2.1.5 Coarse Gravel at Bottom of Hole and Fine Gravel at Top
2.1.5.1 Geotextile and Gravel are Maximum 560mm in depth after compression
2.1.6 200,000 Ft AC Side Cable
2.3 200,000 Mounted, Cabled Solar Modules
2.3.1 200,000 Cantsink Helical Piles
2.3.1.1 Ten foot Lead
2.3.1.2 Seven foot Extension
2.3.2 200,000 SunPower Single Axis Trackers
2.3.3 200,000 TrinaSolar PA05 Modules
2.3.4 300,000 Ft DC Side Cable
2.4 Ten Switchgear Protective/Isolation Systems
2.4.1 Ten ABB Dead Tank 245kV Circuit Breakers
2.4.2 Twenty Schneider Heavy Duty DC Disconnect Safety Switches
2.5 One SCADA/GMS Facility
2.5.1 Air Conditioned, Water Proof 2000 sq ft Housing
2.5.2 ABB SCADA/GMS Software and Computer Equipment
3 Government Regulations and Approvals
3.1 Land Acquisition
3.1.1 Government Land Lease Agreement
3.2 CEQ Environmental Assessment
3.2.1 Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.1.1 Invitation for Comments
3.3 Federal Power Purchase Agreement
3.3.1 Gather Utility Bill Information/Research
3.3.2 Select Contracting Methodology
3.4 Final Acceptance and Commissioning
3.4.1 Mechanical Completion Test
3.4.2 Inverter Commissioning Test
3.4.3 Commissioning Program to RPPC
3.4.4 Performance Test
3.4.5 Approval From Electrical Inspector (Inverters, Transformers, Switchgear)
3.4.6 Chief Electrical Engineer Grid Connection Approval
3.4.7 Project Documentation

Responsibility Matrix:
Fig__ represents Champion Managements responsibility matrix for this project.
Primary and secondary responsibility is assigned to each work package of the WBS.
Champion Management plans on keeping this project internal in terms of staffing. Each
member of each Function is a Champion Management staff member. Each member of the
Management Function is primarily responsible for a level one work package that matches
their area of expertise. Due to Alec Desaulniers experience with solar plant construction
and smaller scale instillation, he was chosen to be primarily responsible for the
Substructure of the Plant. Due to Makaya Gittens expertise in Systems Engineering she
has been chosen to be primarily responsible for the Superstructure of the Plant. With
Elvina Newtons experience in environmental engineering, she the most qualified and
therefore primarily responsible for Government Regulations and Approvals. Due to Alexa

12
Rucinskis research with electrical system and component failure she has been made
responsible for Final Acceptance and Commissioning of the Plant.

Superstructure:
Four Siemens GSU
Transformer
Stations:
Four Excavated
Pits with Concrete
Pads and
Compacted Sand
Four SPS
Transformer
Disconnect
Stations
Twenty ABB
Turnkey Inverter
Stations:
Foundation for
Stations (2.1.1
2.1.5)
200,000 Ft AC side
Cable
200,000 Mounted,
Cabled Solar
Modules:
200,000 Helical
Cantsink Piles
200,000 SunPower
Single Axis

S
S

S
P

P
S
S

P
P

Heather

Sam

S
S

Electrical
Engineering
Staff
Rebecca

S
P

Lucas

Michelle

Installation
Thomas

Dawn

Alexa

Government
Inspection
Andrey

Elvina

Holly

Makaya

Chris

Alec

Commissioned,
40MW Capable
Solar Power Plant
Substructure:
Road Leading to
Plant Site
Worksite
Excavation:
Topographical/Geo
technical Studies
Grading (0 slope)
AC/DC and Grid
Connection
Trenches
Work Site Zoning

Mike

Work Item

John Cole

KEY: P = Primary Responsibility, S = Support Responsibility

Management
Earthworks/Co
nstruction

S
S

S
P

S
S

S
S
S
S

P
S

S
P

13
Trackers
200,000 TrinaSolar
PA05 Solar
Modules
300,000 Ft DC side
Cable
Ten Switchgear
Protective/Isolation
Switches:
10 ABB Deadtank
245kV Circuit
Breakers
Twenty Schneider
Heavy Duty DC
Disconnect Safety
Switches
One SCADA/GMS
Facility:
Water Proof, 2000
sq ft Housing
Facility
ABB SCADA/GMS
Software and
Computer
Equipment
Government
Regulations and
Approvals:
Land Acquisition
CEQ
Environmental
Assessment
Federal Power
Purchase
Agreement
Final Acceptance
and
Commissioning:
Mechanical
Completion Test
Inverter
Commissioning
Test
Commissioning
Program to RPPC
Performance Test
Approval From
Electrical Inspector
Chief Electrical
Engineer Grid
Connection
Approval

S
S

S
S

P
S

14
Project
Documentation

CPM Schedule:

PERT SCHEDULE

15

Budget:
Commissioned Solar PV Plant (Level 0)
1 Substructure (Level 1)
1.1 Earthworks
1.1.1 Road Leading to Plant Site
1.1.1.1 Topsoil Stripping (75mm depth)
1.1.1.2 804 Gravel
1.1.2 Worksite Excavation
1.1.2.1 Topographical Study (Grade,
vegetation)
1.1.2.2 Geotechnical Study (Soil Rigidity)
1.1.2.3 Topsoil Stripping
1.1.2.4 Surface Grading (0 degree slope)
1.1.2.5 AC Cable Trenches
1.1.2.6 DC Cable Trenches
1.1.2.7 Straw Rolls For Erosion (remove
after commissioning)
1.1.2.8 Cable Trenches to Grid Connection
1.1.3 Work Site Zoning
1.1.3.1 Perimeter Fencing of Plant
2 Superstructure
2.1 Four Siemens GSU Transformer Stations
2.1.1 Four Excavated Pits
2.1.2 Four Duke Energy Concrete Transformer
Pads (5 days curing due to weather)
2.1.3 Four 4 Thick Compacted Sand Sub-bases
2.1.4 Four SPS Transformer Disconnect Stations
2.2 Twenty ABB Turnkey Inverter Stations
2.1.1 Separation of 15cm Between Bottom of
Container and Ground
2.1.2 Tilted Surface of 5cm Per 1 Meter
Surrounding Station
2.1.3 Hole for Foundation and Cables
2.1.4 Geotextile Layering (To prevent mixture of

Hard Breakdown

Unit Quantity

Total

2.88 CM
33.88 CM

450
450

1,296
15,246

100 LS

100

100 LS
2.88 CM
153.53 acre
2.88 CM
2.88 CM
2.00 LF

1062
3.5
500
500
3000

100
3,058.776
537.36
1440
1440
6000

2.88 CM

60

172.8

3 LF

1561

4700

2.88 CM
15000 EA

100

288
60000

30.30 CM
400 EA

100
4

3000
1600

2.88 CM

10

28.80

2.88 CM

14.40

2.88 CM

200

576

16
gravel and soil)
2.1.5 Coarse Gravel at Bottom of Hole and Fine

33.88 CM

50

1694

.20 LF

200000

40000

20 EA
.10 LF
.7 LF
75 EA
250 EA
.20 LF

200000
200000
200000
200000
200000
300,000

4000000
2000000
140000
15000000
50000000
60000

2000 EA
200 EA

10
20

20000
4000

40000 LS
65000

EA

4000
65000

12000

LS

12000

Gravel at Top
2.1.5.1 Geotextile and Gravel are
Maximum 560mm in depth after compression
2.1.6 200,000 Ft AC Side Cable
2.3 200,000 Mounted, Cabled Solar Modules
2.3.1 200,000 Cantsink Helical Piles
2.3.1.1 Ten foot Lead
2.3.1.2 Seven foot Extension
2.3.2 200,000 SunPower Single Axis Trackers
2.3.3 200,000 TrinaSolar PA05 Modules
2.3.4 300,000 Ft DC Side Cable
2.4 Ten Switchgear Protective/Isolation Systems
2.4.1 Ten ABB Dead Tank 245kV Circuit Breakers
2.4.2 Twenty Schneider Heavy Duty DC Disconnect
Safety Switches
2.5 One SCADA/GMS Facility
2.5.1 Air Conditioned, Water Proof 2000 sq ft
Housing
2.5.2 ABB SCADA/GMS Software and Computer
Equipment
3 Government Regulations and Approvals
3.1 Land Acquisition
3.1.1 Government Land Lease Agreement
3.2 CEQ Environmental Assessment
3.2.1 Environmental Impact Statement
3.2.1.1 Invitation for Comments
3.3 Federal Power Purchase Agreement
3.3.1 Gather Utility Bill Information/Research
3.3.2 Select Contracting Methodology
3.4 Final Acceptance and Commissioning
3.4.1 Mechanical Completion Test
3.4.2 Inverter Commissioning Test
3.4.3 Commissioning Program to RPPC
3.4.4 Performance Test
3.4.5 Approval From Electrical Inspector (Inverters,
Transformers, Switchgear)
3.4.6 Chief Electrical Engineer Grid Connection
Approval
3.4.7 Project Documentation

Section V: Risk Management

Investing and succeeding in the renewable energy market does present many
incredible benefits. However the potential for such progress directly correlates to the
success of the project. The potential to become industry leaders is advancing this new
technology is paralleled by the unique risks that can threaten this very success. While we
cannot ensure a fail proof technology, we can make a significant effort to identify

17
possible risks and develop a comprehensive plan to account for these potential problems.
By detailing an account of these risks we can assess which ones carry the most impact on
the progress and can devote even more attention to making sure it does not delay or
infringe on the construction and operation of the plant. Listed are the specific risks that
we feel do require the most management. Each is characterized by their likelihood of
occurring, impact potential, their triggers and signs, and plans or response actions.
1-

Inconsistent solar power collection

The ability to make money from this technology hinges on the actual time that the
panels are exposed to direct sunlight. Even with the tracking technology, if there are long
periods of cloudy weather the plant will not be collecting the expected level of electricity.
In order to ensure return on the investments, the plant would be engaging in contracts
with large scale utility providers for the state which outline a baseline amount of
electricity. If we are unable to meet those demands we cannot uphold the contracts and
forfeit the business we are trying to dominate. The issue with this particular risk is that
while we can predict weather patterns with a relatively high level of accuracy, it is
impossible to influence the cloud behavior. The key to the management of this risk lies
with the initial plant placement in Arizona. This part of the United States is known for
being an arid desert climate. The frequency of cloud cover and rain is low and easily
predicted and is our action trigger. By conserving a percentage of the electricity we can
budget the supply to account for down time during inconvenient weather patterns. By
keeping some electricity stored we can maintain a consistent level of power output to
customers both during high solar exposure as well as during cloud cover.
2-

Inability to compete with fossil fuels

The draw to invest in these renewable energies is that not only do they provide
long term benefits with energy industry but they are cheaper than traditional fossil fuel
generated electricity. The only way these technologies that reduce impact on our
environment are able to be developed and implemented is if the cost per energy packet is
cost competitive with fossil fuels. If we find that it is more expensive to use our energy
then other companies we will once again lose contracts and essentially become obsolete.
The only way to make sure this is the not the case is to keep the overhead costs low. This
means choosing the most cost efficient construction companies, keeping accounts of the
exact amount of materials needed and lastly keeping a sparse but skilled operation staff.
By monitoring market prices and constantly comparing our operation costs we can
observe trends in profits and utilize state tax benefits and incentives in order further
reduce our costs.
3-

Environmental Lawsuits
The large scale characteristics of these plants mean demand for large areas of land
and resources. This means infringing on natural wildlife and agriculture. It has been
observed that for some plants, the heat output influences bird migration and plant growth
in the area. When these problems further impact larger ecosystems, environmental and
community groups can litigate to protect possible endangered animals. This can lead to

18
inflated production prices which negate profits. By choosing an area that has no major
ecosystem and no contains no major habitats we can begin to prevent again lawsuits.
Furthermore by consulting local national park workers during the planning phase in order
to gain a level of understanding on bird migration and potential impacts, we can design
the plant around any possible interference. Overall while this has the potential for an
increase in cost, this risk is easily abated by utilizing these environmental groups and
listening to their advice before it is being used as testimony in a case.
4-

Weather impeding plant construction

With any construction project weather is always a concern in the timetable to
completion. When weather impedes the actual progress, it leads to increase cost for
equipment rentals and staff payment. It can push back necessary code inspections and can
even push back power generation and impact the contracts with customers. Fortunately
the area in Arizona to be utilized does not suffer from extreme weather conditions and is
generally hot. Without the threat of surprise snow or rain storms the chances it will be
delayed for this reason is not too severe. Furthermore, careful project management and
attention to schedule can identify possible delays and the project manager can address the
specific issue as soon as possible.
5-

Increase in Materials Price/Inflation

Because of the specialized nature of the technology used in solar power plants, the
components with generate electricity are already expensive. They contain a variety of
materials and come mostly assembled. The panels themselves and the tracking software
are complex and as they become even more specialized the level of technology can cost
the team more than intended. During the course of the project if the cost of the panels and
technology inflate too much, it can mean that the power output may not cover the costs in
a reasonable time to prove financially feasible. The way to prevent this is to make
contracts with companies for a set number of panels ahead of time so that the budget
stays as anticipated.
6-

Production of More Efficient Technology

The risk of a more efficient technology being developed is a very real possibility.
This technology itself it relatively new compared to the use of fossil fuels and the amount
of new technologies developed in the past ten years alone is staggering. In the next ten to
twenty years, if a more efficient technology is developed and able to be implemented in a
small amount of time it could mean that large scale solar farms become obsolete. While
you cannot suspend innovation you can encourage and sponsor research that advances the
technology used at this plant. As we engineer more efficient ways to run power plants
like this we can remain competitive not only in the market but relevant in the scientific
community

Section VI: Project Management

19
Since its formation, Champion Management has maintained use of the same
proven management techniques and practices that have made it the successful electric
utility company it is today. At a macro level, Champion Management uses a Divisional
Structure, which allows Champion Management to focus on a variety of projects. On a
micro scale (which is more important in the context of this proposal), Champion
Management implements a Balanced/Functional Structure. This Balanced/Functional
Structure will be the organization of our team for this Solar Plant project.
Our project team leaders are split according to their Function (their area of
expertise/the type of deliverable they are proficient at delivering). These Functions
include: Management, Earthworks/Construction, Installation, Government Regulation
and Approval, and Electrical Engineering. These Functions can be seen in more detail in
our Responsibility Matrix, Fig.___.
The reason Champion Management uses a Balanced/Functional structure is
because with traditional Functional structures communication can be rigid between
Functions, causing confusion. The use of a Balanced structure can ameliorate this issue as
our overall project manager, Jonathan Cole, shares power nearly equally with the rest of
the management Function team. Coupled with the fact that Cole is not singularly
responsible for another Function, he will have the ability to act efficiently as a liaison
between Function leads reducing confusion and ensuring that problems will be identified
and addressed quickly. This approach also benefits the customer as Cole will be readily
available to conduct bi-weekly meetings that address issues such as project schedule,
budget, and scope negotiations.
Management is extremely important to the success of any project therefore the
Management Function of the project team must be discussed more in depth. The
members of this function are Jonathan Cole, as the overall project manager, Alec
Desaulniers as the substructure manager, Makaya Gittens as the government regulations
and approvals manager, Elvina Newton as the final commissioning and acceptance
manager, and Alexa Rucinski as the superstructure manager.
Jonathan Cole was the clear choice as the overall project manager for this project.
After attaining his MBA from UCLA he went on to manage 5 large scale solar installation
and solar farm construction projects with Solar City over 9 years, as well as many smaller
projects. Cole joined Champion Management 7 years ago and has excelled with every
project he has been involved with. When this potential project was brought to his
attention he was extremely proactive and let his intentions known that he wanted to lead
it as it fits perfectly within the parameters of his experience and interests. Coles strategy
to manage the project will be based on frequent and structured meetings with all active
Function leads. These weekly meetings will primarily address the planned schedule of the
project versus the actual schedule. There will be discussions of what is expected to be
completed in the following weeks and resources that will be required. Cole will then
cross reference these required resources to ensure that no conflicts will occur between
Functions. If major issues arise, Cole will reserve the authority to call upon all Function
leads as well as the entire Management Function staff for a meeting to discuss what must
change. Cole will authorize when Functions should begin, halt, or end tasks to avoid
scheduling conflicts and ensure quality standards not unintentionally overlooked.
Lastly, all Champion Management staff members personally subscribe to the
principles of The Four Zeros. The first principle, Zero Loss, reflects our commitment to

20
creating and constructing the safest products, in the safest way possible. Champion
Management will do this by having our inspection team hold the project to the strictest
industry and government safety standards. The second principle, Zero Environmental
Incidents, reflects our commitment to the environment. Champion Management ensures
this through constant communication with project site local environmental experts. The
third principle, Zero Ethical Breaches, reflects our commitment to the customer.
Constant, honest communication will be maintained throughout the life of the project to
make certain that the customer is knowledgeable of the projects progress and never
misled. The final principle, Zero Defects, reflects that Champion Management will only
deliver a perfect product. To ensure this plant is perfect, the entire management team will
independently assess the plant until it is unanimously approved for commissioning.
The combination of Champion Managements proven project management team
structure, the qualifications and management strategies of Jonathan Cole, and The Four
Zeros principles will deliver the Solar Plant on time and on budget while meeting all
quality standards.
Section VII: Project Team Work Contributions and Actions
Each project has written about their contributions:
Team Member:

Contributions:

Alec Desaulniers

Alec was responsible for and completed Section III (Project Selection),
the 3 level WBS, the Responsibility Matrix, Section VI (Project
Management), and Final Report assembly.

Makaya Gittens
Elvina Newton
Alexa Rucinski