I may not in a position to reply that because what I have only proposal forwarded to me from Khun Kawasaki. Detail of implementation has been discussed at site. Anyway, What I can explain it might be in general. I am not sure it may make you much confused or help you out; From the proposal we can see that there are two work categories e as follows;
1. Parts, material to utilise or for implementing: will be performed by RL under its obligation in OMA.
2. Design, workmanship and test: will be performed by RL/EGAT as "Extra Work" according to the OMA
In term of budgeting and accounting, correct approach is necessary. My first question is "do you have approval budget?" I would say "No". In 2014 budget, as far as I learnt I don't think that we prepare any budget on this matter which is different from M2 for GCB and CB GIS. This work is considered as "repairing cost" same as "M2 for GCB and CB GIS". It would be registered in categories of "Expenditure". Your question are (1) What is the meaning of consumables in RL Quotation ? Please clarify (2) Materials in PR.OM14-060 issued by RL, can we receive as inventory (spare parts) ? I would answer as follows;
1. They shall not be as "Consumable" but they shall be "Material". Consumable means something you need to regularly consume it and you have to buy it because we regally need it. For "Material" we buy it when we need it just from time to time. In RL's quotation, it shall be material because they are parts of backwash system. You just need one time, after you finish..you do not to buy it more or regularly buy it. It would different from Consumable Material for M2 for GCB and GIS because some of them, we still need when we perform next level of maintenance.
2. We can not classify it as "Spare Part". The people who inform that they are spare parts know nothing about "Asset Management and Budgeting" In case that you classify it as "inventory" it shall be "Asset" but they are not. They are parts of repairing work. It shall be classified in "Expenditure" not "Asset"because.
What I can tell you now that RL does not want to request for budget approval, which is wrong. It seems that they try to allocate the budget from approved budget. In this case I insist that NN2PC need to request for a new budget and get approval from MD. I would like to explain you more about the proper way to implement work, you may face the same thing with M2 for GCB and CB GIS too. You can see that there are two parts of work;
Part I: Material & Parts which is responsible by NN2PC so in this case, PR should be initiated by NN2PC then pass it to RL for procurement because procurement is a part of OMA.
Part 2: Design, workmanship and test, this part shall be responsible by NN2PC too because so PR shall be initialed by NN2PC and proceed the PO by NN2PC. This is EXTRA WORK according to OMA.
For me, I think this case is really good example that our staff can learn something about budgeting and accounting, that's why I put some name in distribution list. To make it properly and we would have a good practice in NN2, I would suggest as follows;
• NN2PC should request for a new budget from MD in order to implement this work and NN2PC should be the one who be responsible for all PR process. Only PO for workmanship should be proceeded by NN2PC, not RL. Because NN2PC want to install a new system into existing system but for procurement of material, we can use the service from RL because RL is hired to do this for us in OMA. (Please do not be confused, carefully read) If we follow what RL is doing now, it is definitely wrong especially about the budget allocation and accounting registering. I would suggest that NN2PC should restart with request for MD's approval on the budget first and follow above instruction.
What is the consequence if you do it wrong;
1. High deviation on budgeting
2. Wrong registering in term of accounting, especially "Spare Part" ==> Asset and "Material" ==> Expenditure
3. Not good practice for our staff, if you did not plan in the beginning..just request new budget and get approval. If it is important, I believe that the management would not object it.
K.Varoth, please correct me if I am wrong.
It is quite long but I believe it is helpful, isn't it?