In project design, seeking help with issues such as the wiring of equipment from third-party manufacturers! ! ! !
Thread Content
I'm working on a project. The third-party equipment manufacturers say that they are not responsible for the wiring of the equipment, including the wiring from the instruments to the junction box (which they provide themselves) as well as the power supply. Therefore, the client turned to our design institute, asking us to handle this aspect. Now I would like to ask everyone: what is the boundary between the third-party equipment manufacturers and the instrumentation team at the design institute, and how are their responsibilities divided? ? ? ? Are there any guidelines in this area that can clarify this matter?
The instruments and controls for third-party equipment require secondary design by the design institute. The manufacturers of such third-party equipment, that is, what we commonly refer to as complete sets of equipment, must have their responsibilities clearly specified in the contract or agreement; they are required to provide a list of instruments, logic diagrams, IO points, etc. It should also be stipulated that the wiring from the equipment to the junction box shall be carried out by the equipment manufacturer, while the wiring from the DCS to the junction box shall be done by Party A. During the equipment commissioning phase, the equipment manufacturer must have technicians on site to oversee the process.
Yes, that’s exactly how it should be. But they just leave the equipment there without paying any attention to it. They do give me the blueprints from their design institute, but they still don’t care at all. I’m an instrumentation designer at the main design institute – what should I do? Should I proceed with the work or not? ? ?
This needs to be discussed with the owner; if the design contract signed initially does not mention this aspect, it can simply be ignored. But the property owner will approach your supervisors, and in the end it’s still you who have to do it. If an agreement is reached, you might get a little extra payment for the design work; otherwise, it will be unpaid labor. :lol
In my opinion, it depends on who is responsible for the installation as specified in the contract you have signed. The party responsible for installation is also the one who handles the wiring. Usually, it is a professional installation company that carries out the work, but in some contracts, the equipment manufacturer is responsible for both installation and testing, and in such cases it is the manufacturer who does the wiring.
What the client wants is equipment that can be installed and put into operation. Without a material list provided by the design institute, it is impossible for the construction party to carry out the installation work. In such cases, we usually ask the design institute to provide the missing material list so that the construction party can proceed with the work. If the volume of work is large, the construction party will also need to obtain approvals for additional work
The construction party certainly works according to the drawings provided by the design institute, but the question now is: where is the boundary between the design work done by the design institute and that done by the equipment manufacturers? Does the supplier just deliver the equipment and then ignore it? Who is responsible for wiring the instruments inside the equipment?
How are the equipment procurement contracts established? Didn’t you participate in drafting those contracts?
Regarding this issue, it’s because the tasks weren’t properly assigned when the project was first discussed; therefore, one has to go and discuss it with the manager!
It depends on what’s specified in the contract; there’s nothing to do with whether it’s considered normal or not, or whether it follows certain standards or not. It’s simply a matter of you paying and me doing the work, based on mutual agreement
Look at the scope of supply specified in the tender technical specifications