Getting to Know the Team and Timeline

• Who from your organization will be directly involved in selecting and approving the subsea production system (names and roles)?
• Which of these roles best describes the primary sponsor for the procurement decision? Options: Project Director, Subsea Engineering Manager, VP Development, Procurement Lead, Technical Authority, Other
• What is the target first‑oil date we should be designing the delivery schedule around? Options: Provide a specific date (enter below), +/- range within 3 months, +/- range within 6 months, Flexible/undetermined
• Please enter the specific date or range for the first‑oil target (if known).
• How confident is the core team that the current project timeline will hold through installation? Options: Very confident, Moderately confident, Uncertain, Low confidence
• Who is the single point of contact we should escalate schedule or technical clarifications to?

Are We All Using the Same Definition of 'On‑Time'?

• Which stakeholder in your group would most strongly disagree with your current definition of ‘on‑time, low‑risk delivery’ and why might they disagree?
• For each stakeholder listed, what does ‘on‑time delivery’ mean in practical terms (e.g., delivery to yard, FAT complete, onsite ready for loadout)? Options: Delivery to fabricator/yard, FAT & system integration complete, Shipped and in transit, Delivered to port for loadout, Installed on host, Commissioned and producing
• How does each key stakeholder define 'low‑risk'—is it schedule certainty, minimal interventions, warranty terms, or something else? Please map stakeholders to their top priority.
• Are there any non‑negotiable contractual or regulatory milestones that must be met to satisfy a stakeholder’s definition of ‘on‑time’? Options: Investment committee sign‑off, Regulatory permits, Host facility ready for tie‑in, Vessel booking confirmed, Financing close, None
• If stakeholders’ definitions conflict, which group's definition typically takes precedence and why? Options: Investment/Exec Committee, Project Director, Subsea Engineering, Procurement/Commercial, Regulator, Other

Invisible Deadlines: The Approvals That Kill Schedules

• Which hidden or informal approvals have historically derailed your project timelines (e.g., third‑party certifier, host engineering sign‑off, finance gates)? Options: Third‑party certification, Host facility engineering sign‑off, Final HSE approvals, Financing/investor approval, Local content/government review, Other
• How long do each of those approvals typically take from submission to sign‑off in your experience? Options: <2 weeks, 2–6 weeks, 6–12 weeks, 3–6 months, Varies greatly / unpredictable
• Which internal governance gates (e.g., FEED approval, PCI, gate reviews) are scheduled before contract award and what are their dates?
• Is there a single approval or external dependency that, if delayed two weeks, would force the installation campaign to slip a season? Options: Yes — please specify (enter below), No
• If yes, please name that dependency and describe why a two‑week slip is critical.

Weather Windows and the Cost of a Missed Season

• Imagine the installation weather window moves by a season — who on your team would bear the biggest political or financial pain, and how would they describe it?
• What are your preferred and absolute‑latest installation windows (months/seasons), and how flexible are they? Options: Preferred season (enter below), Acceptable window +/- 2 weeks, Acceptable window +/- 1 month, Absolute latest date (enter below)
• How long can the project absorb a slippage in installation before first oil is deferred by a year or more? Options: <1 month, 1–3 months, 3–6 months, >6 months
• Do you have contracted vessel or installation assets already booked? If yes, what are the cancellation/change penalty triggers? Options: Yes — high penalty, Yes — moderate penalty, Yes — low penalty, No vessels booked yet
• What is the estimated daily or weekly cost exposure if the installation campaign is delayed (ballpark)? Options: < $100k/day, $100k–$250k/day, $250k–$500k/day, > $500k/day, Don't know / prefer not to say

Who Owns the Interfaces — And Where Do They Break?

• Pick one interface you expect to be the most contentious (supplier↔SURF contractor, SURF↔host, supplier↔host) and tell us why it worries you. Options: Supplier ↔ SURF contractor, SURF contractor ↔ Host facility, Supplier ↔ Host facility, Multiple / all of the above
• For the following interfaces, who currently owns design responsibility and who owns installation responsibility? (Select all that apply.) Options: Supplier owns design, SURF contractor owns design, Host owns design, Supplier owns installation, SURF owns installation, Host owns installation, Shared / TBD
• Do you have a current RACI or interface matrix we can review, and when was it last updated? Options: Yes — uploaded and current, Yes — exists but outdated, No RACI exists, Partial RACI exists
• How have interface disagreements been resolved in past projects—formal change control, executive escalation, or informal compromise? Options: Formal change control, Executive escalation, Informal compromise, Mediation/third party, Other
• Are there technical interfaces (electrical, control, mechanical) where you require our vendor to absorb responsibility rather than share it? Please specify which and why.

What Trade‑Offs Would You Make to Protect the Schedule?

• If you had to choose today: accept a small schedule acceleration with higher technical risk, or protect technical margins and accept a longer manufacturing lead time—what would you pick and why? Options: Protect schedule (accept more technical risk), Protect technical margins (accept longer lead time), Depends on specific subsystem, Undecided
• What level of long‑term reliability do you require from equipment (e.g., 25‑year mean time between major interventions at 15k PSI)? Options: 25‑year reliability required, 20‑year acceptable, 15‑year minimum, Specify other (enter below)
• What is the maximum acceptable probability of an unplanned subsea intervention in the first 10 years (as a percentage)? Options: <1%, 1–3%, 3–5%, >5%, Unknown / no target
• Would you pay a premium to de‑risk schedule via vertical integration and controlled manufacturing lead times? If so, what premium range is reasonable? Options: No premium, Small premium (1–3%), Moderate premium (3–7%), Significant premium (>7%), Depends on guarantee terms
• If we proposed staged deliveries (critical long‑lead items first), what contractual milestones would you expect tied to those shipments? Options: Partial acceptance and payment, Performance guarantees, Warranty start tied to final installation, Other — describe below

What Happened Last Time That You Never Want Repeated?

• Tell us about a prior subsea procurement where schedule or reliability failed—what went wrong and who bore the consequences?
• Which vendor behaviors during that project reduced your trust the most (e.g., missed comms, hidden schedule slips, quality rework)? Options: Poor communication, Hidden schedule slips, Quality issues / rework, Scope creep without cost control, Failure to manage interfaces
• How do you usually validate a vendor’s manufacturing and testing claims—factory audits, reference visits, third‑party witness, document review? Options: Factory audit, Reference operator visit, Third‑party witness at FAT, Document & test evidence, Other
• What evidence would convince you that a vendor’s delivery credibility is high enough to base your installation campaign on their schedule? Options: Recent similar project on‑time delivery, Reference operator endorsement, Detailed integrated master schedule, Financial/insurance backstop, Other
• Are there specific suppliers, yards, or yards' constraints you prefer or want to avoid? Please explain.

Governance, Communication Rhythms, and Decision Speed

• What governance cadence has the best chance of keeping decisions moving—weekly tactical calls, biweekly steering, monthly exec reviews, or another rhythm? Options: Weekly tactical, Biweekly project team, Monthly steering, Ad hoc as needed, Other
• Who has the authority to approve design changes that affect the manufacturing critical path, and what is the expected approval turnaround time?
• If an urgent schedule risk emerges, what escalation path do you want us to use (technical lead → project director → executive sponsor)? Options: Technical lead → Project Director, Project Director → Executive Sponsor, Direct to Executive Sponsor, Use existing PMO escalation
• Which communication formats do stakeholders prefer for progress updates (dashboard, formal minutes, short highlight emails, or live review)? Options: Dashboard, Formal minutes, Highlight emails, Live review sessions, Combination
• Are there decision blackout periods (e.g., holidays, board months) when approvals typically stall? Options: Yes — specify (enter below), No
• If yes, please list those blackout periods and any special instructions for urgent approvals.

Commitments, Remedies, and What 'Mutual' Actually Means

• What contractual remedies do you expect if supplier delivery causes installation slip (LDs, schedule recovery plan, supplier‑funded offshore support)? Options: Liquidated damages, Schedule recovery obligations, Supplier funded contingency services, Shared risk approach, Other
• Would you prefer a firm price with tight delivery guarantees or a flexible price with shared risk on schedule? Why? Options: Firm price, tight delivery, Flexible price, shared risk, Hybrid — define milestones, Undecided
• What governance structure do you expect to resolve disputes quickly (joint steering committee, independent adjudicator, executive committee)? Options: Joint steering committee, Independent adjudicator, Executive committee, PMO mediated
• Which milestone(s) would you require before issuing a purchase order or moving to detailed design? Options: FEED complete, Commercial terms agreed, Schedule baseline accepted, Regulatory permits in place, Funding closed
• Are there specific acceptance, test or warranty metrics you require to be contractually guaranteed (e.g., FAT criteria, reliability targets)? Please list.

Quick Evidence Check: What We Should Review Together

• Which of these documents can you share with us to accelerate alignment (choose all that apply)? Options: Integrated project schedule (IMS/Gantt), RACI / interface matrix, Approval gate calendar, Weather window and vessel bookings, Technical specs / FEED outputs, None / not available
• Please upload or indicate where we can access the most current integrated schedule or note if you prefer to walk it through live. Options: Will upload, Share link, Prefer live walkthrough, Not available
• Who on your team should attend an initial alignment workshop to finalize decision roles and approval timelines?
• How soon would you be ready to hold that alignment workshop? Options: Within 1 week, Within 2–4 weeks, 1–2 months, Later / not sure
• Is there anything else—political, technical, or commercial—that would materially change how we approach your delivery schedule?

Opening Snapshot — A Quick Project Reality Check

• Which phase best describes where your project sits today? Options: Pre-FEED, FEED underway, FEED complete / awaiting sanction, Sanctioned — detailed design, Manufacturing started, Fabrication complete / testing, Ready for shipment
• Please list the top 4 milestone dates (sanction, manufacturing start, shipment window, first-oil) and the single date you cannot miss without severe cost or schedule impact.
• What is the formal installation weather window and how firm is that window? Options: Fixed and contractually constrained, Guideline with some flex, Tentative / under review, Not defined yet
• Who on your team owns the subsea equipment delivery schedule and who owns installation campaign coordination (name, role, and contact preference)?
• On a scale of confidence, how would you rate your current on-time delivery probability for subsea equipment? Options: >90% confident, 75–90% confident, 50–75% confident, <50% confident, Unsure

If This Ship Misses the Weather Window — What Are We Really Afraid Of?

• If the subsea deliveries slip beyond the planned weather window, what are the most serious business outcomes you expect? Options: 1-year campaign delay, > $100M cost overrun, Host facility idle time, Regulatory / contractual penalties, Loss of license to operate, Re-sequencing drilling schedule
• Quantify the financial exposure or schedule slip that turns a delivery delay into an existential problem for the project (estimate or range).
• What are the non-financial consequences (reputation, stakeholder confidence, regulatory timelines) that worry you most if the installation is missed?
• What contingency plans would you trigger if a key delivery missed the weather window (defer installation, charter additional vessel, compress commissioning, other)? Options: Defer installation to next season, Charter additional vessel(s), Compress commissioning activities, Split campaign across windows, Negotiate schedule with host/contractor, Other
• How quickly do you need an accurate root-cause and remediation plan from your supplier after a delivery slip to consider the situation under control? Options: Within 24 hours, 48–72 hours, One week, Two weeks

Who Holds the Keys — Decision, Approvals, and the Politics of Schedule

• If delivery dates become negotiable, who has final authority to approve schedule trade-offs (names/roles from owner, procurement, project, operations)?
• How does your internal approval timeline for scope or design changes typically compare to manufacturing lead times (faster, aligned, or slower)? Options: Faster than manufacturing, Roughly aligned, Slower — approval is a bottleneck, Variable / project-dependent
• Who are the external parties (SURF contractor, FPU owner, host integrator) that must sign interface deliverables before shipment, and what are their typical response times?
• When schedule pressure rises, who within your organization is usually empowered to accept increased technical or commercial risk to meet dates? Options: Project Director, VP Development, Procurement Lead, Operations Manager, Joint-venture committee, No single empowered owner
• Describe a past decision where schedule pressure forced a compromise—what was traded, who pushed for it, and what was the outcome?

Hidden Long‑Lead Risks We Can’t Afford to Ignore

• Which components on your bill-of-materials are long‑lead today (for example: Christmas trees, high‑pressure valves, forged bodies, control-module semiconductors, umbilicals)? Options: Subsea trees, Manifolds, High-pressure valves, Forged bodies, Control electronics, Umbilicals / termination assemblies, FCP / control pods, Other
• For each critical long‑lead item listed, what is the latest acceptable procurement / hold point to keep the manufacturing critical path intact?
• Which long‑lead items do you currently have purchase orders for, and which are still subject to lead-time negotiation? Options: All critical POs issued, Most issued, a few pending, Key long‑lead items pending, No long‑lead POs issued
• How resilient is your plan to supply‑chain disruption (dual sourcing, buffer inventory, expedited options)? Options: High resilience (multiple sources), Moderate (some alternatives), Low (single-source dependency), No plan / unknown
• If a specific long‑lead vendor cannot deliver on time, how do you prefer we handle substitution or redesign decisions (rapid ECR, approved vendor list, joint impact assessment)? Options: Rapid ECR with 48–72h decision, Use pre‑approved alternate vendors, Joint impact assessment then executive decision, Prefer to wait for original vendor

When Vendors Didn’t Deliver — Stories that Still Sting

• Tell us about a recent project where vendor delivery or quality issues created major schedule or reliability problems—what happened and what was the root cause?
• How do you currently measure vendor performance on subsea packages (on‑time delivery, quality NCRs, testing pass rates, technical backlogs)? Options: On‑time delivery, Quality / NCR count, FAT/HIL success rate, Engineering change frequency, Claims / disputes history, Other
• Which vendor performance issue worries you the most going into manufacturing (engineering rework, shop capacity, test failures, supply-chain shortfalls)? Options: Engineering rework, Shop capacity constraints, Test failures at FAT/HIL, Supply-chain shortages, Logistics/transport delays
• What remedies or contractual levers have worked for you in the past to accelerate recovery when a vendor slipped? Options: Liquidated damages, Supplier recovery plans, Vendor performance bonds, Fast-track additional resources, Joint steering committee
• How transparent are your current vendors about lead times and capacity (openly share calendars, intermittent updates, opaque/unreliable)? Options: Open and proactive, Reactive but adequate, Opaque/unreliable, Unknown

Where Systems Meet—and Systems Often Break

• What are the primary integration points between your subsea equipment and SURF/FPU systems (electrical control, hydraulic interfaces, mechanical connectors, software APIs)? Options: Electrical control / umbilical, Hydraulic actuation interfaces, Mechanical wet‑mate connectors, Flowline / riser interfaces, Control system software/API, Instrumentation / sensors
• Which interface has historically caused the most disputes or rework on your projects? Options: Mechanical connectors, Electrical/harnessing, Hydraulic interfaces, Control software integration, Testing acceptance criteria
• Who is formally responsible for each interface sign‑off (supplier, SURF contractor, host OEM), and are those responsibilities documented in interface control documents (ICDs)? Options: Clearly documented and owned, Documented but not enforced, Informally agreed, Not documented
• What is your current plan for interface verification (joint FAT/HIL, onshore integration, on‑vessel pre‑lay tests) and where are the gaps? Options: Joint FAT/HIL planned, Separate vendor FAT then integration, On‑vessel pre‑lay tests only, No clear verification plan
• How do you prefer to resolve interface mismatches discovered late in the program (technical working group, executive escalation, third‑party adjudication)? Options: Technical working group, Executive escalation, Contractual mediation, Third‑party review

Worst‑Case Failure Scenarios — Let’s Imagine the Headlines

• If we assume a severe subsea failure after installation, what single outcome would be the worst for your organization (long intervention, production loss, safety incident, regulatory action)? Options: Extended intervention campaign, Major production loss, Safety/environmental incident, Regulatory / license issues, Severe reputational damage
• What are the primary failure modes you worry about for your subsea architecture (leakage at connector, valve seizure, control electronics failure, manifold structural fatigue)? Options: Connector leakage, Valve seizure/failure, Control electronics failure, Manifold/structural fatigue, Umbilical damage, Other
• How frequently have you experienced each of these failure modes on prior projects (never, rare, occasional, recurring)? Options: Never, Rare, Occasional, Recurring
• What mitigations do you currently rely on to reduce intervention risk (redundancy, conservative design margins, accelerated HIL testing, spares strategy)? Options: Redundancy, Conservative design margins, Accelerated HIL/FAT testing, Onshore integration testing, Strategic spares, Rapid intervention contracts
• If a failure mode did emerge in the field, what would you want your supplier to deliver first—root-cause analysis, temporary bypass solution, expedited replacement hardware, or on-site support? Options: Root‑cause analysis, Temporary bypass solution, Expedited replacement hardware, On‑site technical support

Testing, Inspection and Acceptance — Where Confidence Is Earned or Lost

• What FAT/HIL and acceptance tests are critical for you to sign equipment off for shipment, and which are not negotiable? Options: Full system FAT/HIL, Pressure testing at rated PSI, Software-in-the-loop validation, Mechanical proof-loads, Witnessed testing by owner
• How strictly do your acceptance criteria map to 25‑year reliability expectations (do you require accelerated life testing, vendor reliability data, field performance references)? Options: Require accelerated life testing, Require field performance references, Accept vendor reliability data, Combination
• Who must be present or grant final acceptance at FAT/HIL (owner team, third‑party inspector, SURF representative)? Options: Owner team, Third‑party inspector, SURF representative, Vendor QA lead, Other
• What documentation do you require with delivered equipment (test certificates, traceability, maintenance procedures, interface drawings)? Options: Test certificates, Material traceability, Maintenance & spare parts lists, Interface drawings / ICDs, Software revision control
• If a test fails at FAT/HIL, what governance do you expect for remediation (joint corrective action plan, vendor redesign, executive review)? Options: Joint CAP with timeline, Vendor redesign and retest, Executive steering committee, Third‑party review

What Schedule Slack Would Actually Keep You Sleep at Night?

• How much schedule contingency (weeks or months) do you currently have between critical equipment handover and the installation window? Options: >6 months, 3–6 months, 1–3 months, <1 month
• What minimum reliability or intervention risk do you require from equipment to accept compressed commissioning (e.g., allowable probability of intervention in first 5 years)? Options: <0.5% per year, 0.5–1% per year, 1–2% per year, Unspecified / qualitative
• Are there hard contract dates that cannot be moved under any circumstance (e.g., drilling rig demobilization, insurance windows)? If so, list them.
• What level of reporting cadence and transparency from suppliers makes you comfortable when schedule risk is elevated (daily standups, weekly RAG reports, milestone dashboards)? Options: Daily standups, Twice-weekly updates, Weekly RAG reports, Monthly milestones only, On-demand deep dives
• Would you consider schedule‑risk mitigations that increase cost (e.g., overtime manufacturing, premium logistics)? If yes, under what conditions? Options: Yes — up to a defined cost cap, Yes — if critical to weather window, Maybe — case by case, No

Documentation, Records and Traceability — The Paperwork That Keeps Things Moving

• Which documents are mandatory before shipment for you to accept handover (ICDs, FAT reports, material certificates, serialization, test records)? Options: ICDs/interface drawings, FAT/HIL reports, Material certificates, Serialization/traceability, Maintenance manuals, Software release notes
• How do you prefer document exchange and version control to be handled (shared repository, PLM access, email bundles, EDM with permissions)? Options: Shared PLM/EDM with access, Secure file share / repo, Email bundles with sign-off, Vendor portal
• Are there specific supplier QA metrics or dashboards you require during manufacturing (weekly NCR counts, open nonconformances, test pass rate)? Options: NCR counts, Open NC aging, Test pass rate, Schedule vs planned weeks, Other
• Who on your side will be responsible for reviewing and approving these documents and metrics, and what is their typical turnaround?
• Do you require third‑party inspection or certification for specific items (forging sign-off, pressure vessel stamp, classification society approval)? Options: Yes — forging/pressure vessels, Yes — control/electrical systems, Yes — materials verification, No, Under discussion

What Would Make You Feel Confident Enough to Move Forward?

• If you had one simple deliverable from a supplier this week that would materially reduce your project anxiety, what would it be (revised integrated schedule, risk register, supplier capacity proof, sample FAT report)? Options: Revised integrated schedule, Detailed risk register, Supplier capacity & resource plan, Preliminary FAT report with results, List of long‑lead PO statuses
• How important is supplier vertical integration (forging → machining → assembly) versus lowest cost when the calendar is the single binding constraint? Options: Vital — schedule control trumps cost, Important — balanced with cost, Neutral — cost prioritized, Unsure
• What governance forum would you value to manage schedule and design changes (weekly steering committee, joint change board, commercial review meeting)? Options: Weekly steering committee, Joint engineering change board, Commercial review on milestones, Escalation matrix only
• Are you open to a collaborative ‘what‑if’ re-sequencing exercise with manufacturing and SURF to preserve the installation window? Options: Yes — immediate workshop, Yes — within weeks, Maybe — need executive approval, No

Concrete Next Steps — What We Need From You to De‑Risk Delivery

• If we were to prepare a prioritized mitigation plan, which three items must it include to be useful to you?
• Which stakeholder(s) must be involved in a rapid alignment workshop to make binding decisions (name roles: Project Director, VP Development, SURF lead, Procurement)?
• What data package would you be willing to share to accelerate our assessment (current Gantt, POs, vendor lead‑time confirmations, FAT reports)? Options: Full Gantt / schedule, PO & supplier lead‑time confirmations, FAT/HIL reports, Interface control docs, All of the above
• How soon can you commit to a 90‑minute alignment session to review critical path, long‑lead status, and interface gating items? Options: Within 48 hours, Within 1 week, Within 2 weeks, Later / unsure
• Finally, what would success from this Current State Mapping look like for you in one sentence?

Quick Pulse: Your Project in One Sentence

• In one short sentence, what single outcome must this subsea procurement deliver for your sanction to be judged a success?
• How far is your target first‑oil date from today? Options: < 12 months, 12–18 months, 18–24 months, 24–36 months, 36+ months
• Where does your installation campaign’s primary weather window fall relative to that first‑oil target? Options: Firmly inside the campaign window, Tightly coupled to the window (low slack), Split across two seasons, Outside the preferred window (high risk), Unknown / still being defined
• Who are the three core decision‑makers we should be talking to on schedule, technical acceptance, and commercial risk (name and role)?
• How would you rate your team’s current confidence that the subsea equipment vendor will meet the delivery date that aligns with the installation campaign? Options: Very confident, Somewhat confident, Low confidence, Not confident at all

If the Delivery Slipped a Year, What Keeps You Up at Night?

• If manufacturing slipped twelve months, what single cascading impact would you fear most for the project (cost, regulatory, reservoir, partner support, other)?
• Estimate the incremental cost impact of a one‑year slip on the project. Options: <$50M, $50–150M, $150–300M, $300–500M, >$500M / unknown
• What portion of the overall schedule is rigid because it must align with a vessel/weather window (answer as a percentage and explain what’s inflexible)?
• Have you experienced a weather‑window driven delay on a previous project? If yes, briefly describe the consequence and how you recovered. Options: Yes — major impact, Yes — moderate impact, Yes — minor impact, No
• Who, in your organization, would be most affected politically or financially if the installation missed the weather window?

Are You Betting on Manufacturers to Carry the Schedule?

• Do you feel your incumbent or preferred manufacture path is actually holding the schedule, or are they buying time with optimistic forecasts?
• Which vendor performance KPIs do you require to trust a manufacturing schedule? Options: On‑time delivery of milestones, On‑budget delivery, Yield / defect rates, Supplier lead‑time adherence, Testing pass rates, Other
• Which manufacturing milestones should trigger escalation calls (choose all that apply)? Options: Forging completion, Machining complete, Assembly start, FAT scheduled, HIL scheduled, Shipment readiness
• How frequently would you like formal, auditable progress reviews from the manufacturer? Options: Weekly, Bi‑weekly, Monthly, Milestone‑based only, Ad‑hoc on request
• What contractual remedies or incentives have you found effective for keeping manufacturers accountable (brief examples welcome)?

Where Do Interfaces Tend to Break—and Why?

• Which interface in your execution plan do you quietly worry will derail installation if not perfectly aligned?
• Please identify the primary technical integration points you expect us to own or coordinate (select all that apply). Options: Tree‑to‑umbilical control, Manifold‑to‑flowline connection, Control system to FPU integration, Umbilical termination and hang‑off, Assembly lift and loadout interfaces, Testing & commissioning data handover
• Who currently owns final interface sign‑off for each critical interface you listed (operator, SURF contractor, vendor, host FPU)? Options: Operator, SURF contractor, Vendor, Host FPU/owner, Joint sign‑off/other
• How mature are your interface documents (PIMs, ITPs, joint checklists) today? Options: Final and mutually signed, Draft under review, High‑level only, Not yet started
• Tell us about one interface dispute you’ve seen and what ultimately caused the delay — e.g., unclear ownership, late data, or test failures.

What Would 'On‑time, Low‑risk Delivery' Really Look Like?

• If you could write the acceptance criteria for an ‘on‑time, low‑risk delivery’ in one sentence, what would it say?
• Which of these success signals are non‑negotiable for you? Options: First‑oil date met, 25‑year reliability at 15k PSI proven, FAT + HIL passed with operator witness, All critical interface signoffs before shipment, Delivery within installation window
• What is your maximum acceptable probability of requiring an intervention vessel in the first five years (choose range)? Options: <0.5%, 0.5–1%, 1–2%, 2–5%, >5% / unsure
• How many weeks of schedule slippage (from vendor delivery) can you tolerate before the project becomes commercially at risk? Options: 0–4 weeks, 5–8 weeks, 9–16 weeks, 17–26 weeks, >26 weeks
• Which acceptance tests or performance metrics must be demonstrated before you approve shipment (list and rank if possible)?

How Much Design Change Is Too Much Once Manufacturing Starts?

• At what point after manufacturing begins would even a small design change become unacceptable to you? Options: Before raw material procurement, After forging starts, After assembly begins, After FAT is complete, Never acceptable
• Historically, how often have design changes been introduced after manufacture started on similar projects? Options: Never, Rarely (once), Occasionally (2–3 times), Frequently (4+ times)
• Who in your approval chain is empowered to sign an urgent design change that affects schedule, and what is their typical lead time for a decision?
• What financial allocation or contingency level are you willing to accept for late design changes? Options: None — vendor absorbs, Small fixed contingency, Shared cost model, Operator absorbs
• If rework is required, what is the maximum additional calendar time you would accept per affected unit before you consider alternate routes (repair, replacement, redesign)? Options: <4 weeks, 4–8 weeks, 8–16 weeks, >16 weeks

What Would Make You Trust Our Reliability Claims?

• Would a vendor’s claim of 25‑year reliability at 15k PSI feel credible without field reference installations and detailed test evidence? Options: Yes — if independent test data provided, Maybe — depends on test depth, No — need field references
• Which proof points would most convince you (select up to three)? Options: Field installations with similar specs, Full FAT/HIL data packages, Third‑party certification, Accelerated life testing, OEM material traceability and metallurgy records
• How many comparable installations (depth/pressure/chemistry) do you expect as a minimum before you feel comfortable? Options: None required, 1–5, 6–20, 20+
• Would you require operator‑witnessed FAT/HIL events, and if so, which ones absolutely must be witnessed? Options: Full system FAT, Critical closure system HIL, Control system integration tests, Witnessing optional — data review acceptable
• What warranty or post‑installation support terms would meaningfully de‑risk the perceived reliability gap for you?

If We Could Remove One Manufacturing Uncertainty, Which Would You Choose?

• If you could eliminate a single manufacturing risk tomorrow, which would free the most schedule pressure—long‑lead procurement, assembly bottlenecks, testing capacity, or QA/inspection delays? Options: Long‑lead procurement, Assembly bottlenecks, Testing capacity constraints, QA/inspection delays, Other
• Please list the long‑lead items you consider critical and their current lead times.
• Are alternative or dual‑source suppliers prequalified for any of those long‑lead items? Options: Yes — fully prequalified, Partially prequalified, No — single source, Unknown
• Would you accept staged or modular shipments (e.g., send test‑ready modules earlier) to de‑risk the installation schedule? Options: Yes — actively prefer, Maybe — depends on cost and interfaces, No — prefer single integrated shipment
• How would you like progress on these critical items communicated (dashboard cadence and minimum metrics)? Options: Weekly dashboard with Gantt & % complete, Bi‑weekly written report, Monthly executive summary, Real‑time access to vendor schedule

Who Holds the Button on Installation Day?

• If an unexpected issue appears during loadout or SURF hookup, who is authorized to stop or alter the operation and what criteria must they cite?
• Do you have a joint governance and escalation plan for installation execution today? Options: Yes — formal with RACI, Drafts exist, No — ad‑hoc arrangements, Unknown
• Which contingency triggers should auto‑pause the operation (select all that apply)? Options: Weather exceedance threshold, Failure of critical test, Interface misalignment found, Unplanned equipment damage, Regulatory hold
• What documentation and interface signoffs must be completed and verified before shipment leaves the yard? Options: Final ITPs, Operator witness FAT/HIL certificates, Signed interface checklists, Loadout engineering drawings, All of the above
• What level of vendor onsite support do you expect during loadout and first‑lift installation (team size, roles, duration)?

What Would It Take to Move to Mutual Commit?

• What single commercial or governance change would persuade you to mutually commit within 30 days (e.g., revised milestone, performance bond, staged liability, increased witness rights)?
• Which commercial terms are absolute deal‑stoppers if not present? Options: Liquidated damages for late delivery, Performance bond, Long‑term warranty, Acceptance criteria tied to payment, None — flexible
• What risk allocation for delivery delays do you find acceptable? Options: Vendor bears most risk, Shared risk with clear triggers, Operator bears most risk, Case‑by‑case negotiation
• What governance cadence would you want after mutual commit (steering committee frequency, technical working groups, vendor PMO touchpoints)? Options: Weekly program meeting + monthly steering, Bi‑weekly technical + monthly exec, Monthly only, As required / milestone driven
• Who on your side must sign the mutual‑commit and what is their realistic decision timeline?

How this project landed on your desk

• Tell us briefly: what is the sanctioned project name, your role, and the single biggest outcome you’re accountable for?
• When was the investment committee sanction and what is the target first‑oil month (or installation campaign window)?
• Where are you in vendor selection / contracting today? Options: FEED only, Shortlisting vendors, Negotiating supply contract, Contract signed, manufacturing planning, Other
• Who on your team will be the day‑to‑day contact for subsea equipment delivery and integration?
• If you had to name one project metric that feels most at risk today, what is it (e.g., first‑oil date, installation window adherence, capital cost, production ramp)? Options: First‑oil date, Installation window adherence, CapEx, Production ramp, Operational uptime / reliability, Other

Who’s actually holding the watch?

• If your team had to bet on where the real decision friction will show up, what unexpected stakeholder will most likely slow approvals or change scope?
• List the approval owners and influencers for design, schedule, procurement, and budget (names, roles, and their absolute deadline constraints).
• How aligned are the following groups on schedule and risk appetite? Options: Fully aligned, Mostly aligned with minor differences, Significant misalignment on schedule, Significant misalignment on risk, Unknown / unclear
• Which single stakeholder’s sign‑off has historically caused the largest schedule slips in your projects? Options: Operator technical authority, Procurement/PCO, Finance/Investment, SURF contractor lead, Host facility owner, Other
• How does each key stakeholder define “on‑time, low‑risk delivery” in measurable terms?
• Who is empowered to approve schedule or design changes after contract award, and what escalation path do you expect for disputes?

Where projects like this usually fail — tell me your story

• When you look back at comparable subsea projects, what single failure mode would you say caused the largest cost/time impact? Options: Manufacturing delay on long‑lead, Integration mismatch with SURF/FPU, Late design changes, Poor vendor quality control, Logistics/loadout delays, Other
• Which long‑lead components keep you awake at night (select all that apply)? Options: Forgings / machined bodies, Control system electronics, Umbilical cores, High‑pressure valves, Specialty coatings / materials, Other
• Give a concrete example of a vendor performance issue you’ve faced (what happened, timeline impact, how it was resolved).
• Where do your integration points with SURF and the host FPU create the most uncertainty (mechanical interfaces, control logic, schedule handoffs, testing)? Options: Mechanical interfaces, Control & communications, Schedule handoffs, Testing & acceptance, All of the above, Other
• Describe a near‑miss or close call on a past project—what early signals were missed and what would you want to capture earlier next time?
• How do previous supplier warranties, workmanship records, or reference projects influence your current vendor risk tolerance?

If time slips, how bad does it get?

• If the subsea equipment delivery shifts beyond your weather‑window by one month, does that delay mean a few extra days or a full year of cost and schedule escalation? Options: A few days / manageable, Several weeks with cost pressure, Likely a full campaign slip (~12 months), Unsure
• What is your absolute last acceptable installation season (month/year) before first‑oil is compromised?
• How do you currently quantify the cost of a slipped installation campaign (vessel day‑rate exposure, deferred production loss, contractual penalties)? Options: Vessel day‑rate & mobilization, Deferred production revenue, Contractual liquidated damages, Rework & re‑mobilization costs, Combination of the above
• What contingency triggers do you want explicitly defined (e.g., X‑week manufacturing delay triggers alternative procurement or chartering of a standby vessel)?
• Have you modelled compressed commissioning (shortened FAT, parallel testing) as an acceptable mitigation—what margin of schedule compression is tolerable? Options: None, 1–2 weeks, 2–4 weeks, 4+ weeks, Unsure

What would 25 years of trouble‑free production actually look like to you?

• What specific reliability metrics matter most: MTTF, probability of intervention over 25 years, allowable leak rate, or something else? Options: MTTF / MTBR, Intervention probability, Leak / emission limits, Pressure hold / integrity metrics, Other
• How do you define an acceptable intervention risk (e.g., 1 intervention per 25 years, per system, per cluster)? Options: No more than 1 intervention in 25 years, 1–2 interventions in 25 years, As low as reasonably practicable, Undetermined / need to define
• Which success signals will you use to sign off the subsea system at commissioning (first‑oil achieved, performance vs acceptance curves, demonstrable reliability tests)? Options: First‑oil on scheduled date, Performance vs acceptance criteria, Successful HIL / FAT results, Zero critical defects at installation, Other
• What hard constraints on capex or schedule are non‑negotiable, and where are you willing to trade cost for schedule or vice versa?
• How emotionally costly would an unplanned intervention be for your team—what reputational or career exposure do you consider?

Do you trust the maker to own the timeline?

• When a vendor promises vertical integration will guarantee schedule, what would make you skeptical rather than reassured?
• Rate your current confidence in supplier manufacturing delivery on comparable projects. Options: Very high, Moderately high, Neutral, Moderately low, Very low
• Which manufacturing milestones are on your critical path and must be visible weekly (e.g., forging completion, machining start, assembly start, HIL test window)? Options: Forging completion, Machining start, Assembly start, System integration, HIL/FAT window, Other
• What evidence would you need to prove the supplier’s manufacturing control—sample KPIs, factory tour, third‑party audit, or test data? Options: Factory tour / witness, KPI dashboard, Third‑party audit, Detailed test reports, Reference project visit, Other
• Are there supply‑chain single points of failure you’re most worried about (specialty vendors, single source forgings, proprietary electronics)? Please list and indicate lead times.

What would make you pause before we loaded out?

• What minimum set of tests and signoffs do you require before authorizing shipment to the installation site? Options: Complete FAT & HIL passed, Mechanical interface signoffs, Documentation & spares verified, Quality certificates and NDE reports, All of the above, Other
• Who has authority to sign final acceptance for shipment and what documentation do they require?
• How do you prefer acceptance evidence to be presented—detailed test logs, executive summary with KPIs, video of critical tests, or live witness? Options: Detailed test logs, Executive KPI summary, Video evidence, Live witness (onsite/remote), Combination
• Which interface signoffs from SURF and FPU must be in place before loadout? Options: Mechanical mating drawings, Control system comms test, Installation method statement, Loadout and transport certificates, All of the above
• What spare parts and critical consumables do you insist are shipped with the first delivery, and who inventories them on receipt?

If the schedule breaks, who does what and when?

• What remedies do you expect for supplier‑caused delivery delays (liquidated damages, accelerated deliveries, replacement equipment, performance bonds)? Options: Liquidated damages, Accelerated production at supplier expense, Replacement units, Performance bonds/guarantees, Other
• Describe your preferred governance cadence for resolving schedule or design changes (weekly program reviews, executive steering, joint change board). Options: Weekly program review, Biweekly technical working group, Executive steering committee, Joint change control board, Other
• Who are the named escalation contacts (operator, supplier, SURF contractor) you want on a critical‑path call within 24 hours of a trigger?
• What contractual mechanisms have you used before that actually worked to speed recovery—what would you want to keep or avoid?
• How do you expect post‑installation support to be structured (on‑call OEM teams, spares pool, guaranteed MTTR targets)? Options: On‑call OEM team, Dedicated on‑site support, Spares pool managed by operator, Guaranteed MTTR targets in contract, Other

If you could lock three non‑negotiables into the contract, what would they be?

• Please list and rank up to five non‑negotiable items (e.g., absolute delivery month, defined intervention risk, acceptance criteria, penalty structure).
• Which of these are tradeable if we offered more schedule certainty, and which are absolute red lines?
• How often would you like a shared program dashboard updated and who needs access (project team, exec sponsor, SURF contractor)? Options: Daily (critical phases), Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, On key milestones only
• Would a dedicated shared channel for issues and continuous improvement (e.g., joint Slack/Teams channel) help your governance and fast decision making? Options: Yes, Maybe, No
• Realistically, how soon should we schedule a joint workshop to translate these non‑negotiables into practical milestones and acceptance tests? Options: Within 1 week, 1–2 weeks, Within a month, Longer / TBD