Research Project

E – State 3 alternative approaches for the project (i.e. different forms of transportation). (1 page)

F – In your opinion, was the railway approach the best approach to have been selected?  Support your rationale using PV, NPV, IRR, B/C. (1 page)

I – Using a GANTT chart, provide a high-level schedule for the project. (1 page)

P – Describe at least 3 lessons that can be learned from this project. (1 page)

R – Other – Your weekly summaries (1 page)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcen20

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering

ISSN: 1448-8353 (Print) 2204-2245 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcen20

The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project
management

Dick Lees

To cite this article: Dick Lees (2005) The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management,
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, 2:1, 25-36, DOI: 10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916

Published online: 22 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View related articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcen20

https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcen20

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916

https://doi.org/10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tcen20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tcen20&show=instructions

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/14488353.2005.11463916

25

© Institue of Engineers, Australia 2005

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol 2, No 1.

technical paper

* Invited special focus paper accepted after review
(April 2005)

The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project
management*

Dick Lees
General Manager, Special Projects, Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd

Honorary Fellow, Institution of Engineers, Australia
Fellow, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

SUMMARY: This paper describes the project management of the 1420 kilometre Alice Springs to
Darwin railway. The sponsor group included the Commonwealth, South Australian and Northern
Territory Governments. The Asia Pacific Transport Consortium delivered the new line under a
BOOT contract with the AustralAsia Railway Corporation. KBR invited the John Holland Group,
Barclay Mowlem, Macmahon Holdings and Australian Railroad Group – all industry leaders – to
join it in forming the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium. Funding was provided by both sponsor
and deliverer under a BOOT structure.

Project managing the design and construction is outlined, including the whole of life approach,
quality, procurement, cost control and industrial relations.

1 BACKGROUND

The 1420-kilometre Alice Springs – Darwin rail
line completes the Adelaide to Darwin Railway,
thereby connecting all mainland states with the
north of Australia and creating a ‘landbridge’ to
Asia. It is a visionary project that will open up trade
opportunities within Australia and overseas, and
foster the development of regional industries.

Asia Pacific Transport, a consortium led by Kellogg
Brown & Root Pty Ltd (KBR), succeeded in
delivering the line ahead of schedule, within budget,
and with excellent safety, industrial relations and
local industry participation records. This success
can be attributed to the consortium’s management
approach, which was characterised by excellent
planning, commitment to innovation, and building
good relations with stakeholders.

The Asia Pacific Transport Consortium delivered the
new rail line under a BOOT (build, own, operate,
transfer) contract with the AustralAsia Railway

Corporation, which represents the interests of the
Commonwealth, South Australian and Northern
Territory governments. Design and construction of
the railway was contracted by Asia Pacific Transport
to a design and construction joint venture (ADrail),
and was completed in October 2003. Operations
commenced in January 2004. FreightLink, the
consortium’s operating company, will manage rail
services for the first 50 years of the railway’s life.
This includes maintaining and operating the Tarcoola
– Alice Springs line and overseeing port terminal
operations at Darwin’s East Arm Port.

The rail link will enable more efficient transport of
goods between northern and southern Australia,
and by reducing the time it takes for freight to
reach Darwin, shipping to vital Asian markets will
also be more cost-effective. The completed railway
is opening up new opportunities for industries like
mining, agriculture, aquaculture and tourism.

Constructed at a total cost of more than A$1.4 billion,
this is one of the largest infrastructure developments
ever undertaken in Australia. The construction
project required 2 million sleepers (Fig 1), 8 million
sleeper clips, 2.5 million tonnes of ballast (Fig 2), 2800

26

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 27

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

km of rail, 15 million cubic metres of earthworks (Fig
3), 100,000 m of corrugated steel pipe for culverts,
and material for 93 bridges, including crossings of
the Katherine and Elizabeth rivers.

The consortium members did not just have their
reputations at stake, but hundreds of millions of
dollars of their own and their investors’ money. How

Figure 1: Sleeper handling Figure 2: Ballast transport

Figure 3: Bulk earthworks

the project was managed was all-important.

Planning began well before the start of the project.
The first step was to assemble the right team, so KBR
invited the John Holland Group, Barclay Mowlem,
Macmahon Holdings and Australian Railroad Group
– all industry leaders – to join it in forming the Asia
Pacific Transport Consortium.

26
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 27
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

2 PROJECT STRUCTURE AND FINANCING

Successfully completing a project like this took
more than technical expertise, more than the wealth
of experience on large-scale projects that all Asia
Pacific Transport sponsors had. It demanded their
total belief in the future of the railway, as is evidenced
by their willingness to underwrite well over half the
railway’s total cost.

KBR managed the bidding process, led negotiations
and ensured the financial support was in place. KBR
also led the design and construct joint venture, called
ADrail.

Following complex negotiations, the AustralAsia
Railway Corporation and Asia Pacific Transport
entered into a Concession Deed providing the
framework for the design, construction and operation
of the railway. This deed came into force at Financial
Close, which involved 112 different signatories
checking and signing 333 project documents.

The AustralAsia Railway Corporation provided
$480 million of funding. The remainder (about $900
million) was raised by the consortium.

As a PPP project, the Alice–Darwin Railway is
important on several levels. It has:
• allowed government to provide major

civil infrastructure with limited financial
commitment and risk;

• enabled taxpayers’ funds to be deployed
elsewhere;

• maximised industry participation;

• generated private-sector revenue;

• introduced commercial best practices.

It has also shown the Australian financial community
that deals of this magnitude can be done, and done
extremely well: the Alice–Darwin Railway Project
was named Global Finance’s Asia Pacific Infrastructure
Deal of the Year in 2001 and Euromoney’s PPP Deal
of the Year in 2002.

To help ensure the project’s viability, the
consortium:
• assembled a team with expertise in

operations, rail, logistics, design, construction,
maintenance and project management, with
the ability to self-perform these tasks, thus
reducing the need to use more expensive
methods of subcontracting the works;

• developed strategies for efficient and speedy
construction of the new railway, incorporating
innovative engineering and construction
solutions and logistics planning that

significantly increased the rate and reliability
of trackworks construction;

• drew on the sponsors’ collective experience
in the construction of railways in remote
locations, and experience in working with
indigenous communities and maximising local
content and labour – this in turn enabled a
reduced cost structure;

• negotiated to include the existing railway from
Tarcoola to Alice Springs in the project from
commencement of construction of the new line,
giving the benefit of the operational revenue to
the project finances;

• structured the rail access code to provide a
commercial framework to the consortium
and its financiers for other competitive access
seekers;

• gained support from the transport industry;

• negotiated a Concession Deed with the
AustralAsia Railway Corporation that placed
project and operational risk with the party
best able to manage risk; in this respect the
AustralAsia Railway Corporation accepted
risks associated with land title, legislative
requirements, indigenous matters and other
matters outside the control of the consortium;

• maximised the opportunities provided by the
recently completed Port of Darwin, which
has a dedicated freight terminal giving direct
access to the railway. This combination
of infrastructure enabled the consortium
to develop a business plan that combines
domestic business with international trade.

Construction risk was supported by joint and
several completion guarantees from the consortium
members’ parent companies for fixed-time, fixed-
price project delivery.

Having regard to the linear construction risk of the
project, liquidated damages were provided for 6%
of the construction contract value. Additionally, the
project sponsors used insurance bonding to provide
additional security support for the government
funding program, particularly over the first
24 months of construction.

2.1 Scheduling

As shown in Table 1, the time from project initiation
to project delivery was a little over six years. This
is a real achievement, considering the challenges of
this greenfield project. The construction schedule
was especially tight – just 30 months. Financial close
was achieved later than expected, which put further
pressure on the schedule.

28

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 29

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

Table 1: Project milestones

November 1997 Submission of expression of interest to tender for the BOOT project.
Approximately 26 EOIs were received by the AustralAsia Railway
Corporation

February 1998 Shortlisting of 3 tenderers

March 1998 to March 1999 Tender submission was prepared in this period including design and
construction; maintenance plans; business plans; financial packaging,
equity, debt and government contribution to the project; traffic forecasts
for domestic and international freight; financial models; company details
in support of consortium make-up, structure and ability to deliver;
concession deed compliance

June 1999 Asia Pacific Transport achieved preferred tenderer status to enable
further negotiations to take place with the AustralAsia Railway
Corporation on key contracts and financial matters

November 1999 The consortium received the mandate from governments to deliver
the project and to go forward to complete the project and financial
documentation, finalise equity and debt provisions and achieve
contractual completion and financial close

April 2001 Financial close was achieved, enabling the design and construction
joint venture to commence construction of the Alice Springs – Darwin
line (and the consortium to take over operation of the existing Tarcoola
– Alice Springs line)

October 2003 Design and construction of the railway and the Darwin port was
completed and handed over to the consortium

January 2004 Accreditation was obtained, commissioning testing of the railway
completed, rolling stock procured, access agreement prescribed to
enable operations to commence

The contractual date for completion of the design and construction works was 30 March 2004 to enable
operations to commence on 1 April 2004. However, there were obvious advantages in commencing operations
early, so the start-up date was moved forward to 15 January 2004. Construction was formally completed on
31 October 2003 with the issue of the Design and Construction Completion Certificate by the Independent
Certifier. Progress and controls are shown in Figures 4, 5, and 6.

2.2 Project management

Asia Pacific Transport let the design and construction
contract to ADrail, an unincorporated joint venture
comprising KBR, John Holland, Barclay Mowlem
and Macmahon.

All personnel who worked on the design and
construction project were either seconded by the
ADrail partners, or directly employed by ADrail.
The selection criterion for project personnel was best
candidate for the job, regardless of which company
he or she came from. The Project Management
Team, however, was structured to include a senior
representative of each the partners:

• Project Director: KBR

• Commercial Manager: Barclay Mowlem

• Design and Construction Manager: John
Holland

• Design Manager: KBR

• Construction Manager: Macmahon.
The Joint Venture Management Committee comprised
the CEOs of John Holland, Barclay Mowlem and
Macmahon, and KBR’s General Manager, Special
Projects. This structure helped ensure fast and
effective decision making.

28
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 29
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

Figure 4: Track laying progress compared to baseline

Figure 5: Line of Balance construction schedule

30

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 31

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

Additionally, each partner was called on to sponsor
aspects of the project for which it had special
expertise. This included:
• KBR: project management, cost control,

procurement, design, environmental
management

• Barclay Mowlem: trackworks (north), major
bridges

• Macmahon: earthworks, culverts, minor
bridges

• John Holland: trackworks (south).
One of the keys to the project’s success was the
consortium members’ ability to work effectively with
each other, putting aside their competitive instincts
and focusing on the same goal. Management was
open and transparent.

Initially there were difficulties in distilling the wishes
of individual Management Committee members.
This was overcome by appointing an independent
executive chairman, who was successfully able to
bridge the gap between the Management Committee
and the Project Management Team.

3 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

As well as good project management, the keys to
meeting the challenges of distance, climate, scale
and budget were simplicity of design and speed of
construction.

3.1 Design achievement

The KBR-led design team had a lead-time of just eight
weeks between financial close and the start of field
construction, including time for approvals.

The original scheduling placed various bridges on the
critical path, particularly those at the Katherine River
and the Elizabeth River estuary. The simplicity of the
design so speeded their construction that not only
was this criticality removed, but the program was
shortened. Once the designs were agreed, no changes
to detail of bridges or culverts were requested by field
staff and there were no errors requiring reworking
of documentation.

All design documentation was reviewed by the
Design Working Group, which represented the South
Australian and Northern Territory governments,

Figure 6: Example of progress chart

30
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 31
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

AustralAsia Railway Corporation, the banks and
Asia Pacific Transport. Construction was never
held up by lack of design documentation. Design
and construction progress north of Tennant Creek
is shown in Fig 7.

3.2 Whole-of-life approach

From the beginning, the railway was designed with
operations and maintenance as key considerations
in assessing whole-of-life solutions and ensuring
value for money.
• Track design: KBR carried out computer

simulations of train operations in either
direction to confirm optimum operating speeds
related to gradient, locomotive power and
hence fuel economy for all sections of the track;
these were then used to calculate optimum
rail cant (cross slope) to minimise wear and
maintenance. The rail selection was based
on wear considerations; the rail clips were
designed to be removable (with special tools)
for ease of sleeper replacement as necessary.
Soft rail pads were not used because of life and
replacement issues.

• Flood management: by investing in
hydrological analysis, the consortium has
minimised a major risk – flooding and track
wash-aways – thereby substantially reducing

operating and maintenance costs.

• Access: the consortium negotiated with
AustralAsia Railway Corporation to secure a
nominal 100-metre-wide operating corridor;
this provided access and provisioning during
operation and maintenance.

As part of the process for the design and construction
of the railway, the maintenance and operations parties
were required to sign off on the documentation.
Accordingly, these parties were actively involved
in the review of the construction to ensure that
operational and maintenance parameters were
included in the final product. Again this enabled the
operator and the maintainer to accurately determine
their commitments and ensure that a ‘whole-of-life’
approach to delivery was considered in the design
and construction phase of the project.

3.3 Quality assurance

The consortium’s strategy was to achieve full
certification for the track as it was progressively built,
so that construction traffic could travel at design
speeds in order to support the very tight schedule
and to ensure appropriate rail working safety.

The project quality management system was
established as an intranet-based system, giving
access to all documentation via servers located at

Figure 7: Design and construction progress north from Tennant Creek

32

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 33

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

all sites. A comprehensive system of planned and
documented internal quality audits was established.
These included 55 internal audits, and a further 26
external audits conducted on subcontractors. Lloyd’s
Register Quality Assurance conducted a total of five
audits during the contract.

At the commencement of the project the consortium
set a nonconformance frequency rate (NFR) of 400
and a defect rate (DR) of 100, based on industry
standards. The project achieved an average monthly
NFR rate of 82.86 and a monthly DR of 2.05.

3.4 Logistical planning

The consortium’s logistical strategy was a major
factor in the early completion and overall success
of the project. Using a ‘fast-tracking’ approach,
the consortium divided the planning, engineering
design and construction stages of the project into sub-
projects that could proceed simultaneously, each with
an area manager who reported to the Construction
Manager.

3.4.1 Climate

Without doubt, the biggest logistical challenge was
climate – the 1420-km rail route stretches from the
monsoonal and tropical climate of Darwin to the
relative aridity of Alice Springs. The potential for
disruption to the tight construction schedule was
high.

Rather than the more obvious solution of working
from each end, using the larger centres of Alice Springs
and Darwin as bases, the consortium established the
major construction depots at Katherine and Tennant
Creek. These towns are almost at the quarter points of
the whole project, which made them ideal locations
strategically.

This approach provided the opportunity for four
work fronts (working north and south from each
depot). In principle, three earthworks teams worked
simultaneously, which meant the northern section
was worked in the dry season, then that team moved
south during the wet season, which stretches from
December through March, sometimes later. Two
track-laying crews were deployed, each laying
1.8 km a day.

At the northern end of the rail corridor, effective
construction was halted during the wet season.
The rains penetrate inland but their duration is
progressively shorter, historically interrupting
construction for approximately a month at the
southern end of the line. However, nature makes its
own decisions, and in 2001–02, the rains arrived early
in the south and there was more rain than anticipated,
requiring swift rescheduling and the redeployment
of materials, camps and labour, together with daily

reassessments of the situation. By contrast, in 2002,
the rains didn’t start until February.

3.4.2 Distance

Remoteness was also a major logistical challenge.
Temporary construction camps were located
approximately 100 km apart and had to be self-
sufficient for water (reverse osmosis), power
(generators) and sewage treatment. The camps were
moved along the four sectors, and accommodated
construction teams for earthworks, culverts and
minor bridges.

It was recognised early that sleepers would be on the
critical path, no matter how fast earthworks went,
and that tracklaying required a steady material flow.
One of the earliest moves, therefore, was to establish
sleeper factories at Katherine and Tennant Creek to
begin fabricating the more than 2 million prestressed
concrete sleepers required, as shown in Fig 8.

The rail was rolled at Whyalla, South Australia, in
27.5-metre lengths and transported by train to a
siding just south of Alice Springs. From there it was
trucked to Tennant Creek or Katherine, then welded
into 375-metre lengths, which were carried by train
to the work fronts, together with a day’s supply
of sleepers. After laying, the rail was made fully
continuous by site welding, and then the clips were
fixed to complete the track laying prior to ballasting.
Likewise, the rolling stock for the make-up of the
construction trains was railed to Alice Springs then
transported to Katherine and Tennant Creek for rail
laying and ballasting.

The earth embankment was constructed from locally
available materials, and KBR designed the track bed
to take these differing materials into account. Ballast
was sourced locally near Katherine and Tennant
Creek.

KBR also considered the logistical challenges when
designing the track and other infrastructure. For
example, pre-cast concrete bridge beams, which
were made in Darwin, had to conform to road freight
limitations on weight and size. Major bridge progress
is shown in Fig 9. Culvert design allowed the metal
pipes to be spiral wound virtually on site.

The consortium subcontracted services wherever it
would be more efficient (in cost or time) to do so.
These subcontracts included ballast transport, fuel,
work trains, air travel and camp operations.

4 PROCUREMENT AND COST CONTROL

The task the procurement team faced was daunting:
sourcing the materials and services required for
1420 km of rail line. These goods and services
all had to be sourced, purchased and supplied

32
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 33
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

Figure 8: Sleeper production

Figure 9: Major bridge process

within a very short period. Accordingly, effective
procurement management played a key role in the
overall efficiency of the project and was vital to
keeping construction ahead of schedule.

The goods and services needed can be broken down
into the following main groups:

• High-cost items: this was the main
procurement task, involving around
700 packages totalling approximately
$600 million; the packages in this group
included some very large single items, for
example, the steel rails, and the sleepers and
sleeper clips for the trackworks.

• Goods and services required for temporary
facilities; this category included the drilling
and equipping of bores for supplying the water

needed for construction, and all the day-to-day
living facilities such as construction workers’
camps, sewage treatment and water supply.
Where possible the consortium used existing
facilities (for example hotel accommodation)
in line with its commitment to maximise local
involvement.

• Consumables: as well as purchasing the main
goods and services required for permanent
and temporary facilities, the Procurement
Team set up a field procurement group for the
purchase of consumables/expendable items;
these included spare parts for mobile and
fixed plant, fuel, fencing, flagging and signage;
more than 25,000 orders were placed for over
100,000 individual line items, valued at around
$70 million.

34

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 35

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

• Rolling stock: the consortium contracted EDI
Rail to design, manufacture and deliver the
rolling stock, including four 4000-horsepower
Q-Class diesel electric locomotives and fifty-
five 48-foot 5-pack articulated container
flat cars; the consortium also has a 10-year
maintenance agreement with EDI to maintain
the rolling stock it supplies; Bluebird Rail
Operations is supplying and maintaining five
crew cars, and other rolling stock are leased
from Australian Railroad Group.

At the peak of the project, 2000 requisitions a month
were processed. The Procurement Team had up to
12 staff dedicated to purchasing, and a further five
who took care of subcontracts. A key measure of
the success of the procurement task was the cost of
processing the field orders: this was achieved at an
average of $50 an order.

Apart from the sheer amount of goods and services
required, there were a number of other procurement
challenges; the main ones are outlined below.

4.1 Time

It was critical to the project’s success that there be
no delay in securing the high-cost, long-lead items.
However, as noted above, financial close took longer
than anticipated. Purchase arrangements were
finalised prior to financial close, but obviously no
commitments could be made until financial close had
been achieved. The team had to keep these suppliers
interested without making any commitment that it
would possibly not be able to keep.

The Procurement Team was established in KBR’s
Adelaide office in early June 2000, nearly a year
before financial close was achieved. It commissioned
the survey and site investigations needed for the
design work, and procured minor materials and
services to support early works at the sleeper
factories under construction in Katherine and
Tennant Creek. It tendered as many subcontracts
as it could, and negotiated with subcontractors and
suppliers for major cost centres to the ‘letter of intent’
stage. The Procurement Team established an office
in Darwin in late March 2001. All of this preparation
meant that just six days after financial close on 20
April 2001, the team was ready to issue several key
formal commitments, valued at approximately $300
million.

By the end of July 2001, just three months after
financial close, the team had awarded a further 21
packages worth more than $1 million each and 41
packages in excess of $50,000 each. In addition, 20
new packages had been put out to tender.

4.2 Cost

Since the new line was constructed under a BOOT
contract, for the project to be viable, construction cost
had to be strictly limited. Given the stringent target
cost per kilometre, the Procurement Team was under
considerable pressure. It made sure it stayed attuned
to local and non-local pricing by constantly studying
trends and monitoring feedback from people in the
field.

Cost engineers were located in each work area.
Using a data-gathering and reporting network, they
continuously updated actual cost and trended final
forecast cost. This enabled the project management
team to take the action required to ensure that the
project was delivered for the least outturn cost.

4.3 Local content

The project’s Local Industry and Aboriginal
Participation Plan (LIAPP) provided the formal
contractual basis for the consortium’s commitment
that the Northern Territory and South Australia
would derive maximum economic benefit from the
construction and operation of the line, and from the
future development of the rail corridor between
Adelaide and Darwin. The target was to spend 75%
of the project construction cost in South Australia
and the Northern Territory; this was exceeded, with
the final figure in excess of 95%. The consortium
achieved this largely because it retained control of
procurement rather than subcontracting it out.

The consortium welcomed the involvement of the
ISOs – the South Australian Industrial Supplies
Office and the Northern Territory Industry Search
and Opportunities Office – and representatives
from each were resident in the project’s Darwin
Procurement Office, especially in the critical first
12 months of the project. The ISOs utilised their
own systems to source potential suppliers, and the
Procurement Team then invited the suitable ones to
prequalify. The team reported back to the ISOs on
a monthly basis, and its register of suppliers was
audited regularly.

4.4 Communications

At any one time there were up to six remote
construction sites continually being relocated.
Accordingly, the project’s procurement system
combined paper-based and electronic systems.
Early on the Procurement Team had investigated
using a totally electronic system, but concluded
that that would not have been suitable as most
requisitions came from the field – which for this

34
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees 35
Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.
“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

project, often meant remote locations without
access to reliable communications to support
computers. (One of the very first procurement
jobs was to set up temporary satellite dishes and
phone and fax communications).

4.5 Quality

While the consortium had a requirement to maximise
local content, this was not at the expense of quality
– the Procurement Team constantly monitored
the quality of the goods and services supplied.
Additionally, it monitored key construction contracts
for compliance with the National Code of Practice
for the Construction Industry. A total of 29 packages
were reviewed; all were found to fully comply with
the Code.

5 PARTNERSHIPS AND INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS

The project used a mixture of union and non-union
labour. The workforce was motivated, and no time
was lost due to industrial relations. The project was
praised by the Cole Royal Commission into the
construction industry. It also had an exceptionally
good safety record.

Relations with industry and local businesses were
also important. The project’s designers worked with
local contractors to solve problems such as how to
transport the long segments of rail from the depot
to the construction site.

The project offered good training and employment
opportunities. More than 1100 jobs were directly
created during the construction phase, and Access
Economics estimated that 7000 additional jobs were
created nationally. There were about 1200 individual
enrolments in project-related courses, and about 25%
of trainees were indigenous people (the project set
a new benchmark for Aboriginal participation on
an Australian construction project). The Northern
and Central Land Councils received a share in the
project equity.

The project shows how engineering and construction
companies can take a leading role in instigating
major infrastructure developments as well as
bringing them to fruition. It is a testament to the
consortium’s ‘partnership’ approach – the positive
working relationships developed with governments,
communities and industry. The completed railway
is now operating, linking southern Australia with
Darwin and beyond and opening up new trade
opportunities to a range of Australian businesses.

The author would like to acknowledge the contribution
of Franco Moretti, Tony Dawson and Gary Egan in
preparing this article.

36

Australian Journal of Civil Engineering Vol 2, No 1.

“The Alice-Darwin railway: a feat of project management” – Lees

RICHARD (DICK) LEES

Dick Lees has over forty years’ experience in project and construction
management associated with major infrastructure and mineral resource
development projects in Australia, the South Pacific, and South-East
Asia. These projects have included some of the most remote locations
in the region. As General Manager Special Projects he was the KBR
representative on the $1,200 million Alice Springs to Darwin design and
construct contract and prior to that as Deputy Project Director for the
engineering and construction of the $1,200 million Lihir Gold project in
Papua New Guinea.

Project experience includes feasibility study and audit assignments, through
to engineering, procurement and construction management responsibility
and lump sum turnkey design and construction work. The scope of work
encompassed in these assignments has included mine development, mine
services, mine facilities, materials handling, process plant and services,
power generation, townships and camp sites, and general infrastructure
requirements for resource projects.

He also held corporate responsibility to the former Kinhill Board for the
performance and quality of the work undertaken by the group’s then
Mining and Minerals Processing Division and as Deputy Chairman of
the Bateman Kinhill partnership during its start-up phase.

Qualifications
• Associate Diploma of Civil Engineering, Bendigo Institute of

Technology, Victoria

• Construction Management Course, University of New South Wales

Current position
• General Manager – Special Projects, Brisbane

• Joined the company 1978

Professional affliations and appointments
• Honorary Fellow, Engineers Australia

• Fellow, Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy

<

p

>T

h

e

a

tta

c

he

d

j

o

u

r

n

a

l

descr

i

b

es a national project. Based on the journal, and on your tea

m

’s understandin

g

o

f

the project, answer the

q

uestions below:

7

20

20

20

20

7

5

3

5

15

#	Question	Points
a	Was it an internal or external project? Give rationale.	4
b	Identify at least 7 major sta k eholders for the project.			7
c	What were the needs / expectation of each stakeholder?
d	Identify and describe at least 4 most important resources used in the project.	8
e	State 3 alternative approaches for the project (i.e. different forms of transportation).		3
f	In your opinion, was the railway approach the best approach to have been selected?  Support your rationale using PV, NPV, IRR, B/C. (1 page)					20
g	Provide a Level 3 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for this project. (1 page)
h	Create a network diagram for the project using the activities in the WBS. (1 page)
i	Using a GANTT chart, provide a high-level schedule for the project. (1 page)
j	Provide a high-level budget (or cost breakdown) for the project. (1 page)		1 5
k	What were the 2 major / broad categories of risks in the project?	6
l	Using a table / bullets, list at least 10 individual risks ranked by severity andproject phase (i.e. pre-construction & post-construction). (1 page)
m	Describe at least 7 things that were done /could have been done to mitigate the risks
n	Was the project a success? Support with rationales.			5
o	Was there enough outsourcing in the project? Explain.
p	Describe at least 3 lessons that can be learned from this project.
q	Other – Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion (one paragraph each)
r	Other – Your weekly summaries
s	Other – APA (Times New Roman, 12, double- spaced, in-text citations, grammar, reference list, etc)	10
	TOTAL	200

            Side note from instructor:

1. Your response should cover between 12 – 15 pages only.

2. This research project requires you to tie together everything you have studied in this semester. This may include core project management skills, writing skills, APA formatting, meeting deadlines, etc.

3. Ensure all responses you provide (including numbers, tasks and other facts) are supported by information from the journal or provide appropriate assumptions where necessary. This journal including all other sources should be correctly referenced.

4. Use effective in-text citation to help the reader know exactly where you are picking your facts from. APA requires the use of page numbers primarily for direct quotes. However, just for this sake of this assignment, since I need to know exactly where you are picking the facts from, please use page numbers as often as you need to. If I cannot connect your rationale with the pages, I may not give the maximum points for that section.  

5. You have been put in teams so you can bounce ideas off each other – no one person knows it all. This is a good opportunity to access your respective strengths and weaknesses and work together as a team.

6. If there are any questions or clarifications needed, the PM may contact me. All the best!