APEC Project Monitoring Report



APEC Project Monitoring ReportSECTION A: Project profileProject number & title:TPT 05 2015A Enhancing Aviation Connectivity and Emissions Reduction via Implementation of Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Assistance ProgramTime period covered in report:February 2 – July 31, 2016Date submitted:July 22, 2016Committee / WG / Fora:Aviation Experts Group/Transportation Working GroupProject Overseer Name: Organization / EconomyKatherine Michaud and Angela Harris-Clark, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration/United StatesSECTION B: Project updateBriefly answer each of the questions below to a maximum of 2-3 pages. If you have submitted previous Monitoring Reports, focus on progress since the last report.Current status of project: On schedule: YES. The Ambidji Group has met the timeframes outlined in its work plan and the economy liaison officers have been responsive and met their timeframes so as of now the project is on schedule. The schedule for this project is compressed because the proposal evaluation process took longer than anticipated. It is possible that the schedule may require extension depending on whether any unforeseen logistical challenges or other delays present themselves.On budget: YES. On target to meet project objectives: YES.If NO, provide details: How far off schedule, budget or objectives? What actions are being taken to resolve delays? What support is needed from your Committee or the Secretariat?N/AImplementation: Describe progress against the project work plan and proposed objectives. The PO and Contractor held a successful kick off call to initiate the project on May 25. The contractor had provided their work plan for the project in advance of the call, which facilitated a robust conversation. And per the contract requirements, the Contractor developed a questionnaire to survey the air navigation service provider, civil aviation authority and other relevant stakeholders in Mexico and Indonesia to identify their perceived challenges to fully implement Performance Based Navigation (PBN).The liaison officers in Mexico and Indonesia coordinated their economy’s response to the questionnaire, which helped provide the Contractor with valuable information regarding the current state of PBN implementation in each economy. This information will help the Contractor to tailor their site visit approach and the questions that they will ask during the site visits, which is articulated in the Terms of Reference (ToR) document that the Contractor developed to identify how it will conduct the economies’ PBN implementation gap analysis and develop action plans for each economy to assist them in full PBN implementation. The Contractor was on schedule with submitting the terms of reference (ToR) documents for the Mexico and Indonesia site visits, per task 4. ]The contractor has confirmed the site visit dates for both Mexico and Indonesia, which will occur as follows: Site Visit 1: Mexico 8-12 August 2016 Site Visit 1: Indonesia 29 August – 2 September 2016 Site Visit 2: Mexico 19 – 23 September 2016 Site Visit 2: Indonesia 10 - 14 October 2016 Evaluation: What are the indicators developed under the project to measure progress/success? Has baseline information or evaluation results been collected? How will any potential impacts on gender be measured? If relevant please provide details.The project includes a detailed schedule that attaches dates to when primary tasks will conclude to ensure that the work stays on task and progresses well. The PO is in contact with the contractor to understand the status of their work and to identify whether there will be any delays in meeting the task completion schedule. The PO is also in contact with the host economies, and following the project’s site visits, the PO will arrange a call with each economy to understand the visits’ impact on PBN implementation. The host economies will also be asked to offer a presentation on the outcomes for future Transportation Working Group meetings. Initial baseline data has been requested from each economy via a questionnaire that is designed to understand the status of PBN implementation in each economy. For example, to determine whether there are regulations in place to allow for and oversee PBN operations, whether certain routes have been published, the extent to which carriers are equipped and ready to use PBN, etc. Following completion of the project and the final report with recommendations on how to fully implement PBN, the economies will be asked to describe what recommendations were implemented and which changes have resulted (e.g. more efficient routes and reduced flying times, smoother cross-border operations between adjacent economies and Flight Information Regions, etc.) Challenges: If not covered in Q1, describe any issues which impacted (or might still impact) on the effective delivery of the project. How have these affected the objectives, deliverables, timeline or budget? What are the risk management strategies in place to manage potential or real risksIt took longer than anticipated to work with the Independent Proposal Evaluation Panel and select a contractor to perform the project. The project kicked off later than expected due to this unforseen delay. As of now the work is progressing on schedule despite the late start date. All of the stakeholders have been cooperative and responsive, which has helped to facilitate staying on schedule. The PO will monitor the project’s progress and identify any challenges that may arise and impact the project timeline. Engagement: Describe the engagement and roles of stakeholders in the implementation of the project, including other APEC fora, experts and participants. The project is being carried out by private sector experts and it will also feature the participation and input of additional subject matter experts from the Asia Pacific Region (All Nippon Airways and AeroThai) who will participate in the Indonesia site visits. The host economies, Mexico and Indonesia, are actively engaged and this includes the participation of several of their key stakeholders in the project (CAAs, ANSPs, airlines, etc.). FOR APEC SECRETARIAT USE ONLY APEC comments: Is the project management effective? How could it be improved? Are APEC guidelines being followed?The implementation of this project seems to be on track. However, one of the challenges is budgetary constraints for travel of the consultants and regional subject matter experts. It turned out that the planning for these expenses was not very realistic and forced the contractor to book the cheapest and therefore rather inconvenient flights for site visits. The contractor repeatedly asked for revision of the budget, but the approved amounts did not allow to do any reprogramming in order to increase the budget allocations for travel. At the moment it seems that the contractor has accepted the status quo and given up attempts to renegotiate. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download