31 minute read
Special purpose vehicles | panel discussion
Westlink M7. Source: Lendlease
Special purpose vehicles
Key points:
• Special purpose vehicles (SPVs) are a critical success factor for major projects. • While SPVs carry ‘all the risk’, they may not always have all the resources needed to perform. • There can be a major risk of confl icts for non-independent SPV directors.
Panellists:
► Matt Brassington, Chief Executive Offi cer, Aquasure ► Kim Curtain, Executive Director, Head of Infrastructure and Structured Finance Unit, NSW Treasury ► Ian Hunt, Chief Executive Offi cer, Moorebank Intermodal
Company ► Charles Mott, Chief Executive Offi cer, NorthWestern
Roads Group
Moderator:
► Christopher Voyce, Executive Director, Co-Head
Infrastructure, Utilities & Renewables, ANZ, Macquarie
Capital
Christopher Voyce (CV): We’re going to talk in-depth about Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs), which manage the delivery, operations and governance of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs). My opening question to the panel is: SPVs have all the risk, but not always all the power with these projects; what do you see as the expectations of debt, equity, the client and the SPV management itself on some of these major projects?
Charles Mott (CM): To give a succinct answer, the challenge for an SPV is to be relevant and to add value. If the SPV isn’t adding value, it shouldn’t be there. There were mistakes made in the early days when SPVs were literally treated as passthrough vehicles, but they are now far better resourced, have greater capability, and are therefore now fulfi lling their true role.
Matt Brassington (MB): The expectation is that we make sure that everybody gets what they signed up for: the state gets what it decided it would pay, with the same level of risk that it originally set; the debt providers get all their money back and their interest on time; and the equity guys get the
return that they signed up for. That’s our challenge, and it’s not always that easy.
Kim Curtain (KC): SPVs don’t hold all the risk. Government still holds some of that risk, and other parts of it are passed down to subcontractors – it doesn’t all sit with the SPV; however, it’s good to hear this sort of language being used because it’s exactly what we’re looking for. We’re looking for an active SPV that’s actually going to be there as a partner and work with us to achieve the outcomes we’re looking for.
Ian Hunt (IH): Matt hit the nail on the head. What’s interesting is that through the complex bidding processes, expectations are very well understood from the start. They’re all thrashed out in documents that rise a metre off the floor. It’s the SPV’s role to make sure that everybody does what they’ve agreed to do in those documents. In the early days of a project, I think that’s pretty easy, as people are still around and remember what they intended. As time goes by, however, things change, people forget, people move on or circumstances change, and I think that’s where the SPV comes into its own.
CV: Looking at the delivery phase of these projects, what are some of the challenges in managing the interface between government, clients, the design and construction (D&C) contractor, and the operator, as part of your role in the SPV?
CM: There are multiple dimensions to that question. One of the challenges is to not be crowded out by the necessarybut-voluminous documentation and administration of these projects. They’re very refined and that’s a necessary part of the process, but it’s a danger to let that become the substitute for real engagement, dialogue and identification of issues.
MB: I’d endorse that. It is also about making sure that everybody focuses on the detail, because you’ve got to actually deliver exactly what is intended, but also ensure that everyone is looking at the big picture. That is because, as organisations, some of us will be there for 30 years, so if you get into a stoush with someone early on, you’ve got to remember that, actually, you’re going to be ‘living together’ for another 25 years. It’s a bit like a marriage, and you’ve got to communicate, be flexible, and understand where people are coming from. Sometimes, you have to imagine yourself on the other side of the table, asking yourself whether you’d take the same approach they have. You’ve got to facilitate an outcome, otherwise it will be an unmitigated disaster.
KC: I agree, and that’s around the point I wanted to make as well, which is that we’re really here to talk about partnerships. This is the Partnerships conference, and it’s not a word I use lightly. The third ‘P’ in PPP is there for a reason, and I think it’s sometimes forgotten. We need to recognise that we’ve all got different perspectives; we’re there for different purposes, and we need to understand each other. It’s important that during good times we develop those relationships – as Matt said, it’s ‘like a marriage’ – so that when times are harder, we have those relationships that have been built up and developed to hold us together.
IH: I agree totally, and that is the key – you can make this as easy or as hard as you like. I think it’s the subtle difference between delivering on the project objectives and simply administering the contract. It’s very easy to get into that bad spiral of correspondence that is just administering the contract – saying, ‘This clause says this’ and ‘This clause says that’ – that you lose sight of the thing we need to deliver. I’ve been on both sides of that, and I can tell you that one side’s enjoyable and the other’s not.
CV: Kim, you live and breathe the management of projects, meaning SPVs are a big part of your life. From a government client perspective, what issues have you experienced, dealing with all these PPPs and asset companies?
KC: There are a variety of them. We’ve got some sectors that are very well developed, where only 20 years ago that industry would have had an SPV that was very different. Then there are some sectors that are new to the game and are still going through that evolution; however, government has improved in terms of the way we work together. It’s important to remember that it’s not all on the SPV; governments need to be a good counterparty, as well.
Evidence of this is in successful projects where you’ve got an SPV that is active, engaged and working for the desired outcomes, with an engaged government, contract manager and contract team. We’ve come a long way, but there’s more work we can do on the government side – that’s an area where we’ll continue to improve.
CV: Matt, your desalination plant had its share of complexities during delivery. How well was Aquasure equipped to deal with these challenges?
MB: There are a few people in the room who were involved more actively than I was, but I’m confident in saying that from Aquasure’s perspective, we were very well resourced and had some very able people.
Critically, we had a number of individuals who would not take no for an answer. I say that because we could easily have let the whole stoush just keep on running and end up in court. All that would have done is end in a massive wealth transfer to a bunch of QCs and lawyers. There was a fair bit of that as it was, but in reality, we had a number of people who wouldn’t take no for an answer.
We eventually drove an outcome and got a settlement. This outcome came from people in the SPV, a huge number of people outside in the joint ventures, and because of our board. We did have nearly 30 per cent of our equity held by, effectively, ‘the enemy’ – the D&C contractor – during that process. To the credit of all people involved, particularly the then chairman
L–R: Christopher Voyce, Ian Hunt, Kim Curtain, Matt Brassington and Charles Mott
and the then directors, they found common ground and kept everybody in the room through all of those discussions.
I remember one meeting where I learnt some insults I’ve never heard before, for which I will forever be thankful to that particular director. Critically though, apart from that particular instance, people didn’t get too personal. Everyone in the room helped to drive an outcome. At the end of the day, you can’t actually agree on a compromise and execute it with someone unless you’re in a room together. That was a real lesson – it’s very easy to stay out of the room, on the phone, locked up with your lawyers, but you’re not going to get anywhere like this, and ultimately, we’re all trying to achieve a successful outcome.
CV: Charles, you’ve been around major projects for a while. Do you think that the higher-profile problem projects expose the shortcomings, or the strengths of the SPV model?
CM: I don’t think that any of the higher-profile problem projects have de-legitimised the value of the SPV and the PPP delivery model. I think that there are a lot of examples of projects, from the outside looking in, that have had seemingly insurmountable issues to address. It’s when the parties engage early, in good faith, and seek together to resolve it quickly, that these issues don’t run on as they have in some instances.
Take Reliance Rail, for example – it was a very complicated project that was resolved in an effective way. Ian has been part of the Lane Cove Tunnel project, which equally had its issues resolved. Bad project outcomes reflect more on the players than upon the model at the end of the day.
MB: If you don’t mind me saying so, I’d say that our project had huge amounts of negative publicity and massive cost overruns, but it has been very successful. From the point of view of the customer, the Victorian Government, they wanted to buy a desalination plant for a fixed sum of money, and they got exactly what they wanted. It is the most successful PPP the Victorian Government has ever entered into, although neither of the two governments since the project has been in the market will ever admit that.
CV: Ian, you’re in a slightly different position in that you head a government business enterprise. Did you want to talk a little bit about the Moorebank Intermodal Company and how it’s different to an SPV?
IH: I guess the question is, ‘Is it an SPV?’ In the PPP sense it’s not, but it is very similar in many respects – so it’s a form of SPV.
Moorebank Intermodal is wholly owned by the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth Government business enterprise, meaning that it’s an arm of government, but at arm’s length from government. It has two shareholders: the Ministers for Infrastructure and Finance, which is a pretty typical model, similar to the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), the National Broadband Network (NBN) and Western Sydney Airport Company (WSA Co.). It operates under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013.
It is similar to an SPV in that it is a single-purpose vehicle with a very clear project objective. Like most SPVs, it’s a company under the Corporations Act, so all issues that relate to directors’ responsibilities and duties are relevant, even though it’s Commonwealth owned. In our case, it is very much like the traditional PPP SPV. It’s a small organisation, structured very similarly to the SPVs that I’ve been involved in, and has very similar project oversight and governance roles.
If I could also pick up the point that was made previously – sure, projects do have problems, and both Lane Cove and Reliance Rail were mentioned; however, as engineering outcomes that met what the Government wanted in the first place, they are sensational. Reliance Rail, in particular,
delivered the most reliable trains anywhere in this country, enabling Sydney Trains to introduce timetable changes that were unthought-of when the project started.
KC: I agree. We’ve looked at some projects, which are made out to be failures, but actually from a government perspective, the PPP structure and the way they’ve been constructed has protected us. Some people look at these examples and think that perhaps we shouldn’t do PPPs anymore, but it’s actually the reason we should do more. These risks are being better managed by the private sector, which protects the state.
CV: Moving to the operational phase, Matt, Charles and Ian: how well do you think SPVs are equipped to deal with work across both the construction phase and the operational phase of projects? Is there a transition that you see in staffing and approach through that period?
CM: Well, certainly there has been a transition. About 20 years ago or so, SPVs were literally and legally pass-through vehicles. There were little resources applied and a tiny budget resulting in a lot of the heavy lifting being passed to the shareholders.
The realisation that SPVs could do more occurred on a whole lot of fronts. The reality emerged that these enterprises were principals under a number of material contracts, and had a lot of legal and legislative obligations to fulfil, which was ultimately the responsibility of directors to fulfil. The model has since evolved into looking at what residual resources are required by an SPV. There are a lot of issues to consider here – refinancing, bond issues and these sorts of things. SPVs don’t typically carry a ‘Treasury Team’, but we do have expert buyers, expert managers, and people who are able to engage at the same level as their counterparts under each of the different types of contracts that an SPV deals with. I think that’s the transition, and SPVs are better for it.
MB: In our case, we have had quite a transition from the D&C team to a different team when we entered the operations and maintenance (O&M) phase; however, in reality, you don’t need to do this because we don’t dig holes and design stuff. We comply with contracts and make sure that other people comply with contracts. The skill sets across different phases of an SPV are quite similar.
The main difference in the D&C phase is that you need people who are more attuned to a lively pace of life. The O&M phase is perhaps a little bit more pedestrian. Some of the people who did well for us during the D&C phase simply didn’t want to stay through the O&M phase. It’s not as exciting. We built it. We now just have to send out the invoices every month. There’s more to it than that, but, broadly speaking, that’s the difference. It’s the fact that you need a slightly different mentality in the O&M phase, not necessarily a different skill set.
IH: I’ve got a slightly different view on that. I think you do need a different skill set. In my experience, the D&C phase is very well thought-through in the formal bidding process. The effort that goes into getting ready for the D&C phase and overseeing the D&C phase is enormous. The O&M phase, particularly on toll roads in the old days, was something that no-one thought too much about until after opening. Then you get to the point of being the toll road operator and it raises a question: do you invest a whole lot in maintenance to limit the renewal cost later, or do you just let it wear out and spend a lot of money on the renewal?
That’s actually a question for the SPV, because the O&M contractor’s view is: ‘I’m not going to spend any money, I don’t
Source: Moorebank Intermodal Company
L–R: Christopher Voyce, Ian Hunt, Kim Curtain, Matt Brassington and Charles Mott
need to’, but the SPV and investors need to get that right. What I’ve found is that SPVs need that skill set in the O&M phase, which is much more technical for the SPV than the D&C phase; however, I do agree with Matt that during the D&C phase, the main purpose of the SPV is to administer the contract.
MB: I think the difference between the experiences of Ian and myself might be the actual models – Aquasure’s model is quite different. We were put together in the middle of the Global Financial Crisis, so a lot of the things that might have otherwise been left for later had to be addressed up-front, because you couldn’t finance the project without them.
CM: I think the composition of the shareholders has changed, as well. When the D&C contractor was more heavily involved, that naturally led to a focus on the D&C phase. Now, with institutional and industrial investors, who have a vested interest in having the asset perform perfectly well for the full concession period, the O&M phase gets all the attention it deserves up-front.
CV: Kim, just looking at the operating phase from your perspective in Government, are there any areas where government and SPVs need to redefine roles to help SPVs to operate and achieve the objectives of government more effectively?
KC: I think the primary roles themselves are still the same as long as they are focused on the outcomes. I think that we have the same challenge that we were just talking about – often from delivery to operations, we are transferring who’s looking after the project. From a Government side, we need to be smarter in how we transition that.
Back to the original point of what the purpose of the project is. Through the delivery and operational phases, we all need to be focused on the outcomes. It’s a matter of making sure we’ve got clarity the whole way through. Also, the skills and experience of the people that are looking after those contracts needs to be consistent through the operation phase, as well as through procurement and construction. I think the primary roles themselves are still there.
CV: A number of panel members have already touched on the importance of the human factor when interpreting the contracts. It must be a risk that you guys are managing on those sites, on a day-to-day basis. Obviously, different personalities can interpret situations and contracts in different ways. I’d just like each of you to comment on the importance, from your standpoint, of the human factor, and how you go about managing your own people and the counterparty risk.
CM: It’s a very intense phase of a project; through construction and delivery, and into operation. The attributes I think you want in your people and their counterparts are competence, and experience. You also want people to be fair and reasonable, and to act in good faith. I don’t think that’s unique to PPPs in particular.
What I’ve found to be quite a difference over the years is that competence and experience varies over agencies across governments. So, you’ll have a rail way of doing things, a road way, a defence way, a health way and an education way; you’ll have a New South Wales way and a Victorian way. It changes according to your counterpart, and it reflects the deep cultures within their own jurisdictions and agencies. Responding appropriately to these different approaches is certainly very relevant to PPPs because of the long-term nature of the deals.
IH: I think another element of that is people who’ve done it before against people who haven’t. People experienced in this way of delivering have learnt the hard way that PPPs are big and complex, and you can’t always just rely on the contract – you’ve got to rely on the relationship. Reliance Rail is a good example of this, as it was the first PPP that an agency and a major contractor had been involved in. At the outset, it was all about administering a contract rather than getting the trains out. Initially, this created all sorts of issues that were very difficult to deal with. It was only
when a couple of things happened – such as putting the project into the Transport for NSW transport projects division – that the focus turned to ‘We’re actually here to deliver trains’. In turn, this put the focus back onto ‘How do we do that?’ We got on with it, rolled up our sleeves, and delivered the trains. So, the experience of personnel has a lot to do with that.
KC: I think it’s part of the mindset. As part of partnership, it’s about being solutions-focused, rather than just problem-focused. So, from either side, we can always come together and work on an issue and find a solution. Rather than focusing on the problem – who was at fault, who did what and who should be in trouble – let’s focus on working together and finding the answer.
MB: I agree with all of that. I don’t have Charles’ track record – this is my first role interfacing with government, and I must admit, I found it extremely odd when I first started because I went to a number of meetings with government and nothing ever got agreed on. Then, I realised that, actually, that’s what it’s like dealing with government, and once I got into that mindset, I realised that at the end of the day, sometimes you’ve just got to stay in the room until you solve the problem. There are occasions where things can get heated, and you have to put your phone down and walk away. The core of it is, you have to respect each other. Sometimes, it’s difficult to resolve things on the telephone, but if you walk into the room, you look someone in the eye, and you have a face-to-face conversation, it’s amazing how that is an antidote to any sort of aggression or difficulty because we’re all human, we’ll find a way though, and when there is a will, there is a way.
CV: I just want to move on now to SPV governance. Most of the SPVs are Corporations Act companies, meaning all the directors of the SPVs are bound by certain obligations. From a management perspective, and Kim from a counterparty’s perspective, do you think there’s adequate recognition for the role of SPVs, and do you see any potential for conflict between a director’s duties under that regime and their employment by shareholders?
CM: I think that conflict is a reality, and it’s not unusual. It’s entirely normal in the course of business to have potential conflicts, and it’s about just identifying that they exist and having appropriate management measures in place. From an SPV perspective, there’s a lot to be gained by having shareholders of substance who have the knowledge and capacity to support management. I think that the benefits outweigh any disadvantages.
MB: If I could provide an example: we have 15 directors, 14 of whom are appointed by the shareholders, leaving one nonexecutive chairman. We have 11 shareholder employees within those 14. Certainly, we have at least six who have a language other than English as their first language.
Honestly, we’ve got two directors who fly down from Korea every couple of months. Of course, they need some support in understanding what their legal obligations are as directors. A very significant part of the chairman’s and management’s contribution is making sure that when the board meets, they can fulfil their duties. It’s our duty and obligation to do what we can to help them do that. It is what it is. We have found a solution for it.
KC: From our perspective, generally speaking, we find that SPV directors are aware of the conflicts – they know how to manage them, and they’re aware of what their duties are. There’s a perception by some people further away from actually seeing the operation of a PPP who believe that the shareholders are going to tell the directors what they have to do, and that they will always act in the best interests of the shareholder. Of course, their primary duty is to act in the best interests of the SPV, and generally, we find that the directors are aware of that and act in that way; however, I still hear some people saying, even for companies when government is a shareholder, that we can just tell them what to do – well if they’re a Corporations Act company we can’t.
There still seems to be a perception out there that that’s how companies work. Personally, I think the SPVs that I’ve seen are working well, but it’s more that perception of conflict that’s the broader issue.
IH: I agree with Kim. When things go pear-shaped, the directors’ minds are very much focused on solving a problem that could end up in a solvency risk – the Lane Cove Tunnel project was one where they did go insolvent, and Reliance Rail was one that came very close. That really focuses the mind. You can overcome a director’s lack of experience with good advice, both internally and externally.
There is great value in some sponsors nominating experienced independent directors as their representative, who bring a wealth of experience. I’m a big fan of independent chairs, for a variety of reasons: for the perception reason we were just talking about, the education of the other directors, and keeping everyone’s minds on what they’re there to do – it’s much easier for an independent chair to do than a shareholder employee.
CV: How has the role of SPVs evolved with time? And could you think of two or three examples of things that you’d address either in bid phase or in the procurement of major projects going forward?
MB: At the moment, there seems to be, with some projects, a real cutting back of funding for the SPV. I can think of one recent project where the SPV budget is very small and they are struggling to get a good team together as a result. I would counsel against that. I genuinely think that the SPV has got a very significant role to play over the entire concession. If you start out with inexperienced people, you are just asking for trouble. I would encourage government to review that when assessing the model. That would be my major observation.
KC: From our perspective, it’s probably two things. Firstly, we are focusing a lot more on active SPVs and active equity when doing our procurement, evaluation and considering who the counterparty is going to be. Secondly, it’s about outcomes and what we’re looking for, and ensuring that both parties are aligned with the same goal.
IH: In many PPPs, particularly in social rather than the economic PPPs, there are investors in projects that are becoming specialists in PPP management, and they have a team that might manage three or four small PPPs at once. I’m not quite sure whether I’ve formed a view on whether this is a good thing or not, because I think it’s important to have genuine independence in an SPV; but if there’s a wealth of experience that’s learnt from others, then perhaps it is a good thing.
CM: We’ve made observations in this forum as to how things have changed, I think, for the better over time – particularly more recognition of the real role and responsibility of SPVs. At the same time, the model has been refi ned across all markets to converge, broadly speaking. I think that there is a cigarette paper between the PPP documentation across jurisdictions by and large. In my experience, it’s more about the attitude to how it’s administered – this has an overwhelming infl uence.
When you get alignment between the executive and political arms of government, you’ve got a commitment to the model at the political level, and you’ve got the executive on board and engaged in delivering to the best possible way. That’s when you get the best outcome.
Matt Brassington – Chief Executive Offi cer, Aquasure
Matt Brassington is Chief Executive Offi cer of Aquasure Pty Ltd. Aquasure holds the concession from the Victorian Government awarded in 2009 to fi nance, design, build and operate, for a period of 30 years, the Victorian Desalination Project, which includes the largest seawater desalination plant in the Southern Hemisphere. Formerly, Mr Brassington was Chief Executive Offi cer of Epic Energy, one of Australia’s largest high-pressure gas transmission pipeline businesses. Mr Brassington is originally from the United Kingdom and trained as a chartered accountant before moving to Australia in 2003.
Kim Curtain – Executive Director, Head of the Infrastructure and Structured Finance Unit, NSW Treasury
Kim Curtain is Head of the Infrastructure and Structured Finance Unit at NSW Treasury. In this role, Ms Curtain is involved with all complex service-enabling infrastructure projects in New South Wales, providing commercial and fi nancial advice to agencies and government. Ms Curtain’s team is focused on providing the people of New South Wales with world-class infrastructure and services that are value for money.
Ms Curtain has over 20 years of experience across Australia, Asia and the United Kingdom in project fi nance, procurement, commercial advisory and contract management. She has a passion for social infrastructure and is focused on optimising service outcomes.
Ian Hunt – Chief Executive Offi cer, Moorebank Intermodal Company
Ian Hunt is the Chief Executive Offi cer of Moorebank Intermodal Company, the Commonwealth Government business enterprise charged with facilitating the development of a major intermodal terminal in south-west Sydney. An engineer by background, he has a long career in major project delivery, including leading the two public-private partnership concessionaires that developed the Lane Cove Tunnel toll road and delivered the 626-car Waratah passenger train rolling stock project.
Charles Mott – Chief Executive Offi cer, NorthWestern Roads Group
Charles Mott is currently the Chief Executive Offi cer of NorthWestern Roads Group, the owner and operator of Sydney’s Westlink M7 and NorthConnex motorways.
Mr Mott has 30 years’ experience in infrastructure development, fi nancing, design, construction, policy, ownership, investment and operation.
He is experienced in infrastructure in all states and territories of Australia and New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada and North America. His sector experience includes social public-private partnerships (hospitals, prisons, schools, courts), transport (motorways, toll roads, light rail), power (thermal coal, gas, wind), sports stadiums, tourism (hotel and residential development) and water fi ltration, gained from the perspective of a consultant (Maunsell & Partners), fi nancier (Barclays Bank), investment banker (BZW), constructor (Baulderstone), developer, investor and operator (Bilfi nger Project Investments), fund manager (Transfi eld Services Infrastructure Fund), institutional investor (BBGI) and policy agent (Infrastructure Partnerships Australia).
Christopher Voyce – Executive Director, Co-Head Infrastructure, Utilities & Renewables, ANZ, Macquarie Capital
Christopher Voyce has been the Co-Head of Macquarie Capital’s Infrastructure, Utilities and Renewables industry group in Australia and New Zealand since September 2015, after returning from 11 years as a senior director with Macquarie Capital in the United States. Mr Voyce has more than 20 years’ experience advising corporates, governments and investors on infrastructure mergers and acquisitions, project fi nancing and project development. He has closed over $50 billion in infrastructure fi nancings, fundraisings and acquisitions for a range of clients in the power, utilities, transportation and social infrastructure sectors in Australia, Asia, Europe and North America.
Engineering the future laingorourke.com
Innovation excellence a driving force for Laing O’Rourke
Engineering leader builds its reputation on complex infrastructure projects and collaboration.
Laing O’Rourke’s longstanding commitment to innovation is transforming the construction sector, and is creating strong outcomes for clients and communities.
The in-demand engineering firm is working on more than 25 major Australian infrastructure projects and has a rapidly growing pipeline of future work.
In June 2017, Laing O’Rourke announced an international recruitment campaign to expand its workforce, to meet rising demand for its services. The firm has more than 3000 employees in Australia and another 12,000 in Europe. ‘We are involved in some of this country’s most exciting and complex projects,’ says Dr James Glastonbury, Engineering Director of the company’s Australia hub. ‘These projects will leave a lasting change on our cities and regional areas, and will help millions of people over many decades.’
Laing O’Rourke is part of the Pacific Complete consortium delivering the $4.3-billion Pacific Highway Woolgoolga-to-Ballina upgrade in northern New South Wales – Australia’s largest regional public infrastructure project and the first delivery of the partner procurement model.
In Western Australia, Laing O’Rourke and project partner AECOM are delivering the Stadium Rail Project, which includes the design and construction of Perth Stadium Station, and upgrades to East Perth Station and associated rail networks to serve the new stadium.
In Sydney, Laing O’Rourke delivered the Moorebank Units Relocation Project – the largest single Australian defence capital works project since World War II. The project involved the relocation of 100 hectares of defence assets at Moorebank while preparing site upgrades at the Holsworthy Barracks in the city’s south-west.
‘Laing O’Rourke has brought significant innovation to these and other projects,’ says Glastonbury. ‘Leading with our engineering is very much part of our philosophy.’
The Darlington Upgrade Project in South Australia highlights Laing O’Rourke’s innovation capabilities. The $620-million project, delivered through the Gateway South joint venture between Laing O’Rourke and Fulton Hogan, will involve a bold method of delivery for three of the bridges on the project.
The 3000-tonne, 180-metre-long bridges are being built adjacent to the live road corridor, and will be moved into place over a weekend using self-propelled module transporters to minimise traffic disruption – an Australian first for a civil construction project.
‘We have developed a unique delivery method for some of the biggest bridge moves in our nation’s history,’ says Glastonbury. ‘Historically, big bridges have been built in situ, which usually means lengthy traffic disruption. Our approach at Darlington can help cities minimise disruption from major construction and transport projects.’
James Glastonbury
Laing O’Rourke is at the forefront of virtual reality technology in construction. It is using digital tools in the construction of pilot training facilities at the Royal Australian Air Force base in East Sale, Victoria. ‘These tools create an immersive experience to help our client understand layout, design and finishes of proposed facilities without the time and cost of physical prototyping,’ says Glastonbury.
Laing O’Rourke is also trialling autonomous vehicles for earthworks projects. It recently worked with a United States firm to develop autonomous controls for large water trucks. ‘It’s early days, but the trial went very well,’ says Glastonbury. ‘The focus is not about replacing human workers; rather, it’s about using latest technology to create more precision in complex earthwork projects, optimise machine performance, minimise fuel usage and enhance safety.’
Creating a culture of creativity
As Australia’s largest privately owned engineering group, Laing O’Rourke
is well placed to drive innovation. ‘We can take a longer-term view than most and focus on where our business will be in 10 or 20 years,’ says Glastonbury. ‘Private ownership makes us nimble; we can develop and apply good ideas to the field quickly.’
Laing O’Rourke is passionate about the potential for ‘constructive disruption’ in construction, and its role in influencing a positive change in the construction sector. ‘The construction sector is not recognised for its innovative practices,’ says Glastonbury. ‘We are seeking to generate a culture of “brave thinking”, rather than one of traditional practice.’
Glastonbury describes the firm’s innovation approach as a balancing act. ‘We absolutely need to deliver projects that achieve the certainty and assurance our clients expect. Within that, we encourage staff to collaboratively explore which project boundaries are fixed and which are flexible. We want staff to constructively explore and reshape the boundaries in engineering construction, to create improved value for all stakeholders.’
The firm’s innovation process, says Glastonbury, is built on collaboration and transparency. ‘We work closely with clients, supply-chain partners and other stakeholders. Good ideas usually get the best traction when born from real-project problems, and everyone works to create and implement a unique solution.’
A large investment in innovation capability is another feature. Laing O’Rourke established the Engineering Excellence Group (EnEx.G) in 2011 to create a multidisciplinary, multinational approach to innovation. EnEx.G brings together world-class experts across industry and academia to challenge and change accepted thinking in engineering construction.
With approximately 100 subject experts in Sydney and London, EnEx.G acts as an internal innovation lab for Laing O’Rourke, a research and development arm, and a contributor to in-house education programs.
‘EnEx.G adds another layer to Laing O’Rourke’s innovation capabilities by combining the best disciplinedbased engineering experts from around the world with our outstanding local engineers,’ says Glastonbury. ‘EnEx.G also helps us apply stepchange technologies, such as robotic technology, to construction engineering.’
A recent trial of an autonomous vehicle
Market validates innovation focus
Laing O’Rourke’s innovation focus is achieving strong industry recognition. The firm was named as one of Australia’s top 10 most innovative businesses in the BRW Top 50 Most Innovative List in 2014 and 2015. No other engineering firm ranked in the top 10.
‘Laing O’Rourke has developed a reputation for solving problems differently,’ says Glastonbury. ‘We tackle projects through a unique lens and have a level of engineering-led thinking we believe is among world’s best.’
Organisation culture was reflected in the firm’s top-five ranking in the 2017 Top Graduate Employers list from the Australian Association of Graduate Employers. ‘We attract staff who want to be involved in groundbreaking, creative projects,’ says Glastonbury. ‘From our frontline engineers, to our graduates, non-engineering staff and research centres, there is a constant drive to challenge ourselves and our partners to find a better way.’ ♦
