17. January 2008 DB Export section DRB & The Øresund Link Peter Lundhus Man. Dir. Femern Bælt A/S

17. January 2008

Øresund – Crossing a Border Copenhagen Malmø

17. January 2008 Who am I?  Contractor 20 years  Owner 20 yrs. - involved in the 3 major links Great Belt Link Øresund Link Fehmarn Link ?

17. January 2008 The organisation behind the 3 Links Femern Belt Link BanverketVägverket Øresund (Land) Sund & Bælt Holding The Danish stateThe Swedish state SVEDAB (Land) Øresund Link Consortium 50 % Great Belt Link

17. January 2008 Tunnel assembly factory, Copenhagen

17. January 2008 Øresund – T tunnel units

17. January 2008 Bridgefoundation assembly line, Malmö

17. January 2008 Øresund – placing a 7000 T bridge section

17. January 2008 The connecting bridge section – 4 years + 1 mths.

17. January 2008 Consortium Agreement § 1 Name and Operations of the Consortium 1. In the light of the provisions of the agreement dated 23 March 1991 between the governments of Sweden and Denmark the Parties hereby establish a consortium, which, under the name : ØRESUNDSKONSORTIET shall on behalf of both Parties and as a single entity own and be responsible for the planning, designing, financing, construction, operation and maintenance of a toll-funded fixed link for rail and road traffic between Kastrup and Limhamn, hereinafter referred to as “the Øresund Link”. 2. The operations of the Consortium shall be conducted in accordance with sound business principles.

17. January 2008 Main numbers Øresund duration:8 years Construction time:5 years Contracts:9 major (10+ nationalities) Budget:Euro 3 billion (1990 prices) Monthly T/O:Approx. US $ 50 million

17. January 2008 Bridgebuilder job Contractors Parliaments The Press The Owner Individuals Companies Organisations Authorities in general Local authorities Consultants Other Fixed Links Competitors (ferries) Rail operators Infrastructural managers Shareholders ”Neighbours” around Øresund The public in general OH 09

17. January 2008 “He flung himself from the room, flung himself upon his horse and rode madly off in all directions.” Stephen Leacock What strategy ?

17. January 2008 Partnership - Goals, a comparison ‘Owner’ requirements:  Value for money  Timely completion  On budget Contractor’s intentions:  Value for money  Timely completion  On (his) budget (= profit) OH 03

17. January 2008 Partnership - Historic conclusions (mine) General observations over time: 1.‘Owners’ are rarely aware of their obligations in the process 2.The result is an unclear contract 3.An unclear contract is not a satisfactory foundation for cooperation OH 04

17. January 2008 Partnership - ‘Owners’ responsibilities # 1 a)Define clearly - his functional requirements - his timeframe - his quality level b)Choose risk philosophy c)Choose advisors d)Choose contractors OH 06

17. January 2008 Partnership - ‘Owners’ responsibility # 2 Understand the relationship:  Time,  Quality, and  Money Any change after award:  only 2 out of 3 – can remain fixed at the same time. OH 07

17. January 2008 Partnership - Konsortiets original choices Konsortiet decided: -to be a competent ’Owner’ - to produce no budget surprises, - allow contractors to make money - to ensure long term good quality Mental consequence:  “We are a Contractor ourselves - the Main Contractor” i.e. part of the solution to the problem, - not part of the problem itself. OH 08

17. January 2008 Partnership # 1- How? Co-operation happens only, if both parties profit from it OH 10

17. January 2008 Partnership #2 - Contract basis  Clearly written contracts Based on expectations of co-operation, not conflicts  Clearly defined requirements No compromise on quality (= low maintenance)  Construction contracts had a clear division of risks, i.e. gambling belongs to the Owner all defined risks, not under the contractor’s control, were price-able all risks under the contractor’s control belonged solely to the contractor OH 12

17. January 2008 Procurement The procurement of works follows EU Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993: Restricted procedure with prequalification

17. January 2008 Tendering basis  Transparency required  EEC 93/37 most advantageous tender  Design + Construct Delegation / Partnership Functional criteria Illustrative Design (For information only) DRB included (General Conditions

17. January 2008 Intergrated contract principles  Milestone Concept Max. 1% (paid when all NCO fixed) Selfcontrol  Dispute Review Board Decision on manning at award Frequent meeting schedule

17. January 2008 DRB operations  Individual DRBs  DRB meeting frequency 2-3 months  No DRB ever had to make a decision i.e. No claims

17. January 2008 All objectives were met:  The link opened on July 1, 2000 (9 months early)  Budget not exceeded  Within environmental framework  No contractors lost money on the project  No arbitrations or disputes  No political or media-related complications A textbook win-win situation Win-win situation