Vessel repair handover SOP: completion review to departure
A shipyard SOP for vessel repair completion and handover: outstanding-item review, testing and commissioning, QA documentation, customer and class inspection, punch-list closure, and undocking, with an owner and workload hours per step.
How it works
Match the lanes to your own project organization
The sample uses Workshops, QA/QC, Project Manager and Customer / Class. If your handover process separates the workshop foreman's sign-off from a dock master's, or routes class surveys through a dedicated surveyor liaison, give each its own lane rather than folding it into an existing one: the lane is what tells a reader who owns a step at a glance.
Replace the sample People and Workload values with your own roster and hours
Swap Sarah Mitchell, Olivia Bennett, Marcus Webb and the rest for your actual project manager, QA/QC lead and workshop foremen, and set Workload to the effort each step realistically takes, not the calendar time it spans. That is what the workload BI panel totals, so placeholder hours produce a placeholder workload picture.
Write your own acceptance criteria onto the decision boxes
"All systems test and commission successfully?" and "Customer and class accept the work?" need real criteria behind them: which test standards a system must pass, and what the class surveyor is actually checking against. A decision with no stated criterion gets answered by judgement, which is exactly what the rework branches exist to catch.
Size the punch-list decision to your own tolerance for minor items
"All punch-list items closed and signed off?" assumes a punch-list of genuinely minor items agreed at inspection. If your yard's punch-lists routinely include work that should have blocked acceptance in the first place, tighten what your inspection decision treats as accepted with minor items, rather than letting it flow through to punch-list closure.
Keep final documentation as its own step, not a note on departure
"Assemble final repair dossier and warranty documentation" is the record the customer and FAYARD both rely on if a warranty question comes up later. Keeping it as a separate row before "Undock or release berth, vessel departs" means the dossier can't be skipped when a departure gets rushed.
Frequently asked questions
Why does this SOP have three separate decision points instead of one handover step?
Because a handover at a repair yard fails at three different moments, not one: a work package can still be open before testing starts, a repaired system can fail its own commissioning test, and the customer or class surveyor can decline to accept work the workshop and QA/QC already believed was done. Each decision sits at the moment its corresponding failure becomes checkable, and each branches back to rework rather than forward to a note, because catching an unfinished item at the outstanding-item review is far cheaper than catching it at the surveyor's inspection.
What do the People and Workload columns do on this chart?
Each step carries the person accountable for it and a Workload figure in hours representing the effort that step actually takes, not the elapsed time it spans. The workload BI panel reads those two columns across the chart to total effort by person and by stage, so a scheduler can see, for example, that the project manager is already carrying review, inspection-scheduling and punch-list hours on one handover before a second vessel's closeout gets added to her week.
What happens if the customer or class surveyor doesn't accept the completed work?
The decision "Customer and class accept the work?" routes a rejection back through "Return to workshop for major rework" and then back through the outstanding-item review, rather than treating the rejection as a side conversation. Only an acceptance with minor items proceeds to punch-list closure, which is what keeps a disputed repair from quietly reaching departure.
How is a punch-list item different from a failed commissioning test?
A failed commissioning test means a system didn't pass its own testing and is routed straight back to the workshop before the customer or surveyor is ever involved. A punch-list item is something the customer and class surveyor have already agreed is minor enough that it doesn't block acceptance, and it's tracked and closed separately at "All punch-list items closed and signed off?" rather than reopening the whole inspection.
Can this SOP be adapted for a repair project that has no classification society involved?
Yes. The stage structure carries over: outstanding-item review, testing and commissioning, documentation, an acceptance inspection and punch-list closure before departure. What changes is who sits in the Customer / Class lane and what the inspection decision actually checks against, so revise that step and its criteria rather than the overall sequence.