Saep 360 PDF

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-360 8 December 2016

Project Planning Guidelines
Document Responsibility: Facilities Planning Standards Committee
Note: This version of SAEP-360 is applicable for all projects using the new Capital Management
System (CMS). All other projects will use the previous version of the procedure dated
25 June 2011.
Contents
1 Introduction ........................................................ 2
2 Applicability........................................................ 7
3 Applicable Documents ....................................... 7
4 Key Terms ......................................................... 9
5 Key Implementation Notes .............................. 13
6 Capital Management System
(A- & B-Type Projects) ............................... 13
7 Capital Management System
(C- & C1-Type Projects) ............................ 26
Revision Summary................................................. 40
Appendix I - Project Submittal - Process

Waiver Request ......................................... 41
Appendix II - Project Deferral/Cancellation
Request ..................................................... 42
Appendix III - Database Change Request ............. 43
Appendix IV - Third-Party Projects
Planning Guidelines ................................... 44
Previous Issue: 4 January 2016 Next Planned Update: 26 October 2018

Page 1 of 55
Contact: Morcos, Anthony G (morcosag) on phone +966-13-8800843
©Saudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Facilities Planning Standards Committee SAEP-360
Issue Date: 8 December 2016
Next Planned Update: 26 October 2018 Project Planning Guidelines
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The capital project development process begins when a capital project is initially
conceived and ends when the project has been successfully commissioned.
Corporate Planning develops the Company’s Corporate Strategic Framework

utilizing the outlooks and input from Senior and Executive Management.
The Company’s Corporate Strategy Framework typically spans a 20-year period.
Business master plans are developed to translate the corporate objectives

appropriate to a specific area of the Company, typically a system of facilities,
into a capital investment activity needed to achieve the corporate objectives in a
logical direction for that asset class, area or cross organizational function.
Facility master plans are keys to the capital planning work process and support
many aspects of the Company’s decision making process during the early stages
of planning. They provide a forecast of potential expenditure necessary to
ensure the respective facilities can fulfill their ongoing commitments and future
role as defined within the Corporate Strategic Framework. Facility master plans
define the predicted appropriations during the future 10-20 years.
Corporate Planning derives a 10-year Investment Profile (IP) from the business
and facility master plans. The IP forms the basis for the 3-year Business Plan
(BP) development.
The project planning period normally begins when a project is identified in the
BP. Thereafter, the project’s business case is progressively developed, the
project’s scope is frozen, and the project’s execution strategy is fully defined
and documented in line with the Capital Management System (CMS).
1.2 Capital Management System
The Capital Management System (CMS) is the framework adopted by Saudi

Aramco for managing and controlling activities and decisions related to Capital
Projects. The CMS covers the entire project development process from business
planning, through project definition and execution to operations.
The CMS introduces five Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers

(CMSEEs), namely:
 Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP)
 Front End Loading (FEL)
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Page 2 of 55
 Project Sponsor (PS) and Integrated Project Team (IPT)

 Value Assurance (VA)
 Target Setting (TS)
The CMS and each of the CMSEEs are described in detail in the FEL Manual
located on the Capital Program Efficiency Department’s (CPED) ShareK site at:
https://Sharek.aramco.com.sa/Orgs/30026862.
This document does not attempt to explain the CMS and the five CMSEEs listed
above. It provides a brief introduction to the concepts as they apply to
successfully plan capital projects.
Under PXP, the Facilities Planning Department (FPD) leads the portfolio
characterization of all projects in the 10-year IP based on project size and
complexity as shown in Figure 1.1 below, “CMS Project Characterization”.
Figure 1.1 - CMS Project Characterization (M denotes $1,000,000)
The FEL process organizes the project lifecycle into different stages, phases,
decision gates and checkpoints, each with specific objectives, defined activities,
deliverables and decisions. There are four stages in the FEL process and six
phases. The four stages are FEL 0, FEL 1, FEL 2 and FEL 3. The six phases
are: Initiation, Business Case, Study, Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP),
Project Proposal and Finalize FEL. Based on the project characterization types,
the number of FEL gates and checkpoints to effectively plan a given project are
determined. The six phases are mapped into the four stages as shown in
Figure 1.2, “CMS FEL Process for all Capital Projects”.

Page 3 of 55
Figure 1.2 - CMS FEL Process for all Capital Projects
As stated above, each of the project phases accomplishes specific work towards
achieving the project objectives and decisions, and produces a set of deliverables.
The deliverables are listed and detailed in the CPED ShareK site mentioned
above. For the purposes of this document, those will not be listed herein again.
The end of each FEL phase is sanctioned by a checkpoint or gate at which the
decision maker, i.e., Management Committee or Business Line Committee,
decides if a project is ready to continue to the next phase of execution.
The achievement of the objectives is checked by the Value Assurance team at
the checkpoint or gate in a documented and systemized way. When the
objectives of each project phase are achieved, the checkpoint or gate is passed
and the project moves to the next phase. At each of the gates, the project’s
Business Case is defined and formulated or reconfirmed, risks are mitigated,
project planning and execution strategies are assessed, and management
approvals and direction are obtained.
CMS also introduces the Project Sponsor (PS) and the Integrated Project Team
(IPT). The PS is an executive for A- & B-type projects and a member of
management for C- & C1-type projects. The PS is appointed by the proponent
organization and is accountable for meeting the project objectives. The PS
steers the IPT toward maximizing investment value. Being part of the
proponent organization, the PS provides a single point of accountability
throughout the lifecycle of a project and drives trade-offs between cost,
schedule, and operability.

Page 4 of 55
The IPT is a temporary project team, formed from the needed functional
departments under a unified leadership (Project Leader) and sharing the same
objectives as and is steered by the PS. During the FEL 2 phase of the project,
the project leader will be an accountable representative from FPD. During the
FEL 3 phase of the project, the project leader changes to a representative from
the Construction Agency until funding.
1.3 Planning of Capital Projects
Prior to entering the FEL process, a project is identified and developed by the
proponent as described in the FPD Submittal Requirements for New Projects
process. The Business Lines should review each proposed project to confirm
the following:
 The appropriation is consistent with the Company’s latest Strategic
Direction and Business Plan objectives.
 The appropriation is aligned with the 10-year Investment Plan approved
annually or is proposed for inclusion in the 10-year Investment Plan.
 The appropriation is part of an approved Master Plan.
 The appropriation has been evaluated and described in accordance with the
Submittal Requirements for New Projects process.
 The Business Case established for each of the proposed appropriations is
supportive of continued development.
 The appropriation is submitted within the time frames stipulated by FPD and
Corporate Planning.
If any of the above conditions cannot be met, the proponent should submit a
Project Submittal - Process Waiver Request (Appendix I). The form should be
reviewed and signed by the proponent’s Business Line head and submitted to
FPD Budget Office staff (via e-mail) for evaluation and recommendation.
Subsequently, the form will be transmitted to the Senior Vice President,
Finance, Strategy, and Development for approval.
Upon selection of a capital project to be included in the BP, specifically in early

planning, synergy is created when projects (or portion thereof) are combined in
ways (scope and/or location) that cause them to the increase overall value that
the scope that the project is intended to deliver. Synergy opportunities among
projects are routinely explored by planners as part of the various planning
practices; however, the preliminary assessments continue to be held until the BP
is endorsed by the Executive Management and substantial cost reductions are
achieved. FPD proposed synergy opportunities are subsequently submitted to
Project Management Office Department and the Project Management Teams in

Page 5 of 55
order to determine feasibility and level of savings achieved from both scope and
execution synergies. Synergy opportunities are then reported to all key
stakeholders prior to implementation. For further details, please refer to
SABP-A-041, Project Synergy Planning Guidelines.
1.3.1 Deferral/Cancellation of a Capital Project
Deferral or cancellation of a project from an approved Capital Budget

requires approval by Management Committee (MC), regardless of the
budget item value. The approval to defer or cancel a project will be
requested as part of the MC presentation at one of the major Expenditure
Request (ER) cycles which take place in February, April, July, October,
and December.
Deferral or cancellation of a project from an approved 3-Year Capital

Program requires approval by MC during the Capital Program
engagement sessions, regardless of the budget item value.
In both scenarios listed above, the FPD engineer should submit a Project
Deferral/Cancellation Request (Appendix II). The form will be reviewed
and signed by the Managers of FPD, the Construction Agency and the
Proponent department. The form will document whether the deferral
was supported or not supported by MC.
Note: This deferral or cancellation of a project process is mandatory for all
capital projects, whether CMS or traditional. In order to affect any of
the project milestones, concurrence of both the PMT and Proponent
management is required.
1.3.2 Changes to Project Milestones
Once a project is endorsed in the BP, the key project milestones are
established and archived. Changes to the archived project milestones must
be concurred to by the Project Sponsor and the Execution Agency/PMT
Management. Once the project milestones are concurred to, the FPD
engineer shall submit a Database Change Request form (Appendix III).
The form will be reviewed and signed by the FPD Work Director,
Division Head and ultimately the FPD Manager. Proof of the concurrence
by the Construction Agency and the Proponent department must
accompany the completed form. Changes to the project milestones can
only occur once the form is completed and signed by the FPD Manager.
1.4 Purpose of Guidelines
The objective of these guidelines is to describe the front-end planning and

scoping portions of the projects’ development process during the FEL stages.

Page 6 of 55
The guidelines are intended to improve the quality and consistency of the project
planning process by describing each of the specific planning tasks in each phase
of FEL process.
The project planning guidelines are structured to:

 Sequentially develop the proposed capital project in decision-based
organized and systematic phases, refine the required deliverables and
specific objectives in each phase, and provide Saudi Aramco’s Management
with sufficient information to make reasonable and timely business decisions
regarding a proposed project.
 Ensure that the decisions required to effectively plan capital projects are well
founded.
2 Applicability
The SAEP-360 guidelines apply to all projects that are included in the 3-year Business
Plan, except for the following project types:
 Exploration projects (BI-33).
 Unconventional gas development projects (BI-34).
 Development drilling projects (BI-60).
 Non-engineered projects.
 Projects that are Monetary Appropriations only.
These guidelines provide the procedures to properly plan a capital project under CMS
once the Business Plan has been approved by the Board of Directors.
3 Applicable Documents
The latest edition of the applicable reference documents shall be applied:
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-12 Project Execution Plan
SAEP-13 Project Environmental Impact Assessments
SAEP-14 Project Proposal
SAEP-25 Estimate Preparation Guidelines
SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process
SAEP-60 Master Plan Development Procedure
SAEP-71 Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP)
Page 7 of 55
SAEP-148 Mandatory Engineering Standards and Codes for

Non-Industrial, Public, and Government Facilities
SAEP-303 Engineering Reviews of Project Proposal and
Detailed Design Documentation
SAEP-329 Project Closeout Reports
SAEP-334 Retrieval, Certification, and Submittal of Saudi
Aramco Engineering and Vendor Drawings
SAEP-367 Value Improving Practices Requirements
SAEP-503 Assets’ Sparing Requirements and Guidelines
SAEP-1020 Capital Program Planning
SAEP-1350 Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation
and Revision Procedure
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

SAES-A-030 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
Study Execution
SAES-A-202 Saudi Aramco Engineering Drawing Preparation
 Saudi Aramco Best Practices

SABP-A-041 Project Synergy Planning Guidelines
SABP-A-042 Business Case Development Guidelines
SABP-A-043 Master Plan Development Guidelines
 Saudi Aramco General Instructions

GI-0002.716 Land Use Permits Procedures
GI-0030.001 Transaction Development Guidelines
GI-0202.451 Engineering Work Order Authorization for
Preliminary Engineering Preparation
 Saudi Aramco Form and Datasheet

SA-7214 Performance Acceptance Certificate
 Saudi Aramco CMSEEs documentation (for the latest, please refer to the Capital
Program Efficiency Department’s (CPED) ShareK site at:
https://Sharek.aramco.com.sa/Orgs/30026862
Portfolio Execution Planning Manual
Project Sponsor (PS) Manual (A & B-Type Projects)
Page 8 of 55
Project Sponsor (PS) Manual (C & C1-Type Projects)

Integrated Project Team (IPT) Manual
Front End Loading (FEL) Manual
Target Setting (TS) Manual
RAPID Matrix FEL 1-3
Book of Deliverables
These guidelines provide the procedures to properly develop a DBSP document

deliverable required as part of the FEL 2 DBSP phase of the CMS. Figure 3.1,
“Mapping of Key Saudi Aramco Standards to CMS FEL Process”, shows pictorially
some of the applicable Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures, Saudi Aramco Best
Practices and General Instructions to the different FEL phases. The figure also
highlights in green color the phase in which SAEP-360 applies.
Figure 3.1 - Mapping of Saudi Aramco Standards to CMS FEL Process
4 Key Terms
Definitions of the key terms used throughout this document are presented below.
Brown Field Project: Projects that affect facilities where there is infrastructure already
constructed. Brown field project modifies or expands such facilities.
Page 9 of 55
Budget Item (BI): A discrete project that has been defined and evaluated to the extent
required for Management to include it in the Business Plan and commit additional
resources to further develop the information required by Management. Based on the
information developed, if deemed appropriate, the Board of Directors will make
reasonable business decisions regarding the continued development of the project.
Budgetary Project Scope Definition: A preliminary description of the facilities that

might actually be built, defined in sufficient detail to develop a Capital Budget Cost
Estimate, when combined with the information provided in the FEL 2 DBSP deliverables.
Business Case: The information required to make reasonable business decisions

regarding a proposed capital project, including its scope, cost, benefits, and risks
throughout its development.
Business Line: Saudi Aramco's basic organization structure. A business line forms
part of the organizational matrix with a responsibility over a specific part of the
company business.
Business Objective: The purpose of the proposed project.
Capital Program Efficiency Department (CPED): Is the organization that manages

and governs the implementation of the Capital Management System (CMS) “Efficiency
Enablers” to maximize capital efficiency and improve the predictability and successful
implementation of capital projects by applying the five enablers.
Capital Program Management (CPM): The Construction Agency for C1-type projects.
This is the team that is assigned to the project during project planning and execution.
Construction Agency: The organization assigned to execute the project. This could be
the Saudi Aramco Project Management administrative area that is the default
Construction Agency for A-, B- and C-type projects, or the proponent’s Capital
Program Management (CPM) team for C1-type projects.
Cost Estimate: Is estimate of the capital investment value, prepared by the Project
Management Office Department (PMOD) as per SAEP-25, and is deemed to have
various accuracies depending on the phase of the project. Those include: the FEL 2
Study Cost Estimate generated with an accuracy of ±40%, the FEL 2 DBSP Cost
Estimate generated with an accuracy of ±30%, and the FEL 3 Expenditure Request (ER)
Cost Estimate generated with a definitive accuracy of ±10%.
Decision Maker: Is represented by the Management Committee for A- and B-type

projects, by the Business Line Committee for Upstream and Downstream C- and
C1-type projects, and by the Executive Advisory Committee for all other C- and
C1-type projects.

Page 10 of 55
Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP): A document prepared by the IPT during the
FEL 2 DBSP phase of the CMS (led by FPD) that details the complete scope of a given
capital project in order to economically achieve the stated business objective(s) in an
anticipated operating environment. Please refer to SAEP-1350 for details of the DBSP
guidelines.
Expenditure Request Approval (ERA): The date the expenditure request is approved
to allow the project to proceed to the execution phase. The ERA is the date project
funding becomes available upon approval by the Executive Committee or the Board.
Expenditure Request Completion (ERC): The date the expenditure request is closed
and project is handed over to the operating organization (proponent). The ERC is the
date on which the Performance Acceptance Certificate (SA-7214) is signed off, for the
project. It is close to, but need not match, the “beneficial use” or “on-stream” dates for
the facilities, which are the dates on which the proponent begins to use the facilities.
FEL 2 Study Cost Estimate: An estimate of the initial capital investment and is
deemed to have an accuracy of ±40%.
FEL 2 DBSP Cost Estimate: An estimate of the capital investment after major elements
of the project scope has been frozen and is deemed to have an accuracy of ±30%.
FEL 3 Expenditure Request (ER) Cost Estimate: A definitive ±10% estimate

prepared in support of the funding request document. PMOD is responsible to ensure
that the FEL 3 ER Cost Estimate satisfies all Company standards for format and quality.
If the FEL 3 ER Cost Estimate is prepared by the Construction Agency, it must be
reviewed and endorsed by PMOD.
Front End Loading (FEL): A ‘Stage and Gate’ process to facilitate project planning
definition and decision-making that defines:
 The activities to be performed during each Stage/Phase.
 The decisions to be made at each Gate.
For more details, refer to the Front End Loading Manual.
Integrated Project Team (IPT): A team composed of appointed members from

different organizations who work in an integrated manner and have clear roles and
accountabilities toward project planning and execution.
Page 11 of 55
PMOD: The Project Management Office Department.
Project A-, B-, C- & C1-Types: Assigned to the projects by FPD based on size
(CAPEX) and complexity.
Project Leader: A representative from FPD who leads the IPT during FEL1 and FEL
2 stages, or a representative from the Construction Agency who leads the IPT during
FEL 3 stage and thereafter up to the project completion.
Project Proposal: A document prepared by the IPT during FEL 3 (led by the
Construction Agency) which defines the actual facilities to be built, in sufficient detail
to obtain an ER Cost Estimate from PMOD. Please refer to SAEP-14 for details of the
Project Proposal guidelines.
Project Scope Definition (PSD): A document that describes the key technical
requirements and features of a design project. The PSD serves as the high level
technical design basis for the project to allow the potential GES+ contractors to bid on
developing the FEL 2 DBSP.
Project Sponsor (PS): An Executive or a member of Management, appointed by the

proponent organization, who is accountable for meeting project objectives and steering
the IPT towards maximizing investment value.
Proponent: The Saudi Aramco organization that owns, operates, and maintains the
completed facility. The proponent is responsible for signing the Mechanical
Completion Certificate as owner of the facility.
RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide): A methodology that clarifies

roles and responsibilities in the work process related to the development of a deliverable.
Saudi Aramco Project Management Team (SAPMT): The Construction Agency

team that is assigned to the project during project planning and execution.
Value Assurance (VA) Process: The VA Process, one of the efficiency enablers of
CMS, ensures the project to maintain or improve its overall created value within its
defined objectives through all stages of its development. The VA Process is
implemented through structured and rigorous analysis, the Value Assurance (VA)
Review, performed by an independent multidisciplinary team before each Gate and/or
Key Decision(s) to examine all aspects of a project from a diverse, holistic, and cross
discipline perspective to: Identify gaps, risks and opportunities and Provide necessary
recommendation to the IPT and the Project Sponsor Provide an independent assessment
of project readiness to support the Decision Maker for the Gate decisions.
Value Improving Practices (VIPs): Are practices used to improve project performance,
and they are primarily used during the FEL of a project. Within Saudi Aramco, the term
VIP encompasses Value Engineering, a group of other value management techniques
Page 12 of 55
called Best Practices, Project Risk Management and Interface Management. It should be
noted that the CMS full set of deliverables (see FEL Manual) includes VIPs that
encompass other practices. For additional details, please see SAEP-367.
5 Key Implementation Notes
These guidelines apply to the planning of capital projects once they have been approved
by the Board of Directors into the 3-year Capital Program. Once the project has been
approved, the project characterization must be completed to determine the project type
(A-, B-, C- or C1-) and the number of FEL gates required to pass. Based on the project
type, the appropriate section below can be applied independently of the other sections to
move the project through required CMS planning gates.
In the context of this Procedure, capital programs are subject to the same guidelines for
project planning as individual capital projects. All capital projects within a Capital
Program will have an IPT leader and an IPT assigned to them under the jurisdiction of
one PS. Coordination between projects is the responsibility of the IPT leaders to ensure
a fully efficient and optimized capital program.
All capital cost estimates shall be prepared by PMOD as per SAEP-25. Those estimates
include the initial capital investments and the quantifiable net benefits of a given capital
project. The only exception is the ER cost estimates whereas the Construction Agency
manages the development of those and delivers them to PMOD. PMOD then reviews,
confirms, and documents the ER cost estimates.
The most recent version of FPD’s economic evaluation model shall be used to calculate
financial benefits. FPD shall develop all economic evaluations for the project and
confirm with the Portfolio Analysis & Decision Support Department, as required, the
economic evaluation basis.
All analysis shall be formally archived prior to approval of the gate (a properly labeled
file in FPD’s electronic library). The archived estimate must be PMOD generated.
6 Capital Management System (A- & B-Type Projects)
This section specifically details the project planning guidelines for A- & B-type
projects. The CMS FEL process, shown in Figure 6.1, depicts the different phases
required for all A- & B-type projects. This section will only address the guidelines for
FEL 1 to FEL 3.
Figure 6.1 - CMS FEL Process for A- & B-Type Projects

Page 13 of 55
At the start of the CMS FEL process, the IPT agrees with CPED Value Assurance team
on the list of relevant deliverables for each of the stages and establishes the applicable
RAPID for each of those deliverables.
6.1 FEL 1 STAGE (Business Case Phase)
Purpose:
The purpose of the Business Case phase is to continue to verify and develop the
business case, including technical, commercial, and economic evaluations, if
applicable (please refer to SABP-A-042, Business Case Development
Guidelines, for further details prior to starting this phase). In addition, the
purpose includes the identification of a complete set of alternatives to study and
develop during the FEL 2 Study phase.
Responsibilities:
At the beginning of this phase, the PS is assigned and the IPT is fully assembled
and is led by the IPT leader from FPD. Working under the direction of the PS,
the IPT leader determines the required resources to undertake all the required
deliverables, integrates project components, maintains control over the project
and engages stakeholders to enable the development of the project, and follows
the RAPID matrix to determine responsibilities in project planning.
Deliverable(s):
The core deliverable for this phase is the Business Case and this includes:
 Review and validation of the business objectives that the project supports
(e.g., the project's purpose in terms of Saudi Aramco’s Corporate Objectives).
 Confirmation of alignment between the proposed project and the Company’s
Investment Plans and Master Plans.
 Confirmation of potential synergies with other projects that can be
implemented.
 Description of the project in terms of scope, expected net benefits, life cycle
costs, risks, assumptions, constraints, and impacts on Saudi Aramco’s
manpower and Net Direct Expenditures (NDEs).

Page 14 of 55
 Development and maintenance of the project execution plan and schedule as

per the FEL manual (see pages 46 & 58) and SAEP-12.
 Development of the economic model for the base case including net benefits,
lifecycle costs, Net Present Value (NPV) evaluation and sensitivities analysis,
as required.
Note: Economic modeling is required for all projects whose primary justification is
Economics, and for all gas and oil development projects.
 Identification and implementation of applicable Value Improving Practices

requirements as per SAEP-367.
 Identification of all viable alternatives that will be analyzed in FEL 2 Study
phase, including the potential for third-party project strategy. For third-party
projects, this includes evaluation, if required, of the differences in cost due
to applying Saudi Aramco standards vs. International standards. Please refer
to Appendix IV of this document for details on third-party projects planning.
Other deliverables that are critical to enable assessment of the project at the gate
for this phase are reflected in the Book of Deliverables hosted on CPED ShareK
site at:
https://Sharek.aramco.com.sa/Orgs/30026862/Pages/Book%20of%20Deliverables.aspx
Outcome:
At the end of this stage, after all the deliverables have been completed and
verified by the IPT as per the RAPID matrix, the Value Assurance Review is
initiated by the Value Assurance Team. The IPT leader develops a response
plan for the Value Assurance recommendations. The PS then presents the
Business Case to the Decision Maker, along with the Value Assurance
recommendations. The Decision Maker then decides whether or not to pass
Gate 1, take the project to the next phase, and commit the required resources.
6.2 FEL 2 STAGE
At the start of this stage, the IPT leader, in consultation with the PS and the IPT,
makes a decision as to whether to undertake the development of the FEL 2 Study
and/or DBSP phases in-house or externally through the use of an engineering
contractor. In order to utilize an external engineering contractor, PMOD is
engaged, and TC-68 engineering funds (refer to GI-0002.716) may be utilized by
the IPT for this purpose.
Also, at the start of this stage, the IPT shall conduct a comprehensive review of all
Saudi Aramco and International standards and procedures to determine those that
apply to the development of the FEL 2 Study and/or DBSP phases. For all non-
Page 15 of 55
industrial public and government facilities, the IPT shall follow SAEP-148,
Mandatory Engineering Standards and Codes for Non-Industrial, Public, and
Government Facilities.
6.2.1 Study Phase
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 2 Study phase is to complete the analysis required to
assess the viable alternatives for achieving the stated business objective in terms
of their cost, benefits, and risks, and recommends which of the alternatives
should be selected.
Responsibilities:
This phase starts with the PS and the IPT leader meeting with all the IPT
members to review the management direction for the project and the key Study
Phase objectives. The IPT leader remains from FPD at this phase. Working
under the direction of the PS, the IPT leader continues to guide the team to
complete all the required deliverables to enable the assessment of the project at
the Gate Alternative Selection (GAS) Gate, and follows the RAPID matrix to
determine responsibilities in project planning.
At the end of the phase, IPT leader works closely with the PS to develop the
gate decision support package. The PS then presents to the Decision Maker the
alternative to be further developed during the FEL 2 DBSP phase.
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is the evaluation of the project’s alternatives, including:
 Description of the project’s alternatives with related scope (e.g., facilities
related to the alternatives, civil works, communications, etc.).
 Economic evaluation for each of the viable alternatives.

Page 16 of 55
 Implementation of applicable Value Improving Practices requirements as per

SAEP-367.
The IPT undertakes the following activities to achieve the GAS gate deliverables:
 Prepares a plan for developing the FEL 2 Study, which:
- Identifies and prioritizes the major tasks and list of deliverables.
- Identifies the major parameters/considerations associated the proposed
project.
- Identifies and prioritizes the required information, including the product
values to be used in the evaluation, and likely sources for this
information.
- Identifies the resources, internal and external to Saudi Aramco, which
may be required.
- Describes the FEL 2 Study Report in outline form.
 Visits the site of the proposed facilities (i.e., the physical location of the
proposed facilities) to definitively describe the proposed facilities.
 Validates that all viable alternatives, including modular design requirements,
were identified for achieving the stated Business Objective.
Note: For studies that are undertaken by an external contractor, a comprehensive
Modular Design Assessment (MDA) study must be conducted at this phase.
 Develops a project scope for each viable alternative to develop a FEL 2

Study Cost Estimate.
 Processes and approves all Land Use Permits (LUP), per GI-0002.716, Land
Use Permit Procedure (Reference Section 5.1), or a Temporary Reservation,
if there are special conditions (i.e., outstanding issues) that have to be
addressed prior to LUP approval.
 Develops a preliminary estimate (accuracy as defined in SAEP-25 of ±40%)
of the initial capital investment.
 Confirms with the Portfolio Analysis & Decision Support Department, as
required, the economic evaluation basis and develops a preliminary
economic evaluation for the project.
 Completes an economic evaluation for each of the viable alternatives, as
required, including sensitivity analysis.
 Assesses the inherent risks and opportunities associated with each viable
alternative.

Page 17 of 55
 Determines whether the Business Case is still supportive of continued

project development, based on the selected alternative.
 Recommends whether to proceed with the development of a non-third-party
project or, with the endorsement of New Business Development, to proceed
by implementing a third-party project as an optimal alternative as per
GI-0030.001, Transaction Development Guidelines. Please also refer to
Appendix IV of this document for details on third-party projects planning.
 Confirms the list of Saudi Aramco and International standards and procedures
that apply to the development of the FEL 2 DBSP phase of this project.
 Completes the applicable VIPs (Value Engineering, Constructability, etc.,
per SAEP-367).
 Documents the study results in the Alternative Selection Report (ASR).
The ASR is a document that compares all alternatives that were selected in
the Business Case Assessment of FEL 1 and provides all the reasons why the
optimum case was selected.
for this phase are reflected in the Book of Deliverables hosted on CPED ShareK:
Outcome:
At the end of this phase, after all the deliverables have been completed and
verified by the IPT as per the RAPID matrix, the Assurance Review is initiated by
the CPED Value Assurance Team. The IPT leader develops a response plan for
the value assurance recommendations. The PS then presents the recommended
optimum alternative, along with the value assurance recommendations, to the
Decision Maker for endorsement to commit the required resources and proceed to
the FEL 2 DBSP phase [passing the GAS Gate].
Note: For third-party projects, the Decision Maker will also decide at the GAS whether
a project shall proceed by implementing a non-third-party or a third-party
project. If the project is committed as a third-party project, the IPT ceases work
and New Business Development undertakes the remaining actions for its
implementation, as per GI-0030.001. Please also refer to Appendix IV of this
document for details on third-party projects planning.

Page 18 of 55
6.2.2 DBSP Phase
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 2 DBSP phase is to define the selected alternative to
freeze the project scope and generate a budgetary cost estimate (±30%).
The DBSP shall clearly and definitively describe “what” facility capabilities are
required to most economically achieve the proposed project’s stated business
objective with defined targets that are competitive and in line with the project’s
objectives. The FEL 2 DBSP phase requires that the IPT continue active
participation in the development of key studies to refine the engineering level of
the project and allow the scope to be frozen. The DBSP shall be written in
accordance with the most recently approved version of SAEP-1350, DBSP
Preparation and Review Procedure.
Responsibilities:
members to review the management direction for the project and the key DBSP
Phase objectives. The IPT leader remains from FPD at this phase. Working
complete all the required deliverables to enable assessment of the project at the
FEL 2 DBSP gate, and follows the RAPID matrix to determine responsibilities
in project planning.
During this phase, the IPT further develops the proposed project’s scope, more
specifically the alternative selected during the FEL 2 Study phase, to re-confirm
the types of facilities to be provided, the corresponding design basis, and the
required attributes.
Note: The IPT develops the Project Scope Definition (PSD) document to describe the
critical requirements and features of the project based on the selected
alternative. The PSD serves as the high level technical design basis for the
project to allow the potential GES+ contractors to bid on developing the FEL 2
DBSP. For more details, refer to the FPD PSD Guidelines.
detailed proposed project scope (frozen scope) which will be further developed
during the FEL 3 Project Proposal phase.
Page 19 of 55
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is to issue a Design Basis Scoping Document (DBSP)
and freeze the project scope, including:
 Overview of the physical location of the proposed facilities and the related
interfaces.
 Preliminary assessment of the constructability and logistical issues specific
to the proposed project (e.g., accessibility to the proposed site for the
facilities, load restrictions of access roads and bridges, etc.).
 Preliminary assessment of the extent to which existing drawings must be
updated to reflect as-built facilities, the extent to which existing drawings are
available in an appropriate format and the time required to modify existing
drawings (as necessary).
 Description of the physical design objectives (functions) of each major
project scope element.
 Description of the general design basis which applies to the entire project.
 Description of proposed facilities including the type of facility to be provided,
the related technical design basis (e.g., the required capabilities), etc.
 Information on Licensors (how they were contacted, bid collection and
review process, methodology for ranking and recommendations for the way
forward in licensor selection, etc.).
Note: Licensor selection is performed as part of the Technology Selection
process in the FEL 2 Study phase.

SAEP-367.
The IPT undertakes the following activities to achieve the gate deliverables:
 Prepares the DBSP development plan, which:
- Identifies and prioritizes the major tasks and list of deliverables for this
phase.
values to be used in the evaluation, and likely sources for this information.
may be required.
Page 20 of 55
 Completes the Modular Design Assessment (MDA) study, if not already
conducted in the FEL 2 Study phase.
 Develops the proposed project’s scope, more specifically the alternative
selected during the FEL 2 Study phase, to confirm the types of facilities to
be provided, and the corresponding design basis.
 Develops a preliminary plot plan to show the location of the proposed
facilities relative to each other and to existing facilities.
 Determines the location and characterizes the conditions of each physical,
operation, and project schedule interfaces between the existing and proposed
facilities (e.g., inlet and outlet process streams, inlet and outlet utility
streams, entrance and exit roadways).
 Develops the drawings/documents and prepares a detailed list of equipment
required (as per SAEP-25) to generate the budgetary estimate.
 Refines, in conjunction with Portfolio Analysis & Decision Support
Department, the economic evaluation basis (e.g., the basis for determining
the Net Benefits that the Kingdom would realize) to be used to further
develop the project's scope, and develops a preliminary economic evaluation
for the project.
 Conducts preliminary Environmental Impacts Assessment and obtains

Environmental Protection Department/Ministry approval as per SAEP-13.
 Completes required studies, i.e., Preliminary Hazard Analysis, Building Risk
Assessment (initial), Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
study, Process Simulation, Environmental Dispersions, etc.
 Completes the Energy Optimization study (including development of
pre-requisite documents, such as PFDs (final), preliminary P&IDs, etc.
 Completes Facilities Security Assessment Report (final).
 Completes Facilities Security Assessment for Information Technology (final).

Page 21 of 55
 Completes a preliminary assessment of the operational requirements,

restrictions and constraints, as well as related safety requirements, which
may impact the engineering design, construction, and/or start-up of the
proposed facilities.
per SAEP-367).
 Prepares/updates the project execution plan and schedule per SAEP-12
(including the Initial Pre-commissioning and Mechanical Completion plan
and the Initial Commissioning/Start-up plan)
 Prepares and submits Project Closeout report required per SAEP-329.
The DBSP review is performed in order to steer the engineering activity,

incorporate design development, and identify errors and non-compliance with
standards and specifications. These reviews involve several project stakeholders
including proponent (Operations & Maintenance), SAPMT/Construction
Agency, Engineering Services, Contractor, etc.
It is critical to note that at this phase the FEL 2 DBSP cost estimate should have
an accuracy as defined in SAEP-25 of ±30%.
Outcome:
verified by the IPT as per the RAPID matrix, the Assurance Review is initiated
by the CPED Value Assurance Team. The IPT leader develops a response plan
for the value assurance recommendations. The PS then presents the project to
the Decision Maker, along with the Value Assurance recommendations.
The Decision Maker then decides whether or not to pass Gate 2, take the project
to the next phase, and commit the required resources.
6.3 FEL 3 STAGE
6.3.1 Project Proposal Phase

Page 22 of 55
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 3 Project Proposal phase is to complete the

development of the preliminary engineering and execution strategy for the
project, consistent with the project’s stated business objectives.
Responsibilities:
At the start of this phase, the position of the Project Leader is transitioned to a
representative from Construction Agency/Saudi Aramco Project Management
Team (CA/SAPMT). The FPD Project Leader shifts their role to that of “scope
advisor”.
members to review the management direction for the project and the key FEL 3
Project Proposal phase objectives. Working under the direction of the PS, the
CA/SAPMT IPT leader guides the team to complete all the required deliverables
to enable assessment of the project at the Project Proposal Approval (PPA)
checkpoint, and follows the RAPID matrix to determine responsibilities in
project planning.
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is to define the preliminary engineering scope and
design to be used for the contract bidding process for execution, including:
 Scope and design information that define the performance specifications for
the facilities.
 Description of the communications systems both during construction
(temporary) and after construction (permanent).
 Updated drawings that define the scope of the project (e.g., Piping and
Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), plant and equipment layouts, electrical
one-line diagrams, etc.).
 List of the materials and equipment required for the project that have already
been covered by existing Saudi Aramco inventory and the materials and
equipment that must be purchased, providing rationale and description.
 Studies and calculations necessary to be developed based on project needs
(e.g., ETAP study, HAZOP study, etc.) including those defined in the CMS
documentation.

Page 23 of 55

SAEP-367.
 Manages the engineering contractor charged with preparing the Project
Proposal phase in accordance with SAEP-14, Project Proposal.
 Completes the applicable VIPs (Value Engineering, Constructability, etc.)
per SAEP-367).
 Defines the proposed project’s scope in sufficient detail to obtain an ER Cost
Estimate.
 Documents a complete description for each proposed scope modification, if
any, together with the underlying rationale and comprehensive cost estimate.
 Details the project scope in the Project Proposal deliverables.
 Obtains approval of the Project Proposal package/deliverables as
per SAEP-14.
The design reviews (30%, 60% and 90%) are performed in order to steer the
engineering activity of the contractor, incorporate design development, and
identify errors and non-compliance with standards and specifications.
These reviews involve several project stakeholders including Operations,
Maintenance, Project Management, Engineering Services, the Contractor, etc.,
including the Technical Review Meeting and the Project Proposal Meeting.
Please refer to SAEP-303 for additional details.
Note: At the 30%, 60% and 90% FEL 3 Project Proposal reviews, the IPT shall
produce a complete list of scope deviations, if any, from the approved FEL 2
DBSP scope. The FPD IPT member shall share this list of deviations with the
FPD management to ensure scope alignment with FEL 2 DBSP prior to
proceeding for endorsement by the PS and continuing the FEL 2 Project
Proposal work.
Outcome:
At the end of the phase, after all the deliverables are ready, the PS passes the
PPA checkpoint and directs the IPT to begin the FEL 3 Finalize FEL and
Approve ER phase.
Page 24 of 55
6.3.2 Finalize FEL
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 3 Finalize FEL phase is to finalize the front-end project
planning, evaluation of the contractor bids and project’s economic evaluation, as
required.
Responsibilities:
members to review the outcome of the FEL 3 Project Proposal gate, including
the management direction for the project. The IPT leader remains CA/SAPMT
at this phase. Working under the direction of the PS, the CA/SAPMT IPT leader
guides the team to complete all the required deliverables to enable assessment of
the project at the FEL 3 Project Proposal gate, and follows the RAPID matrix to
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is to complete the Project Proposal and prepare the ER
deliverables, including:
 Contracts Procurement & Bid Evaluation (in accordance with Saudi Aramco
Supply Chain Manual) that includes:
- The list of pre-qualified contractors for the project.
- Schedule for the tender.
- Methods for bid reception.
- Definition of technical and commercial evaluation criteria.
- Evaluation of the bids.
- Best-ranked bid.
 Business Case Assessment (final) that includes a detailed cost estimate (±10%).
 Finalizes the business case development.
Page 25 of 55
 Obtains approval of the Project Proposal deliverables.

 Develops and formally documents the ER Cost Estimate (±10%).
 Completes a comprehensive economic evaluation, with an explanation of the
basis of the cost estimate, and agreed to by the Portfolio Analysis &
Decision Support Department.
 Prepares the necessary documents (ER Brief and BISI) for presentation to
Management Committee.
It is critical to note that at this phase the ER cost estimate at this phase should
have an accuracy as defined in SAEP-25 of ±10%.
Outcome:
to the next phase, and commit the required resources. The project then enters
the Project Execution, Detailed Design, Procurement, Construction, Operations,
Commissioning, Startup, and Close-Out.
7 Capital Management System (C- & C1-Type Projects)
This section specifically details the project planning guidelines for C- & C1-type
projects. The CMS FEL process, shown in Figure 7.1, depicts the different phases
required for all C- & C1-type projects. This section will only address the guidelines for
FEL 1 to FEL 3.
Figure 7.1 - CMS FEL Process for C- & C1-Type Projects

Page 26 of 55
At the start of the CMS FEL process, the IPT agrees with CPED Value Assurance team
on the list of relevant deliverables for each of the stages and establishes the applicable
RAPID for each of those deliverables.
7.1 FEL 1 STAGE (Business Case Phase)
Purpose:
The purpose of the Business Case phase is to continue to verify and develop
the business case, including technical, commercial and economic evaluations,
if applicable (please refer to SABP-A-042, Business Case Development
Guidelines, for further details prior to starting this phase). In addition, the
purpose includes the identification of a complete set of alternatives to study and
develop during the FEL 2 Study phase.
Note: At the end of the Business Case phase for C- and C1-type projects, the IPT is
not required to pass a gate to proceed to the FEL 2 Study phase. The IPT
simply reviews the required deliverables with the PS and gains concurrence to
proceed based on the PS direction.
Responsibilities:
At the beginning of this phase, the PS is assigned and the IPT is fully assembled
and is led by the IPT leader from FPD. Working under the direction of the PS,
the IPT leader determines the required resources to undertake all the required
deliverables, integrates project components, maintains control over the project
and engages stakeholders to enable the development of the project, and follows
the RAPID matrix to determine responsibilities in project planning.
Deliverable(s):
The core deliverable for this phase is the Business Case and this includes:
 Review and validation of the business objectives that the project supports
(e.g., the project's purpose in terms of Saudi Aramco’s Corporate Objectives).
 Confirmation of alignment between the proposed project and the Company’s
Investment Plans and Master Plans.
 Confirmation of potential synergies with other projects that can be
implemented.

Page 27 of 55
 Description of the project in terms of scope, expected net benefits, life cycle
costs, risks, assumptions, constraints, and impacts on Saudi Aramco’s
manpower and Net Direct Expenditures (NDEs).
 Development of the economic model for the base case including net benefits,
lifecycle costs, Net Present Value (NPV) evaluation and sensitivities analysis,
as required.
 Identification and implementation of applicable Value Improving Practices

requirements as per SAEP-367.
 Identification of all viable alternatives that will be analyzed in FEL 2 Study
phase, including the potential for third-party project strategy. For third-party
projects, this includes evaluation, if required, of the differences in cost due
to applying Saudi Aramco standards vs. International standards. Please refer
to Appendix IV of this document for details on third-party projects planning.
for this phase are reflected in the Book of Deliverables hosted on CPED ShareK
site at:
Outcome:
At the end of this stage, after all the deliverables have been completed and
verified by the IPT as per the RAPID matrix, the Value Assurance Review is
initiated by the Value Assurance Team. The IPT leader develops a response
plan for the Value Assurance recommendations. The IPT leader reviews the
complete set of deliverables with the PS to gain concurrence to take the project
to the next phase and commit the required resources.
Note: At the end of the Business Case phase for C- and C1-type projects, the IPT is
not required to pass a gate to proceed to the FEL 2 Study phase.
7.2 FEL 2 STAGE
At the start of this stage, the IPT makes a decision as to whether to undertake the
development of the FEL 2 Study and/or DBSP phases in-house or externally
through the use of an engineering contractor. In order to utilize an external
engineering contractor, PMOD is engaged, and TC-68 engineering funds (refer to
GI-0002.716) may be utilized by the IPT for this purpose.
Page 28 of 55
Also, at the start of this stage, the IPT shall conduct a comprehensive review of all
Saudi Aramco and International standards and procedures to determine those that
apply to the development of the FEL 2 Study and/or DBSP phases. For all
non-industrial public and government facilities, the IPT shall follow SAEP-148,
Mandatory Engineering Standards and Codes for Non-Industrial, Public and
Government Facilities.
7.2.1 Study Phase
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 2 Study phase is to complete the analysis required to
assess the viable alternatives for achieving the stated business objective in terms
of their cost, benefits, and risks, and recommends which of the alternatives
should be selected.
Responsibilities:
members to review the management direction for the project and the key Study
phase objectives. The IPT leader remains from FPD at this phase. Working
complete all the required deliverables to enable the assessment of the project at
the Gate Alternative Selection (GAS) Gate, and follows the RAPID matrix to
alternative to be further developed during the FEL 2 DBSP phase.
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is the evaluation of the project’s alternatives, including:
 Description of the project’s alternatives with related scope (e.g., facilities
related to the alternatives, civil works, communications, etc.).
 Economic evaluation for each of the viable alternatives.
Page 29 of 55

SAEP-367.
 Prepares a plan for developing the FEL 2 Study, which:
- Identifies and prioritizes the major tasks and list of deliverables.
- Identifies the major parameters/considerations associated the proposed
project.
values to be used in the evaluation, and likely sources for this
information.
may be required.
- Describes the FEL 2 Study Report in outline form.
 Validates that all viable alternatives, including modular design requirements,
were identified for achieving the stated Business Objective.
Note: For studies that are undertaken by an external contractor, a comprehensive
Modular Design Assessment (MDA) study must be conducted at this phase.
 Develops a project scope for each viable alternative to develop a FEL 2

Study Cost Estimate.
 Develops a preliminary estimate (accuracy as defined in SAEP-25 of ±40%)
of the initial capital investment.
 Confirms with the Portfolio Analysis & Decision Support Department, as
required, the economic evaluation basis and develops a preliminary
economic evaluation for the project.
 Completes an economic evaluation for each of the viable alternatives, as
required, including sensitivity analysis.

Page 30 of 55
 Assesses the inherent risks and opportunities associated with each viable
alternative.
 Determines whether the Business Case is still supportive of continued
project development, based on the selected alternative.
 Recommends whether to proceed with the development of a non-third-party
project or, with the endorsement of New Business Development, to proceed
by implementing a third-party project as an optimal alternative as per
GI-0030.001, Transaction Development Guidelines. Please also refer to
 Confirms the list of Saudi Aramco and International standards and procedures
that apply to the development of the FEL 2 DBSP phase of this project.
per SAEP-367).
 Documents the study results in the Alternative Selection 3Report (ASR).
The ASR is a document that compares all alternatives that were selected in
the Business Case Assessment of FEL 1 and provides all the reasons why the
optimum case was selected.
Outcome:
verified by the IPT as per the RAPID matrix, the Assurance Review is initiated by
the CPED Value Assurance Team. The IPT leader develops a response plan for
the value assurance recommendations. The PS then presents the recommended
optimum alternative, along with the value assurance recommendations, to the
Decision Maker for endorsement to commit the required resources and proceed to
the FEL 2 DBSP phase [passing the GAS Gate].
Note 1: For third-party projects, the Decision Maker will also decide at the GAS
whether a project shall proceed by implementing a non-third-party or a third-
party project. If the project is committed as a third-party project, the IPT
ceases work and New Business Development undertakes the remaining
actions for its implementation, as per GI-0030.001. Please also refer to
Note 2: For C- and C1-type projects, Business Line Committee (BLC) engagement is
only required for one of the GAS or G2 gates. The PS determines the need for
BLC engagement at either the GAS or G2 gates.

Page 31 of 55
7.2.2 DBSP Phase
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 2 DBSP phase is to define the selected alternative to
freeze the project scope and generate a budgetary cost estimate (±30%).
The DBSP shall clearly and definitively describe “what” facility capabilities are
required to most economically achieve the proposed project’s stated business
objective with defined targets that are competitive and in line with the project’s
objectives. The FEL 2 DBSP phase requires that the IPT continue active
participation in the development of key studies to refine the engineering level of
the project and allow the scope to be frozen. The DBSP shall be written in
accordance with the most recently approved version of SAEP-1350, DBSP
Preparation and Review Procedure.
Responsibilities:
DBSP phase objectives. The IPT leader remains from FPD at this phase.
Working under the direction of the PS, the IPT leader continues to guide the
team to complete all the required deliverables to enable assessment of the
project at the FEL 2 DBSP gate, and follows the RAPID matrix to determine
responsibilities in project planning.
During this phase, the IPT further develops the proposed project’s scope, more
specifically the alternative selected during the FEL 2 Study phase, to re-confirm
the types of facilities to be provided, the corresponding design basis, and the
required attributes.
Note: The IPT develops the Project Scope Definition (PSD) document to describe the
critical requirements and features of the project based on the selected
alternative. The PSD serves as the high level technical design basis for the
project to allow the potential GES+ contractors to bid on developing the FEL 2
DBSP. For more details, refer to the FPD PSD guidelines.
detailed proposed project scope (frozen scope) which will be further developed
during the FEL 3 Project Proposal phase.
Page 32 of 55
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is to issue a Design Basis Scoping Document (DBSP)
and freeze the project scope, including:
 Overview of the physical location of the proposed facilities and the related
interfaces.
 Preliminary assessment of the constructability and logistical issues specific
to the proposed project (e.g., accessibility to the proposed site for the
facilities, load restrictions of access roads and bridges, etc.).
 Preliminary assessment of the extent to which existing drawings must be
updated to reflect as-built facilities, the extent to which existing drawings are
available in an appropriate format and the time required to modify existing
drawings (as necessary).
 Description of the physical design objectives (functions) of each major
project scope element.
 Description of the general design basis which applies to the entire project.
 Description of proposed facilities including the type of facility to be provided,
the related technical design basis (e.g., the required capabilities), etc.
 Information on Licensors (how they were contacted, bid collection and
review process, methodology for ranking and recommendations for the way
forward in licensor selection, etc.).
Note: Licensor selection is performed as part of the Technology Selection
process in the FEL 2 Study phase.

SAEP-367.
 Prepares the DBSP development plan, which:
- Identifies and prioritizes the major tasks and list of deliverables for this
phase.
values to be used in the evaluation, and likely sources for this information.
may be required.
Page 33 of 55
 Completes the Modular Design Assessment (MDA) study, if not already
conducted in the FEL 2 Study phase.
 Develops the proposed project’s scope, more specifically the alternative
selected during the FEL 2 Study phase, to confirm the types of facilities to
be provided, and the corresponding design basis.
 Develops a preliminary plot plan to show the location of the proposed
facilities relative to each other and to existing facilities.
 Determines the location and characterizes the conditions of each physical,
operation and project schedule interfaces between the existing and proposed
facilities (e.g., inlet and outlet process streams, inlet and outlet utility
streams, entrance and exit roadways).
 Develops the drawings/documents and prepares a detailed list of equipment
required (as per SAEP-25) to generate the budgetary estimate.
 Refines, in conjunction with Portfolio Analysis & Decision Support
Department, the economic evaluation basis (e.g., the basis for determining
the Net Benefits that the Kingdom would realize) to be used to further
develop the project's scope, and develops a preliminary economic evaluation
for the project.
 Conducts preliminary Environmental Impacts Assessment and obtains

Environmental Protection Department/Ministry approval as per SAEP-13.
 Completes required studies, i.e., Preliminary Hazard Analysis, Building Risk
Assessment (initial), Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
study, Process Simulation, Environmental Dispersions, etc.
 Completes the Energy Optimization study (including development of
pre-requisite documents, such as PFDs (final), preliminary P&IDs, etc.
 Completes Facilities Security Assessment Report (final).
 Completes Facilities Security Assessment for Information Technology (final).

Page 34 of 55
 Completes a preliminary assessment of the operational requirements,

restrictions and constraints, as well as related safety requirements, which
may impact the engineering design, construction, and/or start-up of the
proposed facilities.
per SAEP-367).
 Prepares/updates the project execution plan and schedule per SAEP-12
(including the Initial Pre-commissioning and Mechanical Completion plan
and the Initial Commissioning/Start-up plan).
The DBSP review is performed in order to steer the engineering activity,

incorporate design development, and identify errors and non-compliance with
standards and specifications. These reviews involve several project stakeholders
including proponent (Operations & Maintenance), SAPMT/Construction
Agency, Engineering Services, Contractor, etc.
It is critical to note that at this phase the FEL 2 DBSP cost estimate should have
an accuracy as defined in SAEP-25 of ±30%.
Outcome:
to the next phase, and commit the required resources.
Note: For C- and C1-type projects, Business Line Committee (BLC) engagement is
only required for one of the GAS or G2 gates. The PS determines the need for
BLC engagement at either the GAS or G2 gates.

Page 35 of 55
7.3 FEL 3 STAGE
7.3.1 Project Proposal Phase
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 3 Project Proposal phase is to complete the

development of the preliminary engineering and execution strategy for the
project, consistent with the project’s stated business objectives.
Responsibilities:
At the start of this phase, the position of the Project Leader is transitioned to a
representative from Construction Agency/Saudi Aramco Project Management
Team (CA/SAPMT). The FPD Project Leader shifts their role to that of “scope
advisor”.
Project Proposal phase objectives. Working under the direction of the PS, the
CA/SAPMT IPT leader guides the team to complete all the required deliverables
to enable assessment of the project at the Project Proposal Approval (PPA)
checkpoint, and follows the RAPID matrix to determine responsibilities in
project planning.
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is to define the preliminary engineering scope and
design to be used for the contract bidding process for execution, including:
 Scope and design information that define the performance specifications for
the facilities.
 Description of the communications systems both during construction
(temporary) and after construction (permanent).
 Updated drawings that define the scope of the project (e.g., Piping and
Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), plant and equipment layouts, electrical
one-line diagrams, etc.).

Page 36 of 55
 List of the materials and equipment required for the project that have already
been covered by existing Saudi Aramco inventory and the materials and
equipment that must be purchased, providing rationale and description.
 Studies and calculations necessary to be developed based on project needs
(e.g., ETAP study, HAZOP study, etc.) including those defined in the CMS
documentation.
SAEP-367.
 Manages the engineering contractor charged with preparing the Project
Proposal phase in accordance with SAEP-14, Project Proposal.
per SAEP-367).
 Defines the proposed project’s scope in sufficient detail to obtain an ER Cost
Estimate.
 Documents a complete description for each proposed scope modification, if
any, together with the underlying rationale and comprehensive cost estimate.
 Details the project scope in the Project Proposal deliverables.
 Obtains approval of the Project Proposal package/deliverables as
per SAEP-14.
The design reviews (30%, 60% and 90%) are performed in order to steer the
engineering activity of the contractor, incorporate design development, and
identify errors and non-compliance with standards and specifications.
These reviews involve several project stakeholders including Operations,
Maintenance, Project Management, Engineering Services, the Contractor, etc.,
including the Technical Review Meeting and the Project Proposal Meeting.
Please refer to SAEP-303 for additional details.

Page 37 of 55
Note: At the 30%, 60% and 90% FEL 3 Project Proposal reviews, the IPT shall
produce a complete list of scope deviations, if any, from the approved FEL 2
DBSP scope. The FPD IPT member shall share this list of deviations with the
FPD management to ensure scope alignment with FEL 2 DBSP prior to
proceeding for endorsement by the PS and continuing the FEL 2 Project
Proposal work.
Outcome:
At the end of the phase, after all the deliverables are ready, the PS passes the
PPA checkpoint and directs the IPT to begin the FEL 3 Finalize FEL and
Approve ER phase.
7.3.2 Finalize FEL
Purpose:
The purpose of the FEL 3 Finalize FEL phase is to finalize the front-end project
planning, evaluation of the contractor bids and project’s economic evaluation, as
required.
Responsibilities:
members to review the outcome of the FEL 3 Project Proposal gate, including
the management direction for the project. The IPT leader remains CA/SAPMT
at this phase. Working under the direction of the PS, the CA/SAPMT IPT leader
guides the team to complete all the required deliverables to enable assessment of
the project at the FEL 3 Project Proposal gate, and follows the RAPID matrix to
Deliverable(s):
The focus of this phase is to complete the Project Proposal and prepare the ER
deliverables, including:
 Contracts Procurement & Bid Evaluation (in accordance with Saudi Aramco
Supply Chain Manual) that includes:

Page 38 of 55
- The list of pre-qualified contractors for the project.

- Schedule for the tender.
- Methods for bid reception.
- Definition of technical and commercial evaluation criteria.
- Evaluation of the bids.
- Best-ranked bid.
 Business Case Assessment (final) that includes a detailed cost estimate (±10%).
 Finalizes the business case development.
 Obtains approval of the Project Proposal deliverables.
 Develops and formally documents the ER Cost Estimate (±10%).
 Completes a comprehensive economic evaluation, with an explanation of the
basis of the cost estimate, and agreed to by the Portfolio Analysis &
Decision Support Department.
 Prepares the necessary documents (ER Brief and BISI) for presentation to
Management Committee.
It is critical to note that at this phase the ER cost estimate at this phase should
have an accuracy as defined in SAEP-25 of ±10%.
Outcome:
to the next phase, and commit the required resources. The project then enters
the Project Execution, Detailed Design, Procurement, Construction, Operations,
Commissioning, Startup, and Close-Out.

Page 39 of 55
Revision Summary
26 October 2015 Major revision to align with the new Capital Management System applicable to all Capital
Projects within the Business Plan.
4 January 2016 Minor revision was required to address project planning activities for Budget Items having
potential to be identified as Third Party Projects (TPP). The planning execution for these
type of projects requires some minor modifications to the document to refer to applicable
Appendix.
8 December 2016 Minor revision required in order to associate the PSD as a standalone/mandatory
requirement for planning capital projects and describe the process to defer and/or cancel a
capital project. Also, the latest BOOT project process audit recommends updating roles and
responsibilities related to planning third-party projects and establishing check and balance
mechanisms to ensure that proper information is reflected into third-party projects
Expenditure Request packages.

Page 40 of 55
Appendix I -
Project Submittal - Process Waiver Request
PROJECT SUBMITTAL – PROCESS WAIVER REQUEST

SUBMITTAL TITLE
BUSINESS LINE ADMIN AREA INITIATED BY (User ID) CAPITAL PROGRAM

20xx-20xx
PROPOSED ERA PROPOSED ERC ESTIMATED COST PRIMARY
JUSTIFICATION
OBJECTIVE
PROPOSED SCOPE
ALTERNATIVES & ECONOMICS
High Medium Low )

IMPACT OF NON INCLUSION IN THE PROPOSED CAPITAL PROGRAM ( , ,
Provide an explanation of any impact
RATIONALE FOR OUT OF PROCESS REVIEW

Provide an explanation for late submittal after CSR or overruling CSR Recommendation
BUSINESS LINE HEAD APPROVAL
SIGNATURE: ___________________________ DATE:___________________

FPD POSITION AND RECOMMENDATION
Supported Conditionally Supported Not Supported
SIGNATURE: ___________________________ DATE:___________________

APPROVAL
SR VP, FINANCE, STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT
SIGNATURE: ___________________________ DATE:___________________

Page 41 of 55
Appendix II -
Project Deferral/Cancellation Request
PROJECT DEFERRAL/CANCELLATION REQUEST

☐ DEFERRAL OUT OF APPROVED CAPITAL BUDGET
☐ DEFERRAL OUT OF APPROVED CAPITAL PROGRAM
☐ CANCELLED
BUDGET ITEM NUMBER
BUDGET ITEM TITLE
BUSINESS LINE ADMIN AREA ERA ERC
ESTIMATED COST PRIMARY JUSTIFICATION PROPOSED ERA PROPOSED ERC
DEFERRAL/CANCELLATION JUSTIFICATION
IMPACT OF DEFERRAL/CANCELLATION
FPD MANAGER APPROVAL
SIGNATURE:__________________________ DATE:______________________
CONSTRUCTION AGENCY MANAGER APPROVAL
SIGNATURE:__________________________ DATE:______________________
PROPONENT MANAGER APPROVAL
SIGNATURE:__________________________ DATE:______________________
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE APPROVAL

☐ SUPPORTED ☐ NOT SUPPORTED
REMARKS:

Page 42 of 55
Appendix III -
Database Change Request

Page 43 of 55
Appendix IV -
Third-Party Projects Planning Guidelines
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Definition
Third-party projects are capital projects to be developed, owned, and operated
by a third-party.
Non-third-party projects are capital projects to be developed, owned, and
operated solely by Saudi Aramco or Joint Venture (JV).
1.2 Objective
The objective of this appendix is to stipulate Saudi Aramco organizations roles
and responsibilities during the planning period for third-party projects.
Stakeholders involved in the project planning deliverables shall adhere to the
guidelines described in this appendix and fulfill their respective responsibilities
as stipulated in Section 5.
2 THIRD-PARTY PROJECTS PLANNING OVERVIEW
2.1 Process Phases

The process is structured across two main phases: FEL 1 Business Case and
FEL 2 Study.
2.2 Gates/Checkpoints
Considerations for third-party projects occurs during the FEL 1 Business Case
phase of the project planning. However, the decision that a project be executed
as a Saudi Aramco or third-party project occurs at the end of the FEL 2 Study
phase or the Gate of Alternative Selection (GAS) for all CMS projects in order
to obtain Management Committee’s endorsement on the appropriate alternative
and strategy for the project.
3 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
FPD leads the IPT to complete the project FEL 1 Business Case and FEL 2 Study
phases. At those phases, the IPT identifies and assesses the project alternatives (third-
party vs. non-third-party) from a technical, commercial, and economic perspective.
If the assessment is supportive to continue project development, FPD recommends to
the Decision Maker either to proceed with the development of a non-third-party or a
third-party project. If the project is committed as a third-party project, the IPT ceases
Page 44 of 55
work and New Business Development undertakes the remaining actions for its
implementation, as per GI-0030.001, “Transaction Development Guidelines”.
Please also refer to Appendix IV of this document for details on third-party projects
planning.
4 THIRD-PARTY PROJECTS CRITERIA
4.1 Objective
The objective of this section is to stipulate Saudi Aramco organizations roles
and responsibilities to identify the criteria needed to categorize the Business
Case as a potential third-party project based on below criteria parameters.
4.2 Criteria Development
As part of the Business Case Phase, FPD will coordinate with the
organization(s) accountable/responsible for identifying and developing third-
party criteria for each parameter listed below to examine the Business Case
against it. Upon FPD confirmation that the Business Case meets the criteria
parameters, the project will be considered as a third-party potential project.
A detailed elaboration of all roles and responsibilities for the third-party project
criteria parameters is included in the Section 5.
4.3 Criteria Parameters
4.3.1 Project Magnitude
The project magnitude may influence the interest of third-party to
develop and execute based on capital needs, execution expertise or risk
appetite. The project magnitude shall be verified to be appropriate for the
market potential third-parties.
4.3.2 Commercial Viability and Regulatory Compliance
Third-party executer must have the technical, commercial, and financial
strength to undertake the proposed project. The project must meet
domestic and international lenders criteria. In addition, the project
structure should be in compliance with Kingdom regulatory framework.
4.3.3 Project Criticality
Core oil and gas projects (e.g., refineries and petrochemical complexes)
should be typically executed as non-third-party projects due to reliability
concerns. However, certain supporting projects that are less critical
(e.g., cogeneration plants) could be considered as third-party projects.
4.3.4 Risk Mitigation
A third-party solution may lower Saudi Aramco’s risk by adding
non-performance clauses in the contract. All risks should be assessed per
Saudi Aramco’s Enterprise Risk Management’s requirements.

Page 45 of 55
4.3.5 Technology Complexity

A specialized third-party may lower execution risks when the technology
utilized in the project is complex and unfamiliar to Saudi Aramco.
The third-party company shall demonstrate proficiency in the technology
planned to be used in the project.
4.3.6 Location
The physical location of a project as well as its feed and product supply
arrangements relative to Saudi Aramco facilities will impact the decision
as to whether a project is classified as third-party. Projects exclusively
within the battery limits of an existing Saudi Aramco asset are typically
executed as Saudi Aramco projects.
4.3.7 Operational Excellence
The third-party company must demonstrate through their track record of
operational competencies at lower cost compared to Saudi Aramco
in-house solution. In addition, the third- party company must
demonstrate a commitment to quality that is consistent with Saudi
Aramco Operational Excellence and Capital Efficiency.
4.3.8 Corporate Strategy
Certain projects could be offered for third-party investment if it aligns to
corporate strategy; for example, sustainable development within the
Kingdom. Localization of services, equipment manufacturing, and job
creation are considered when determining the alignment between Third-
party to corporate strategy.
4.3.9 Other Criteria
Any additional criteria can be considered based on merits and
justification and agreed to by FPD and NBD.
5 ORGANIZATIONS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
5.1 FEL 1 Business Case Phase

Originator of the Project
 Consulted during developing the Business Case.
 Consulted during examining the Business Case against the third-party
criteria parameters stipulated in the Section 4.2.
 Consulted during assessing initial project risk.
 Consulted during selecting initial project standards and codes for
applicable alternatives.
 Consulted during developing conceptual project scope.
 Consulted during developing Business Case cost estimates for applicable
alternatives.
Page 46 of 55
 Consulted during performing preliminary economic evaluation analysis.

 Consulted during assessing the Business Case.
Facilities Planning Department (FPD)
 Responsible and Accountable for developing the Business Case.
 Responsible and Accountable for examining the Business Case against
the third-party criteria parameters stipulated in the Section 4.2.
 Responsible and Accountable for developing conceptual project scope.
alternatives.
 Responsible and Accountable for performing preliminary economic
evaluation analysis.
 Responsible and Accountable for assessing the Business Case.
New Business Development (NBD)
 Responsible for assessing initial third-party project risk.
 Responsible and Accountable for selecting initial project standards and
codes for third-party project option.
 Responsible and Accountable for developing Business Case cost
estimate for third-party project option.
 Responsible for assessing the Business Case for third-party project
option.
Project Management Office Department (PMOD)

 Responsible and Accountable for developing Business Case cost
estimate for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option.
 Responsible for validating Business Case cost estimate for third-party
project option provided by NBD.
Consulting Services Department (CSD)
codes for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option related to CSD
only.

Page 47 of 55
Process & Control Systems Department (P&CSD)

codes for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option related to P&CSD
only.
alternatives.
Environmental Planning Department (EPD)
codes for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option related to EPD
only.
Corporate Planning
 Responsible and Accountable for assessing initial project risk.
Controller
Treasury
Other Administrative Areas (e.g., Human Resources (HR), Information

Technology (IT), Refining & NGL Fractionation, Chemicals, Power Systems,
or others as required)
 Informed during assessing the Business Case.

Page 48 of 55
Business Case Phase

R=Responsible
Business
A=Accountable Business Third-Party Initial Conceptual
Case Cost Preliminary Business
C=Consulted Case Criteria Initial Risk Standards & Scope
Estimates Economic Case
I=Informed Develop- Exami- Assessment Codes Develop-
Develop- Analysis Assessment
ment nation Selection ment
ment
Project
Originator
C C C C C C C C
FPD RA RA C C RA C RA RA
NBD C R RA C RA C R
PMOD RA
Gate 1
CSD C C RA C C
Stakeholders
P&CSD C RA C C C
EPD C C RA C
Inspection
Department
Corporate
Planning
C RA C C
Controller’s C C C C
Treasury C C C C
Other
Admin C C C C I
Areas
Third-Party Projects Planning RACI Matrix 1: Business Case Phase
5.2 FEL 2 Study Phase

 Consulted during selecting detailed project standards and codes for
 Consulted during developing Study cost estimates for applicable
alternatives.
 Consulted during assessing detailed project risk.
 Consulted during performing detailed economic evaluation analysis.
 Consulted during revising and assessing applicable alternatives.
FPD
 Consulted during selecting detailed project standards and codes for
alternatives.
 Responsible and Accountable for performing detailed economic
evaluation analysis.

Page 49 of 55
 Responsible and Accountable for revising and assessing applicable

alternatives.
NBD
 Responsible and Accountable for selecting detailed project standards and
codes for third-party project option.
 Responsible and Accountable for developing Study cost estimate for
third-party project option.
 Responsible for assessing detailed third-party project risk.
 Responsible for revising and assessing third-party project option.
PMOD
 Responsible and Accountable for developing Study cost estimate for
Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option.
 Responsible for validating Study cost estimate for third-party project
option provided by NBD.
CSD
codes for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option related to CSD
only.
P&CSD
codes for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option related to P&CSD
only.
alternatives.
EPD
codes for Saudi Aramco wholly-owned project option related to EPD
only.
Inspection Department
Corporate Planning
 Responsible and Accountable for assessing detailed project risk.
Controller

Page 50 of 55
Treasury
Other Administrative Areas (e.g., HR, IT, Refining & NGL Fractionation,
Chemicals, Power Systems, or others as required)
 Consulted during for selecting detailed project standards and codes for
Third-Party Projects Planning RACI Matrix 2: Study Phase

R=Responsible Study Phase
A=Accountable Detailed Study Cost Detailed Detailed Alternatives
C=Consulted Standards & Estimates Risk Economic Revision /
I=Informed Codes Selection Development Assessment Analysis Assessment
Project Originator C C C C C
FPD C C C RA RA
GAS / Checkpoint 2
NBD RA RA R C R
PMOD RA
CSD RA C C
Stakeholders
P&CSD RA C C
EPD RA C
Inspection Department C
Corporate Planning RA C C
Controller’s C C C
Treasury C C C
Other Admin Areas C C C
5.3 Third-Party Projects Criteria

 Consulted during identifying third-party project magnitude market
limitation.
 Consulted during assessing commercial viability and structure.
 Consulted during evaluating project criticality.
 Consulted during assessing third-party risk mitigation.
 Consulted during evaluating project technology complexity.
 Responsible for identifying project location.
 Responsible and Accountable for evaluating Saudi Aramco operation
excellence.
 Consulted during identifying relevant corporate strategy.
Page 51 of 55
FPD
 Consulted during identifying third-party project magnitude market
limitation.
 Responsible and Accountable for evaluating project criticality.
 Responsible for evaluating project technology complexity.
 Responsible and Accountable for identifying project location.
 Consulted during evaluating applicable alternatives operation excellence.
NBD
 Responsible and Accountable for identifying third-party project
magnitude market limitation.
 Responsible and Accountable for assessing commercial viability and
structure.
 Responsible for assessing third-party risk mitigation.
 Consulted during identifying project location.
 Responsible and Accountable for evaluating third-party operation
excellence.
CSD
 Responsible and Accountable for evaluating project technology
complexity related to CSD only.
P&CSD
 Responsible for evaluating project technology complexity related to
P&CSD only.
EPD
 Responsible for evaluating project technology complexity related to EPD
only.
Inspection Department

Page 52 of 55
Corporate Planning
 Responsible for evaluating project criticality.
 Responsible and Accountable for assessing third-party risk mitigation.
 Responsible and Accountable for identifying relevant corporate strategy.
Controller
Treasury
Other Administrative Areas (e.g., HR, IT, Refining & NGL Fractionation,
Chemicals, Power Systems, or others as required)
Third-Party Criteria RACI Matrix 3: Third-Party Criteria

Third-Party Projects Criteria
R=Responsible
A=Accountable Project Commercial
Project Risk Technology Operation Corporate
C=Consulted Magnitude Viability & Location
Criticality Mitigation Complexity Excellence Strategy
I=Informed Limitations Structure Identification
Evaluation Assessment Evaluation Evaluation Identification
Identification Assessment
Project Originator C C C C C R RA C
FPD C C RA C R RA C C
NBD RA RA C R C C RA C
PMOD
CSD C RA C
Stakeholders
P&CSD C C R C
EPD C R C C
Inspection
Department
C
Corporate Planning C R RA RA
Controller's C C
Treasury C C
Other Admin Areas C C C C C
5.4 Third-Party Projects ER Package Development

Proponent Organization
 Concur to the project scope of work to be included in the ER package.
 Concur and provide input on the proposed third-party project schedule.
 Review the ER package.
Page 53 of 55
Facilities Planning Department (FPD)

 Develop ER package and review the adequacy and alignment of the
proposed scope with the third-party project agreement.
 Develop the buy vs. lease analysis model, and share the model basis with
NBD and Finance for review and concurrence.
 Populate the economic model, if required for independent project
economics, and share with Corporate Planning for concurrence.
 Ensure that the project schedule is suitable to meet the company’s
commitments and is communicated to all concerned organizations.
 Complete the ER package development.
New Business Development (NBD)
 Provide the third-party project design package to the project team
members.
 Provide the final financial model for the third-party project to the Bid
Review Team and Finance team members and seek verification of the
model from Finance.
 Communicate contract values from the Bidder’s Model to FPD to assist
in the determination of the Asset Fair Value. NBD to communicate to
FPD and FAD any expected changes to the Asset Fair Value.
 Review and concur the basis of the buy vs. lease model.
 Ensure that the project schedule reflected in the ER package is in
compliance with the third-party Project Company.
 Provide the benchmark data to be reflected in the ER package.
 Review the ER package.
Project Management Office Department (PMOD)
 Provide the cost estimates for company owned and operated alternative
to be used in the buy vs. lease model, upon FPD request based on the
associated scope of work.
 For projects administered by Project Management Team (PMT), provide
consultation to ensure that all early work, prior to the lease, are included
in the ER.
Corporate Planning
 Review and concur the financial model provided in the third-party
project Bidder’s Model.
 Review and concur the economic model and the buy vs. lease model
provided by FPD.
 Review and concur the ER package.
Controllers
 Support NBD as needed in reviewing the third-party project financial
model provided by the third-party project financial advisor.
 Review the basis of the buy vs. lease model.
 Provide verbiage/statements related to Joint Venture third-party project
companies.
 Review and concur the ER package.
Page 54 of 55
Treasury
 Review the basis of the buy vs. lease model.
Third-Party Projects Planning RACI Matrix 4: ER Package Development
ER Package Development
Schedule & ERC

R=Responsible
BISI documents
Proposed scope
Risk mitigation
A=Accountable
Buy vs. lease
ER Brief and
assessment
assessment
C=Consulted
Fair Value
estimate
I=Informed
Gate 3 / ER Approval
Proponent C I I R C
responsibilities refer to GI-30.001

FPD R I RA RA RA
For Risk management

Stakeholders
NBD RA RA C R R
PMOD C C
Corporate Planning I R I C
Controllers C C I R
Treasury I C I
Note:
Administration costs by Saudi Aramco related to third-party project support are allocated in accordance
with the following statements:
 Third-party projects that impact other related company projects shall be administered by the
related Saudi Aramco project to which they relate. The associated third-party project
administration costs are charged to the Saudi Aramco project to which they relate.
 Third-party projects that impact Saudi Aramco existing facilities operations shall be
administered by the related proponent (non-project management) organization. The associated
third-party project administration costs are expensed through the proponent organization’s Net
Direct Expenditures as General and Administration expenses.
 For projects administered by Project Management Team (PMT), direct development costs such
as preliminary engineering to develop bid packages should be included separately in the ER
package and added to the ER value after being assured by PMOD.
** In all cases Controller’s (CPD) should be consulted to determine where these costs should
reside.

Page 55 of 55

Saep 360 PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Saep 360 PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-360 8 December 2016

Appendix I - Project Submittal - Process

Previous Issue: 4 January 2016 Next Planned Update: 26 October 2018

©Saudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

Corporate Planning develops the Company’s Corporate Strategic Framework

Business master plans are developed to translate the corporate objectives

1.2 Capital Management System

The Capital Management System (CMS) is the framework adopted by Saudi

The CMS introduces five Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

 Project Sponsor (PS) and Integrated Project Team (IPT)

Figure 1.1 - CMS Project Characterization (M denotes $1,000,000)

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Figure 1.2 - CMS FEL Process for all Capital Projects

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

1.3 Planning of Capital Projects

Upon selection of a capital project to be included in the BP, specifically in early

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

1.3.1 Deferral/Cancellation of a Capital Project

Deferral or cancellation of a project from an approved Capital Budget

Deferral or cancellation of a project from an approved 3-Year Capital

1.3.2 Changes to Project Milestones

1.4 Purpose of Guidelines

The objective of these guidelines is to describe the front-end planning and

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

The project planning guidelines are structured to:

The latest edition of the applicable reference documents shall be applied:

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-148 Mandatory Engineering Standards and Codes for

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

 Saudi Aramco Best Practices

 Saudi Aramco General Instructions

 Saudi Aramco Form and Datasheet

Project Sponsor (PS) Manual (C & C1-Type Projects)

These guidelines provide the procedures to properly develop a DBSP document

Figure 3.1 - Mapping of Saudi Aramco Standards to CMS FEL Process

Budgetary Project Scope Definition: A preliminary description of the facilities that

Business Case: The information required to make reasonable business decisions

Business Objective: The purpose of the proposed project.

Capital Program Efficiency Department (CPED): Is the organization that manages

Decision Maker: Is represented by the Management Committee for A- and B-type

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

FEL 3 Expenditure Request (ER) Cost Estimate: A definitive ±10% estimate

For more details, refer to the Front End Loading Manual.

Integrated Project Team (IPT): A team composed of appointed members from

PMOD: The Project Management Office Department.

Project Sponsor (PS): An Executive or a member of Management, appointed by the

RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide): A methodology that clarifies

Saudi Aramco Project Management Team (SAPMT): The Construction Agency

5 Key Implementation Notes

6 Capital Management System (A- & B-Type Projects)

Figure 6.1 - CMS FEL Process for A- & B-Type Projects

6.1 FEL 1 STAGE (Business Case Phase)

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

 Development and maintenance of the project execution plan and schedule as

 Identification and implementation of applicable Value Improving Practices

6.2 FEL 2 STAGE

6.2.1 Study Phase

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

 Implementation of applicable Value Improving Practices requirements as per

 Develops a project scope for each viable alternative to develop a FEL 2

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

SIGNATURE: _________ DATE:_

SIGNATURE: _________ DATE:_

SIGNATURE: _________ DATE:_