Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-26

22 April 2007

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines


Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.

Saudi Aramco DeskTop Standards


Table of Contents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Introduction................................................... 2
Applicable Reference Documents................. 3
Methodology................................................. 4
Responsibility/Workflow................................ 8
Data Collection............................................. 10
Reporting and Analysis................................ 11
Exhibits........................................................ 13

Exhibit I...............................................................
Exhibit II..............................................................
Exhibit III.............................................................
Exhibit IV............................................................
Exhibit V.............................................................

Previous Issue: New

14
17
19
20
24

Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012


Page 1 of 30

Primary contact: Rahbar, Faramarz on 966-3-8745011


CopyrightSaudi Aramco 2007. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Introduction
1.1

Purpose
This Engineering Procedure serves as the framework to ensure that the
Benchmarking Process is a continuous and seamless process and is incorporated
as an integral part of the planning and execution of Saudi Aramco Capital
Projects and reach parity with Best in Class. Saudi Aramco has an imperative to
transform corporate performance into "Best in Class." To reach full parity with
the "Best in Class", the Company must constantly "Measure (against the
Industry), Assess, and Improve" and keep repeating the process. It also
measures the Company performance with the Industry in the same line of
business. Benchmarking process will focus on identifying aspects of the project
that are not in line with the industry.

1.2

Definition
A Benchmarking Study is performed on a project to compare that project's cost,
schedule, FEL (Front-End Loading), Operability, etc. to similar projects within
Saudi Aramco as well as the industry. Saudi Aramco has re-engineered the
benchmarking process to enhance the quality of data and maximize benefits of
results. The benchmarking process will be centralized so that all benchmarking
activities are managed through Project Control & Estimating Division of Project
Support & Controls Department (PS&CD/PCED). PS&CD/PCED will work
with SAPMT to identify projects that will be benchmarked at study phase, late
stages of the DBSP, at the 90% Project Proposal, or at mechanical completion of
a project.
1.2.1

Internal Benchmarking
Internal Benchmarking shall be performed on selected projects (except
buildings, pipelines rehabilitations, master appropriations, and homeownership) based on mutual agreement between PS&CD/PCED and
SAPMT. Key project data shall be provided by SAPMT to
PS&CD/PCED for internal benchmarking purposes. A sample of
benchmarking data sheet is shown in Exhibit IV. This internal
benchmarking data will be part of the ER Estimate package.

1.2.2

External Project Benchmarking


External project benchmarking analysis is performed for selected
projects by an outside consultant. This benchmarking analysis is
intended to help the project team assess the completeness of project
scope. The benchmarking analysis provides further support that the
project is ready for the next phase. This guideline explains in detail
Page 2 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

criteria for selection, methodology, timing, data collection, and


reporting/analysis for external project benchmarking.
1.2.3

External System Benchmarking


System benchmarking analysis is performed on selected projects by an
outside Consultant based on type and size of the project. The system
benchmarking will be conducted every two years or as necessary using a
mix of various types and sizes including projects that have been already
benchmarked explained under 1.2.2. This sample provides a historical
overview of Saudi Aramco's capital projects performance over the life
cycle of the projects. Selected projects may be at various stages of
execution. In this study "key" inputs mutually agreed between
PS&CD/PCED and Consultant as drivers of project performance of a
representative cross-section of projects are compared against:

Industry-wide sample of projects, comparable in size and complexity,


executed by Industry Average.

A group of projects similar in size and complexity executed in the


Gulf Region (GCC) or the Middle East.

A group of projects similar in size and complexity executed by one


competitor (an integrated oil company) that have achieved excellent
results, named the Best in Class or Class "A".

These "key" inputs include at least the level of project definition quality,
or front end loading (FEL), the role of value improving practices, and the
level of team development.
2

Applicable Reference Documents


The latest edition of the following applicable reference documents shall be applied:
Sauudi Aramco Engineering Procedures
SAEP 12

Project Execution Plan (PEP)

SAEP-14

Project Proposal (PP)

SAEP-25

Estimate Preparation Guidelines

SAEP-1350

Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation


& Revision Procedure

Page 3 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Saudi Aramco General Instructions


GI-0020.500

Expenditure Control Expenditure Request


Forms

GI-0216.965

Cost Distribution Rates

Saudi Aramco Materials System Specifications (SAMSSs)


3

Methodology
3.1

Project Selection
Saudi Aramco will internally benchmark selected capital projects, as mutuallyagreed upon by PS&CD/PCED and SAPMT, using the internal database which
has been developed by PS&CD/PCED. However, PS&CD/PCED will
coordinate with SAPMT to identify projects to be externally benchmarked.
PS&CD/PCED will perform the leading role for the selection of the Consultant
and development of benchmarking criteria and implementation of the formal
benchmarking study.
The analysis shall commence at the appropriate stage of the project, preferably
before approval of the DBSP, comparing key parameters of the project with an
external industry-wide database. The risk analysis will address key project
outcomes and associated risk based on the available information.
PS&CD/PCED will make the determination of what projects will be subject to
either external or internal benchmarking.
External Benchmarking Selection Criteria
PS&CD/PCED will coordinate with SAPMT to identify projects with value of
$100 MM or greater to be benchmarked. Projects less than $100 MM may be
benchmarked if related to core business and deemed necessary by
PS&CD/PCED and SAPMT.
The following projects are excluded:

Pipeline Rehabs
Master Appropriations
Home Ownership
Buildings
Marine Vessel Projects
Utilities as stand-alone projects

Page 4 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

3.2

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Benchmarking Stages
Project Benchmarking will be done at the following stages:

During the latter part of the Study Phase (FEL 1)


At first draft of DBSP (FEL 2)
At 90% Project Proposal (FEL 3)
At Project Close-out
Operability Review after facility has been in operations for 12 months

"Screening Review"
Benchmarking
(During Study Phase)

ERA
STUDY
FEL-1

Project Proposal
FEL-2

Detail Design / Procurement


Construction

OS

Start-up

Operations

FEL-3

"Pacesetter Review"
Benchmarking
(At First Draft of DBSP)

3.3

MC

"Readiness Review"
Benchmarking
(At 90% PP)

"Closeout Review"
"Operability
Review"
Benchmarking
"Closeout Review"
Benchmarking
(After
Facility has been in
Benchmarking
operation for at least six months)

Work Breakdown Structure


Benchmarking will reflect the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) identified in
SA benchmarking models. The Consultant has a set of checklists similar to
Saudi Aramco BM Models which will be forwarded to Saudi Aramco. These
will be reflected and Saudi Aramco Models will be aligned with the Consultant's
models. Benchmarking must also reflect Saudi Aramco's project types and
subtypes attached to this document.
Consultant's Report Format will be structured to present a balanced approach
between Scope/Cost/Schedule Data and other Value Added and Best Practices.
In addition, the WBS identified by the Benchmarking models and project types
and subtypes. The Benchmarking process and report (refer to Exhibit V) must
be structured, organized to provide benchmarks and recommendations according
to the following structure:
3.3.1

Project Output Capacity


Saudi Aramco projects must be benchmarked with similar projects in the
industry taking into account the project capacity output. Saudi Aramco
is interested in a benchmark of a small data set with similar project
Page 5 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

capacity versus a large dataset with capacity not indicative of the project
being benchmarked.
3.3.2

Project Type and Subtype


A list of Saudi Aramco project types and subtypes is attached in Exhibit
III. The benchmarking process needs to select only industry projects and
process units that are similar and adhere to this WBS.
3.3.2.1

Upstream Projects

3.3.2.2

GOSPs
Flowlines & Trunklines (Gas)
Flowlines & Trunklines (Oil)
Flowlines & Trunklines (Water)
3 Leg Wellhead Jacket
4 Leg Wellhead Jacket
6 Leg Wellhead Jacket
8 Leg Wellhead Jacket
Non ESP Wellhead Deck
ESP Wellhead Deck
Offshore Trunklines
Offshore Flowlines
Subsea Cables
Subsea Tie Backs

Downstream Projects

Gas Processing Facilities


a. Gas Plant

Refining Units
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.

Crude Production Facility


Sulfur Recovery Unit
FCCU
VGO Hydrotreater
Naphtha Hydrotreater
Kerosene Hydrotreater
Diesel Hydrotreater
CCR Platformer
Isomerization Unit

Page 6 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Infrastructure
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

SAEP-26

Cross Country Pipelines (Gas)


Cross Country Pipelines (Oil)
Cross Country Pipelines (Water)
Process Automation
Substation
Bulk Plants
Water Treatment Plants

Cogeneration Facility
a. Cogeneration

3.3.3

Project Location
The benchmarking analysis need to reflect datasets for projects in similar
locations and provide benchmarks that evaluate Saudi Aramco's
performance as it compares to:

3.3.4

Saudi Aramco Standard vs. Industry


Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Countries (these include: Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates,
and the Sultanate of Oman).
Best in Class

Inside/Outside Battery Limits


The benchmarking data needs to differentiate between the Inside Battery
Limits (ISBL) and Outside Battery Limits (OSBL) parts of the project
where relevant. The dataset and the benchmark report need to provide
performance and recommendations separately for these two areas where
relevant. The report must be structured as such.

3.3.5

Grass Root or Revamp/Expansion


The benchmark report must identify whether the project is a Grass Root
Project or an expansion/ revamp of an existing facility. The industry
projects used for benchmarks must be of similar nature as the Aramco
project being benchmarked.

3.3.6

Project Exclusions
The benchmark report and analysis must exclude factors specific to
Saudi Aramco such as long transmission lines, excessive infrastructure
outside the OSBL, Long road or highways to reach the site, security
fences, flood lights, etc.
Page 7 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Responsibility/Workflow
4.1

Responsibility
PS&CD/PCED shall be responsible for the selection of projects to be
benchmarked, data collection, and coordination with the SAPMT, FPD,
Benchmarking Consultant, and other parties. External benchmarking studies will
be conducted by the Consultant in accordance with the benchmarking workflow
discussed in section 4.2. PS&CD/PCED will share the draft report with SAPMT,
and discuss and agree with SAPMT any comments and/or measures necessary to
implement the consultant's recommendations. PS&CD/PCED will respond to the
Benchmarking Consultant who will then issue the final agreed report.

4.2

Benchmarking Workflow
The following sections outline the workflow that will normally be followed to
implement benchmarking:
4.2.1

Identify Candidate Projects


PS&CD/PCED will identify suitable candidate projects to undergo either
external or internal benchmarking and identify Timing and Frequency to
allow benefits from feedback. Projects will be selected based on type
and size.

4.2.2

Select Projects for Benchmarking


PS&CD/PCED will review the candidate projects with SAPMT and
agree on selected projects for external benchmarking and determine a
likely start date for initiating the benchmarking process. SAPMT must
appoint a designee for contact and coordination. This person will usually
be the Senior Project Engineer.

4.2.3

Establishment of a Work Order through ASC


PS&CD/PCED will establish a work order with the Benchmarking
Consultant. A contract will be set up between ASC and the
Benchmarking Consultant to serve this need. The consultant fees will be
paid out of TC-68 funds reserved for this purpose for FEL-1, 2 and 3
benchmarks and from approved ER funds for projects under execution.

4.2.4

Data Gathering Cycle


Required metrics and data will be collected for the benchmarking effort
at any given stage of a project, Study Phase (FEL-1), DBSP (FEL-2),
Project Proposal (FEL-3) and Project Close-Out.
Page 8 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

The Benchmarking Metrics for each type of project is shown in the


attached Exhibit. So far as is practicable, required data will be
automatically downloaded from PMIS. At the FEL Stages, the intent is
to centralize the data collection effort and ensure consistency.
All cost and schedule data will be provided by PS&CD/PCED and
SAPMT according to availability. Any additional data, e.g., schedules
(level 1, 2 or 3[Primavera format]), construction productivity, quantities,
constructability, safety, contractor data, Best Practices, Value
Improvement Practices, etc., will be obtained from PMT or FPD, as
required.
On receipt of the Work Order the Benchmarking Consultant will prepare
additional to the Standard questionnaire a Saudi Aramco specific
questionnaire. This Questionnaire will be prepared based on the agreed
metrics appropriate to the project status. The questionnaire will be
issued to PS&CD/PCED who will coordinate its timely completion with
SAPMT. Based on recent discussions with the Benchmarking
Consultant, it is expected that this questionnaire will be complementary
to the data collected and additional input required by the consultant to
perform his analysis.
Upon completion of the questionnaire, PS&CD/PCED and a designated
SAPMT contact person will forward this data to the Benchmarking
Consultant. An interview of the Project Team by the Benchmarking
Consultant will be scheduled at an agreed time and location.
4.2.5

Review Cycle
Following the interview, the Benchmarking Consultant will prepare his
report and submit it to PS&CD/PCED and the SAPMT contact person.
It is expected that about four weeks would normally be required to
prepare the report. At approximately two weeks an interim progress
meeting will be held at the consultant's office or other locations mutually
agreed.

4.2.6

Draft & Final Report


All benchmarking requests and draft or final reports should compare
Saudi Aramco's deliverables with the industry during all the
benchmarking phases, study, DBSP, project proposal and execution.
Draft and Final Reports will specifically address the following issues:

Assessment of scope clarity;


Page 9 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Completeness and quality of data available at preceding project


phases (FEL-1, 2, 3) if any;
Scope evolvement between study, DBSP and Project Proposal;
Comparison of Saudi Aramco with Industry averages as well as Gulf
Region averages;
Assess Market Conditions Impact on Projects;
Descriptions of comparable baseline projects in the consultant's
database;
Benchmarking reports need to share a common format to ensure
consistency of presentation;
Items unique to Saudi Aramco should be identified and excluded
from the project benchmarking.

PS&CD/PCED will share the draft report with SAPMT, evaluate its
implications for the project and discuss and agree with SAPMT any
comments and/or measures necessary to implement the consultant's
recommendations. PS&CD/PCED will respond to the Benchmarking
Consultant who will then issue the final agreed report.
4.2.7

Completion of the Study


Upon completion of the study and agreement, a plan will be developed to
implement any recommendations that may be accepted.

4.2.8

Incorporation into PMIS


Outcomes of benchmarking studies shall be in the format required by
Saudi Aramco and continuously reviewed with a view to updating and
refining benchmarks and incorporation into Project Management
Information System (PMIS) in SAP as modules are developed.

Data Collection
PS&CD/PC&ED will be the main contact and coordinator for collecting the data to
perform the benchmarking for all projects. The data collected for each phase needs to
be tailored to the phase at which the benchmarking is done. Thus, the questionnaire
provided by the benchmarking consultant needs to be specific to the phase at which the
project is benchmarked. Attached to this guideline are the templates detailing all the
Saudi Aramco required benchmarks (Cost, Schedule, Safety, Productivity, Value
Improving Practices, Others).
It is noted that next revision of the "Kbase" program will generate IPA type reports that
can be used by the Benchmarking Consultant for external benchmarking.
Saudi Aramco will provide the following key data at each phase:
Page 10 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

5.1

Copy of project Proposal/Final DBSP;


Level III Schedule;
Estimating data (ER Estimate);
Proposal contractor data;
Answers to the consultant prospective benchmarking questionnaire.

Close out Phase

Copy of draft DBSP;


Milestone Schedule;
Estimating data (Budget Estimate);
Available engineering data;
Answers to the prospective consultant benchmarking questionnaire.

Project Proposal Phase: FEL 3

5.4

Copy of the study;


Copy of the Master schedule;
Estimating data (Study Estimate);
Available engineering data;
Answers to the consultant benchmarking questionnaire tailored to the Study
Phase.

DBSP Phase: FEL 2

5.3

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Study Phase: FEL

5.2

SAEP-26

Copy of close-out report;


Detailed CPM Schedule;
Estimating data (As-built Estimate);
Available engineering/construction data;
Answers to the consultant prospective benchmarking questionnaire.

Reporting and Analysis


The Benchmarking Report should be organized according to the WBS set by Saudi
Aramco in the methodology section of this procedure. Furthermore the report must
contain all the metrics and analysis set forth in the results and outcome sections of this
report.
All benchmarking requests and draft/ final reports should review Saudi Aramco's
deliverables vs. the industry during all the benchmarking phases, study, DBSP, project
proposal and execution.

Page 11 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

6.1

Preface

6.2

Executive Summary

6.3

Project Benchmarks;
Other Project Issues;
Conclusions;
Recommendations.

Project Background;
Scope of Work and Project Technology, Assessment of scope clarity;
Retrospective evaluation of completeness and quality of data available at
preceding project phases (FEL-1, 2, 3) if any;
Other Project Issues including Contracting Strategy;
Description of Benchmark Projects and basis for their selection as
benchmarks.

Project Drivers

6.5

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Introduction

6.4

SAEP-26

Front End Loading;


Value Improving Practices;
Project Management Practices;
Contracting Strategies;
Team Development Index;
Estimating / Planning for Control;
Execution Strategy;
Market Conditions Impact;
Quantities.

Project Outcomes
6.5.1 COST

Contingency Allocation/Use;
Cost Performance;
Cost Capacity Model Results;
Cost Effectiveness;
Location Factors including Construction Productivity;
Cost Growth/Predictability.

Page 12 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

6.5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE

6.5.3

OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE

6.6

Impact of Major Late Design Changes;


Turnover of Key Personnel;
Stage Gate Effectiveness;
Achieved Internal Rate of Return.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Cycle Time;
Execution Schedule;
Construction Schedule;
Start-up duration;
Safety Performance.

Conclusions
Recommendations

6.7

Appendix A: Basis for Analysis and Location Adjustments.

6.8

Appendix B: Current Estimate of Cost.

6.9

Appendix C: Location Adjustment.

6.10

Appendix D: Current Estimated Schedule.

Exhibits
Exhibit I

Readiness Form

Exhibit II

Guideline for initiating a Service Order

Exhibit III

Summary of Project Types/Subtypes

Exhibit IV

Sample of Benchmarking Model for Crude Production Facility (GOSP)

Exhibit V

Sample of Benchmarking Report for Crude Production Facility (GOSP)

22 April 2007

Revision Summary
New Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure.

Page 13 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Exhibit I
READINESS FORM
BENCHMARKING READINESS QUESTIONAIRE
Project

Description

Your project will be performing a benchmarking analysis with IPA. To ensure the
appropriate information will be available for the analysis and make certain IPA's
benchmarking effort depicts an accurate assessment of the Project, we are requesting
you complete the following questionnaire.
Based on your responses we will recommend an appropriate date for the study and data
collection meeting.
GENERAL ENGINEERING
1.

Is the project planning to perform soil and hydrology analysis?


Yes

No

Not required

If Yes, indicate the date when the soil and hydrology analysis planned effort will
be/was completed for the Project. _____________
2.

Have all engineering studies been completed and results reflected in the project
Yes
No
scope and appropriate drawings?
If No, please list the remaining studies that impact project scope, cost or
schedule and note the planned completion date for each study.
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
Are there any outstanding issues affecting the project scope, cost or schedule
Yes
No
which are anticipated to be performed after ERA?
If Yes, please include brief comments on the issue(s).

3.

Indicate the date when the project proposal design drawings will be finalized
and received approval by the Proponent, Maintenance and other Stakeholder

Page 14 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

personnel as appropriate? (Note this does not mean he has to sign all the
drawings rather he is in agreement with the project proposal design effort).
Plot Plan
PFDs
P&IDs
Material specifications
Electrical one-line drawings
Major equipment specifications
4.

______________
______________
______________
______________
______________
______________

Will Proponent be in a position, at the benchmarking data collection meeting, to


indicate he agrees with the final scope?
Yes
No
If not what will be the outstanding issues and when will this agreement be
made?

ESTIMATE & SCOPE


Indicate the date when the ER estimate will be available to transmit to ESD. _________
VIPs
1.

Based on the attached list indicate the Value Improvement Practices (VIP) the
PMT are planning to implement during the Project Proposal effort.
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________
______________________________________

2.

Indicate the date when all VIP, the project intends to implement, will be
complete _________.

PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN


Indicate the date when the Project Execution Plan incorporating all Project Proposal
activities, will be completed, approved and can be transmitted to IPA for the
benchmarking analysis _____________.
COST CONTROL AND SCHEDULE
1.

Does the Saudi Aramco format of the ER estimate easily translate to a system of
progress measurement and control of cost to Saudi Aramco Cost Codes?
Yes
No

Page 15 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

2.

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Will a cost engineer / business administrator be assigned to the project?


Yes
No
If Yes, when will he be assigned? _____________.

3.

Will a scheduler be assigned to the project?

Yes

No

If Yes, when will he be assigned? _____________.


4.

When will the Cost and Schedule control plans be established and approved and
ready for review by IPA? ____________.

5.

Indicate the date when a level III schedule which represents an integrated logic
based CPM network diagram schedule derived from a critical path analysis
incorporating key equipment delivery and milestone dates be available for
transmittal to IPA for the benchmarking analysis. ___________.

6.

Will the schedule be resource loaded?

Yes

No

To receive the optimum results from the benchmarking analysis, it is important


that the information requested above is complete and available at the time of the
data collection meeting. For the data collection meeting, IPA will require the
following documents:

Completion of their data collection book they will transmit to the PMT prior
to the meeting.
Brief of the Project scope
Copies of back-up information concerning VIP analysis performed
Electronic copy of the Level III schedule
Estimate details based on attached format

If this information is not available, IPA's analysis will indicate the project has
not reached readiness and although the Project Team is intending to perform
these activities prior to ERA, Management will see poorer results.

Page 16 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Exhibit II
GUIDELINES FOR INITIATING A
BENCHMARKING SERVICE ORDER WITH ASC
CONTENT: The following guideline should be utilized to initiate a benchmarking
service order against ASC contract # 710920/00 with IPA.
INITIATING A PROJECT FOR BENCHMARK ANALYSIS
To add a project to the process for benchmarking, the following items are first
transmitted to ASC.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

BI number and name of project.


Budget Item scope of work (BISI or equivalent).
Benchmark services start date.
PS&CD/PCED contact name (and alternate)/mailing address/phone/fax.
Project specific requirements (e.g. benchmark completion date, etc.).
Target date for interview with project team.

REQUEST FOR SERVICE


1.

After the above information is transmitted to ASC, ASC will transmit the
information along with a request for quote to IPA.

2.

IPA returns with proposal, fee requirements and milestone dates to ASC &
PS&CD/PCED. IPA milestone dates would include:

Distribution of IPA's benchmarking workbook


Required receipt date from SAPMT of the workbook
Proposed interview date(s) and location
Distribution of the draft and final benchmarking report

3.

PS&CD/PCED approves the IPA scope and fee and informs ASC to process the
Service Order.

4.

ASC prepares and sends Service Order to IPA.

5.

IPA signs and returns the Service Order to ASC.

Page 17 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

CONTACTS
ASC - Primary Contact:
Name:
E-Mail:
Address:

Pamela A. Hurst
pam.hurst@aramco.com
Aramco Services Company
9009 West Loop South
M.S. 1093/Rm. 10140
Houston, Texas 77096
Phone: +1-713-432-8488
Fax:
+1-713-432-8636

ASC Alternate Contact:


Name:
E-Mail:
Address:

Aramco Services Company


9009 West Loop South
M.S. 1093/Rm. 10147
Houston, Texas 77096
Phone: +1-713-432-4577
Fax:
+1-713-432-4041

In case of difficulty in contacting ASC, please contact PS&CD


PS&CD - Primary Contact:
Name:
E-Mail:
Phone:
Fax:

Fred. M. Rahbar
faramarz.rahbar@aramco.com
+966-3-874-5011
+966-3-873-7828

Page 18 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Exhibit III
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TYPES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Crude Production Facility


Gas Plant
Sulfur Recovery Unit
FCCU
VGO Hydrotreater
Naphtha Hydrotreater
Kerosene Hydrotreater
Diesel Hydrotreater
CCR Platformer
Isomerization Unit
Bulk Plants
Cross Country Pipelines (Gas)
Cross Country Pipelines (Oil)
Cross Country Pipelines (Water)
Flowlines & Trunklines (Gas)
Flowlines & Trunklines (Oil)
Flowlines & Trunklines (Water)
Process Automation
Substation
Cogeneration
3 Leg Wellhead Jacket
4 Leg Wellhead Jacket
6 Leg Wellhead Jacket
8 Leg Wellhead Jacket
Non Esp Wellhead Deck
Esp Wellhead Deck
Offshore Trunklines
Offshore Flowlines
Subsea Cables
Non Industrial Buildings
Industrial Buildings
Access Roads
Ssd Fencing
Security Gates
Water Treatment Plants

Page 19 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Exhibit IV
SAMPLE BENCHMARKING MODEL FOR
CRUDE PRODUCTION FACILITY (GOSP)
BUDGET ITEM (BI)

ERA

JOB ORDER (JO)

ERC

DESCRIPTION

AREA NAME

INLET FACILITY

PRODUCTION
TRAP

PARAMETER

UOM

QUANTITY OF SCRAPER TRAPS

EACH

QUANTITY & SIZE (INCHES) OF TRAP A

EACH

QUANTITY & SIZE (INCHES) OF TRAP B

EACH

QUANTITY & SIZE (INCHES) OF TRAP C


TOTAL INSTALLED COST (INLET
FACILITY)

EACH

QUANTITY

UNIT
COST

COST
$

DOLLARS

UNIT CAPACITY

MBD

NUMBER OF HIGH PRESSURE TRAPS


NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE PRESSURE
TRAPS

EACH

NUMBER OF LOW PRESSURE TRAPS

EACH

WATER CUT

% VOL

DOLLARS

UNIT CAPACITY

MMSCFD

HP COMPRESSORS QUANTITY

EACH

HP COMP DRIVER TYPE (MOTOR/CGT)

EACH

IP COMPRESSORS QUANTITY

EACH

IP COMP DRIVER TYPE (MOTOR/CGT)

EACH

LP COMPRESSORS QUANTITY

EACH

LP COMP DRIVER TYPE (MOTOR/CGT)

EACH

HP COMPRESSORS TOTAL HP

HP

EACH

GAS OIL RATIO


CRUDE TYPE (AL/AM/AXL/ASL) or API
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (PRODUCTION
TRAP)

GAS GATHERING

IP COMPRESSORS TOTAL HP

HP

LP COMPRESSORS TOTAL HP
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (GAS
GATHERING)

HP
DOLLARS

Page 20 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

WET CRUDE
HANDLING &
WOSEP

CONDENSATE
STABILIZATION

CRUDE
STABILIZATION

WATER INJECTION
FACILITY

COGENERATION
FACILITY

PIPERACK &
PIPING

SUPPORT
INFRASTRUCTURE

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

NUMBER DESALTING STAGES

EACH

UNIT CAPACITY
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (WET CRUDE
HANDLING & WOSEP)

MBD

DOLLARS

UNIT CAPACITY
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (CONDENSATE
STABILIZATION)

MBD

DOLLARS

UNIT CAPACITY

MBD

UNIT CAPACITY

MBD

QUANTITY OF PUMPS

EACH

PUMPS TOTAL HP

HP

PUMP DRIVER TYPE (MOTOR/CGT)


TOTAL INSTALLED COST (WATER
INJECTION FACILITY)

EACH
DOLLARS

ISO RATING

MW

TONNAGE STEEL (PIPERACK)

TONS

TONNAGE PIPE

TONS

WIDTH OF PIPERACK

LM

LENGTH OF PIPERACK

LM

HEIGHT PIPERACK

LM

LEVELS OF PIPERACK

EACH

TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL PIPES

LM

TOTAL INSTALLED COST (PIPERACK)

DOLLARS

TOTAL INSTALLED COST (PIPING)

DOLLARS

SITE PREPARATION

SM

CONCRETE

CM

STRUCTURAL STEEL

TONS

FENCING

LM

CONTROL BUILDINGS (ALL BLDGS)

SM

PIBS (ALL BLDGS)

SM

OTHER TYPES OF BUILDING

SM

SUBSTATION
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (SUPPORT
BLDGS ONLY)
TOTAL INSTALLED COST
(INFRASTRUCTURE)

SM

DOLLARS

DOLLARS

Page 21 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

OFFSITES &
UTILITIES

ELECTRICAL

PROCESS
CONTROLS

COMMUNICATIONS

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

BOILER QTY

EACH

BOILER CAPACITY

LBS/HR

BOILER PRESSURE

PSIG

COOLING TOWER CAPACITY

GPM

AIR COMPRESSOR QTY

EACH

AIR COMPRESSOR CAPACITY

SCFM

FLARE SIZE

SCFM

FIREWATER SYS CAPACITY

GPM

NITROGEN GEN SYS CAPACITY

SCFM

WATER TREATMENT FACILITY


TOTAL INSTALLED COST (OFFSITES &
UTILITIES)

GPM

DOLLARS

TRANSMISSION LINE LENGTH

KM

TRANSMISSION LINE VOLTAGE

KV

SWITCHYARD VOLTAGE

KV

MAIN SUBSTATION

EACH

MAIN SUBSTATION

KVA

UNIT SUBSTATION

EACH

UNIT SUBSTATION

KVA

ELECTRICAL CABLE TRAY

LM

ELECTRICAL CABLE

LM

TOTAL INSTALLED COST (ELECTRICAL)

DOLLARS

DIGITAL CONTROL SYSTEM (DCS)

I/O

EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN SYSTEM (ESD)

I/O

VIBRATION MONITORING SYSTEM (VMS)

I/O

WORKSTATIONS QTY

EACH

NEW TRANSMITTERS QTY

EACH

INSTRUMENTATION CABLE TRAY

LM

INSTRUMENTATION CABLE
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (PROCESS
CONTROLS)

LM

DOLLARS

FIBER OPTIC CABLES

LM

COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT
TOTAL INSTALLED COST
(COMMUNICATIONS)

EACH

DOLLARS

Page 22 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

OTHERS

ENGINEERING

CONSTRUCTION

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

LIST MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES

EACH

ENGINEERING (PROJECT PROPOSAL)

MHRS

ENGINEERING (DETAIL DESIGN)

MHRS

ENGINEERING (PMT SUPPORT)

MHRS

TOTAL COST (ENGINEERING)

DOLLARS

DIRECT CONSTRUCTION

MHRS

INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION

MHRS

CONSTRUCTION (PMT SUPPORT)

MHRS

TOTAL COST (CONSTRUCTION)

DOLLARS

CRUDE PRODUCTION FACILITY (GOSP)

MBD

ACTIVITY

DESCRIPTION

IN MONTH(S)

PROJECT PROPOSAL (PP) DURATION


PROJECT PROPOSAL (PP) TO ERA DURATION
DETAIL DESIGN DURATION
SCHEDULING

ERA-MCC DURATION
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
START-UP & COMMISSIONING DURATION
MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT WITH MORE THAN 6 MONTHS LEAD-TIME
DELIVERY

VALUE
PRACTICES
CONTRACTING
STRATEGY

LIST OF VALUE PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED


TYPE OF CONTRACT TO BE EXECUTED (LSTK, OPENBOOK, LSPB,
LSCR, etc.)

Page 23 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Exhibit V
SAMPLE BENCHMARKING REPORT FOR
CRUDE PRODUCTION FACILITY (GOSP)
Unit Cost Analysis Comparison with Worldwide Regions

Description

Unit of Measure

Overall Facility Cost

$ per Barrel

Inside Battery Limit ISBL


Outside Battery Limit
OSBL
Infrastructure

$ per Barrel

Inlet Fcility

$ per Barrel

Production Traps

$ per Barrel

Gas Gathering

$per MMSCFD

Wet Crude Handling

$ per Barrel

Condensate Stabilization

$ per Barrel

Crude Stabilization

$ per Barrel

Water Injection Facility

$ per Barrel

Cogeneration Facility

$ per MW

Electrical Power

$ per MW

Process Control

$per I/O

Saudi
Aramco
Cost $

Middle
East
Region
Average
Cost $

Middle
East
Region
Lowest
Cost $

Middle
East
Region
Highest
Cost $

Number of
Projects in
Region
Database

Worldwide
Regions
Lowest
Cost $

Worldwide
Regions
Highest
Cost $

Number of
Projects in
Worldwide
Database

$ per Barrel
$ per Barrel

Unit Cost Analysis Comparison with Worldwide Regions

Description

Unit of Measure

Overall Facility Cost

$ per Barrel

Inside Battery Limit ISBL


Outside Battery Limit
OSBL
Infrastructure

$ per Barrel

Inlet Facility

$ per Barrel

Production Traps

$ per Barrel

Gas Gathering

$per MMSCFD

Wet Crude Handling

$ per Barrel

Condensate Stabilization

$ per Barrel

Crude Stabilization

$ per Barrel

Saudi
Aracmo
Cost $

Worldwide
Regions
Average
Cost $

$ per Barrel
$ per Barrel

Page 24 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

Water Injection Facility

$ per Barrel

Cogeneration Facility

$ per MW

Electrical Power

$ per MW

Process Control

$per I/O

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Ratio Cost Analysis Comparison with Middle East Region

Description

Basic Engineering Cost


Detailed Engineering Cost
Total Material
Total Direct Construction
Total Indirect Construction
Inlet Facility
Production Traps
Gas Gathering
Wet Crude Handling
Condensate Stabilization
Crude Stabilization
Water Injection Facility
Cogeneration Facility
Total Saudi Aramco

Unit of Measure

Saudi
Aracmo
Ratio

Middle
East
Region
Average
Ratio

Middle
East
Region
Lowest
Ratio

Middle
East
Region
Highest
Ratio

Number of
Projects in
Database

Worldwide
Regions
Average
Ratio

Worldwide
Regions
Lowest
Ratio

Worldwide
Regions
Highest
Ratio

Number of
Projects in
Database

Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost

Ratio Cost Analysis Comparison with Worldwide Regions

Description

Basic Engineering Cost


Detailed Engineering Cost
Total Material
Total Direct Construction
Total Indirect Construction

Unit of Measure

Saudi
Aracmo
Quantity

Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost

Page 25 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

Inlet Facility
Production Traps
Gas Gathering
Wet Crude Handling
Condensate Stabilization
Crude Stabilization
Water Injection Facility
Cogeneration Facility
Total Saudi Aramco

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost

Quantity Metrics Comparison with Middle East Region

Description

Total Number of Process


Equipment
Total Piping Length

Unit of Measure

Saudi
Aracmo
Quantity

Middle
East
Region
Average
Quantity

Middle
East
Region
Lowest
Quantity

Middle
East
Region
Highest
Quantity

Number of
Projects in
Database

Each
Meters

Total Piping Weight


Total Structural Steel
Weight
Total Plot Area

Tons

Total Paving Area


Total Electrical Cable
Length
Total Instrumentation
Cable Length
Total Cable Tray Length

Square Meters

Total Volume of Concrete


Total DCS, VMS & ESD I/O
Points
Electrical Power Demand
Total Engineering
Manhours
Total Direct Construction
Manhours
Total Indirect Construction
Manhours

Cubic Meters

Tons
Square Meters

Meters
Meters
Meters

Each
KW
Each
Each
Each

Page 26 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Quantity Metrics Comparison with Worldwide Regions

Description

Total Number of Process


Equipment
Total Piping Length

Unit of Measure

Saudi
Aracmo
Qunatity

Worldwide
Regions
Average
Quantity

Worldwide
Regions
Lowest
Quantity

Worldwide
Regions
Highest
Quantity

Number of
Projects in
Database

Each
Meters

Total Piping Weight


Total Structural Steel
Weight
Total Plot Area

Tons

Total Paving Area


Total Electrical Cable
Length
Total Instrumentation
Cable Length
Total Cable Tray Length

Square Meters

Total Volume of Concrete


Total DCS, VMS & ESD I/O
Points
Electrical Power Demand
Total Engineering
Manhours
Total Direct Construction
Manhours
Total Indirect Construction
Manhours

Cubic Meters

Tons
Square Meters

Meters
Meters
Meters

Each
KW
Each
Each
Each

Page 27 of 30

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

SAEP-26
Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

PP

Saudi Aramco

Arabian Gulf Region

Industry Average

Project Close
Out

DBSP FEL-2

PRODUCTIVITY
Direct Detailed Engr. Manhours / Quantity (by
discipline)
Direct Const. Manhours/Quantity (by discipline)
Direct Eng Rework Manhours/Total Direct Eng
Manhours
Direct Consat. Rework Manhours/Total Direct
Constr. Manhours
Total FEED Eng Manhours/Capacity
Total FEED PMT Manhours/Capacity
Total PMT Manhours/TIC
Detailed Engr Manhours/TIC
Total Direct Const Manhours/TIC
Process Eng Manhours
PMT Manhours/Eng Manhours

Study FEL-1
SCHEDULE
Feed Duration/Total Direct Construction Manhours
Execution Duration/Capacity
Overall Duration/Capacity
FEED Duration/Overall Duration
Detailed Eng. Duration/Overall Duration
Construction Duration/Overall Duration
Shutdown Duration

FEL-3

Review Phase & Required Benchmarking Metric Matrix

Page 28 of 30

SAEP-26

OTHER
Complexity
Facility Location
Contract Strategy for FEED
Contract Strategy for EPC
Project Team Size
Owner Team Size (FTE) and Composition
PMT Turnover
Equipment Count/Capacity
Construction Quantity/Capacity
Plot Area/Capacity
Avg. Constr. Craft Hours/Week

Saudi Aramco

Arabian Gulf Region

Industry Average

SAFETY
Total Recordable Incident Rate
Dart Rate

Project Close
Out

FEL-3
PP

DBSP FEL-2

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

Study FEL-1

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

*
*

*
*

Page 29 of 30

Saudi Aramco

Arabian Gulf Region

Industry Average

Project Close
Out

PP

FEL-3

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

DBSP FEL-2

PROCESS TYPE PARAMETERS


Hydrotreaters
Recycle Rate
Design Pressure
ppm Sulfur Product
ppm Sulfur Feed
ppm Nitrogen product
ppm Nitrogen feed
Hydrogen consumption
# of Reactors

SAEP-26

Study FEL-1

Document Responsibility: Project Support and Controls Dept.


Issue Date: 22 April 2007
Next Planned Update: 21 April 2012

Page 30 of 30