SAEP-26 Capital Project Bench Marking Guidelines

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-26 23 April 2013

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines
Document Responsibility: Project Management Office Department
audi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................... 2
2 Applicable Reference Documents................. 3
3 Methodology................................................. 4
4 Responsibility/Workflow................................ 8
5 Data Collection............................................. 10
6 Reporting and Analysis................................ 11
7 Exhibits........................................................ 13
Exhibit I............................................................... 14
Exhibit II.............................................................. 17
Exhibit III............................................................. 19
Exhibit IV............................................................ 20
Exhibit V............................................................. 24
Previous Issue: 22 April 2007 Next Planned Update: 23 April 2014

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the right margin Page 1 of 31
Primary contact: Doiron, Shannon Earl on +966-3-8809161
Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2013. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Project Management Office Department SAEP-26
Issue Date: 23 April 2013
Next Planned Update: 23 April 2014 Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines
1 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
Management Office Department (PMOD/ESD). PMOD/ESD 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 home-
ownership) based on mutual agreement between PMOD/ESD and
SAPMT. Key project data shall be provided by SAPMT to PMOD/ESD
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
Page 2 of 31
project is ready for the next phase. This guideline explains in detail
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
PMOD/ESD 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:
 Saudi 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 31
 Saudi Aramco General Instructions

GI-0020.500 Expenditure Requests
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 mutually-

agreed upon by PMOD/ESD and SAPMT, using the internal database which has
been developed by PMOD/ESD. However, PMOD/ESD will coordinate with
SAPMT to identify projects to be externally benchmarked. PMOD/ESD 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. PMOD/ESD
will make the determination of what projects will be subject to either external or
internal benchmarking.
External Benchmarking Selection Criteria
PMOD/ESD 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 PMOD/ESD
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 31
3.2 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
MC OS
DBSP STUDY Project Proposal Detail Design / Procurement
Construction Start-up Operations
FEL-1 FEL-2 FEL-3
"Closeout Review"
"Pacesetter Review" "Readiness Review" "Operability
Benchmarking Review"
"Closeout Review"
Benchmarking Benchmarking Benchmarking Benchmarking
(After Facility has been in
(At First Draft of DBSP) (At 90% PP) operation for at least six months)
3.3 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
Page 5 of 31
is interested in a benchmark of a small data set with similar project

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

 GOSPs
 Flowlines & Trunklines (Gas)
 Flowlines & Trunklines (Oil)
 Flowlines & Trunklines (Water)
 3 Leg Wellhead Jacket
 Non ESP Wellhead Deck
 ESP Wellhead Deck
 Offshore Trunklines
 Offshore Flowlines
 Subsea Cables
 Subsea Tie Backs
3.3.2.2 Downstream Projects

 Gas Processing Facilities
a. Gas Plant
 Refining Units
a. Crude Production Facility
b. Sulfur Recovery Unit
c. FCCU
d. VGO Hydrotreater
e. Naphtha Hydrotreater
f. Kerosene Hydrotreater
Page 6 of 31
g. Diesel Hydrotreater
h. CCR Platformer
i. Isomerization Unit
 Infrastructure
a. Cross Country Pipelines (Gas)
b. Cross Country Pipelines (Oil)
c. Cross Country Pipelines (Water)
d. Process Automation
e. Substation
f. Bulk Plants
g. 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:
 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
3.3.4 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.
Page 7 of 31
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.
4 Responsibility/Workflow
4.1 Responsibility
PMOD/ESD 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. PMOD/ESD 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. PMOD/ESD 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
PMOD/ESD 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
PMOD/ESD 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
PMOD/ESD 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
Page 8 of 31
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.
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 PMOD/ESD 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 PMOD/ESD 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, PMOD/ESD 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 PMOD/ESD 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.
Page 9 of 31
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;
 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.
PMOD/ESD 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. PMOD/ESD 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.
5 Data Collection
PMOD/ESD 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).
Page 10 of 31
Saudi Aramco will provide the following key data at each phase:
5.1 Study Phase: FEL

 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.
5.2 DBSP Phase: FEL 2

 Copy of draft DBSP;
 Milestone Schedule;
 Estimating data (Budget Estimate);
 Available engineering data;
 Answers to the prospective consultant benchmarking questionnaire.
5.3 Project Proposal Phase: FEL 3

 Copy of project Proposal/Final DBSP;
 Level III Schedule;
 Estimating data (ER Estimate);
 Proposal contractor data;
 Answers to the consultant prospective benchmarking questionnaire.
5.4 Close out Phase

 Copy of close-out report;
 Detailed CPM Schedule;
 Estimating data (As-built Estimate);
 Available engineering/construction data;
 Answers to the consultant prospective benchmarking questionnaire.
6 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.
Page 11 of 31
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.
6.1 Preface
6.2 Executive Summary

 Project Benchmarks;
 Other Project Issues;
 Conclusions;
 Recommendations.
6.3 Introduction
 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.
6.4 Project Drivers

 Front End Loading;
 Value Improving Practices;
 Project Management Practices;
 Contracting Strategies;
 Team Development Index;
 Estimating / Planning for Control;
 Execution Strategy;
 Market Conditions Impact;
 Quantities.
6.5 Project Outcomes
6.5.1 COST
 Contingency Allocation/Use;
 Cost Performance;
Page 12 of 31
 Cost Capacity Model Results;

 Cost Effectiveness;
 Location Factors including Construction Productivity;
 Cost Growth/Predictability.
6.5.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE

 Cycle Time;
 Execution Schedule;
 Construction Schedule;
 Start-up duration;
 Safety Performance.
6.5.3 OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE

 Impact of Major Late Design Changes;
 Turnover of Key Personnel;
 Stage Gate Effectiveness;
 Achieved Internal Rate of Return.
6.6 Conclusions and Recommendations

 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.
7 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)
Page 13 of 31
Revision Summary
23 April 2013 Revised the “Next Planned Update” to occur after ATP recommendations. Reaffirmed the
content of the document, and reissued with editorial revision to revise department name.
Page 14 of 31
Exhibit I
READINESS FORM
BENCHMARKING READINESS QUESTIONNAIRE
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
scope and appropriate drawings? Yes No
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
which are anticipated to be performed after ERA? Yes No
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 15 of 31
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 _____________.
Page 16 of 31
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
2. 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 17 of 31
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 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. BI number and name of project.
2. Budget Item scope of work (BISI or equivalent).
3. Benchmark services start date.
4. PMOD/ESD contact name (and alternate)/mailing address/phone/fax.
5. Project specific requirements (e.g. benchmark completion date, etc.).
6. 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 &
PMOD/ESD. 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. PMOD/ESD 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 18 of 31
CONTACTS
ASC - Primary Contact:
Name: Pamela A. Hurst

E-Mail: pam.hurst@aramco.com
Address: 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 PMOD
PMOD - Primary Contact:

Name: Lee M. Galleguillos
E-Mail: leonardo.galleguillos@aramco.com
Phone: +966-3-880-9044
Page 19 of 31
Exhibit III
SUMMARY OF PROJECT TYPES

1 Crude Production Facility
2 Gas Plant
3 Sulfur Recovery Unit
4 FCCU
5 VGO Hydrotreater
6 Naphtha Hydrotreater
7 Kerosene Hydrotreater
8 Diesel Hydrotreater
9 CCR Platformer
10 Isomerization Unit
11 Bulk Plants
12 Cross Country Pipelines (Gas)
13 Cross Country Pipelines (Oil)
14 Cross Country Pipelines (Water)
15 Flowlines & Trunklines (Gas)
16 Flowlines & Trunklines (Oil)
17 Flowlines & Trunklines (Water)
18 Process Automation
19 Substation
20 Cogeneration
21 3 Leg Wellhead Jacket
25 Non Esp Wellhead Deck
26 Esp Wellhead Deck
27 Offshore Trunklines
28 Offshore Flowlines
29 Subsea Cables
30 Non-Industrial Buildings
31 Industrial Buildings
32 Access Roads
33 SSD Fencing
34 Security Gates
35 Water Treatment Plants
Page 20 of 31
Exhibit IV
SAMPLE BENCHMARKING MODEL FOR
CRUDE PRODUCTION FACILITY (GOSP)
BUDGET ITEM (BI) : ERA :

JOB ORDER (JO) : ERC :
DESCRIPTION :
UNIT
AREA NAME PARAMETER UOM QUANTITY COST COST
QUANTITY OF SCRAPER TRAPS EACH $ $

QUANTITY & SIZE (INCHES) OF TRAP A EACH
INLET FACILITY QUANTITY & SIZE (INCHES) OF TRAP B EACH
QUANTITY & SIZE (INCHES) OF TRAP C EACH
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (INLET
FACILITY) DOLLARS $ $
UNIT CAPACITY MBD $ $

NUMBER OF HIGH PRESSURE TRAPS EACH
NUMBER OF INTERMEDIATE PRESSURE
TRAPS EACH
PRODUCTION NUMBER OF LOW PRESSURE TRAPS EACH
TRAP
WATER CUT % VOL
GAS OIL RATIO
CRUDE TYPE (AL/AM/AXL/ASL) or ºAPI
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (PRODUCTION
TRAP) 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
GAS GATHERING LP COMPRESSORS QUANTITY EACH
LP COMP DRIVER TYPE (MOTOR/CGT) EACH
HP COMPRESSORS TOTAL HP HP
IP COMPRESSORS TOTAL HP HP
LP COMPRESSORS TOTAL HP HP
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (GAS
GATHERING) DOLLARS $ $
Page 21 of 31
NUMBER DESALTING STAGES EACH

WET CRUDE
HANDLING & UNIT CAPACITY MBD $ $
WOSEP TOTAL INSTALLED COST (WET CRUDE
HANDLING & WOSEP) DOLLARS $ $
CONDENSATE UNIT CAPACITY MBD $ $

STABILIZATION TOTAL INSTALLED COST (CONDENSATE
STABILIZATION) DOLLARS $ $
CRUDE
STABILIZATION UNIT CAPACITY MBD $ $
UNIT CAPACITY MBD $ $

QUANTITY OF PUMPS EACH
WATER INJECTION
FACILITY PUMPS TOTAL HP HP
PUMP DRIVER TYPE (MOTOR/CGT) EACH
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (WATER
INJECTION FACILITY) DOLLARS $ $
COGENERATION
FACILITY ISO RATING MW $ $
TONNAGE STEEL (PIPERACK) TONS $ $

TONNAGE PIPE TONS $ $
WIDTH OF PIPERACK LM
LENGTH OF PIPERACK LM
PIPERACK &
PIPING 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 $ $
SUPPORT CONTROL BUILDINGS (ALL BLDGS) SM $ $

INFRASTRUCTURE PIBS (ALL BLDGS) SM $ $
OTHER TYPES OF BUILDING SM $ $
SUBSTATION SM $ $
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (SUPPORT
BLDGS ONLY) DOLLARS $ $
TOTAL INSTALLED COST
(INFRASTRUCTURE) DOLLARS $ $
Page 22 of 31
BOILER QTY EACH $ $

BOILER CAPACITY LBS/HR
BOILER PRESSURE PSIG
COOLING TOWER CAPACITY GPM $ $
AIR COMPRESSOR QTY EACH $ $
OFFSITES &
UTILITIES AIR COMPRESSOR CAPACITY SCFM
FLARE SIZE SCFM $ $
FIREWATER SYS CAPACITY GPM $ $
NITROGEN GEN SYS CAPACITY SCFM $ $
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY GPM $ $
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (OFFSITES &
UTILITIES) DOLLARS $ $
TRANSMISSION LINE LENGTH KM $ $

TRANSMISSION LINE VOLTAGE KV
SWITCHYARD VOLTAGE KV $ $
MAIN SUBSTATION EACH $ $
MAIN SUBSTATION KVA $ $
ELECTRICAL
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 $ $
PROCESS WORKSTATIONS QTY EACH $ $

CONTROLS
NEW TRANSMITTERS QTY EACH $ $
INSTRUMENTATION CABLE TRAY LM $ $
INSTRUMENTATION CABLE LM $ $
TOTAL INSTALLED COST (PROCESS
CONTROLS) DOLLARS $ $
FIBER OPTIC CABLES LM $ $

COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT EACH $ $
TOTAL INSTALLED COST
(COMMUNICATIONS) DOLLARS $ $
Page 23 of 31
OTHERS LIST MISCELLANEOUS FACILITIES EACH $ $

ENGINEERING (PROJECT PROPOSAL) MHRS $ $
ENGINEERING (DETAIL DESIGN) MHRS $ $
ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING (PMT SUPPORT) MHRS $ $
TOTAL COST (ENGINEERING) DOLLARS $ $
DIRECT CONSTRUCTION MHRS $ $

INDIRECT CONSTRUCTION MHRS $ $
CONSTRUCTION
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
ERA-MCC DURATION
SCHEDULING
CONSTRUCTION DURATION
START-UP & COMMISSIONING DURATION
MATERIAL & EQUIPMENT WITH MORE THAN 6 MONTHS LEAD-TIME
DELIVERY
VALUE
LIST OF VALUE PRACTICES IMPLEMENTED
PRACTICES
CONTRACTING TYPE OF CONTRACT TO BE EXECUTED (LSTK, OPENBOOK, LSPB,

STRATEGY LSCR, etc.)
Page 24 of 31
Exhibit V
SAMPLE BENCHMARKING REPORT FOR
CRUDE PRODUCTION FACILITY (GOSP)
Unit Cost Analysis Comparison with Worldwide Regions
Middle Middle Middle

Number of
Saudi East East East
Projects in
Description Unit of Measure Aramco Region Region Region
Region
Cost $ Average Lowest Highest
Database
Cost $ Cost $ Cost $
Overall Facility Cost $ per Barrel

Inside Battery Limit ISBL $ per Barrel
Outside Battery Limit
OSBL $ per Barrel
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
Unit Cost Analysis Comparison with Worldwide Regions
Worldwide Worldwide Number of

Saudi Worldwide
Regions Regions Projects in
Description Unit of Measure Aramco Regions
Lowest Highest Worldwide
Cost $ Average
Cost $ Cost $ Database
Cost $
Overall Facility Cost $ per Barrel

Inside Battery Limit ISBL $ per Barrel
Outside Battery Limit
OSBL $ per Barrel
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
Page 25 of 31
Water Injection Facility $ per Barrel

Cogeneration Facility $ per MW
Electrical Power $ per MW
Process Control $per I/O
Ratio Cost Analysis Comparison with Middle East Region

Saudi East East East Number of
Description Unit of Measure Aramco Region Region Region Projects in
Ratio Average Lowest Highest Database
Ratio Ratio Ratio
Ratio to Total
Basic Engineering Cost
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Detailed Engineering Cost
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Total Material
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Total Direct Construction
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Total Indirect Construction
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Inlet Facility
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Production Traps
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Gas Gathering
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Wet Crude Handling
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Condensate Stabilization
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Crude Stabilization
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Water Injection Facility
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Cogeneration Facility
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Total Saudi Aramco
Installed Cost
Ratio Cost Analysis Comparison with Worldwide Regions
Worldwide Worldwide Worldwide

Saudi Number of
Regions Regions Regions
Description Unit of Measure Aramco Projects in
Average Lowest Highest
Quantity Database
Ratio Ratio Ratio
Ratio to Total
Basic Engineering Cost
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Detailed Engineering Cost
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Total Material
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Installed Cost
Page 26 of 31
Ratio to Total
Inlet Facility
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Production Traps
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Gas Gathering
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Wet Crude Handling
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Condensate Stabilization
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Crude Stabilization
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Water Injection Facility
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Cogeneration Facility
Installed Cost
Ratio to Total
Total Saudi Aramco
Installed Cost
Quantity Metrics Comparison with Middle East Region

Saudi East East East Number of
Description Unit of Measure Aramco Region Region Region Projects in
Quantity Average Lowest Highest Database
Quantity Quantity Quantity
Total Number of Process

Equipment Each
Total Piping Length Meters
Total Piping Weight Tons
Total Structural Steel
Weight Tons
Total Plot Area Square Meters
Total Paving Area Square Meters
Total Electrical Cable
Length Meters
Total Instrumentation
Cable Length Meters
Total Cable Tray Length Meters
Total Volume of Concrete Cubic Meters
Total DCS, VMS & ESD I/O
Points Each
Electrical Power Demand KW
Total Engineering
Manhours Each
Manhours Each
Manhours Each
Page 27 of 31
Quantity Metrics Comparison with Worldwide Regions
Worldwide Worldwide Worldwide

Saudi Number of
Regions Regions Regions
Description Unit of Measure Aramco Projects in
Average Lowest Highest
Quantity Database
Quantity Quantity Quantity
Total Number of Process

Equipment Each
Total Piping Length Meters
Total Piping Weight Tons
Total Structural Steel
Weight Tons
Total Plot Area Square Meters
Total Paving Area Square Meters
Total Electrical Cable
Length Meters
Total Instrumentation
Cable Length Meters
Total Cable Tray Length Meters
Total Volume of Concrete Cubic Meters
Total DCS, VMS & ESD I/O
Points Each
Electrical Power Demand KW
Total Engineering
Manhours Each
Manhours Each
Manhours Each
Page 28 of 31
Review Phase & Required Benchmarking Metric Matrix
Arabian Gulf Region

Project Close Out
Industry Average
Saudi Aramco
Study FEL-1
DBSP FEL-2
FEL-3
PP
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 * * * * * *
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 * * * *
Page 29 of 31
Arabian Gulf Region

Project Close Out
Industry Average
Saudi Aramco
Study FEL-1
DBSP FEL-2
FEL-3
PP
SAFETY
Total Recordable Incident Rate * * * *
Dart Rate * * * *
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 * * * *
Page 30 of 31
Arabian Gulf Region

Project Close Out
Industry Average
Saudi Aramco
Study FEL-1
DBSP FEL-2
FEL-3
PP
PROCESS TYPE PARAMETERS
Hydrotreaters * * * * * * *
Recycle Rate * * * * * * *
Design Pressure * * * * * * *
ppm Sulfur Product * * * * * * *
ppm Sulfur Feed * * * * * * *
ppm Nitrogen product * * * * * * *
ppm Nitrogen feed * * * * * * *
Hydrogen consumption * * * * * * *
# of Reactors * * * * * * *
Page 31 of 31

SAEP-26 Capital Project Bench Marking Guidelines

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SAEP-26 Capital Project Bench Marking Guidelines

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-26 23 April 2013

audi Aramco DeskTop Standards

Previous Issue: 22 April 2007 Next Planned Update: 23 April 2014

Copyright©Saudi Aramco 2013. All rights reserved.

This Engineering Procedure serves as the framework to ensure that the

A Benchmarking Study is performed on a project to compare that project’s cost,

1.2.1 Internal Benchmarking

Internal Benchmarking shall be performed on selected projects (except

1.2.2 External Project Benchmarking

External project benchmarking analysis is performed for selected

1.2.3 External System Benchmarking

System benchmarking analysis is performed on selected projects by an

2 Applicable Reference Documents

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

 Saudi Aramco General Instructions

 Saudi Aramco Materials System Specifications (SAMSSs)

3.1 Project Selection

Saudi Aramco will internally benchmark selected capital projects, as mutually-

External Benchmarking Selection Criteria

PMOD/ESD will coordinate with SAPMT to identify projects with value of

The following projects are excluded:

3.2 Benchmarking Stages

Project Benchmarking will be done at the following stages:

3.3 Work Breakdown Structure

Benchmarking will reflect the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) identified in

Consultant’s Report Format will be structured to present a balanced approach

3.3.1 Project Output Capacity

Saudi Aramco projects must be benchmarked with similar projects in the

is interested in a benchmark of a small data set with similar project

3.3.2 Project Type and Subtype

A list of Saudi Aramco project types and subtypes is attached in

3.3.2.1 Upstream Projects

3.3.2.2 Downstream Projects

3.3.3 Project Location

The benchmarking analysis need to reflect datasets for projects in similar

3.3.4 Inside/Outside Battery Limits

The benchmarking data needs to differentiate between the Inside Battery

3.3.5 Grass Root or Revamp/Expansion

3.3.6 Project Exclusions

The benchmark report and analysis must exclude factors specific to

PMOD/ESD shall be responsible for the selection of projects to be benchmarked,

4.2 Benchmarking Workflow

4.2.1 Identify Candidate Projects

PMOD/ESD will identify suitable candidate projects to undergo either

4.2.2 Select Projects for Benchmarking

4.2.3 Establishment of a Work Order through ASC

PMOD/ESD will establish a work order with the Benchmarking

4.2.4 Data Gathering Cycle

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

On receipt of the Work Order the Benchmarking Consultant will prepare

Upon completion of the questionnaire, PMOD/ESD and a designated

4.2.5 Review Cycle

Following the interview, the Benchmarking Consultant will prepare his

4.2.6 Draft & Final Report

All benchmarking requests and draft or final reports should compare

4.2.7 Completion of the Study

Upon completion of the study and agreement, a plan will be developed to

5.1 Study Phase: FEL

5.2 DBSP Phase: FEL 2

5.3 Project Proposal Phase: FEL 3

5.4 Close out Phase

6 Reporting and Analysis