You are on page 1of 281

GUÍA PARA APLICACIÓN DE PDRI

Código: GU-EN-001 Revisión: 00


Fecha: 27/04/2017 Página: 1 de 6
TIPO: GUÍA Nivel: DOCUMENTO CORPORATIVO

ÍNDICE DE REVISIONES
Revisión Fecha Descripción Elaborado Revisado Aprobado
0 27/04/2017 Emisión Inicial JFR MAP SV

Abreviaturas:
JFR – Jose Francisco Riggio
MAP – Maria Aparecida de Souza Peixoto
SV – Saulo Vinicius Rocha Silveira

DOCUMENTO PARA USO INTERNO – REPRODUCCIÓN PROHIBIDA SIN AUTORIZACIÓN PREVIA DE ODEBRECHT ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO
GUÍA PARA APLICACIÓN DE PDRI
Código: GU-EN-001 Revisión: 00
Fecha: 27/04/2017 Página: 2 de 6
TIPO: GUÍA Nivel: DOCUMENTO CORPORATIVO

ÍNDICE
1. OBJETIVO .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2. DOCUMENTOS DE REFERENCIA ............................................................................................................. 3
3. TÉRMINOS Y DEFINICIONES ................................................................................................................. 3
4. APLICACIÓN Y RESPONSABILIDADES .................................................................................................. 3
4.1. APLICACIÓN ................................................................................................................................................ 3
4.2. RESPONSABILIDADES .................................................................................................................................. 4
5. DESCRIPCIÓN DE LA HERRAMIENTA .................................................................................................... 4
5.1. ATRIBUTOS DE LA HERRAMIENTA ................................................................................................................ 4
5.2. CRITERIO GENERAL PARA USO DE LA HERRAMIENTA ................................................................................... 4
6. ANEXOS .................................................................................................................................................. 6

DOCUMENTO PARA USO INTERNO – REPRODUCCIÓN PROHIBIDA SIN AUTORIZACIÓN PREVIA DE ODEBRECHT ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO
GUÍA PARA APLICACIÓN DE PDRI
Código: GU-EN-001 Revisión: 00
Fecha: 27/04/2017 Página: 3 de 6
TIPO: GUÍA Nivel: DOCUMENTO CORPORATIVO

1. OBJETIVO
Esta guía establece las orientaciones para para la aplicación de la herramienta PDRI (Project Definition Rating Index)
de CII (Construction Industry Institute) para evaluación de Proyectos Industriales y de Infraestructura.

2. DOCUMENTOS DE REFERENCIA
• PR-GE-001 – Estructura de SGP
• GL-GE-001 – Glosario de Abreviaturas, Términos y Definiciones de SGP
• CII Implementation Resource 113-2 – Version 4.1 (Industrial Projects)
• CII Implementation Resource 268-11 (Infrastructure Projects)

3. TÉRMINOS Y DEFINICIONES
• PDP: Project Definition Package
• Project Definition Package (PDP): Conjunto de información producido al final de la Fase 3 de FEP que
típicamente incluye además de FEED, estimativa de gastos, EAP, cronograma, estrategia de procura, el plan de
ejecución del proyecto, el plan de gestión de riesgos, estudio de constructibilidad entre otros entregables.
• Grado de terminación de los entregables: Medida del nivel de desarrollo de la documentación del proyecto
recibida en el inicio de una Fase y/o producida durante la Fase.
• Proyectos de renovación y mejoras (renovation and revamp-R&R): Definido como siendo aquel proyecto
enfocado en las infraestructuras existentes, pero que no abarcan las actividades de rutinas de mantenimiento.
Incluye las acciones, los procesos, los trabajos de sustitución, repuesto, reparos y mejoras de infraestructuras en
bienes de capital. Incluye también la construcción de estructuras adicionales y sistemas para alcanzar una
condición más favorable de funcionalidad, operación y servicios.
Estas modificaciones tienen el objetivo de aumentar la rentabilidad, fiabilidad, eficiencia, seguridad, mejoras
ambientales y adecuación a requisitos regulatorios.
También se conoce el proyecto del tipo R&R con otros nombres como: reparos, upgrade, modernización, entre
otros.

Demás Términos consultar documento GL-GE-001-Glosario de Abreviaturas, Términos y Definiciones de SGP

4. APLICACIÓN Y RESPONSABILIDADES
4.1. APLICACIÓN

Se debe utilizar el PDRI durante las Fases del Front End Planning (FEP): Viabilidad del Negocio (Feasibility);
Desarrollo Conceptual (Concept) y Alcance Detallado (Detailed Scope). En la Fase de Alcance Detallado se recomienda
también la aplicación en una etapa intermedia del desarrollo de ingeniería, conforme se presenta en la Figura 1 a
continuación.

1 2 3

1 2 Detailed Scope 3

Figura 1 – Puntos Potenciales de Aplicación de la Herramienta PDRI

SGP considera que se debe aplicar también la herramienta en el inicio de cualquier de las Fases del Front End Planning,
cuando Odebrecht recibe la documentación del Cliente y la evalúa antes de definir la Macro Estrategia al Proyecto.

DOCUMENTO PARA USO INTERNO – REPRODUCCIÓN PROHIBIDA SIN AUTORIZACIÓN PREVIA DE ODEBRECHT ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO
GUÍA PARA APLICACIÓN DE PDRI
Código: GU-EN-001 Revisión: 00
Fecha: 27/04/2017 Página: 4 de 6
TIPO: GUÍA Nivel: DOCUMENTO CORPORATIVO

Esta evaluación tiene el objetivo de identificar el nivel de desarrollo de los documentos de los proyectos que se están
disponiendo y a partir de ahí, definir el alcance de los trabajos de la Fase.

4.2. RESPONSABILIDADES
La herramienta debe ser aplicada por el equipo de desarrollo del proyecto y debe ser utilizada como un check list.
Se recomienda la participación de un “Facilitador” calificado (de la empresa o externo) para ayudar el equipo de
proyecto en su aplicación.

El equipo de proyecto debe estar bien representado durante la sesión de evaluación, incluyendo miembros de todas
las disciplinas de ingeniería relevantes, el Gerente de Contrato, Procura, Control de Proyecto y demás áreas del
Proyecto (para referencia ver documento PR-GE-001 – Estructura de SGP).

5. DESCRIPCIÓN DE LA HERRAMIENTA
PDRI para Proyectos Industriales e Infraestructura es una herramienta poderosa y de uso fácil que ofrece una
metodología para medir el grado de terminación de la definición de un alcance de proyecto. Identifica y describe con
precisión cada elemento crítico en un paquete de definición del alcance de un proyecto y permite que el equipo de
proyecto sea capaz de prever muy pronto factores en los riesgos de un proyecto. Su intención es evaluar la terminación
de la definición del alcance en cualquier punto/momento anterior al detalle y construcción.

5.1. ATRIBUTOS DE LA HERRAMIENTA


PDRI ofrece un check list que comprende la definición de 70 elementos de alcance en un formato en Excel de fácil
utilización. Cada elemento tiene un peso con base en su relativa importancia en relación a los demás elementos.
El score máximo es de 1000 puntos para cualquiera de las Fases de FEP. El criterio de puntuación atribuye menos
puntos cuanto mejor sea la definición de los elementos.

El valor típico esperado para cada una de las Fases de FEP es según se indica a continuación:

PDRI 1 (Final de la Fase de Viabilidad del Negocio): Rango típico entre 550 y 800 puntos;

PDRI 2 (Final de la Fase de Desarrollo Conceptual): Rango típico entre 450 y 600 puntos;

PDRI 2i (Etapa intermedia de la Fase de Alcance de Detalle): Rango típico entre 300 y 450 puntos;

PDRI 3: (Final del Front End Planning): Rango Típico entre 150 y 250 puntos, con una meta 200 puntos o menos.

Como el score de PDRI está relacionado a los riesgos, se puede aislar/identificar fácilmente las áreas que necesitan
más trabajo. Un score de PDRI menor o igual a 200 puntos muestra un gran aumento en la probabilidad de éxito del
proyecto.

La evaluación no debe ser restricta solamente al score final alcanzado. Un score superior a 200 puntos, pero con
riesgos plenamente identificados, es aceptable y el Proyecto puede avanzar desde que se implementen debidamente
las medidas mitigadoras de riesgos.

5.2. CRITERIO GENERAL PARA USO DE LA HERRAMIENTA


Los tipos de proyectos industriales (IR 113-2) donde se deben aplicar son:
• Oil/Gas Production Facilities
• Textile Mills
• Chemical Plants
• Pharmaceutical Plants
• Paper Mills

DOCUMENTO PARA USO INTERNO – REPRODUCCIÓN PROHIBIDA SIN AUTORIZACIÓN PREVIA DE ODEBRECHT ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO
GUÍA PARA APLICACIÓN DE PDRI
Código: GU-EN-001 Revisión: 00
Fecha: 27/04/2017 Página: 5 de 6
TIPO: GUÍA Nivel: DOCUMENTO CORPORATIVO

• Steel/Aluminum Mills
• Power Plants
• Manufacturing Facilities
• Food Processing Plants
• Refineries
• Civil/Industrial Infrastructure
• Plant Upgrade/retrofit

PDRI para proyectos de Infraestructura (IR 286-2) son típicamente aplicados en los siguientes tipos de plantas:
• People and Freight
• Highways
• Railroads
• Access Ramps
• Tunnels
• Airport Runways
• Security Fencing
• Energy
• Electricity Transmission/Distribution
• Fiber Optic Networks
• Electrical Substations/Switch Gears
• Towers
• Wide Area Networks
• Fluids
• Pipelines
• Aqueducts
• Pumping and Compressor Stations
• Locks, Weirs
• Reservoirs
• Meters and Regulator Stations
• Nodes/Centralized Facilities
• Dams
• Power Generation Facilities
• Steam or Chilled Water Production
• Marine, Rail or Air Terminals
• Water/Waste Water/Solid Waste Processing
• Refineries

Se puede utilizar las herramientas en proyectos tipo green field, brown field, y también en upgrade (mejoras) de
plantas/ proyectos de retrofit.

Para más detalles sobre la herramienta y formularios para su aplicación, se debe consultar los documentos CII
Implementation Resource 113-2 – Version 4.1 (Industrial Projects) y CII Implementation Resource 268-11
(Infrastructure Projects).

DOCUMENTO PARA USO INTERNO – REPRODUCCIÓN PROHIBIDA SIN AUTORIZACIÓN PREVIA DE ODEBRECHT ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO
GUÍA PARA APLICACIÓN DE PDRI
Código: GU-EN-001 Revisión: 00
Fecha: 27/04/2017 Página: 6 de 6
TIPO: GUÍA Nivel: DOCUMENTO CORPORATIVO

6. ANEXOS
• ANEXO I – GUÍA DE LA HERRAMIENTA PARA PROYECTOS INDUSTRIALES – IR 113-2
• ANEXO II – GUÍA DE LA HERRAMIENTA PARA PROYECTOS DE INFRAESTRUCTURA – IR 268-2

DOCUMENTO PARA USO INTERNO – REPRODUCCIÓN PROHIBIDA SIN AUTORIZACIÓN PREVIA DE ODEBRECHT ENGENHARIA E CONSTRUÇÃO
Construction Industry Institute®

Project Definition Rating Index

Industrial Projects

Implementation Resource 113-2


Version 4.1
This page is intentionally blank.
PDRI:
Project Definition Rating Index –
Industrial Projects

Prepared by the
Front End Planning Research Team

Updated by the
Support for Pre-Project Planning Research Team and
Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp Research Team

Implementation Resource 113-2

Version 4.1

November 2014
© 2014 Construction Industry Institute™.

The University of Texas at Austin.

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members are
permitted to revise and adapt this work for the internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed and no modifications made without prior
written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies. Volume discounts
may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member prices.
Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

Version 3.0 (July 2008)


Version 3.1 (July 2009) – Corrected scoring weights in the spreadsheet, Section I, Categories D and E.
Version 3.2 (December 2009) – Added copyright statement to spreadsheet, corrected cutline for Figure 3.4, and updated references
to the compact disc.
Version 4.0 (October 2013) – Made significant changes to spreadsheet functions; made stylistic revisions to match companion
products.
Version 4.1 (November 2014) – Updated book scoresheets to match scoring in standardized software tool.
Foreword

Welcome to the fourth edition of PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index –


Industrial Projects. The first edition of this document was developed and written
by the CII Front End Planning Research Team and published in 1996. In 2006,
the CII Support for Pre-Project Planning Project Team reviewed and updated
all CII front end planning documentation, including that first edition. The team
drew upon materials from the National Institute for Standards and Technology
(NIST) Security Study performed by CII, and the collective knowledge of research
team members. The resulting update (the second edition) significantly clarified the
methods for using the PDRI–Industrial Projects tool, discussed tool usage by both
owner and contractor organizations, and referenced security and sustainability
issues.

The Front End Planning for Renovation/Revamp Research Team later revisited
the second edition to clarify its usage on renovation projects and to provide
specific comments on needed front end planning efforts for renovation projects.
In addition, the team developed a macro-enabled spreadsheet to accompany this
book that allows the project team to score projects automatically.

In this most current version, the team fixed minor bugs in the scoring
software and made significant changes to the functionality of the spreadsheets,
also reformatting them to match the features of subsequently released PDRIs for
buildings and infrastructure projects. The research team believes that with these
changes, this fourth edition significantly improves the usability of the PDRI–
Industrial Projects tool.

iii
Contents

Chapter Page

Foreword iii

1. What Is the PDRI? 1

2. Benefits of the PDRI 9

3. Instructions for Assessing a Project 13

4. What Does a PDRI Score Mean? 29

5. Concluding Remarks 33

Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet 35

Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet 39

Appendix C. Element Descriptions 43

Appendix D. Example Project 89

Appendix E. Logic Flow Diagrams 93

Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions 95

Appendix G. Example Action List 101

References 103
1
What Is the PDRI?

The PDRI–Industrial Projects is a simple and easy-to-use tool


for measuring the degree of scope development.

The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) – Industrial Projects is a powerful


and easy-to-use tool that offers a method to measure project scope definition for
completeness. It identifies and precisely describes each critical element in a scope
definition package and allows a project team to quickly predict factors impacting
project risk. It is intended to evaluate the completeness of scope definition at any
point prior to detailed design and construction.

The PDRI is intended to be used during front end planning, which encompasses
the project activities shown in Figure 1.1 up to Phase Gate 3 and includes feasibility,
concept and detailed scope definition. Note that front end planning has many
other terms associated with it, including front end loading, pre-project planning,
programming, schematic design, design development, sanctioning, and others.
Understand that the term front end planning is used in this document, but it may
be replaced to adapt to a particular business process. More information will be
given concerning timing and process is provided later in this document. The
PDRI was originally intended to be used as a tool to decide whether to proceed
with project execution at Phase Gate 3, but experience has shown that it should
be used more than once prior to this gate.

Commissioning
0 Feasibility 1 Concept 2 Detailed Scope 3 Design 4 Construction 5 & Startup 6 Operations

Front End Planning

Figure 1.1. Project Life Cycle Diagram

The PDRI offers a comprehensive checklist of 70 scope definition elements in


an easy-to-use score sheet format. Each element is weighted based on its relative
importance to the other elements. Since the PDRI score relates to risk, those areas

Note: CII has developed three PDRI publications/tools. This book (IR 113-2) addresses
industrial projects. The building projects version is IR 155-2. IR 268-2 focuses on
infrastructure projects.

1
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

that need further work can easily be isolated. (A PDRI score of 200 or less has
been shown to greatly increase the probability of a successful project as described
in Chapter 4.) Applicable industrial-type projects may include the following:

• oil/gas production facilities • power plants


• textile mills • manufacturing facilities
• chemical plants • food processing plants
• pharmaceutical plants • refineries
• paper mills • civil/industrial infrastructure
• steel/aluminum mills • plant upgrade/retrofit.

PDRI–Building Projects (IR155-2) is typically applied to the following types


of facilities:

• offices • parking structures


• schools (classrooms) • warehouses
• banks • light assembly and
manufacturing
• research and laboratory
facilities • churches
• medical facilities • airport terminals
• nursing homes • recreational and athletic
facilities
• institutional buildings
• public assembly and
• stores and shopping centers
performance halls
• dormitories
• industrial control buildings
• apartments
• government facilities.
• hotels and motels

PDRI–Infrastructure Projects (IR 268-2) is typically applied to the following


types of facilities:

People and freight:

• highways • tunnels
• railroads • airport runways
• access ramps • security fencing

2
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Energy:

• electricity transmission/ • towers


distribution
• wide area networks
• fiber optic networks
• electrical substations/switch
gears

Fluids:

• pipelines • locks, weirs


• aqueducts • reservoirs
• pumping and compressor • meters and regulator stations
stations

Nodes/centralized facilities:

• dams • marine, rail or air terminals


• power generation facilities • water/waste water/solid waste
processing
• steam or chilled water
production • refineries.

All three PDRIs include specific risk factors relating to new construction
(“greenfield”) projects and renovation-and-revamp (“R&R”) projects. An R&R
project is defined as one that is focused on an existing facility but does not
involve routine maintenance activities. It includes the act, process, or work of
replacing, restoring, repairing, or improving this facility with capital funds or
non-capital funds. It may include additional structures and systems to achieve a
more functional, serviceable, or desirable condition, including improvement in:
profitability, reliability efficiency, safety, security, environmental performance,
or compliance with regulatory requirements. R&R projects may be known by
numerous other names, such as repair, upgrade, modernization, restoration and
so forth. More details will be given later in this document about how to adapt
the PDRI to R&R projects. (For more information on how to manage front
end planning of R&R projects, see Implementation Resource 242-2, Front End
Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects.)

3
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

PDRI

The PDRI consists of three main sections, each of which is further divided into
a series of categories. These categories also are divided into elements, as shown
in Figure 1.2. A complete list of the PDRI’s three sections, 15 categories, and 70
elements is given in Table 1.1 (next page).

PDRI

Section I
Section II Section III
Basis of Project
Basis of Design Execution Approach
Decision

Category F Category G Category H


Site Information Process/Mechanical Equipment Scope

Element G2
Element G1 Element G3
Heat & Material
Process Flow Sheets P&ID’s
Balances

Figure 1.2. PDRI Partial Hierarchy

The PDRI should be used in conjunction with CII Implementation Resource


113-3, Alignment During Pre-Project Planning, to ensure that critical risk issues
are addressed and that stakeholder interests are represented effectively in the front
end planning process.

4
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Table 1.1. PDRI–Industrial Projects Sections, Categories, and Elements

I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION G9. Mechanical Equipment List


A. Manufacturing Objectives Criteria G10. Line List
A1. Reliability Philosophy G11. Tie-in List
A2. Maintenance Philosophy G12. Piping Specialty Items List
A3. Operating Philosophy G13. Instrument Index
B. Business Objectives H. Equipment Scope
B1. Products H1. Equipment Status
B2. Market Strategy H2. Equipment Location Drawing
B3. Project Strategy H3. Equipment Utility Requirements
B4. Affordability/Feasibility I. Civil, Structural, & Architectural
B5. Capacities I1. Civil/Structural Requirements
B6. Future Expansion Considerations I2. Architectural Requirements
B7. Expected Project Life Cycle J. Infrastructure
B8. Social Issues J1. Water Treatment Requirements
C. Basic Data Research & Development J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage
C1. Technology Facilities Requirements
C2. Processes J3. Transportation Requirements
D. Project Scope K. Instrument & Electrical
D1. Project Objectives Statement K1. Control Philosophy
D2. Project Design Criteria K2. Logic Diagrams
D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. K3. Electrical Area Classifications
Required K4. Substation Requirements/
D4. Dismantling & Demolition Power Sources Identified
Requirements K5. Electric Single Line Diagrams
D5. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work K6. Instrument & Electrical
D6. Project Schedule Specifications
E. Value Engineering III. EXECUTION APPROACH
E1. Process Simplification L. Procurement Strategy
E2. Design & Material Alternatives L1. Identify Long Lead/Critical
Considered/Rejected Equipment & Materials
E3. Design for Constructability L2. Procurement Procedures & Plans
Analysis
L3. Procurement Responsibility
II. BASIS OF DESIGN Matrix
F. Site Information M. Deliverables
F1. Site Location M1. CADD/Model Requirements
F2. Surveys & Soil Tests M2. Deliverables Defined
F3. Environmental Assessment M3. Distribution Matrix
F4. Permit Requirements N. Project Control
F5. Utility Sources with Supply N1. Project Control Requirements
Conditions N2. Project Accounting Requirements
F6. Fire Protection & Safety N3. Risk Analysis
Considerations
P. Project Execution Plan
G. Process/Mechanical P1. Owner Approval Requirements
G1. Process Flow Sheets P2. Engineering/Construction Plan
G2. Heat & Material Balances & Approach
G3. Piping & Instrumentation P3. Shut Down/Turn-Around
Diagrams (P&IDs) Requirements
G4. Process Safety Management (PSM) P4. Pre-Commissioning Turnover
G5. Utility Flow Diagrams Sequence Requirements
G6. Specifications P5. Startup Requirements
G7. Piping System Requirements P6. Training Requirements
G8. Plot Plan

5
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Use the PDRI score sheet most closely related to the project’s use or type.

With a hybrid of industrial and building types, which PDRI score sheet should
be used (building version or industrial version)? In general, if the primary designers
for the project are architects, then the PDRI for Buildings should be used. If the
primary designers are process (chemical) engineers or industrial (mechanical)
engineers, then the PDRI for Industrial Projects should be used. Alternatively,
the team can look at the composition of the project in terms of work (design or
construction expenditures) to make the decision. In some circumstances, the team
may decide to use both in concert. Figure 1.3 provides a mechanism for making
the decision.

Who are the Designers?


or
What are the primary
Design/Construction Expenditures?

Primarily Primarily
Building Yes Architects Chemical/Mechanical Yes Industrial
or Engineers or Industrial
PDRI Building construction and PDRI
Cost equipment cost

Building Combined Team Industrial


PDRI Yes Yes PDRI
or
Sections 1 & 2 Composite Sections 1 & 2
Construction
Cost

Building or
Industrial
PDRI, Section 3

Figure 1.3. Flowchart for Deciding on PDRI Version

6
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

For example, many industrial facilities (chemical plants or refineries) require


various types of buildings to support the operations and maintenance effort.
These facilities often consist of the following types of facilities:
• administration buildings • laboratories
• warehouses • security facilities
• control buildings • training centers.
• maintenance facilities

In these cases, the Industrial PDRI should be used on the primary facility, but
the team may want to use the Building PDRI on each type of building. Use the
score sheet as a check list if an entire assessment is not desirable.

Another example would be that of a building used for research or office space,
but some of the space in the facility may be designated for product production and
include engineered equipment, process flows and dedicated utility requirements.
The Building PDRI would be used to plan the major portion of the facility, but the
Industrial PDRI could be used to help plan the production space. At a minimum
the Industrial PDRI could be used as a checklist in this situation.

In addition, determine whether the project is a renovation or revamp project


and use the additional descriptions provided in the tool to further address critical
R&R issues during front end planning. Figure 1.4 provides a decision diagram to
determine this further effort. Note, if the project includes a shutdown/turnaround/
outage scenario, it is highly recommended that the Shutdown Turnaround
Alignment Readiness (STAR) front end planning tool be used (Implementation
Resource 242-2, Front End Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects), to
help with the unique issues associated with these types of events.

7
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Decision has been made to use


the applicable PDRI

No Is this an Yes
R&R Project?

Use the applicable PDRI


Use the applicable PDRI
including the R&R descriptions
excluding R&R description.
in the element assessment.

Does this
project include Yes
a Shutdown or
Turnaround
activity? Use STAR
FEP Tool
No

Document Results/
Develop Action Plans/
Follow Up

Figure 1.4. Use of Additional Tools to Supplement PDRI

8
2
Benefits of the PDRI

Effective early project planning improves project performance in terms of both


cost and schedule, reinforcing the importance of early scope definition and it’s
impact on project success. The PDRI allows a project planning team to quantify,
rate, and assess the level of scope development on projects prior to detailed design
and construction.

A significant feature of the PDRI is that it can be utilized to fit the needs of
almost any individual project, small or large. Elements that are not applicable to
a specific project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from the final scoring
calculation.

The PDRI provides the following:


• a checklist that a project team can use for determining the necessary
steps to follow in defining the project scope, for both greenfield and R&R
projects
• a listing of standardized scope definition terminology for industrial
projects
• an industry standard for rating the completeness of the project scope
definition package to facilitate risk assessment and prediction of escalation,
potential for disputes
• a means to monitor progress at various stages during the front end planning
effort
• a tool that aids in communication and promotes alignment between
owners and design contractors by highlighting poorly defined areas in a
scope definition package
• a means for project team participants to reconcile differences using a
common basis for project evaluation
• a training tool for organizations and individuals throughout the industry
• a benchmarking tool for organizations to use in evaluating completion
of scope definition versus the performance of past projects, both within
their organization and externally, in order to predict the probability of
success on future projects.

9
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI

Use Among CII Membership

A survey from previous CII research regarding the PDRI indicates extensive
usage among the membership. A 2004 questionnaire, distributed when the CII
membership level was 92 (70 member companies responded to the survey),
indicated 43 CII member organizations (18 of 34 contractors and 25 of 36 owners
who responded) were using the PDRI on capital projects. PDRI–Industrial had
been used for an average of 4.3 years, and PDRI–Buildings had been used for an
average of 2.7 years. Figure 2.1 provides usage by type, while Table 2.1 details
PDRI usage within the responding CII organizations.

Industrial Only Both


(22) (15)

Building
Only (6)

Figure 2.1. PDRI Usage by Type (N=43) (CII 2004)

Table 2.1. Frequency of Use Among Organizations Using PDRI (N=43)

The PDRI is used: Frequency


As a planning checklist in early project development 81%
As a “gate” check before moving to project execution 72%
In conjunction with other front end planning measurement 72%
methods (i.e., prepare for third party evaluations, internal
measures)
As a means of measuring or benchmarking front end 70%
planning process performance
More than once on most projects 42%
As an audit tool 42%
In a modified form for small or unusual projects 33%
To help capture lessons-learned 28%
With the help of an outside facilitator 29%

10
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI

Who Should Use the PDRI?

Any organization wishing to improve the overall performance


on its projects should use the PDRI.

The PDRI can benefit owners, designers, and constructors. Owners can use it
as an assessment tool for establishing a “comfort” level at which they are willing
to move forward with projects. Designers and constructors can use it as a method
of identifying poorly-defined project scope elements. The PDRI provides a means
for all project participants to communicate and reconcile differences using an
objective tool as a common basis for project scope evaluation.

Owners should use the tool as a formal checklist of items that need to be clearly
defined and communicated to ensure that the design team fully understands the
project business objectives and drivers. Initially, owners should focus on Section I,
the Basis of Business Decision elements. Accurate definition of these items will
provide the best payback for the design team to make future decisions. These
items should be well-defined at Phase Gate 2. As the project passes through the
other phases, the owners should participate in the PDRI assessment sessions to
ensure that the design team has correctly understood its requirements and is
meeting the owner team expectations. This provides an opportunity for the owner
stakeholders to question the design team for understanding and compliance. This
provides an opportunity for the owner and stakeholders, including operations
and maintenance, to question the design team for understanding and compliance.
Communication is essential to ensure the design team is proceeding to meet the
expectations and requirements of the owner stakeholders.

Contractors may become involved in projects at various points of the front end
planning process and should use the PDRI to organize their work. Contractors
should use the PDRI as an alignment tool to understand and participate in the
development of the owner’s business objectives and drivers, facilitating the design
team’s understanding of the elements defined in Section I, the Basis of Project
Decision. The team will utilize this criterion to make decisions concerning cost,
quality, and schedule as the project progresses through the scope definition stage
and into Execution. As front end planning progresses, the PDRI helps the contractor
clarify requirements outlined in Sections I and II (Basis of Design) of the PDRI,
and ensures the right input from key owner stakeholders representing such as
operations and maintenance, process engineering, research and development,

11
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI

manufacturing, and business among others. The PDRI also assists in coordination
and execution planning in conjunction with the owner organization as outlined
by elements contained in Section III, Execution Approach.

Contractors are often given a request for proposal (RFP) on a project that has
had all or a portion of the project scope defined by the owner, or the owner has
utilized a third party engineering firm to develop the scope definition package. In
these instances it is imperative that the contractor perform a PDRI assessment as
a risk assessment to determine the degree of definition and identify the potential
weaknesses/areas of concern before responding to the RFP. The contractor should
make every attempt to get as many of the project stakeholders as possible involved
in the PDRI assessment session to assure that the team is making the correct
evaluations and assumptions before proceeding to the next stage.

Contractors also may use the PDRI to determine if the work within their
control is ready to move to the next step. Many contractors spend a portion of the
project performing design, procurement, and constructability prior to the work
starting in the field. The PDRI can be used to determine, for instance, if prior to
start of underground work or selection of a subcontractor to perform the work,
there is sufficient definition developed to minimize schedule and/or cost impacts
that may trigger mitigating strategies. This can also be done prior to other major
activities starting at the construction site.

12
3
Instructions for Assessing a Project

Assessing a project is as easy as 1-2-3.

Individuals involved in front end planning should use the Project Score Sheets
shown in Appendices A and B when assessing a project. Note that two score
sheets are provided—the first is simply an unweighted checklist in Appendix A.
The second contains the weighted values and allows a front end planning team to
quantify the level of scope definition at any stage of the project on a 1000-point
scale. The unweighted version should be used in the team scoring process to
prevent bias in choosing the level of definition and in “targeting” a specific score.
The team leader or facilitator can easily score the project as the weighting session
is being held. If the project includes renovation work, the team should use the
“supplemental issues to consider” provided in selected element descriptions.

When to Use PDRI

PDRI is a powerful tool that should be used at points throughout front end
planning to ensure continued alignment, process checkups and a continual focus
on the key project priorities. Many companies now find value in utilizing this
tool at various points in the early project planning process.

Project size, complexity and duration will help determine the optimum times
that the PDRI tool should be used. To aide in the expanded use of this tool, Figure
3.1 illustrates four potential application points where PDRI could be useful.

Potential PDRI Application Points

1 2 2i 3

Design &
0 Feasibility 1 Concept 2 Detailed Scope 3 Construction

Front End Planning

Figure 3.1. Employing the PDRI, Application Points

13
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Regardless of the timing for the PDRI assessment, utilize the same checklist/
descriptions and conduct the evaluation according to the guidelines outlined
below.

PDRI 1 Review – This is a high level assessment of the project following


Feasibility prior to Phase Gate 1 and is part of the decision criteria for proceeding
to the next phase. This assessment is typically held for projects at the initial kickoff
meeting when bringing an architect/engineer firm on board early in the project.
The PDRI 1 Review should focus on the following areas:
• aligning the team with project objectives
• ensuring good communication between business/sponsor to project/
contractor team
• highlighting stakeholder expectations to facilitate reasonable engineering
estimates.

Typical PDRI scores at this assessment will be in the range of 550–800.

PDRI 2 Review – This is a high level assessment of the project following the
Concept Development phase of the project, or Phase Gate 2, and is part of the
decision criteria for proceeding to the next phase. PDRI Section I, the Basis of
Project Decision, should be well-defined (with a low relative PDRI score) at the
end of this phase. For small projects, this assessment may not be necessary. In
addition, the PDRI 2 Review should focus on the following areas:
• aligning project objectives and stakeholders needs
• identifying high priority project deliverables that need to be completed
• helping to eliminate late project surprises
• facilitating communication across the project team and stakeholders.

Typical PDRI scores at this phase of the project may be in the range of 450–600.
The assessment will highlight the areas where resources need to be focused during
the next phase of front end project.

14
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

PDRI 2i Review – This is an intermediate (i) assessment of the project during


the Detailed Scope phase of a project, and typically should be held midway through
this phase. Section II, Basis of Design, and Section III, Execution Approach,
should be well-defined during this phase of the project. The PDRI 2i Review
should focus on the following areas:
• assuring alignment of project objectives and stakeholders needs
• confirming that resources are properly deployed to get the largest value
for the time and effort being applied
• verifying scope in relation to the original project goals
• identifying and planning remaining activities to achieve the level of
detail necessary to complete front end planning in preparation for Phase
Gate 3.

Typical PDRI scores at this phase of the project may be in the range of 300–450.

PDRI 3 Review – This is typically the final assessment of the project at the
end of front end project planning prior to Phase Gate 3. The PDRI 3 assessment
should be conducted for all projects. At this stage, risk issues have been identified
and mitigation plans are in place or are being developed. Typical scores for this
review are 150 to 250, with a target of typically 200 or below.

In addition to the four PDRI reviews outlined above, the tool can be used at
other points. For instance, it can be used early in Feasibility as a checklist to help
organize work effort or during the design phase (after Phase Gate 3) to verify
the design before moving on to construction. It has been used effectively as an
alignment tool during the kickoff of design/build projects.

As noted earlier, the PDRI consists of three main sections that are subdivided
into 15 categories. The categories are further subdivided into 70 elements. The
elements are individually described in Appendix C, Element Descriptions. Elements
should be rated numerically from 0 to 5. The scores range from 0 – not applicable,
1 – complete definition to 5 – incomplete or poor definition as indicated in the
legend at the bottom of the score sheet. The elements that are as well-defined
as possible should receive a perfect definition level of 1. Elements that are not
completely defined should receive a 2, 3, 4, or 5, depending on their levels of
definition as determined by the team. Those elements deemed not applicable for the
project under consideration should receive a 0, thus not affecting the final score.

15
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

The basis for determining the level of definition is focused on developing the
overall project scope of work such that the project has a higher probability of
achieving a cost or schedule estimate at the ±10 percent level at Phase Gate 3.
This level of definition roughly relates to approximately 25–30 percent of design
completion for the entire project.

Figure 3.2 outlines a method of assessing the level of definition of an element


at a given point in time. For those elements that are completely defined, no
further work is needed during front end planning. For those elements with
minor deficiencies, no further work is needed during the front end planning
phase and the issue will not impact cost and schedule performance; however,
the minor issues identified will need to be tracked and addressed as the project
proceeds into the design phase. For those elements that are assessed as having
some or major deficiencies, or are incomplete, further mitigation will need to
be performed during front end planning prior to moving through Phase Gate 3.

The relative level of definition of a PDRI element is also tied to its importance
to the project at hand. The flexibility of the PDRI allows the project team some
leeway in assessing individual element definitions. For instance, if the issues
missing from the scope documentation of a particular PDRI element are integral
to project success (and reduction of risk), the team can rate the issue perhaps at
a definition level 3 or 4. On a different project, the absence of definition of these
same issues within a PDRI element may not be of concern and the team might
decide to rate the element as a definition level 2. As the old saying goes, “Do not
turn off your brain” when you are using this tool.

Assessing a PDRI Element

To assess an element, first refer to the Project Assessment Sheet in Appendix


A or B. Next, read its corresponding description in Appendix C. Some elements
contain a list of items to be considered when evaluating their levels of definition.
These lists may be used as checklists. Additional issues may be applicable for
renovation projects. All elements have six pre-assigned scores, one for each of
the six possible levels of definition.

Choose only one definition level (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) for that element based on
the perception of how well it has been addressed. The suggested method for making
this determination is through open discussion among the project team members.
Ensure understanding of the element issues by all participants and promote a

16
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

WELL Defined POORLY Defined

CATEGORY 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
Element

Not Applicable

COMPLETE Definition
No further work required

MINOR Deficiencies
No further work required
prior to Phase Gate 3

SOME Deficiencies
Needs more work
prior to Phase Gate 3

MAJOR Deficiencies
Needs a lot more work
prior to Phase Gate 3

INCOMPLETE or POOR Definition


Little or nothing known

Figure 3.2. PDRI Definition Levels vs. Further Work Required


During Front End Planning

common understanding of the work required to achieve complete definition.


Defer to the most knowledgeable team members (for example, storm water issues
are deferred to the civil and environmental discipline leads) while respecting the
concerns of the other team members. As the discussion unfolds, capture action
items or “gaps.” An example action item list is given in Appendix G.

Once the appropriate definition level for the element is chosen, write the value
of the score that corresponds to the level of definition in the “Score” column.
Do this for each of the 70 elements in the Project Score Sheet. Be sure to assess
each element.

Each of the element scores within a category should be added to produce a


total score for that category. The scores for each of the categories within a section
should then be added to arrive at a section score. Finally, the three section scores
should be added to achieve a total PDRI score.

17
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Assessment Example

Consider, for example, that you are a member of a front end planning team
responsible for developing the scope definition package for a retrofit to an existing
chemical plant. Your team has identified major milestones throughout front end planning
at which time you plan to use the PDRI to evaluate the current level of “completeness”
of the scope definition package. Assume that at the time of this particular evaluation
the scope development effort is underway, but it is not yet complete.

Your responsibility is to evaluate how well the project infrastructure


requirements have been identified and defined to date. This information is covered
in Category J of the PDRI as shown below and consists of three elements: “Water
Treatment Requirements,” “Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Requirements,”
and “Transportation Requirements.” It is recommended to use the unweighted
assessment sheet when evaluating a project in a team setting.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE
J1. Water Treatment Requirements
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts
J3. Transportation Requirements

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

To fill out Category J, Infrastructure, follow these steps:

Step 1: Read the description for each element in Appendix C. Some elements
contain a list of items to be considered when evaluating their levels
of definition. These lists may be used as checklists.

Step 2: Collect all data that you may need to properly evaluate and select
the definition level for each element in this category. This may
require obtaining input from other individuals involved in the scope
development effort.

18
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Step 3: Select the definition level for each element as described below.

Element J1: Requirements for treating process and sanitary


wastewater have been well defined. However,
procedures for handling storm water runoff and
treatment have not been identified. You feel that
this element has some deficiencies that should be
addressed prior to authorization of the project.
Definition Level = 2.

Element J2: Your team decides that this element is not applicable
to your particular project. Definition Level = 0.

Element J3: Although your team plans to specify methods for


receiving and shipping materials within the plant,
it has not yet been done. The team is particularly
concerned about coordination of equipment and
material movement with existing operation. It is
incomplete. Definition Level = 5.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE
J1. Water Treatment Requirements X
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts X
J3. Transportation Requirements X

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

Be sure to capture action items/comments as the discussion progresses


for reference in Step 6. This list is referred to as a “gap” list in that it
identifies those issues that need to be addressed to move the project
forward and identifies a gap in the planning activities.

19
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Step 4: For each element, circle the score that corresponds to its level of
definition. If the team feels that any or all of the elements were not
applicable for this project, they would have had a definition level of
“0” and been zeroed out. The weighted score sheet is given below.
Circle the chosen definition levels for the assessed element.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE (Maximum Score = 25)
J1. Water Treatment Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts 0 1 3 5 7 10
J3. Transportation Requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5
CATEGORY J TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

Step 5: Add the element scores to obtain a category score. Repeat this process
for each element in the PDRI. In this example, the category has a
total score of 8. Add category scores to obtain section scores.

Add section scores to obtain a total PDRI score. A completed


PDRI score sheet for a power project is included in Appendix D
for reference.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE (Maximum Score = 25)
J1. Water Treatment Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 3
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts 0 1 3 5 7 10 0
J3. Transportation Requirements 0 1 2 3 4 5 5
CATEGORY J TOTAL 8

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

Step 6: Take Action. In this example, Category J has a total score of 8 (out
of 25 total points) and probably needs more work particularly for
element J3. Use the gap list to identify issues that need additional
attention.

20
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Philosophy of Use

Ideally, the project team conducts a PDRI evaluation at various points in


the project. Experience has shown that the scoring process works best in a team
environment with a neutral facilitator familiar with the process. The facilitator
provides objective feedback to the team and controls the pace of team meetings.
See Appendix F for details of facilitation. If this arrangement is not possible, an
alternate approach is to have key individuals evaluate the project separately, then
evaluate it together, ultimately agreeing on a final evaluation. Even using the PDRI
from an individual standpoint provides a method for project evaluation.

Experience has shown that the PDRI is best used as a tool to help project
managers (project coordinators, project planners) organize and monitor progress
of the front end planning effort. In many cases, a planner may use the PDRI prior
to the existence of a team in order to understand major risk areas. Using the
PDRI early in the project life cycle will usually lead to high PDRI scores. This is
normal and the completed score sheet gives a road map of areas that are weak
in terms of definition.

The PDRI is an excellent tool to use in early project team meetings in that it
provides a means for the team to align itself on the project and organize its work.
Experienced PDRI users feel that the final PDRI score is less important than the
process used to arrive at that score. The PDRI also can provide an effective means
of handing off the project to other entities or helping maintain continuity as new
project participants are added to the project.

If the organization has front end planning procedures and execution standards
and deliverables in place, many PDRI elements may be partially defined when
the project begins front end planning. An organization may want to standardize
many of the PDRI elements to improve cycle time of planning activities.

PDRI scores may change on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis as team


members realize that some elements are not as well-defined as initially assumed. It
is important to assess the elements honestly. Any changes that occur in assumptions
or planning parameters need to be resolved with earlier planning decisions. The
target score may not be as important as the team’s progress over time in resolving
issues that harbor risk.

21
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

The PDRI was developed as a “point in time” tool with elements that are
as independent as possible. Most of the elements constitute deliverables to the
planning process. However, a close review of the elements shows an imbedded
logic. Certain elements must first be defined well in order for others to be defined.

Figure 3.3 outlines the logic at a “section” level. In general, Section I elements
must be well-defined prior to defining Section II and III elements. Note that this
is not a Critical Path Method (CPM) logic in that certain elements are completed
prior to the point where the next elements start. Many times elements can be
pursued concurrently. As information is gained downstream, elements already
defined must be revisited.
499 Points

Section I:
Basis of Project Decision
Categories A thru E
423 Points

Section II:
Basis of Design
Categories F thru K

78 Points

Section III:
Execution Approach
Categories L thru P

Figure 3.3. Industrial PDRI Section Logic Flow Diagram

Figure 3.4 outlines the general logic flow of the PDRI categories. Again,
the flow is not traditional CPM. Many other ways are available to organize the
work differently than the flow shown in this diagram, which is provided as a
guideline. For instance, if information gained in Category F, Site Information,
is different than expected (assumed), then a planner should assess the impact
of that difference on Categories A, B, C, and D.

If an organization wants to standardize its front end planning process, the


logic presented in these diagrams could provide the basis for that development.
Color versions of Figures 3.3 and 3.4, as well as a detailed logic flow diagram
that shows all PDRI elements, are provided in Appendix E.

22
33 Points

Category H:
45 Points
Equipment
Scope
27 Points 16 Points
Category A:
Manufacturing
Objective Category E: Category L:
Criteria Value Procurement
Engineering Strategy
46 Points

Category K:
Instrument
& Electrical
213 Points 120 Points 104 Points 9 Points

Category B: Category D: Category F:


Category M:
Start Business Project Site
Deliverables End
Objectives Scope Information
13 Points

Category I:
Civil,
Structural &
136 Points Architectural
34 Points
Category G:
Category C: Process/
Basic Data Mechanical
Research & 25 Points
Development
Category J:
Infrastructure

Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project


Legend
Section I 36 Points 17 Points
Basis of Project Decision
Category P:
Category N:
Section II Project
Project
Basis of Design Execution
Control
Plan
Section III
Execution Approach

Figure 3.4. Industrial PDRI Category Logic Flow Diagram


23
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Use of PDRI on Small or Renovation Projects

The PDRI can be customized to meet each organization’s needs.

Small or renovation/upgrade projects can also benefit from using the PDRI
even if these projects are small, short in duration and frequently performed. Many
large organizations have a number of these projects at any one time. Project such as
these may be driven by environmental regulations or by the need to keep a facility
in repair or operation. Projects may also be focused on restoring a historically
significant building, or relocate a business function or production line.

On small projects, the scope may not encompass many of the elements contained
in the entire PDRI. In particular, some of the Basis of Project Decision elements
found in Section I of the PDRI may not be clearly defined. Although business
planning is generally performed on an owner’s overall program of small projects,
it may be difficult to determine if specific business decisions directly apply to one
individual project. Long-term use has shown that customizing the PDRI to reflect
each individual project is highly beneficial.

On small or renovation projects, the scope may not encompass many of the
elements contained in the entire PDRI. In particular, some of the Basis of Project
Decision elements found in Section I of the PDRI may not be clearly defined.
Although business planning is generally performed on an owner’s overall program
of small projects, it may be difficult to determine if specific business decisions
directly apply to one individual project. Long-term use has shown that customizing
the PDRI to reflect each individual project is highly beneficial.

After the release of the initial PDRI in 1999, many companies attempted to
customize the elements to fit the needs of smaller projects. The current edition of
the PDRI has modified language that should make it more applicable to smaller or
renovation projects. Experience has proven that gathering the project team around
a well understood and customized PDRI can save time, money, and frustration.

24
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

These smaller projects may range in size from $50,000 to $5,000,000 in total
project costs. Some may consist of one or two disciplines such as the following:
• environmental project to improve drainage and capture storm runoff
• instrument upgrade project
• replacing a roof.

In any of the above projects, the PDRI can be a helpful tool in highlighting
gaps in thinking and execution. The following are some guidelines when using
the PDRI on small or single-discipline projects:
1. Delete all elements that clearly do not apply.
Example: A storm water or drainage improvement project may not
have any architectural or instrumentation requirements. Simply draw
a line through all Instrument and Electrical elements (category K),
Architectural Requirements (I2), and other elements prior to the
assessment session. Note: if there is any doubt regarding an element,
then leave it in until the team has had time to discuss it.
2. Convene the project team and assess the project using only the PDRI
elements that remain to be assessed, including especially those elements
specifically designated for renovation projects if applicable. At the
conclusion of the PDRI assessment session, have representatives of
each discipline sign off, signifying their agreement with the definition
of the project.
3. Revert to the normalized score (percentage) as a basis for determining
how well the project is defined. (See discussion in the next section.)
4. Since some of the most heavily weighted items of Section I could receive
a score of “0,” the facilitator should make the team aware of the
elements that have the most impact on the final score. Other elements
may become more important to predicting project success.
5. Alternatively, the tool can be used strictly as a checklist to identify issues
that need to be addressed to develop a good scope. Use of the PDRI
as an early checklist can have a great influence on the project and will
serve to focus the project team toward a common goal. If the project
is a renovation, pay particular attention to those issues that have been
identified for these types of projects.

25
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Normalizing the Score

If an organization decides to create a scaled-down version of the PDRI, this


procedure will alter the maximum possible score from 1000 points to some
lower number. Each time an element is deleted from the checklist, the maximum
score for the project is reduced by that element’s total weight. Not only will the
maximum score be reduced, but the lowest possible score that can be achieved
with complete definition will drop from 70 points to some lower number.

For example, on an industrial revamp project, the PDRI can be used effectively
for these projects with some modification. Some elements may be “zeroed” as
not applicable for these projects (e.g., Site Location (F1), Surveys and Soil Tests
(F2)). A “not applicable” element essentially provides no risk (no potential
negative impact) to the project. Other elements may become more critical (e.g.,
Environmental Assessment (F3), Site Characteristics Available vs. Required (D3)).
After the assessment, if the organization’s scaled-down version has a maximum
possible score of 752 (after certain elements are given a not applicable in the score
sheet), it may determine that a score of 120 (16 percent of the total applicable
points) must be reached before authorizing its small projects for design.

When using the PDRI on small projects, the team must determine a new target
score at which it feels comfortable when authorizing a project for detailed design
and construction. Each organization should develop an appropriate threshold
range of scores for the particular phase of front end planning. The threshold is
dependent upon the size, type, and complexity of the project.

Caution: Using the PDRI for this purpose should be done carefully or else
elements that are more important for small projects may be given less emphasis
than needed. The operative phrase for using the PDRI in these situations is
“common sense.” An experienced facilitator can help in this regard.

26
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Implementation across the Organization

The first requirement for implementation of the PDRI across any organization
(i.e., using it on all projects) is the unwavering support of upper management.
Upper management must create a procedure that lists the utilization of the PDRI
as a requirement prior to authorizing a project to proceed with the execution
phase.

Many successful organizations require a PDRI report as a part of their project


approval to proceed checklist. Some organizations require a specific score of 200
or less for a project to be approved for the next phase. There is some danger in too
much focus on scoring. Some smaller, maintenance projects may be fully acceptable
at a much higher PDRI score as long as the project risks have been defined and a
mitigation plan is in place to control the project. As stated before, common sense
should prevail when reviewing PDRI results from a project. Requiring teams to
reach a specific score could result in a team artificially adjusting the score so that
project can be executed (to the detriment of the organization, project, and team
participants). In most cases, it is more beneficial for the sponsor to have a PDRI
assessment (at the PDRI 3 review) with a score above 200 along with identified
risk issues (gap list) and corresponding mitigation steps than to have a PDRI
assessment with a lower score and no commentary. Sponsors should focus on
the gap list generated in the assessment session, not just the PDRI score. Placing
too much emphasis on the score can lead to use of the tool as an administrative
exercise.

The second requirement for implementation across an organization is a local


champion. This person is an enthusiastic supporter of the application of this
tool. He or she is in contact with other organizations using the PDRI and fosters
widespread application of the tool.

The third requirement for implementation is training. Several facilitators


should be trained, and the number will vary by organization and the projects
that require approval. The objective is to ensure that every project has access to
a trained facilitator in a timely manner. The facilitator should NOT be a member
of that project team. In many organizations, project managers are trained as
facilitators for their peer’s projects.

27
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

In addition to a cadre of facilitators, all key members of the organization


should understand the PDRI. In most cases, this is accomplished with just-in-
time training. The facilitator will brief the participants on the purpose and their
role to make the session a success, and then will comment on specific behaviors
as they progress through the assessment session.

If the PDRI is implemented across an organization, its use should be monitored.


Many organizations have modified PDRI element descriptions to add discussion
concerning proprietary concerns, lessons-learned, or specific terminology based
on the business environment.

28
4
What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

A low PDRI score represents a project definition package that is


well-defined and, in general, corresponds to an increased probability
for project success. Higher scores signify that certain elements
within the project definition package lack adequate definition.

The PDRI has been used on hundreds of projects representing billions of


dollars in investment. A large number of projects was recently evaluated with the
PDRI by CII. For each of these projects, PDRI scores and project success criteria
were computed. (Note: these projects were scored after the fact.) An analysis of
these data yielded a strong correlation between low (good) PDRI scores and high
project success. (For more information on the validation sample and methodology,
see Reference 7.)

The analysis revealed a significant difference in performance between


the projects scoring above 200 and the projects scoring below 200
prior to development of construction documents.

Table 4.1 compares project performance for a sample of 108 building projects
worth $2.3 billion using a 200-point PDRI score cutoff. These data show the
mean performance for the projects versus execution estimate for design and
construction and the absolute value of changes as a percentage of total project
cost. Projects with a PDRI score under 200 (a lower score is better) statistically
outperformed projects with a PDRI score above 200 in terms of cost, schedule,

Table 4.1. Comparison of Projects with PDRI–Building Projects Scores


Above and Below 200

PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200
Cost 3% above budget 9% above budget
Schedule 5% behind schedule 21% behind schedule
Change Orders 8% of budget 11% of budget
(N=25) (N=83)

29
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

and change orders. The PDRI score was determined just prior to the beginning
of detailed design and the differences in performance parameters are statistically
significant.

A similar evaluation was performed on a sample of 129 industrial projects


representing approximately $6.7 billion. Table 4.2 summarizes the project
performance and PDRI score using the same 200-point PDRI score cutoff.
Again, projects with better scope definition (lower PDRI score) outperformed
projects with poorly defined scope in terms of cost performance at the 95 percent
confidence level.

Table 4.2. Comparison of Projects with PDRI–Industrial Projects Scores


Above and Below 200

PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200
Cost 4% below budget 4% over budget
Schedule 4% behind schedule 10% behind schedule
Change Orders 7% of budget 8% of budget
(N=75) (N=54)

The projects used in these samples were voluntarily submitted. The Building
PDRI sample includes data from 24 organizations, including office, control
building, recreation, institutional, and research facilities. Project sizes ranged from
approximately $630,000 to $251 million with an average cost of approximately
$22 million. The Industrial PDRI sample included data from 53 organizations and
represents heavy and light industrial projects including chemical, pharmaceutical,
power, pulp and paper, refining, and metals facilities. Project size ranged from
$120,000 to $635 million with an average of approximately $53 million.

The evaluations provided here are valid for the samples as given. These samples
may or may not be indicative of projects in a specific organization and the samples
may be biased because of the size and types of projects making up the sample.
However, the results are convincing in terms of performance predictability.

30
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

Analyzing PDRI Scores — What to Look For

The PDRI is of little value unless the user takes action based on the analysis
and uses the assessment to identify and mitigate risk for the project. Among the
potential uses when analyzing the PDRI score are the following:
• Track project progress during front end planning, using the PDRI score
as a macro-evaluation tool. Individual elements, categories, and sections
can be tracked as well.
• Compare project-to-project scores over time to identify trends in developing
scope definition within your organization.
• Compare different types of projects (e.g., R&D vs. medical vs. retail;
chemical vs. product assembly; or new vs. renovation) and determine a
threshold PDRI score for those projects and identify critical success factors
from that analysis. The PDRI also can be used to compare projects for
different clients or different size projects with the same client.

Depending on the nature of your business, your internal scope


definition practices, and your requirements, you may wish to determine
a comfort level (range of PDRI scores) at which you are willing to move
from phase to phase.

• Look at weak areas of the project on a section, category, or element level.


For example, if any element has a definition level of 3, 4, or 5, further
define this element or develop a risk mitigation strategy. This provides an
effective method of risk analysis since each element, category, and section
is weighted relative to each other in terms of potential risk exposure.
The identification of the project’s weak areas is critical as the project
team continues its progress toward execution and should provide “path
forward” action items.
• Another method of evaluation is to look at the score of each section or
category as a percentage of its maximum score in order to focus attention
on critical items for the project. For example, if your score for Section I,
Basis of Project Decision, is 250 points, then it is roughly 50 percent of
its potential maximum score (499). The elements in this section would
then need much more work.
• Section III, Execution Approach, does not have as much weighting as the
other two PDRI Sections. Do not underestimate the importance of this
section. Procurement strategy (Category L), project control (Category N),

31
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

particularly the project control requirements and work breakdown


structure (WBS), and project execution plan (Category P) including
contracting strategy and turnover and commissioning are important.
These issues can significantly impact the project in regard to schedule
performance.
• Sometimes project teams are pressured to develop a scope of work in a
short period of time. To streamline the process, the team could focus on
the top 10 elements. These 10 elements comprise almost 40 percent of the
total score. When addressing smaller projects, the team may want to select
a different “top 10” depending on the circumstances. See Appendix C for
a description of each of the top 10 elements.

1. Products (B1)
2. Capacities (B5)
3. Technology (C1)
4. Processes (C2)
5. Process Flow Sheets (G1)
6. Site Location (F1)
7. P&IDs (G3)
8. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required (D3)
9. Market Strategy (B2)
10. Project Objectives Statement (D1)

TOTAL POINTS = 384/1000

Figure 4.2. Ten Highest Ranking PDRI Elements

Historical PDRI Scores

Keeping a corporate or organizational database of PDRI scores for various


project sizes and types may be desirable. As more projects are completed and scored
using the PDRI, the ability to predict the probability of success on future projects
should improve. The PDRI may serve as a gauge for an organization in deciding
whether to authorize the development of construction documents and ultimately
construction of a project. Another use for PDRI is as an external benchmark for
measurement against the practices of other industry leaders.

32
5
Concluding Remarks

The PDRI can benefit owners, developers, designers, and contractors. Facility
owners, developers, and lending institutions can use it as an assessment tool for
establishing a comfort level at which they are willing to move forward on projects.
Designers and constructors can use it as a means of negotiating with owners in
identifying poorly defined project scope definition elements. The PDRI provides
a forum for all project participants to communicate and reconcile differences
using an objective tool as a common basis for project scope evaluation. It also
provides excellent input into the detailed design process and a solid baseline for
design management.

Anyone who wishes to improve the overall performance


on their industrial projects should use the PDRI.

How to Improve Performance on Future Projects

The following suggestions can help those who adopt the PDRI with the desire
to improve performance on their industrial projects:
• Commit to early project planning. Effective planning in the early stages
of industrial projects can greatly enhance cost, schedule, and operational
performance while minimizing the possibility of financial failures and
disasters.
• Gain and maintain project team alignment by using the PDRI throughout
front end planning. Discussions around the scope definition checklists are
particularly effective in helping with team alignment.
• Use the CII Front End Planning Toolkit. This interactive Toolkit has
been developed to guide the project team through the front end planning
process, including where and how to employ the PDRI. Encourage its
usage across the organization.
• Be especially cognizant of specific scope elements on renovation and
revamp projects. Use the specific R&R issues identified in the element
descriptions. Also, use CII Implementation 242-2, Front End Planning
of Renovation and Revamp Projects, if your project is an R&R project
and especially if it includes a shutdown/turnaround/outage scenario.

33
Chapter 5. Concluding Remarks

• Adjust the PDRI as necessary to meet the specific needs of your project.
The PDRI was designed so that certain elements considered not applicable
on a particular project can be “zeroed out,” thus eliminating them from
the final scoring calculation.
• Use the PDRI to improve project performance. Build your own internal
database of projects that are scored using the PDRI. Compute PDRI scores
at the various times during scope development and compare versus project
success. Based upon the relationship between PDRI scores and project
success, establish a basis for the level of scope definition that is acceptable
for moving forward from phase to phase.
• Use caution when beginning detailed design of projects with PDRI scores
greater than 200. CII data has shown a direct correlation exists between
high PDRI scores and poor project performance.

CII research has shown that the PDRI can effectively be used to improve
the predictability of project performance. However, the PDRI alone will
not ensure successful projects. When combined with sound business
planning, alignment, and good project execution, it can greatly improve
the probability of meeting or exceeding project objectives.

34
Appendix A:
Unweighted Project Score Sheet
An Excel™ version of this matrix is on the compact disc that accompanies this book.

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. MANUFACTURING OBJECTIVES CRITERIA
A1. Reliability Philosophy
A2. Maintenance Philosophy
A3. Operating Philosophy
CATEGORY A TOTAL
B. BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
B1. Products
B2. Market Strategy
B3. Project Strategy
B4. Affordability/Feasibility
B5. Capacities
B6. Future Expansion Considerations
B7. Expected Project Life Cycle
B8. Social Issues
CATEGORY B TOTAL
C. BASIC DATA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
C1. Technology
C2. Processes
CATEGORY C TOTAL
D. PROJECT SCOPE
D1. Project Objectives Statement
D2. Project Design Criteria
D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required
D4. Dismantling and Demolition Requirements
D5. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work
D6. Project Schedule
CATEGORY D TOTAL
E. VALUE ENGINEERING
E1. Process Simplification
E2. Design & Material Alts. Considered/Rejected
E3. Design for Constructability Analysis
CATEGORY E TOTAL
Section I Total

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition
35
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION
F1. Site Location
F2. Surveys & Soil Tests
F3. Environmental Assessment
F4. Permit Requirements
F5. Utility Sources with Supply Conditions
F6. Fire Protection & Safety Considerations
CATEGORY F TOTAL
G. PROCESS/MECHANICAL
G1. Process Flow Sheets
G2. Heat & Material Balances
G3. Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs)
G4. Process Safety Management (PSM)
G5. Utility Flow Diagrams
G6. Specifications
G7. Piping System Requirements
G8. Plot Plan
G9. Mechanical Equipment List
G10. Line List
G11. Tie-in List
G12. Piping Specialty Items List
G13. Instrument Index
CATEGORY G TOTAL
H. EQUIPMENT SCOPE
H1. Equipment Status
H2. Equipment Location Drawings
H3. Equipment Utility Requirements
CATEGORY H TOTAL
I. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, & ARCHITECTURAL
I1. Civil/Structural Requirements
I2. Architectural Requirements

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

36
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN (continued)


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE
J1. Water Treatment Requirements
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts
J3. Transportation Requirements
CATEGORY J TOTAL
K. INSTRUMENT & ELECTRICAL
K1. Control Philosophy
K2. Logic Diagrams
K3. Electrical Area Classifications
K4. Substation Req’mts Power Sources Ident.
K5. Electric Single Line Diagrams
K6. Instrument & Electrical Specifications
CATEGORY K TOTAL
Section II Total

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

37
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
L. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
L1. Identify Long Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls
L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans
L3. Procurement Responsibility Matrix
CATEGORY L TOTAL
M. DELIVERABLES
M1. CADD/Model Requirements
M2. Deliverables Defined
M3. Distribution Matrix
CATEGORY M TOTAL
N. PROJECT CONTROL
N1. Project Control Requirements
N2. Project Accounting Requirements
N3. Risk Analysis
CATEGORY N TOTAL
P. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN
P1. Owner Approval Requirements
P2. Engineering/Construction Plan & Approach
P3. Shut Down/Turn-Around Requirements
P4. Pre-Commiss. Turnover Sequence Req’mts
P5. Startup Requirements
P6. Training Requirements
CATEGORY P TOTAL
Section III Total

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

38
Appendix B:
Weighted Project Score Sheet
An Excel™ version of this matrix is on the compact disc that accompanies this book.

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. MANUFACTURING OBJECTIVES CRITERIA (Maximum Score = 45)
A1. Reliability Philosophy 0 1 5 9 14 20
A2. Maintenance Philosophy 0 1 3 5 7 9
A3. Operating Philosophy 0 1 4 7 12 16
CATEGORY A TOTAL
B. BUSINESS OBJECTIVES (Maximum Score = 213)
B1. Products 0 1 11 22 33 56
B2. Market Strategy 0 2 5 10 16 26
B3. Project Strategy 0 1 5 9 14 23
B4. Affordability/Feasibility 0 1 3 6 9 16
B5. Capacities 0 2 11 21 33 55
B6. Future Expansion Considerations 0 2 3 6 10 17
B7. Expected Project Life Cycle 0 1 2 3 5 8
B8. Social Issues 0 1 2 5 7 12
CATEGORY B TOTAL
C. BASIC DATA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (Maximum Score = 94)
C1. Technology 0 2 10 21 39 54
C2. Processes 0 2 8 17 28 40
CATEGORY C TOTAL
D. PROJECT SCOPE (Maximum Score = 120)
D1. Project Objectives Statement 0 2 8 14 19 25
D2. Project Design Criteria 0 2 6 11 16 22
D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required 0 2 9 16 22 29
D4. Dismantling and Demolition Requirements 0 2 5 8 12 15
D5. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 4 7 10 13
D6. Project Schedule 0 2 6 9 13 16
CATEGORY D TOTAL
E. VALUE ENGINEERING (Maximum Score = 27)
E1. Process Simplification 0 0 2 4 6 8
E2. Design & Material Alts. Considered/Rejected 0 0 2 4 5 7
E3. Design for Constructability Analysis 0 0 3 5 8 12
CATEGORY E TOTAL
Section I Maximum Score = 499 SECTION I TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition
39
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION (Maximum Score = 104)
F1. Site Location 0 2 10 18 26 32
F2. Surveys & Soil Tests 0 1 4 7 10 13
F3. Environmental Assessment 0 2 5 10 15 21
F4. Permit Requirements 0 1 3 5 9 12
F5. Utility Sources with Supply Conditions 0 1 4 8 12 18
F6. Fire Protection & Safety Considerations 0 1 2 4 5 8
CATEGORY F TOTAL
G. PROCESS/MECHANICAL (Maximum Score = 196)
G1. Process Flow Sheets 0 2 8 17 26 36
G2. Heat & Material Balances 0 1 5 10 17 23
G3. Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) 0 2 8 15 23 31
G4. Process Safety Management (PSM) 0 1 2 4 6 8
G5. Utility Flow Diagrams 0 1 3 6 9 12
G6. Specifications 0 1 4 8 12 17
G7. Piping System Requirements 0 1 2 4 6 8
G8. Plot Plan 0 1 4 8 13 17
G9. Mechanical Equipment List 0 1 4 9 13 18
G10. Line List 0 1 2 4 6 8
G11. Tie-in List 0 1 2 3 4 6
G12. Piping Specialty Items List 0 1 1 2 3 4
G13. Instrument Index 0 1 2 4 5 8
CATEGORY G TOTAL
H. EQUIPMENT SCOPE (Maximum Score = 33)
H1. Equipment Status 1 4 0
8 12 16
H2. Equipment Location Drawings 1 2 5 0 7 10
H3. Equipment Utility Requirements 1 2 3 0 5 7
CATEGORY H TOTAL
I. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, & ARCHITECTURAL (Maximum Score = 19)
I1. Civil/Structural Requirements 0 1 3 6 9 12
I2. Architectural Requirements 0 1 2 4 5 7
CATEGORY I TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

40
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN (continued)


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE (Maximum Score = 25)
J1. Water Treatment Requirements 1 3 05 7 10
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts
1 3 05 7 10
J3. Transportation Requirements 1 2 03 4 5
CATEGORY J TOTAL
K. INSTRUMENT & ELECTRICAL (Maximum Score = 46)
K1. Control Philosophy 0 1 3 5 7 10
K2. Logic Diagrams 0 1 2 3 3 4
K3. Electrical Area Classifications 0 0 2 4 7 9
K4. Substation Req’mts Power Sources Ident. 0 1 3 5 7 9
K5. Electric Single Line Diagrams 0 1 2 4 6 8
K6. Instrument & Electrical Specifications 0 1 2 3 5 6
CATEGORY K TOTAL
Section II Maximum Score = 423 SECTION II TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

41
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
L. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 16)
L1. Identify Long Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls 0 1 2 4 6 8
L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans 0 0 1 2 4 5
L3. Procurement Responsibility Matrix 0 0 1 2 2 3
CATEGORY L TOTAL
M. DELIVERABLES (Maximum Score = 9)
M1. CADD/Model Requirements 0 0 1 1 2 4
M2. Deliverables Defined 0 0 1 2 3 4
M3. Distribution Matrix 0 0 0 1 1 1
CATEGORY M TOTAL
N. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 17)
N1. Project Control Requirements 0 0 2 4 6 8
N2. Project Accounting Requirements 0 0 1 2 2 4
N3. Risk Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 5
CATEGORY N TOTAL
P. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (Maximum Score = 36)
P1. Owner Approval Requirements 0 0 2 3 5 6
P2. Engineering/Construction Plan & Approach 0 1 3 5 8 11
P3. Shut Down/Turn-Around Requirements 0 1 3 4 6 7
P4. Pre-Commiss. Turnover Sequence Req’mts 0 1 1 2 4 5
P5. Startup Requirements 0 0 1 2 3 4
P6. Training Requirements 0 0 1 1 2 3
CATEGORY P TOTAL
Section III Maximum Score = 78 SECTION III TOTAL

PDRI TOTAL SCORE


Maximum Score = 1000

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

42
Appendix C:
Element Descriptions

The following descriptions have been developed to help generate a clear


understanding of the terms used in the Project Score Sheets located in Appendices
A and B. Some descriptions include checklists to clarify concepts and facilitate
ideas when scoring each element. Note that these checklists are not all-inclusive
and the user may supplement these lists when necessary.

The descriptions are listed in the same order as they appear in the Project
Score Sheet. They are organized in a hierarchy by section, category, and element.
The Project Score Sheet consists of three main sections, each of which is a series
of categories that have elements. Scoring is performed by evaluating the levels
of definition of the elements. Note that some of the elements have issues listed
that are specific to projects that are renovations and revamps and are identified
as “Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects.” Use these
issues for discussion if applicable. The sections, categories, and elements are
organized as follows:

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


This section consists of information necessary for understanding the
project objectives. The completeness of this section determines the
degree to which the project team will be able to achieve alignment
in meeting the project’s business objectives.

CATEGORIES:
A – Manufacturing Objectives Criteria
B – Business Objectives
C – Basic Data Research & Development
D – Project Scope
E – Value Engineering

43
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


This section consists of processes and technical information
elements that should be evaluated to fully understand the scope
of the project.

CATEGORIES:
F – Site Information
G – Process/Mechanical
H – Equipment Scope
I – Civil, Structural, & Architectural
J – Infrastructure
K – Instrument & Electrical

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


This section consists of elements that should be evaluated to fully
understand the requirements of the owner’s execution strategy.

CATEGORIES:
L – Procurement Strategy
M – Deliverables
N – Project Control
P – Project Execution Plan

The following pages contain detailed descriptions for each element in the
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI).

44
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

A. MANUFACTURING OBJECTIVES CRITERIA

A1. Reliability Philosophy


A list of the general design principles to be considered to achieve
dependable operating performance from the unit/facility or upgrades
instituted for this project. Evaluation criteria should include:
q Justification of spare equipment
q Control, alarm, security and safety systems
redundancy, and access control
q Extent of providing surge and intermediate storage
capacity to permit independent shutdown of portions
of the plant
q Mechanical/structural integrity of components
(metallurgy, seals, types of couplings, bearing
selection)
q Identify critical equipment and measures to be taken
to prevent loss due to sabotage or natural disaster
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Potential impacts to existing operations

A2. Maintenance Philosophy


A list of the general design principles to be considered to meet unit/facility
(or upgrades instituted for this project) has been developed to maintain
operations at a prescribed level. Evaluation criteria should include:
q Scheduled unit/equipment shutdown frequencies and
durations
q Equipment access/monorails/cranes/other lifting
equipment
q Maximum weight or size requirements for available
repair equipment
q Equipment monitoring requirements (e.g., vibrations
monitoring)
q Other

45
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Maintenance impact of renovation projects


q Common/ spare parts (repair vs. replace existing
components)
q Interruptions to existing and adjacent facilities during
R&R work
q Compatibility of maintenance philosophy for
new systems and equipment with existing use and
maintenance philosophy
q Coordination of the project with any maintenance
projects

A3. Operating Philosophy


A list of the general design principles that need to be considered to
achieve the projected overall performance requirements (such as on-
stream time or service factor) for the unit/facility or upgrade. Evaluation
criteria should include:
q Level of operator coverage and automatic control to
be provided
q Operating time sequence (ranging from continuous
operation to five day, day shift only)
q Necessary level of segregation and clean out between
batches or runs
q Desired unit turndown capability
q Design requirements for routine startup and
shutdown
q Design to provide security protection for material
management and product control
q Other

46
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B. BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

B1. Products
A list of product(s) to be manufactured and/or the specifications and
tolerances that the project is intended to deliver. It should address items
such as:

q Chemical composition q Allowable impurities


q Physical form/properties q By-products
q Raw materials q Wastes
q Packaging q Hazards associated with
products
q Intermediate/final product
form q Other

For projects that do not apply directly to products (e.g., instrument


upgrade, environmental improvements, structural integrity, regulatory
compliance, infrastructure improvement, etc.), this element should be
considered not applicable.

B2. Market Strategy


A market strategy has been developed and clearly communicated. It
identifies the driving forces (other than safety) for the project and specifies
what is most important from the viewpoint of the business group. It
should address items such as:
q Cost:
q Maximum project cost that market will accept
q Production cost
q Cost reduction over time
q Schedule:
q Product demand schedule (over operational life)
q First product sales date
q Quality, including critical product specifications
q Other

47
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B3. Project Strategy


The project strategy has been defined. This strategy supports the market
and/or business strategy or drivers. Address the priorities among the
following items:

q Cost q Environmental Sustainability


q Schedule q Security
q Quality q Other

B4. Affordability/Feasibility
Items that may improve the affordability of the project should be
considered during scope development and communicated to the project
team. These items may include incremental cost criteria such as:
q Consideration of feedstock availability and transport
to the job site
q Understanding of raw material or feedstock and
product variability in relation to cost and volume
q Reduction in manufacturing costs
q Performing an analysis of capital and operating cost
versus sales and profitability
q Long-term environmental sustainability
considerations
q Other

B5. Capacities
The design output or benefits to be gained from this project should be
documented. Capacities are usually defined in terms of:

q On-stream factors q Regulatory driven


requirements
q Yield
q Product quality improvement
q Design rate
q Other
q Increase in storage or
throughput

48
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B6. Future Expansion Considerations


A list of items to be considered in the unit design that will facilitate
future expansion should be developed. Evaluation criteria may include:
q Providing space for future equipment or phased
development
q Guidelines for over design of systems to allow for
additions. For example, extra power, structure,
storage, or control devices
q Guidelines for design that consider future expansion
without compromising on-going operations, safety
or security. For example, providing tie-ins for future
expansion without necessitating a shutdown
q Environmental considerations and impacts
q Other

B7. Expected Project Life Cycle


The time period that the facility is expected to be able to satisfy the
products and capacities required should be documented. The life cycle
will affect the selection of critical equipment, materials, and control
devices. Requirements for ultimate disposal and dismantling should
also be considered. Issues to consider may include:
q Operating life cycle (i.e., 10, 15, 20 years)
q Cost of ultimate dismantling and disposal
q Disposal of hazardous materials
q Possible future uses
q Environmental sustainability considerations
q Other

49
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B8. Social Issues


Identify and document any social issues, that if not addressed, could
adversely impact the successful implementation of the project. These
may include issues affecting the local or regional population. Evaluation
of various social issues such as:
q Domestic culture vs. international culture
q Community relations
q Labor relations
q Government relations
q Education/training
q Safety and health considerations
q Environmental assessment/sustainability
q Other

C. BASIC DATA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

C1. Technology
The technology(ies) being used in this project to gain the desired results
should be identified. Technologies may include chemical, biological,
or mechanical processes, as well as information technology. Proven
technology involves less risk than experimental technology to project
cost or schedule. Issues to evaluate when assessing technologies include:

q Existing/proven or duplicate q Organization’s experience


with the process steps
q New
q Software development
q Experimental
q Other
q Scale up from bench or pilot
application to commercial scale

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Integration of new technology with existing systems,


including interface issues
q Safety systems potentially compromised by any new
technology

50
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

C2. Processes
A particular, specific sequence of steps to change the raw materials,
intermediates, or sub-assemblies into the finished product or outcome.
These process steps may involve conversion of an existing process stream
into a new sequence of steps to meet facility requirements. Proven
sequences of steps involve the least risk, while experimental processes
have a potential for change or problems. Issues to evaluate include:

q Existing/proven or q Scale up from bench or pilot


duplicate application to commercial scale
q New q Organization’s experience with
the process steps
q Experimental
q Other

D. PROJECT SCOPE

D1. Project Objectives Statement


This statement defines the project objectives and priorities for meeting
the business strategy. It should be clear, concise, measurable, and
specific to the project. It is desirable to obtain total agreement from the
entire project team regarding these objectives and priorities to ensure
alignment. Specifically, the priorities among cost, schedule, and value-
added quality features should be clear. To ensure the project is aligned
to the applicable objectives, the following should be considered:
q Stakeholder’s understanding of objectives, including
questions or concerns
q Constraints or limitations placed on the project
q Typical objectives:
q Safety q Communication
q Quality q Operational performance
q Cost q Maintainability
q Schedule q Security
q Technology usage q Sustainability
q Capacity or size q Other
q Startup or commissioning

51
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

D2. Project Design Criteria


The requirements and guidelines that govern the design of the project
should be developed. When performing repetitive projects for the
same facility, these may be well understood. Evaluation criteria may
include:
q Level of design detail required
q Climatic data
q Codes and standards
q National q Local

q Utilization of engineering standards


q Owner’s q Contractor’s
q Mixed

q Security standards/guidelines to be utilized


q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Clearly define controlling specifications, especially


where new codes and regulations will override older
requirements
q Ensure that specifications support replacement of any
obsolete systems or equipment

D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required


An assessment of the available versus the required site characteristics
is needed. The intent is to ensure that the project team has taken into
consideration the need to improve or upgrade existing site utilities and
support characteristics. Issues to consider should include:
q Capacity:
q Utilities q Pipe racks
q Fire water q Waste treatment/disposal
q Flare systems q Storm water containment
q Cooling water system
q Power

52
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Type of buildings/structures
q Land area
q Amenities:
q Food service q Recreation facilities
q Change rooms q Ambulatory access
q Medical facilities

q Product shipping facilities


q Material receiving facilities
q Material storage facilities
q Product storage facilities
q Security:
q Setbacks q Access and egress
q Sight lines q Fencing, gates, and barriers
q Clear zones q Security lighting

q Sustainability considerations, including possible


certification (for example, by the U.S. Green Building
Council).
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Complete condition assessment of existing facilities


and infrastructure
q As-Built accuracy and availability (update/verify as-
built documentation prior to project initiation)
q Worksite availability and access for R&R activities
q Existing space available to occupants during
renovation work
q Uncertainty of “as-found” conditions, especially
related to:
q Structural integrity: steel or concrete loading
q Piping capacity/ integrity/ routing
q Condition of required isolation points
q Location, condition, and capacity of electrical
systems components

53
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Investigation tools to assist in the documentation of


existing conditions:
q Photographs / Video
q Remote inspection
q Laser scanning
q Infrared scanning
q Non-Destructive Testing
q Ground Penetrating Radar
q Ultrasonic Testing
q Other

D4. Dismantling and Demolition Requirements


A scope of work has been defined and documented for the decommissioning
and dismantling of existing equipment and/or piping which may be
necessary for completing new construction. This scope of work should
support an estimate for cost and schedule. Evaluation criteria should
include:
q Timing/sequencing
q Permits
q Approval
q Safety requirements
q Hazardous operations and/or materials
q Plant/operations requirements
q Storage or disposal of dismantled equipment/materials
q Narrative (scope of work) for each system
q Environmental assessment
q Are the systems that will be decommissioned/
dismantled:
q Named and marked on process flow diagrams
q Named and marked on P&IDs
q Denoted on line lists and equipment lists
q Denoted on piping plans or photo-drawings
q Other

54
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Use of photographs, video records, etc. in scope


documents to ensure existing conditions clearly
defined
q Physical identification of extent of demolition to
clearly define limits
q Segregation of demolition activities from new
construction, and operations (e.g., physical
disconnect or “air gap”)
q Establish decontamination and purge requirements to
support dismantling.

D5. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work


A complete narrative description of the project laying out the major
components of work to be accomplished, generally discipline oriented,
should be developed. This narrative should be tied to a high level Work
Breakdown Structure (WBS) for the project. Items to consider would
include:
q Sequencing of work
q Interface issues for various contractors, contracts, or
work packages
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Identification of specific interface or coordination


efforts with operations and owner’s staff

D6. Project Schedule


A project milestone schedule should be developed, analyzed, and agreed
upon by the major project participants. It should include milestones,
unusual schedule considerations and appropriate master schedule
contingency time (float), procurement of long-lead or critical pacing
equipment, and required submissions and approvals. This schedule
should involve obtaining early input from:

q Owner/Operations q Procurement
q Design/Engineering q Other
q Construction

55
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q The schedule should involve obtaining early input


from the Shutdown/Turnaround Manager

R&R projects require a high level of planning to minimize risk because


they interface with existing operations and are many times performed
in conjunction with other on-going projects. Shutdowns/turnarounds/
outages are special cases in that they are particularly constrained in
terms of time and space, requiring very detailed plans and schedules.

E. VALUE ENGINEERING

E1. Process Simplification


A structured value analysis approach should be in place to identify and
document activities or strategies (through studies, reviews) for reducing
the number of steps or the amount of equipment needed in the process
in order to optimize performance without compromising security. Items
to evaluate include:

q Redundancies q Excessive controls


q Over capacity q Other
q Discretionary spares

E2. Design & Material Alternatives Considered/Rejected


A structured approach is in place to consider design and material
alternatives including sustainability considerations. Specific activities
have been identified to ensure that this process will take place. Items
that impact the economic viability of the project should be considered.
Items to evaluate include issues such as:
q Discretionary scope issues
q Expensive materials of construction
q Life-cycle analysis of construction methods
q Other

56
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

E3. Design for Constructability Analysis


A structured process is in place for constructability analysis. CII defines
constructability as, “the optimum use of construction knowledge and
experience in planning, design, procurement, and field operations to
achieve overall project objectives. Maximum benefits occur when people
with construction knowledge and experience become involved at the
very beginning of a project.” Provisions have been made to provide this
on an ongoing basis. This process includes examining design options
that minimize construction costs while maintaining standards of safety,
security, quality, and schedule. This process should be initiated in the
front end planning process during concept or detailed scope definition.
Elements of constructability during front end planning include:
q Constructability program in existence
q Construction knowledge/experience used in project
planning
q Early construction involvement in contracting
strategy development
q Developing a construction-sensitive project schedule
(with operations input and considering operational
needs)
q Considering major construction methods in basic
design approaches
q Developing site layouts for efficient construction
q Early identification of project team participants for
constructability analysis
q Usage of advanced information technologies
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Installability (e.g., smaller components/modules/pre-


assembly to facilitate installation in congested areas)
q Opportunities to perform as much work as possible
outside of shutdowns or outages
q Developing an operations-sensitive project schedule
(e.g., minimization of Shutdown/Turnaround work
and hot work in operating areas)

57
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN

F. SITE INFORMATION

F1. Site Location


The geographical location(s) of the proposed project has been defined
and documented. This involves an assessment of the relative strengths
and weaknesses of alternate site locations. A site that meets owner
requirements and maximizes benefits for the owner company should
be selected. Evaluation of sites may address issues relative to different
types of sites (i.e., global country, local, “inside the fence,” or “inside
the building”). This decision should consider the long-term needs of
the owner company. The selection criteria should include items such as:
q General geographic location
q Access to the targeted market area
q Near sources of raw materials
q Local availability and cost of skilled labor
(e.g., construction, operation)
q Available utilities
q Existing facilities

q Land availability and costs


q Environmental/sustainability impact
q Access (e.g., road, rail, marine, air)
q Construction access and feasibility
q Security constraints (consider potential security breach
points, e.g., storm water system, watercourses)
q Political constraints
q Legal constraints
q Regulatory constraints
q Financing requirements
q Social issues
q Weather
q Climate
q Other

58
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Change in intended use of the facility


q Zoning, permitting or other regulatory changes
brought about by R&R

F2. Surveys & Soil Tests


Survey and soil test evaluations of the proposed site should be developed
and include items such as:
q Topography map
q Overall plant plot plan
q General site description (e.g., terrain, existing
structures, spoil removal, areas of hazardous waste)
q Definition of final site elevation
q Benchmark (coordinate and elevation) control system
identified
q Spoil area (i.e., location of on-site area or off-site
instructions)
q Seismic requirements
q Water table
q Soil percolation rate & conductivity
q Existing contamination
q Ground water flow rates and directions
q Downstream uses of ground water
q Need for soil treatment or replacement
q Description of foundation types
q Allowable bearing capacities
q Pier/pile capacities
q Other

59
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F3. Environmental Assessment


An environmental assessment should be performed for the site to evaluate
issues that can impact the cost estimate or delay the project. These issues
may include characteristics such as:
q Location in an air quality non-compliance zone (such
as identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) or others)
q Location in a wetlands area
q Environmental permits now in force
q Location of nearest residential area
q Ground water monitoring in place
q Containment requirements
q Existing environmental problems with the site such as:
q Asbestos/PCB
q Radioactive materials
q Contaminated soils
q Lead or other heavy metal (e.g. Chromium,
Mercury)
q Hazardous or toxic chemical/biological
contamination

q Past/present use of site


q Sustainability
q Archeological
q Endangered species
q Erosion/sediment control
q Other

60
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F4. Permit Requirements


A permitting plan for the project should be in place. The local, state
or province, and federal government permits necessary to construct
and operate the unit/facility should be identified. These should include
items such as:
q Construction q Building
q Local q Occupancy
q Environmental q Railroad
q Transportation q Levee board
q Coastal Development q Highway
q Security q Other
q Fire

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Original intent of codes and regulations and any


“grandfathered” requirements

F5. Utility Sources with Supply Conditions


A list has been made identifying availability/nonavailability or redundancy
of site utilities needed to operate the unit/facility. This list includes
supply conditions such as temperature, pressure, and quality. Items to
consider include:
q Potable water q Instrument air
q Drinking water q Plant air
q Cooling water q Gases
q Fire water q Steam
q Sewers q Condensate
q Power (voltage levels) q Other

61
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F6. Fire Protection & Safety Considerations


A list of fire and safety related items to be taken into account in the
design of the facility should include fire protection practices at the site,
available firewater supply (amounts and conditions), special safety and
security requirements unique to the site. Evaluation criteria should include:
q Eye wash stations q Deluge requirements
q Safety showers q Wind direction indicator
q Fire monitors & hydrants devices (i.e., wind socks)

q Foam q Alarm systems

q Evacuation plan q Medical facilities

q Perimeter security q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Interruption to any existing fire and life safety


systems
q Disarming existing safety systems for renovation
work (with appropriate contingency planning)

G. PROCESS/MECHANICAL

G1. Process Flow Sheets


Drawings that provide the process description of the unit/facility should
be developed. Evaluation criteria should include:
q Major equipment items
q Flow of materials to and from the major equipment
items
q Primary control loops for the major equipment items
q Sufficient information to allow sizing of all process
lines
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Definition of owner’s requirements for updating


existing process flow sheets

62
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G2. Heat & Material Balances


Heat balances are tables of heat input and output for major equipment
items (including all heat exchangers) within the unit. Material balances
are tables of material input and output for all equipment items within
the unit. The documentation of these balances should include:
q Special heat balance tables for reaction systems
q Information on the conditions (e.g., temperature and
pressure)
q Volumetric amount (e.g., gallons per minute (GPM),
liters per second (LPS), cubic feet per minute (CFM))
or mass flow rates
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Definition of owner’s requirements for updating


existing heat and material balances

G3. Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs)


These are often referred to by different companies as:
EFDs – Engineering Flow Diagrams
MFDs – Mechanical Flow Diagrams
PMCDs – Process & Mechanical Control Diagrams

In general, P&IDs are considered to be a critical element within the


scope definition package of an industrial project. P&IDs should address
the following areas:
q Equipment q Instrumentation
q Piping q Safety systems
q Valves q Special notations
q Piping specialty items q Other

q Utilities

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects


q Tie-in points
q Accuracy of existing P&ID’s (field verify)
q Scope of Work on existing P&IDs (clouding or shading
to indicate: new, refurbished, modified, and/or relocated
equipment, piping, instruments, and controls).

63
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Since incomplete information on P&IDs is frequently identified as a


source of project escalation, it is important to understand their level
of completeness. It is unlikely for P&IDs to be completely defined in
a project’s scope definition package. However, the P&IDs must be
complete enough to support the accuracy of estimate required. P&IDs
are traditionally completed in the following iterations or “issues”:
q Preliminary issue – comment and work input from other
disciplines and the owner’s representatives
q Issue for approval – critical information is complete,
including lines sized, specifications developed, equipment
identified, and blocks complete for owner approval
q Issue for design – all owner comments have been
incorporated and P&IDs are ready for the appropriate level
of process safety management (PSM) review
q Issue as basis of estimate—all of process safety review has
been completed and all comments incorporated
q Other

G4. Process Safety Management (PSM)


This element refers to a formal Process Safety Management Hazards
Analysis to identify potential risk of injury to the environment or populace.
Each national government (or organization) will have its specific PSM
compliance requirements (for example, in the U.S., OSHA Regulation
1910.119 compliance is required). The important issue is whether
the owner has clearly communicated the requirements, methodology,
and responsibility for the various activities. If the PSM has not been
conducted, the team should consider the potential of risk that could
affect the schedule and cost of the project.

G5. Utility Flow Diagrams


Utility flow diagrams are similar to P&IDs in that they show all utility
lines from generation or supply (i.e., pipeline). They are generally laid
out in a manner to represent the geographical layout of the plant.

Utility flow diagrams are evaluated using the same issue process as
P&IDs.

64
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Tie-in points
q Accuracy of existing UFD’s (field verify)
q Scope of Work on existing UFD’s (clouding or shading
to indicate: new, refurbished, modified, and/or
relocated equipment, piping, instruments, and controls)

G6. Specifications
General specifications for the design, performance, manufacturing,
material, and code requirements should be documented. These
specifications should include items such as:
q Classes of equipment (e.g., pumps, exchangers, vessels)
q Process pipe heating
q Process
q Freeze
q Jacketed

q Process pipe cooling


q Jacketed
q Traced

q Piping
q Protective coating
q Insulation
q Valves
q Bolts/gaskets
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Reconciliation of original specifications with current


project specifications

65
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G7. Piping System Requirements


Piping system stress guidelines and requirements should be provided
to ensure that piping system design can be estimated and scheduled.
The owner must communicate the standards, methodology, and record
documentation required to support the piping systems design effort.
Criteria for design of piping systems should include:
q Allowable forces and moments on equipment
q Graphical representation of piping line sizes that
require analysis based on:
q Temperature q Stress
q Pressure q Pulsation
q Cyclic conditions q Seismic
q Flex

q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Verification of existing conditions: hangers, supports,


anchors, wall thickness, etc.
q Field verify existing lines that will be modified and
requiring stress analysis back to all anchor points
q Ensure lines are functioning, available, and active

G8. Plot Plan


The plot plan will show the location of new work in relation to adjoining
units or facilities. It should include items such as:

q Plant grid system with q Rail facilities


coordinates
q Green space
q Unit limits
q Buildings
q Gates, fences and/or barriers
q Major pipe racks
q Lighting requirements
q Laydown areas
q Off-site facilities
q Construction/fabrication
q Tank farms areas
q Roads and access ways q Other

66
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Establish project specific vertical and horizontal


reference points for all participants

G9. Mechanical Equipment List


The mechanical equipment list should identify all mechanical equipment
by tag number, in summary format, to support the project. The list
should define items such as:

q Existing sources: q Location


q Modified q Capacities
q Relocated
q Materials
q Dismantled
q Power requirements
q Re-rated
q Flow diagrams
q New sources:
q Design temperature and pressure
q Purchased new
q Purchased used q Insulation & painting requirements
q Equipment related ladders and
q Relative sizes
platforms
q Weights
q Other

G10. Line List


The line list designates all pipe lines in the project (including utilities).
It should include items such as:

q Unique number for each line: q Design temperature and


q Size pressure
q Termination q Test requirements
q Origin q Pipe specifications
q Reference drawing q Insulation requirements
q Normal and upset operating: q Paint requirements
q Temperature
q Other
q Pressure

67
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G11. Tie-in List


A list of all piping tie-ins to existing lines should be developed. It should
include items such as:
q Location
q Insulation removal requirements
q Decontamination requirements
q Reference drawings
q Pipe specifications
q Timing/schedule
q Type of tie-in/size:
q Hot tap q Cold cut
q Flange q Screwed
q Weld q Cut and weld

q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Field verify condition of isolation points


q Sequencing of tie-ins with production planning
requirements to ensure safety and on-going
operations
q Establish decontamination and purge requirements to
support tie-ins
q Tie-in locations approved by Operations
q Ensure and conduct a structured process to validate
tie-ins and tie-in strategy

G12. Piping Specialty Items List


This list is used to specify in-line piping items not covered by piping
material specifications. It should identify all special items by tag number,
in summary format. It should include items such as:
q Tag numbers q Materials of construction
q Quantities q P&IDs referenced
q Piping plans referenced q Line/equipment numbers
q Piping details q Other
q Full purchase description

68
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G13. Instrument Index


This is a complete listing of all instruments by tag number. Evaluation
criteria should include:
q Tag number q Insulation, paint, heat tracing,
winterization, etc. requirements
q Instrument type
q Relieving devices (e.g., relief valves,
q Service
rupture disks)
q P&ID number
q Other
q Line number

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Instrument status (e.g., new, existing, relocate, modify,


refurbish, or dismantle)
q Existing instrumentation and valves (trim, functionality,
leakage, closure, etc.)

H. EQUIPMENT SCOPE

H1. Equipment Status


Has the equipment been defined, inquired, bid tabbed, or purchased?
This includes all engineered equipment such as:
q Process q Security-related equipment
q Electrical q Specialty items
q Mechanical q Distributed control systems
q Heating, ventilation, air q Other
conditioning (HVAC)
q Instruments

Evaluation criteria should include:


q Equipment data sheets q Number of items
purchased
q Number of items inquired
q Other
q Number of items with
approved bid tabs

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Modifications and refurbishment of existing equipment

69
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

H2. Equipment Location Drawings


Equipment location/arrangement drawings identify the specific location
of each item of equipment in a project. These drawings should identify
items such as:
q Elevation views of equipment and platforms
q Top of steel for platforms and pipe racks
q Paving and foundation elevations
q Coordinates of all equipment
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Clearly identify existing equipment to be removed or


rearranged, or to remain in place

H3. Equipment Utility Requirements


A tabulated list of utility requirements for all equipment items should
be developed. This list should identify requirements such as:
q Air q Fuel
q Plant air q Natural gas
q Instrument air q Fuel oil
q Vacuum system q Propane
q Alternatives
q Water
q Plant water q Ventilation
q Chilled water q HVAC
q Hot water q Refrigeration
q Process water
q Process
(e.g., carbon filtered,
degasified, demineralized) q Carbon dioxide
q Ammonia
q Steam
q Nitrogen
q High pressure
q Oxygen
q Condensate system
q Other

70
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, & ARCHITECTURAL

I1. Civil/Structural Requirements


Civil/structural requirements should be developed and include the issues
such as the following:
q Structural drawings
q Pipe racks/supports
q Elevation views
q Top of steel for platforms
q High point elevations for grade, paving, and foundations
q Location of equipment and offices
q Construction materials (e.g., concrete, steel, client
standards)
q Physical requirements
q Seismic requirements
q Minimum clearances
q Fireproofing requirements
q Corrosion control requirements/required protective
coatings
q Enclosure requirements (e.g., open, closed, covered)
q Secondary containment
q Environmental sustainability considerations
q Dikes
q Storm sewers
q Client specifications (e.g., basis for design loads,
vulnerability and risk assessments)
q Future expansion considerations
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Existing structural conditions (e.g., foundations, building


framing, pipe racks, harmonics/vibrations, etc)
q Potential affect of noise, vibration and restricted headroom
in installation of piling and on existing operations
q Underground interference (utilize shallow depth designs)

71
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I2. Architectural Requirements


The following checklist should be used in defining building
requirements.
q Building use (e.g., activities, functions)
q Space use program indicating space types, areas
required, and the functional relationships between
spaces and number of occupants
q Service, storage, and parking requirements
q Special equipment requirements
q Requirements for building location/orientation
q Nature/character of building design (e.g., aesthetics,
crime prevention through environmental design
(CPTED))
q Construction materials
q Environmentally sustainable design
q Interior finishes
q Fire resistant requirements
q Explosion resistant requirements
q “Safe haven” requirements
q Acoustical considerations
q Safety, vulnerability assessment, and maintenance
requirements
q Fire detection and/or suppression requirements
q Utility requirements (i.e., sources and tie-in locations)
q HVAC requirements
q Electrical requirements
q Power sources with available voltage and amperage
q Special lighting considerations
q Voice and data communications requirements
q Uninterruptible power source (UPS) and/or
emergency power requirements
q Outdoor design conditions (e.g., minimum and
maximum yearly temperatures)

72
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Indoor design conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity,


pressure, air quality)
q Special outdoor conditions
q Special ventilation or exhaust requirements
q Equipment/space special requirements with respect
to environmental conditions (e.g., air quality, special
temperatures)
q Personnel accessibility standards (e.g., in the U. S.,
Americans with Disabilities Act requirements)
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Consider how renovation project alters existing


architectural design assumptions
q Potential reuse of existing equipment, fixtures,
materials and systems for renovation project
q Transition plan/ swing space for people, materials
and processes

J. INFRASTRUCTURE

J1. Water Treatment Requirements


Water treatment requirements should be documented. Items for
consideration should include:
q Wastewater treatment:
q Process waste
q Sanitary waste

q Waste disposal
q Storm water containment and treatment
q Other

73
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Requirements


A list of requirements identifying raw materials to be unloaded and
stored, products to be loaded along with their specifications, and Material
Safety Data Sheets. This list should include items such as:
q Instantaneous and overall loading/unloading rates
q Details on supply and/or receipt of containers and vessels
q Storage facilities to be provided and/or utilized
q Specification of any required special isolation
provisions:
q Double wall diking and drainage
q Emergency detection (e.g., hydrocarbon detectors/
alarms)
q Leak detection devices or alarms

q Essential security considerations should include:


q Inspection requirements
q Secure storage
q Authorized deliveries
q Access/egress control

q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Availability and access to secure storage for materials,


laydown yards, etc. for R&R projects

J3. Transportation Requirements


Specifications identifying implementation of “in-plant” transportation
(e.g., roadways, concrete, asphalt, rock) as well as methods for
receiving/shipping/storage of materials (e.g., rail, truck, marine) should
be documented. Specifically look at detailed traffic/routing plan for
oversize loads.
Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Coordinate equipment and material movement for


renovation work with Operations to ensure no unplanned
impacts
q Clearly identify delivery gates/ docks/ doors and receiving
hours to be used by contractors for R&R work

74
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

K. INSTRUMENT & ELECTRICAL

K1. Control Philosophy


The control philosophy describes the general nature of the process and
identifies overall control systems hardware, software, simulation, and
testing requirements. It should outline items such as:
q Continuous
q Batch
q Redundancy requirements
q Classification of interlocks (e.g., process, safety)
q Software functional descriptions
q Manual or automatic controls
q Alarm conditions
q On/off controls
q Block diagrams
q Emergency shut down
q Controls startup
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Existing specifications, owner preferences and


agreements, and compatibility

K2. Logic Diagrams


Logic diagrams should be developed and provide a method of depicting
interlock and sequencing systems for the startup, operation, alarm, and
shutdown of equipment and processes.

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Field verify logic diagrams to ensure they are


functional and have not been altered

75
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

K3. Electrical Area Classifications


The electrical area classification plot plan is provided to show the
environment in which electrical and instrument equipment is to be
installed. This area classification will follow the guidelines as set forth
in the latest code requirements (for example, the National Electric Code
in the U.S.). Installation locations should include the following:
q General purpose
q Hazardous
q Class I: Gasses and vapors
q Class II: Combustible dusts
q Class III: Easily ignitable fibers
q Corrosive locations
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Reclassification impact on existing access and


operating areas

K4. Substation Requirements/Power Sources Identified


Substation requirements should be documented and may include the
following:
q Number of substations required
q Electrical equipment rating required for each substation
q Specifications for all major electrical substation equipment
q Infrastructure required for each substation considering
building type and environment, fencing, access, lighting
and barriers, and substation yard materials

Clearly define power sources for the project in relation to:


q Location, voltage level, available power
q Electrical equipment available
q Electrical ratings and routes of power feeds from their
sources to the project substations

76
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Specifications for special power sources should be


described and provided (e.g., emergency generators or
in-plant generation)
q Temporary construction power sources
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Impact on existing equipment and new equipment


selection (e.g. short circuit ratings)
q Field verify condition of isolation points
q Sequencing of tie-ins with production planning
requirements to ensure safety and on-going operations
q Tie-in points approved by Operations
q Ensure and conduct a structured process to validate tie-
ins and tie-in strategy.
q Ensure that new electrical systems or equipment
are compatible with industrial environment (e.g.,
uninterrupted power supplies, inverters, etc.)

K5. Electric Single Line Diagrams


A single line diagram indicates the components, devices, or parts of an
electrical power distribution system. Single line diagrams are intended
to portray the major system layout from the public utility’s incoming
transmission line to the motor starter bus. Depending on the size of the
electrical system, the single line diagrams should include several levels
of distribution such as:
q Incoming utility with owner substation/distribution
to high and medium voltage motors and substations
q Unit substations and switchgear
q Motor control centers with distribution to motors,
lighting panels
q Other

77
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

K6. Instrument & Electrical Specifications


Specifications for instrument and electrical systems should be developed
and should include items such as:
q Distributed Control System (DCS)
q Instrument data sheets
q Motor control and transformers
q Power and control components
q Power and control wiring (splicing requirements)
q Cathodic protection
q Lightning protection
q Security systems
q Grounding
q Electrical trace
q Installation standards
q Lighting standards
q Civil requirements for electrical installation:
q Protection/warning for underground cabling
q Special slabs or foundations for electrical
equipment
q Concrete-embedded conduit

q Other

78
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH

L. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

L1. Identify Long Lead/Critical Equipment and Materials


Identify engineered equipment and material items with lead times that
will impact the detailed engineering for receipt of vendor information
or impact the construction schedule with long delivery times.

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

Identification and delivery of long lead/critical equipment and materials


are especially important for shutdowns/turnarounds.
q Delivery dates must be identified in advance of
shutdown/turnarounds to support preparations for
pre-outage activities

L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans


Specific guidelines, special requirements, or methodologies for
accomplishing the purchasing, expediting, delivery, and security of
equipment and materials required for the project. Evaluation criteria
should include:
q Listing of approved vendors
q Client or contractor paper
q Reimbursement terms and conditions
q Guidelines for supplier alliances, single source, or
competitive bids
q Guidelines for engineered/field contracts
q Responsibility for owner-purchased items:
q Financial
q Shop inspection
q Expediting

q Tax strategy:
q Engineered equipment
q Field materials
q Labor
q Write-offs of existing facilities and equipment

79
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Definition of source inspection requirements and


responsibilities
q Definition of traffic/insurance responsibilities
q Definition of procurement status reporting
requirements
q Additional/special owner accounting requirements
q Definition of spare parts requirements, including
consideration to match existing
q Local regulations (e.g., tax restrictions, tax
advantages)
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Procedures for repair, refurbishment, and relocation


of existing equipment
q Retrofit kits (e.g., non-standard connections and
obsolete equipment may require adaptors)

L3. Procurement Responsibility Matrix


A procurement responsibility matrix has been developed showing
authority and responsibility for procurement. This matrix should outline
responsibilities for:
q Engineering and design q Consulting services
q Engineered equipment q Commissioning and startup
materials
q Construction
q Source inspection
q Bulk materials
q Other
q Fabrication/modularization

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Utilization of reused and existing equipment,


materials, lines, electrical and instrumentation, etc.
q Availability of procurement support during time-
constrained R&R work, especially where expedited
material services are required

80
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M. DELIVERABLES

M1. CADD/Model Requirements


Computer Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) requirements should be
defined. Evaluation criteria should include:
q Application software preference (e.g., 2D or 3D CADD,
application service provider (ASP)), including licensing
requirements
q Configuration and administration of servers and systems
documentation defined
q For 3D CADD, go/no-go on walk-through simulation for
operations checks, interference checks, and construction
planning and scheduling
q Owner/contractor standard symbols and details
q Handling of life cycle facility data including asset
information, models, and electronic documents
q Information technology infrastructure to support electronic
modeling systems, including uninterruptible power systems
(UPS) and disaster recovery
q Security and auditing requirements defined
q Physical model requirements
q Other

M2. Deliverables Defined


The following items should be included in a list of deliverables:
q Drawings
q Project correspondence
q Project Process Safety Management (PSM) documents
q Permits
q Project data books (quantity, format, contents, and
completion date)
q Equipment folders (quantity, format, contents, and
completion date)
q Design calculations (quantity, format, contents, and
completion date)
q Spare parts special forms

81
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Loop folder (quantity, format, contents, and


completion date)
q Procuring documents
q Isometrics/field erection details
q As-built documents
q Quality assurance documents
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Requirements to update existing (legacy) documentation/


models and as-built drawings, including equipment folders/
asset management systems
q Procedures for retiring an asset including the
documentation requirements, spare parts inventory, and
accounting requirements

M3. Distribution Matrix


A distribution matrix (document control system) should be developed
that identifies most correspondence and all deliverables. It denotes who
is required to receive copies of all documents at the various stages of the
project, and ensures the proper distribution of documentation. Some
documents may be restricted due to proprietary nature.

N. PROJECT CONTROL

N1. Project Control Requirements


A method for measuring and reporting progress should be established
and documented. Evaluation criteria should include:
q Change management procedures, including interface
with information systems
q Cost control procedures
q Schedule/percent complete control procedures
q Cash flow projections
q Report requirements
q Other

82
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

Shutdowns/Turnarounds/Outages may require a much more detailed


project control system, including issues such as
q Detailed hourly schedule
q Additional communication to coordinate contractor
activities with existing owner maintenance and plant
operations
q Clearly defined outage dates and constraints
q Integration of multiple projects
q Change management procedures

N2. Project Accounting Requirements


Project specific accounting requirements have been identified and
documented. These requirements include items such as:
q Financial (client/regulatory) q Report requirements
q Phasing or area sub-accounting q Payment schedules
q Capital vs. non-capital q Other

N3. Risk Analysis


A risk analysis focusing on cost and schedule has been performed and a
process is in place to ensure periodic risk analysis is conducted. Major
project risks need to be identified, quantified, and management actions
taken to mitigate problems. Pertinent issues may include risks in terms of:
q Design q Business
q Construction q Operational impact
q Management q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Unforeseen issues related to the unique characteristics of


renovation projects (i.e., hazardous materials, unknown
underground structures or utilities, or other)
q Security clearance/ access control in operating areas during
project execution
q Safety of occupants during emergency conditions related to
renovation activities

83
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

P. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN

P1. Owner Approval Requirements


Owner approval requirements have been developed. This document
clearly defines all documents that require owner approval such as:
q Milestones for drawing approval:
q Comment
q Approval
q Bid issued
q Construction

q Electronic model reviews


q Durations of approval cycle compatible with schedule
q Individual(s) responsible for reconciling comments
before return
q Types of drawings that require formal approval
q Purchase documents:
q Data sheets
q Inquiries
q Bid tabs
q Purchase orders

q Change management approval authority


q Vendor information
q Other

P2. Engineering/Construction Plan & Approach


This documented plan identifying the methodology to be used in
engineering and constructing the project should include items such as:
q Responsibility matrix
q Selected methods (e.g., design/build, CM at risk,
competitive sealed proposal, bridging, design-bid-
build, CM as agent, parallel prime contractors)

84
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Contracting strategies (e.g., lump sum, cost-plus)


q Subcontracting strategy
q Work week plan/schedule
q Organizational structure
q Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)
q Construction sequencing of events
q Safety requirements/program
q Environmental program
q Security requirements/program (e.g., access to site,
inspection, background checks)
q Identification of critical lifts and their potential
impact on operating units
q Quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) plan
q Information and communication technology
infrastructure to support field operations, including
licensing requirements
q Other

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Flexible contracting arrangements for renovation projects


such as a combination of unit price, cost reimbursable,
and lump sum
q Contingency for unforeseen conditions
q Specialized contractors for R&R activities, such as
hazardous abatement or heavy haulers
q Responsibility for critical maintenance activities in
the existing facility (i.e., routine maintenance during
construction)
q Permits and approvals when working in or near continuing
operations (i.e. hot work permitting, confined space, lift
plans, environmental remediation, etc.)
q Coordination between multiple contractors and/or
maintenance activities

85
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

P3. Shut Down/Turn-Around Requirements


Required shut downs or turn-arounds have been identified and
documented. Special effort should be made to contact the Shutdown/
Turnaround Manager for “customer” requirements relative to the unique
issues surrounding a Shutdown/Turnaround. Typical issues to consider
include but not limited to:
q Definitions of the scope of work to be accomplished
during such down times
q Scheduled instructions for the down time
q Timing of outages
q Interface with other ongoing projects and operations
q Work force scale up and training and staff movement
logistics
q Work protection considerations for the shutdown/
turn-around
q Accuracy of information regarding the facility is
known
q Standard reporting for progressing, forecasting, and
frequency required by the Turnaround Manager.
q Identification of who approves emergent work-scopes
during Turnaround and any “hurdle” criteria it must
meet to be approved.
q Identification of unique risks as a result of multiple
projects working concurrently
q Identification of any “must do” requirements leading
up to the Shutdown/Turnaround.
q Required emergency purchase/rental plans for
materials, subcontractors, equipment, facilities, etc.
q Standard software required for integrating the master
schedules (e.g., Primavera)
q The “triage” process for establishing priorities when
resources are not available or there is a conflict/
interference in space, equipment, etc.
q Manage conflicting contractual arrangements which
may inhibit timely completion

86
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q A functional accountability matrix has been


established that will enable communication across
multiple projects
q Safety
q Other

P4. Pre-Commissioning Turnover Sequence Requirements


The owner’s required sequence for turnover of the project for pre-
commissioning and startup activation has been developed. It should
include items such as:
q Sequence of turnover, including system identification
and priority
q Contractor’s and owner’s required level of
involvement in:
q Pre-commissioning
q Training
q Testing

q Clear definition of mechanical/electrical acceptance/


approval requirements
q Other

P5. Startup Requirements


Startup requirements have been defined and responsibility established.
A process is in place to ensure that startup planning will be performed.
Issues include:
q Startup goals
q Leadership responsibility
q Sequencing of startup
q Technology start-up support on-site, including
information technology
q Feedstock/raw materials
q Off-grade waste disposal
q Quality assurance/quality control
q Work force requirements
q Other

87
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

P6. Training Requirements


Training requirements have been defined and responsibility established.
Training has been identified in areas such as:
q Control systems
q Information systems and technology
q Equipment operation
q Maintenance of systems
q Training materials and equipment (e.g., manuals,
simulations)
q Safety
q Other

88
Appendix D:
Sample of a Completed PDRI
Type of facility: Diesel Power Plant Project site: Grassroots
Primary product: Electricity Estimated project duration: 12 months
Design capacity: 108 MW Estimated project cost: $112 million

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. MANUFACTURING OBJECTIVES CRITERIA (Maximum Score = 45)
A1. Reliability Philosophy 0 1 5 9 14 20 14
A2. Maintenance Philosophy 0 1 3 5 7 9 7
A3. Operating Philosophy 0 1 4 7 12 16 12
CATEGORY A TOTAL 33
B. BUSINESS OBJECTIVES (Maximum Score = 213)
B1. Products 0 1 11 22 33 56 1
B2. Market Strategy 0 2 5 10 16 26 5
B3. Project Strategy 0 1 5 9 14 23 9
B4. Affordability/Feasibility 0 1 3 6 9 16 9
B5. Capacities 0 2 11 21 33 55 11
B6. Future Expansion Considerations 0 2 3 6 10 17 3
B7. Expected Project Life Cycle 0 1 2 3 5 8 2
B8. Social Issues 0 1 2 5 7 12 12
CATEGORY B TOTAL 52
C. BASIC DATA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (Maximum Score = 94)
C1. Technology 0 2 10 21 39 54 21
C2. Processes 0 2 8 17 28 40 17
CATEGORY C TOTAL 38
D. PROJECT SCOPE (Maximum Score = 120)
D1. Project Objectives Statement 0 2 8 14 19 25 25
D2. Project Design Criteria 0 2 6 11 16 22 22
D3. Site Characteristics Available vs. Req’d 0 2 9 16 22 29 29
D4. Dismantling and Demolition Req’mts 0 2 5 8 12 15 5
D5. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 4 7 10 13 4
D6. Project Schedule 0 2 6 9 13 16 2
CATEGORY D TOTAL 87
E. VALUE ENGINEERING (Maximum Score = 27)
E1. Process Simplification 0 0 2 4 6 8 8
E2. Design & Material Alts. Considered/Rejected 0 0 2 4 5 7 7
E3. Design for Constructability Analysis 0 0 3 5 8 12 8
CATEGORY E TOTAL 23
Section I Maximum Score = 499 SECTION I TOTAL 233

89
Appendix D. Sample of a Completed PDRI

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION (Maximum Score = 104)
F1. Site Location 0 2 10 18 26 32 2
F2. Surveys & Soil Tests 0 1 4 7 10 13 7
F3. Environmental Assessment 0 2 5 10 15 21 15
F4. Permit Requirements 0 1 3 5 9 12 9
F5. Utility Sources with Supply Conditions 0 1 4 8 12 18 12
F6. Fire Protection & Safety Considerations 0 1 2 4 5 8 5
CATEGORY F TOTAL 50
G. PROCESS/MECHANICAL (Maximum Score = 196)
G1. Process Flow Sheets 0 2 8 17 26 36 2
G2. Heat & Material Balances 0 1 5 10 17 23 1
G3. Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) 0 2 8 15 23 31 8
G4. Process Safety Management (PSM) 0 1 2 4 6 8 6
G5. Utility Flow Diagrams 0 1 3 6 9 12 3
G6. Specifications 0 1 4 8 12 17 1
G7. Piping System Requirements 0 1 2 4 6 8 2
G8. Plot Plan 0 1 4 8 13 17 8
G9. Mechanical Equipment List 0 1 4 9 13 18 4
G10. Line List 0 1 2 4 6 8 4
G11. Tie-in List 0 1 2 3 4 6 3
G12. Piping Specialty Items List 0 1 1 2 3 4 2
G13. Instrument Index 0 1 2 4 5 8 4
CATEGORY G TOTAL 48
H. EQUIPMENT SCOPE (Maximum Score = 33)
H1. Equipment Status 1 4 0 8 12 16 4
H2. Equipment Location Drawings 1 2 0 5 7 10 5
H3. Equipment Utility Requirements 1 2 0 3 5 7 5
CATEGORY H TOTAL 14
I. CIVIL, STRUCTURAL, & ARCHITECTURAL (Maximum Score = 19)
I1. Civil/Structural Requirements 0 1 3 6 9 12 3
I2. Architectural Requirements 0 1 2 4 5 7 2
CATEGORY I TOTAL 5

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

90
Appendix D. Sample of a Completed PDRI

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN (continued)


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. INFRASTRUCTURE (Maximum Score = 25)
J1. Water Treatment Requirements 1 3 05 7 10 5
J2. Loading/Unloading/Storage Facilities Req’mts
1 3 05 7 10 7
J3. Transportation Requirements 1 2 03 4 5 1
CATEGORY J TOTAL 13
K. INSTRUMENT & ELECTRICAL (Maximum Score = 46)
K1. Control Philosophy 0 1 3 5 7 10 3
K2. Logic Diagrams 0 1 2 3 3 4 1
K3. Electrical Area Classifications 0 0 2 4 7 9 0
K4. Substation Req’mts Power Sources Ident. 0 1 3 5 7 9 7
K5. Electric Single Line Diagrams 0 1 2 4 6 8 2
K6. Instrument & Electrical Specifications 0 1 2 3 5 6 2
CATEGORY K TOTAL 15
Section II Maximum Score = 423 SECTION II TOTAL 145

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

91
Appendix D. Sample of a Completed PDRI

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
L. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 16)
L1. Identify Long Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls 0 1 2 4 6 8 1
L2. Procurement Procedures and Plans 0 0 1 2 4 5 0
L3. Procurement Responsibility Matrix 0 0 1 2 2 3 0
CATEGORY L TOTAL 1
M. DELIVERABLES (Maximum Score = 9)
M1. CADD/Model Requirements 0 0 1 1 2 4 1
M2. Deliverables Defined 0 0 1 2 3 4 1
M3. Distribution Matrix 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
CATEGORY M TOTAL 2
N. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 17)
N1. Project Control Requirements 0 0 2 4 6 8 0
N2. Project Accounting Requirements 0 0 1 2 2 4 0
N3. Risk Analysis 0 1 2 3 4 5 5
CATEGORY N TOTAL 5
P. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (Maximum Score = 36)
P1. Owner Approval Requirements 0 0 2 3 5 6 5
P2. Engineering/Construction Plan & Approach 0 1 3 5 8 11 3
P3. Shut Down/Turn-Around Requirements 0 1 3 4 6 7 0
P4. Pre-Commiss. Turnover Sequence Req’mts 0 1 1 2 4 5 1
P5. Startup Requirements 0 0 1 2 3 4 1
P6. Training Requirements 0 0 1 1 2 3 1
CATEGORY P TOTAL 11
Section III Maximum Score = 78 SECTION III TOTAL 19

PDRI TOTAL SCORE


Maximum Score = 1000
397

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

92
Appendix E:
Logic Flow Diagrams

93
Appendix F:
Facilitation Instructions

From observation, an external facilitator (a person who is not directly involved


with the project), has proven to be an essential ingredient in ensuring that the
PDRI assessment session is effective. The facilitator, who may be internal to the
organization or an outside consultant, should be experienced in front end planning
of the type of facility under consideration and have excellent facilitation skills.
The following issues should be addressed by the facilitator for to prepare for and
conduct the PDRI assessment.

Pre-meeting Activities
The facilitator should establish a meeting with the project manager/engineer
to receive a briefing on the nature and purpose of the project to be evaluated. The
objective of this meeting is to learn enough about the project to ask intelligent/
probing questions of the project team members while conducting the session. Many
times, the “open ended” discussions concerning key elements provides the most
value when conducting a PDRI assessment. Therefore, it is the responsibility of
the facilitator to ask the types of questions that will result in an open discussion.
Gaining some insight prior to the assessment helps in this regard.

This meeting also serves as a good time to preview the PDRI elements to see
if some of them do not apply to the project at hand. This is especially true for
smaller renovation projects. In some cases, it is obvious that some of the elements
do not apply and these can be removed in advance to save the team some time
in the assessment.

The facilitator should inform the project manager that this is her/his opportunity
to listen to the team members to see how well they understand the scope of work.
The project manager should work with the facilitator to probe the planning team
and the owner to ensure clear two-way understanding of scope requirements and
expectations. If the project manager dominates the discussion, and subsequent
scoring, the rest of the design team will quickly “clam up” and fall in line. This
will result in a PDRI assessment that reflects the understanding of the project
manager, not the team members.

95
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

The facilitator should remind the project manager that the PDRI assessment
session is an opportunity to team build and align the team members on the critical
requirements for the project. Experience has shown that serving food (perhaps
lunch or breakfast) can help to increase participation as well as interaction between
team members.

The facilitator and project manager should discuss the key stakeholders who
should attend the session. Ensure that all key stakeholders are in attendance.
Reducing the number of attendees will make the session go more efficiently,
but this may compromise the true value of the PDRI assessment. Work with the
project manager to send out meeting notices in time for the major stakeholders
to be able to attend.

Logistics
The facilitator should ensure that the facilities are large enough to accommodate
the key project stakeholders in comfort. One method of assessment is to utilize a
computer projector to keep score as assessment progresses. Therefore, a room with
a screen, computer, and projector is a plus. The PDRI can be conducted manually
as well. When conducting manually, each participant will require a copy of the
score sheet and Element Definitions so they can follow along.

The assessment session takes approximately two to four hours per project.
An inexperienced team, or a very complex project, may well take the full four
hours. As teams within an organization get accustomed to the PDRI sessions,
the time will drop to around two hours. However, it is the discussion occurring
during the assessment session that is perhaps its most important benefit. Do not
allow an artificial time limit to restrain the open communications between team
members.

Some organizations conduct the sessions over an extended lunch period. In


these situations, it is best to start with a short lunch period as an ice breaker,
then conduct the session. The facilitator should ensure that the room is set up
in advance.

q Make sure the computer, projector, and programs are


functioning.
q Make sure a flip chart is available.

96
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

q Set up the notes and Action Items pages.


q Make sure all participants have the proper handouts.
q When using the automated PDRI scoring programs,
make sure the operator is skilled. Lack of computer
skills and preparation can lead to ineffectiveness.
q Ensure the programs are loaded and working prior to
the session.
q Identify a scribe to capture actions on a flip chart as
the session progresses.

Participants
Suggested attendees of the assessment session may include:

q Engineering Team Discipline Leads and Support


Services as required
q Project Manager/Project Engineer(s)
q Owner Engineering Project Representatives
q Owner Business Sponsor
q Owner Operations – Key Personnel
q Owner Support Services – Maintenance, Construction,
Safety, Environmental, Logistics, QA/QC, Procurement
q Contractors if possible

It is important that all assessment session participants come prepared to actively


engage in the assessment. Typically this can be facilitated by sending the PDRI
assessment sheets and element descriptions out ahead of time with a pre-reading
assignment. Expectations of participants include:

q All should be prepared to discuss their understanding


and concerns of the elements that apply to them.
q Design/engineering should be prepared to explain
what they are doing in regards to each PDRI element.
q Owner representatives should voice their
expectations, and question the design team to ensure
understanding.

97
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

Roles and responsibilities during the assessment session should include:

q The project manager should assist the facilitator to


probe the team members for answers and insight.
q The facilitator will ensure that everyone has an
opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns.

Conducting the session:

q The facilitator should provide the team members with a


short overview of the PDRI.
q The facilitator or project manager should define the
purpose of the assessment session.
q The project manager should give a quick update of the
project and its status, including progress supporting the
estimate and plan.
q The facilitator should explain the scoring mechanism
(definition levels 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), and explain that
the evaluation is not a democratic exercise, rather it is a
consensus activity.
q The facilitator should explain that certain elements may
apply more to certain team members or stakeholders.
Make sure that these key stakeholders have the greatest
say in deciding on level of definition.
q The facilitator should keep the session moving and
not allowing the participants to “bog down.” Many
times the participants want to “solve the problem”
during the assessment session. Do not allow this to
happen. Remember, the session is to perform a detailed
assessment only, and actions can be performed later.
q The facilitator should always challenge assumptions
and continue to ask the question, “Is the material in
writing?”

Assessment Session Objectives:


1. Capture the degree of definition for each element.
2. Capture significant comments from open discussions.
3. Capture Action Items, assign responsibility and due dates (either at
the end of the session, or shortly thereafter).
4. Ensure that the team understands the notes captured and agrees
with the path forward.
5. Create alignment among the session attendees.

98
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

Roles and responsibilities/expectations:

q Post-session activities: The facilitator should ensure


that the PDRI notes, action items, and score card are
published within 48 hours of the sessions. The ideal
target is 24 hours.
q The facilitator should stay engaged with the team if
possible to ensure that all Action Items are completed
as required to support the scope definition process.
q The project manager should ensure that the actions
are addressed.

Small Project Considerations:


q Small retro-fit projects or single discipline projects
may have several elements that do not apply.
q As previously mentioned, the facilitator and project
manager can meet ahead of time to identify some of
these elements.
q Assigning a zero to a significant number of PDRI
elements can greatly affect the score. It is best
to use the normalized score in this case. In these
cases, less significant elements can have a more
significant impact on the overall score. Be careful in
interpretation of this score.

The PDRI was originally designed to evaluate the definition of an entire unit,
building, or facility. On smaller retro-fit projects, the facilitator may have to “make
the leap” from an entire facility to a small component of an existing facility. For
example, a project to install a new substation, may not have a product, technology,
or require process simplification. It does, however, have a design capacity that it
is expected by the owner/operators.

Experience has shown that the smaller retro-fit projects do not get the same
level of attention from owner operations that a larger project might receive. In
many cases, the PDRI may be the very first time the design team has met with
the owner operations personnel to discuss the expectations of the project. The
facilitator must be fully aware of these situations before conducting the session
and make a special effort to ensure:
1. The owner’s operation personnel attend the session.
2. Open discussions take place to ensure understanding.

99
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

Alliance-Planned Projects
Many of the smaller projects may be conducted by an alliance design firm.
These firms act as the design/engineering capability for the facility owner and
may execute numerous small projects per year. Many of the PDRI elements
refer to location, standards, stress requirements, hazard analysis, deliverables,
accounting, and other repetitive requirements. In these types of projects, the
facilitator will merely have to question, “Is there anything different or unusual
about this project for this element?” It is also a good time to ask if there is any
opportunity for improvement in any of these areas that would improve this project
and other projects to follow.

100
Project title/date:
(Sorted in order of PDRI element)
PDRI
Item PDRI Level of Date
Element Item Description Responsible
# Element(s) Definition Completed
Score

Example Action List


Appendix G:
101
Appendix G. Example Action List
102

Project Assessment Session Action Items, June 22, 200x


(Sorted in order of PDRI element)
PDRI
Item PDRI Level of Date
Element Item Description Responsible
# Element(s) Definition Completed
Score

1 A2 2 3 Resolve recycle maintenance philosophy issues July 1, 200x John Ramos

2 B4 1 1 Issue affordability/feasibility report to the team July 1, 200x Jake Blinn

3 B5 1 2 Confirm distribution for finished product July 1, 200x Sue Howard

4 F2 2 4 Complete soil testing for duct work July 15, 200x Jose Garcia

5 F4 1 1 Monitor all open permits Ongoing Jake Blinn

Waste gas, water treatment, HVAC, and misc. balance of


6 G9 3 9 July 31, 200x Tina Towne
plant mechanical equipment list

And so on…..
References

1. Gibson, G. Edward, Jr. and Peter R. Dumont. “Project Definition


Rating Index (PDRI) for Industrial Projects.” Research Report 113-11,
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1995.

2. Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment. Research Summary


113-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1997.

3. Alignment During Pre-Project Planning. Implementation Resource 113-3,


Version 4.0, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2013.

4. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index – Building Projects. Implementation


Resource 155-2, Version 4.0, Construction Industry Institute, Austin,
Texas, 2013.

5. Ray, M. P., G. E. Gibson, and W. A. Lyons. “Data Analysis to Support


Front End Planning Implementation.” Research Report 213-11,
Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2005.

6. Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price. Research Summary
213-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2006.

7. Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp: An Overview. Research


Summary 242-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2008.

8. Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp. Implementation Resource


242-2, Version 1.1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2014.

9. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index – Infrastructure Projects,


Implementation Resource 268-2, Version 4.0, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, Texas, 2013.

103
Front End Planning Research Team
(1994–97)

Galen L. Anderson, Aluminum Company of America


* Peter R. Dumont, The University of Texas at Austin
John R. Fish, Process Services
Steven P. Flodder, Amoco
Richard A. Gassert, Day & Zimmermann International
* G. Edward Gibson, Jr., The University of Texas at Austin
Richard V. Gorski, Delta Hudson International
David B. Hiskey, Sordoni Skanska Construction
Thomas B. Majors III, Rust Engineering & Construction
William McCauley, Shell Oil Company
Robert J. McNulty III, DuPont
James G. Slaughter, S&B Engineers & Constructors, Chairman
James D. Sutherland, Enron Operations
Prem R. Tandon, Star Enterprise

Past Membership:
Rusty R. Allen, Union Carbide
Charles J. Madewell, Dillingham Construction
Chakravarthy Raghu, Bechtel Group
F. M. Reyes, Phillips Petroleum
Robert A. Scharnell, Chevron Petroleum Technology

* Principal authors

Editor: Rusty Haggard


Support for Pre-Project Planning Research Team
(2004–06)

Timothy Albrecht, 3M
Chris Booth, WorleyParsons
Frank Boyda, Rohm and Haas
Daniel Buswell, Zurich
Don Cooley, CH2M HILL/Lockwood Greene
Michael L. Cowser, Fluor Corporation
Joe Dollar, Anheuser-Busch
David Dykes, Yates Construction
John R. Fish, Ford, Bacon & Davis
* G. Edward Gibson, Jr., The University of Texas at Austin
Dave Hall, Intel
Christopher S. Haynes, Bechtel National, Inc.
Marcus Herbert, U.S. Department of State
Josephine Hurtado, Zachry Construction
Kyle Irons, The University of Texas at Austin
Robert P. Kehoe, NASA
James Livermore, Weyerhaeuser
Judson J. McIntire, Smithsonian Institution
Paul Menne, Burns & McDonnell
Youssef Mouzaya, Amgen, Chair
John Pinho, Intel
Michael Ray, The University of Texas at Austin
Sam Scucci, The Shaw Group
Gerald B. Wall, U.S. General Services Administration
Dick Westbrook, Mustang Engineers & Constructors
Gary Wilkes, Mustang Engineers & Constructors

* Coordinating author

Editor: Rusty Haggard


Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp Research Team
(2006–08)

Bill Barnett, BE&K


Ken Bryson, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Daniel Buswell, Zurich
Eskil Carlsson, CSA Group
Dennis Chastain, Mustang Engineers & Constructors
Don Cooley, CH2M Hill
Charles Craig, Dresser-Rand
Qingbin Cui, The University of Alabama
John R. Fish, S&B Engineers & Constructors, Chair
* G. Edward Gibson, Jr., The University of Alabama
Joel Guess, Harper Industries
Chris Holcomb, Eastman Chemical Company
Suzanne Howard, The University of Alabama
John Moore, Ontario Power Generation
William Pew, DuPont
Neil Platt, Shell Oil Products
Faron Rollins, Ontario Power Generation
Stanley Scofield, U.S. Department of State
C. Robert Seay, Tennessee Valley Authority, Co-Chair
Mark Swanson, Burns & McDonnell
William Thorsen, General Motors Corporation
James Vicknair, WorleyParsons
Donald Whittington, The University of Alabama
Kwong Wong, U.S. Steel

* Coordinating author

Editor: Rusty Haggard


CII Member Organizations

Abbott AMEC
Air Products and Chemicals AZCO
Ameren Corporation Aecon Group
American Transmission Company Affiliated Construction Services
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Alstom Power
Anglo American Audubon Engineering Company
Anheuser-Busch InBev Baker Concrete Construction
Aramco Services Company Barton Malow Company
ArcelorMittal Bechtel Group
Architect of the Capitol Bentley Systems
BP America Bilfinger Industrial Services
Cargill Black & Veatch
Chevron Burns & McDonnell
ConocoPhillips CB&I
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CCC Group
DTE Energy CDI Engineering Solutions
The Dow Chemical Company CH2M HILL
DuPont CSA Central
Eastman Chemical Company Cannon Design
Ecopetrol Coreworx
Eskom Holdings SOC Day & Zimmermann
ExxonMobil Corporation Dresser-Rand Company
General Electric Company eProject Management
General Motors Company Emerson Process Management
GlaxoSmithKline Faithful+Gould
Global Infrastructure Partners Fluor Corporation
Huntsman Corporation Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
Intel Corporation Gross Mechanical Contractors
International Paper Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Irving Oil Limited Hilti Corporation
Kaiser Permanente Honeywell International
Koch Industries IHI E&C International Corporation
Eli Lilly and Company IHS
Linde North America International Rivers Consulting
LyondellBasell JMJ Associates
Marathon Petroleum Corporation JV Driver Projects
National Aeronautics & Space Administration Jacobs
NOVA Chemicals Corporation KBR
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kiewit Corporation
Ontario Power Generation Kvaerner North American Construction
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras Lauren Engineers & Constructors
Petroleos Mexicanos Leidos Constructors
Petronas Matrix Service Company
Phillips 66 McCarthy Building Companies
Pioneer Natural Resources McDermott International
Praxair Midwest Steel
The Procter & Gamble Company Parsons
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Pathfinder
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) POWER Engineers
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation PTAG
Sasol Technology Quality Execution
Shell Global Solutions US Richard Industrial Group
Smithsonian Institution The Robins & Morton Group
Southern Company S&B Engineers and Constructors
Statoil ASA SBM Offshore
SunCoke Energy SNC-Lavalin
Tennessee Valley Authority Skanska USA
TransCanada Corporation Supreme Group
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Technip
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/ Tenova
Engineering Laboratory TOYO-SETAL Engenharia
U.S. Department of Defense/ URS Corporation
Tricare Management Activity Victaulic
U.S. Department of Energy WESCO International, Inc.
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Walbridge
U.S. Department of State Wanzek Construction
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs The Weitz Company
U.S. General Services Administration Wilhelm Construction
Vale Willbros United States Holdings
The Williams Companies Wood Group Mustang
WorleyParsons
Yates Construction
Zachry Holdings
Zurich
Construction Industry Institute®

Project Definition Rating Index

Infrastructure Projects

Implementation Resource 268-2


Version 4.0
This page is intentionally blank.
PDRI:
Project Definition Rating Index –
Infrastructure Projects

Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure Projects Research Team

Construction Industry Institute

Implementation Resource 268-2

Version 4.0

October 2013
© 2013 Construction Industry Institute™

The University of Texas at Austin

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members are
permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed and no modifications may be made
without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member prices.
Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

Version 1.0 (July 2010)

Version 1.1 (August 2012) – minor figure corrections

Version 4.0 (October 2013) – Fixed scoring and run-time errors in the software tool; coordinated version number to match other
key front end planning products.
Foreword

Welcome to the fourth edition of the PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index –
Infrastructure Projects, a document developed by the CII Research Team 268,
PDRI for Infrastructure Projects. The significant software revisions of this edition
were a part of a larger CII effort to revise and update all of the tools included in
Implementation Resource 213-3, Version 4.0, The CII Front End Planning Toolkit.

Because it focuses on infrastructure projects, this PDRI tool filled a gap in CII’s
front end planning body of knowledge. With the original release of this publication,
CII completed the “trilogy” of planning tools focused on major capital projects,
the other two of which are Implementation Resource 113-2, PDRI for Industrial
Projects, and Implementation Resource 155-2, PDRI for Building Projects. Each
of these three resources complements the others and will be applicable to most
capital projects being constructed today, both new construction and renovation
projects. Indeed, infrastructure planners will undoubtedly use a combination of
these three tools, depending on the horizontal/vertical construction mix of their
particular programs.

In addition to this publication, an updated macro-enabled spreadsheet helps


project teams assess their projects. This Excel® file can be downloaded from the
CII online store, along with this publication, or found in the enclosed CD.

iii
Contents

Chapter Page

Foreword iii

1. What Is the PDRI? 1

2. Benefits of the PDRI 13

3. Instructions for Assessing a Project 17

4. What Does a PDRI Score Mean? 35

5. Concluding Remarks 39

Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet 41

Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet 45

Appendix C. Element Descriptions 49

Appendix D. Examples of Completed PDRIs 119

Appendix E. Logic Flow Diagrams 131

Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions 137

Appendix G. Example Action List 143

References 145
1
What Is the PDRI?

The PDRI for Infrastructure projects is a simple and easy-to-


use tool for measuring the degree of scope development.

The Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects is


a powerful and easy-to-use tool that offers a method to measure project scope
definition for completeness. It identifies and precisely describes each critical
element in a scope definition package. It also allows the project team to quickly
identify project risk factors related to the desired outcomes for cost, schedule,
and operating performance. Using the PDRI method, project teams can capture
mitigation action items as well. It is designed to evaluate the completeness of scope
definition at any point prior to detailed design and construction. (Note that there
are two other versions of the PDRI: one for building projects, CII Implementation
Resource 155-2, and one for industrial projects, Implementation Resource 113-2.)
This implementation resource addresses the infrastructure version of the method.

An infrastructure project is defined as a capital project that provides


transportation, transmission, distribution, collection, or other capabilities that
support commerce or the interaction of goods, services, or people. Infrastructure
projects generally cover a wide geographical area and affect multiple jurisdictions
and stakeholder groups. They are characterized as projects with a primary purpose
that is integral to the effective operation of a system. These collective capabilities
provide a service and are made up of nodes and vectors that form a grid or system
(e.g., pipelines are vectors that connect to nodes such as water treatment plants).
Further examples of vectors fall under the following categories:

People and freight:

• highways • tunnels
• railroads • airport runways
• access ramps • security fencing
• toll booths

1
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Energy:

• electricity transmission/ • towers


distribution
• wide area networks
• fiber optic networks
• electrical substations/switch
gears

Fluids:

• pipelines • meters and regulator stations


• aqueducts • pig launchers and receivers
• pumping and compressor • canals
stations
• water control structures
• locks, weirs
• levees
• reservoirs

Nodes/centralized facilities:

• dams • marine, rail or air terminals


• power generation facilities • water/waste water/solid waste
processing
• steam or chilled water
production • refineries.

In the context of built systems and according to this definition, an infrastructure


project provides the needed services and connections (vectors) that enable industrial
facilities and buildings to function effectively. If any of these vectors are disrupted
and redundancy is not built into the system, the entire system will fail to function
effectively. The diagram in Figure 1.1 illustrates such an integrated system, showing
how infrastructure vectors such as pipelines, electrical distribution, canals, rail,
and highways connection industrial facilities and buildings to a larger built system.

The PDRI is designed for use during front end planning (FEP), a project stage
that encompasses the project activities shown in Figure 1.2. As shown, these FEP
activities are performed up to Phase Gate 3 (the point at which the decision to fund
design and construction is made) and include feasibility, concept and detailed scope
definition. Front end planning has many other terms associated with it, including
“front end loading,” “pre-project planning,” “programming,” “schematic design,”
“design development,” and “sanctioning,” among others. Although the term “front

2
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Industrial Buildings

Infrastructure

Figure 1.1. Infrastructure Interrelationship Diagram

end planning” is used in this document, it should be considered synonymous to


the analogous term used in your business process. (More detailed information
on timing and process is provided below.) The original PDRI was envisioned as
a decision metric for funding detail design and project execution at Phase Gate
3, but experience has shown that, depending on project size and complexity, it
should be used more than once prior to arriving at this gate.

Design &
0 Feasibility 1 Concept 2 Detailed Scope 3 Construction

Front End Planning

Figure 1.2. Project Life Cycle Diagram

The PDRI–Infrastructure offers a comprehensive checklist of 68 scope definition


elements in an easy-to-use score sheet format. Each element is weighted based
on its relative importance to the other elements. Since the PDRI score relates to
risk, the areas that need further work can easily be isolated; once these problem
areas are identified mitigation actions can be documented. (The weighting

3
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

system is described in detail in Chapter 4.) As part of the development process


for the PDRI–Infrastructure, input was gained from 64 industry professionals
representing 37 organizations—15 owners and 21 contractors—with over 1400
years of individual experience in infrastructure projects.

The main characteristics of infrastructure, building, and industrial projects are


summarized in the Table 1.1. The table can be used to select the most appropriate
PDRI for any project under consideration.

Table 1.1. Project Sector Characteristics

PDRI Selection Matrix


Characteristics Infrastructure Building Industrial
Primary Designer civil engineer architect chemical,
mechanical,
industrial
Project horizontal vertical vertical
Orientation
System vector node node
Utilization conveyance functional use transformation
Operational flow dynamics, nodal consumptions
networked into a terminations and production
grid
Interface with extensive moderate minimal
Public
Environmental extensive moderate extensive
Impact
Primary Cost earthwork, building, building piping,
materials, system mechanical,
associated equipment
structures
Installed minimal moderate extensive
Equipment Cost
Land Cost moderate to high low to high low to moderate
Jurisdiction extensive moderate moderate
Interface

4
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

The reader may also refer to the following facility examples for further
clarification on PDRI selection. Applicable infrastructure-type projects may
include the horizontal construction of the following types of projects:

People and freight:

• highways • tunnels
• railroads • airport runways
• access ramps • security fencing

Energy:

• electricity transmission/ • towers


distribution
• wide area networks
• fiber optic networks
• electrical substations/switch
gears

Fluids:

• pipelines • locks, weirs


• aqueducts • reservoirs
• pumping and compressor • meters and regulator stations
stations

Nodes/centralized facilities:

• dams • marine, rail or air terminals


• power generation facilities • water/waste water/solid waste
processing
• steam or chilled water
production • refineries.

5
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

The Building PDRI (CII IR 155-2) is typically applied to the following types
of facilities:

• offices • toll booths


• schools (classrooms) • warehouses
• banks • light assembly and
manufacturing
• research and laboratory
facilities • churches
• medical facilities • airport terminals
• nursing homes • recreational and athletic
facilities
• institutional buildings
• public assembly and
• stores and shopping centers
performance halls
• dormitories
• industrial control buildings
• apartments
• government facilities.
• hotels and motels
• parking structures

The Industrial PDRI (CII IR 113-2) is typically applied to the following types
of facilities:

• oil/gas production facilities • steam heat/chilled water plants


• textile mills • manufacturing facilities
• chemical plants • food processing plants
• pharmaceutical plants • refineries
• paper mills • water/wastewater treatment
• steel/aluminum mills • plant upgrade/retrofit.
• power plants

All versions of the PDRI consider specific risk factors relating to new
construction (“greenfield”) projects and renovation-and-revamp (“R&R”) projects.
An R&R project is defined as one that is focused on an existing facility but does
not involve routine maintenance activities. It includes the act, process, or work
of replacing, restoring, repairing, or improving the facility with capital funds or
non-capital funds. It may include additional structures and systems to achieve a
more functional, serviceable, or desirable condition. These modifications include
improvements in profitability, reliability, efficiency, safety, security, environmental

6
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

performance, or compliance with regulatory requirements. R&R projects may


be known by numerous other names, such as repair, upgrade, modernization,
restoration, among others. More details about how to adapt the PDRI to R&R
projects will be given below. (For more information on how to manage front
end planning of R&R projects, see Implementation Resource 242-2, Front End
Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects.)

PDRI

The PDRI consists of three main sections, each of which is broken down into
a series of categories. The diagram of one part of the PDRI hierarchy in Figure 1.3
shows how these categories are divided into elements. Table 1.2 provides a complete
list of the PDRI’s three sections, 13 categories, and 68 elements.

PDRI

Section I
Section II Section III
Basis of Project
Basis of Design Execution Approach
Decision

Category G Category H
Category F
Location and Associated Structures
Site Information
Geometry and Equipment

Element G2 Element G3
Element G1
Horizontal & Cross-Sectional
Schematic Layouts
Vertical Alignment Elements

Figure 1.3. PDRI Partial Hierarchy

7
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Table 1.1. PDRI Sections, Categories, and Elements

I. BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION H. Associated Structures and Equipment


H1 Support Structures
A. Project Strategy
A1 Need & Purpose Documentation H2 Hydraulic Structures
A2 Investment Studies & Alternatives H3 Miscellaneous Elements
Assessments H4 Equipment List
A3 Key Team Member Coordination H5 Equipment Utility Requirements
A4 Public Involvement I. Project Design Parameters
B. Owner/Operator Philosophies I1 Capacity
B1 Design Philosophy I2 Safety & Hazards
B2 Operating Philosophy I3 Civil/Structural
B3 Maintenance Philosophy I4 Mechanical/Equipment
B4 Future Expansion & Alteration I5 Electrical/Controls
Considerations I6 Operations/Maintenance
C. Project Funding and Timing III. EXECUTION APPROACH
C1 Funding & Programming
J. Land Acquisition Strategy
C2 Preliminary Project Schedule J1 Local Public Agencies Contracts &
C3 Contingencies Agreements
D. Project Requirements J2 Long-Lead Parcel & Utility
D1 Project Objectives Statement Adjustment Identification &
D2 Functional Classification & Use Acquisition
D3 Evaluation of Compliance J3 Utility Agreement & Joint-Use
Requirements Contracts
D4 Existing Environmental Conditions J4 Land Appraisal Requirements
D5 Site Characteristics Available vs. J5 Advance Land Acquisition
Required Requirements
D6 Dismantling & Demolition K. Procurement Strategy
Requirements K1 Project Delivery Method &
D7 Determination of Utility Impacts Contracting Strategies
D8 Lead/Discipline Scope of Work K2 Long-Lead/Critical Equipment &
Materials Identification
E. Value Analysis
K3 Procurement Procedures & Plans
E1 Value Engineering Procedures
K4 Procurement Responsibility Matrix
E2 Design Simplification
E3 Material Alternatives Considered L. Project Control
E4 Constructability Procedures L1 Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost
Estimates
II. BASIS OF DESIGN L2 Design & Construction Cost
F. Site Information Estimates
F1 Geotechnical Characteristics L3 Project Cost Control
F2 Hydrological Characteristics L4 Project Schedule Control
F3 Surveys & Mapping L5 Project Quality Assurance &
F4 Permitting Requirements Control
F5 Environmental Documentation M. Project Execution Plan
F6 Environmental Commitments & M1 Safety Procedures
Mitigation M2 Owner Approval Requirements
F7 Property Descriptions M3 Documentation/Deliverables
F8 Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues M4 Computing & CADD/Model
G. Location and Geometry Requirements
G1 Schematic Layouts M5 Design/Construction Plan &
Approach
G2 Horizontal & Vertical Alignment
M6 Intercompany & Interagency
G3 Cross-Sectional Elements
Coordination & agreements
G4 Control of Access
M7 Work Zone and Transportation Plan
M8 Project Completion Requirements

8
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

The PDRI should be used in conjunction with Implementation Resource


113-3, Alignment during Pre-Project Planning, to ensure that critical risk issues
are addressed and that stakeholder interests are represented effectively in the
front end planning process.

Use the PDRI score sheet that is most closely related


to your project’s use or type.

In some cases, a project may include more than one type of facility. In such
cases, project team members should use their discretion in selecting the most
applicable PDRI (or combination of PDRIs), basing their decision on the relative
size and importance of the facilities. In general, when a project involves a hybrid
of infrastructure, industrial, and building types that have primarily been designed
by civil engineers, the PDRI for Infrastructure Projects should be used. It should
also be used if the project includes extensive horizontal construction and right-of-
way acquisition. If the primary designers for the project are architects, then the
PDRI for Buildings should be used. If the primary designers are process (chemical)
engineers or industrial (mechanical) engineers, then the PDRI for Industrial
Projects should be used. Alternatively, the team may look at the composition of
the project in terms of work (design or construction expenditures) to make the
decision. In some circumstances, the team may decide to use more than one PDRI
for the same project.

Following are examples of hybrid cases and the PDRIs appropriate to them:

Example 1: Toll Road

The project is a medium-sized toll road in Florida consisting of roads,


bridges, and toll stations. Toll roads and their associated structures (e.g., typical
bridges and toll stations) are considered as an infrastructure projects. Therefore,
the Infrastructure PDRI should be utilized in the definition rating of the whole
project. However, the owner may elect to treat the bridges and toll stations as
separate from the roads, due to their large construction costs or complexity. In
such an instance, the project team would need to use more than one PDRI. The
Infrastructure PDRI would be used for the toll road, the Building PDRI for the
toll stations, and a combination of the two PDRIs would be used for the bridge.

9
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Example 2: Hydroelectric Dam

The project is an integrated hydroelectric and irrigation project in Brazil


that consists of a reservoir, a network of irrigation canals, a major dam, a
hydroelectric plant, an electrical substation, and a long transmission line. Due
to the high costs of the major project components, using multiple PDRIs should
probably be considered at the project team’s discretion. For example, the team
could use an Infrastructure PDRI for the network of irrigational canals, a separate
Infrastructure PDRI for the long transmission line, and the industrial PDRI for
the dam, reservoir, hydroelectric plant and associated substation.

Many infrastructure projects (a pipeline, for example) require various types of


buildings to support the operations and maintenance efforts they require. These
facilities could consist of the following types of buildings:
• administration buildings
• toll booths
• warehouses
• control buildings
• maintenance facilities
• pumping stations
• security facilities.

In these cases, the Infrastructure PDRI should be used on the horizontal


component of the project, while the PDRI–Buildings should be used on each
building. If an entire assessment of each building is not possible, the PDRI–
Buildings score sheet should at least be used as a check list.

In addition, the user should determine whether the project is a renovation or


revamp project. Further, he or she should use the additional descriptions provided
in the tool to address critical R&R issues during front end planning. Figure 1.4
provides a decision diagram to determine this further effort. (Note that, if the
project includes a shutdown/turnaround/outage scenario, it is important that the
project planning team also use the Shutdown Turnaround Alignment Readiness
(STAR) front end planning tool provided in Implementation Resource 242-2,
Front End Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects, to help with the unique
issues associated with these types of events.)

10
Chapter 1. What Is the PDRI?

Decision has been made to use


the applicable PDRI

No Is this an Yes
R&R Project?

Use the applicable PDRI


Use the applicable PDRI
including the R&R descriptions
excluding R&R description.
in the element assessment.

Does this
project include Yes
a Shutdown or
Turnaround
activity? Use STAR
FEP Tool
No

Document Results/
Develop Action Plans/
Follow Up

Figure 1.4. Use of Additional Tools to Supplement PDRI

11
2
Benefits of the PDRI

Effective early project planning improves project performance, both in terms


of cost and schedule as it reinforces the importance of early scope definition and
in terms of its impact on project success. The PDRI allows a project planning
team to quantify, rate, and assess the level of scope development on projects prior
to detailed design and construction. Moreover, it is a means by which project
enablers can be identified early and acted upon. The PDRI is a pro-active project
management tool.

A significant feature of the PDRI is that it can be scaled or modified to fit


the needs of almost any individual project, small or large. Elements that are not
applicable to a specific project can be zeroed out, thus eliminating them from the
final scoring calculation.

Following is a list of the ways the PDRI for Infrastructure functions can be used:
• as a checklist that a project team can use to determine the necessary steps
for defining project scope, for both greenfield and R&R projects
• as a listing of standardized scope definition terminology for infrastructure
projects
• as an industry standard for rating the completeness of the project scope
definition package to facilitate risk assessment and prediction of escalation
potential for disputes
• as a means to monitor progress—when used successively—at various
stages of the front end planning effort
• as a tool that promotes communication and alignment between owners
and design contractors by highlighting poorly defined areas in a scope
definition package
• as a means for project team participants to reconcile differences, when
used as a common basis for project evaluation
• as a means by which members of a project team can identify enabling
tasks and act upon them before the project schedule becomes delayed
• as a training tool for organizations and individuals throughout the industry
• as a benchmarking tool for comparing completion of scope definition
on current projects against performance on past projects, both within
organizations and externally, in order to predict the probability of success
on future projects.

13
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI

Extent of Usage

A survey was conducted of the CII membership in 2004 to determine the extent
of PDRI usage; seventy of 92 CII members responded (76 percent). (Note that
the survey was conducted prior to development of the PDRI for Infrastructure.)
Of the 70 respondents, 43 organizations were then in the process of using the
PDRI on their capital projects, including 18 of 34 contractor and 25 of 36 owner
respondents. The PDRI for industrial projects had been used for an average of
4.3 years, while the PDRI for building projects had been used for an average of
2.7 years. Of importance within the survey was a description of how the tool was
used. (See Table 2.1.) These implementation uses are discussed in more detail below.

Table 2.1. Frequency of Use Among Organizations Using PDRI (N=43)


The PDRI is used: Frequency
As a planning checklist in early project development 81%
As a “gate” check before moving to project execution 72%
In conjunction with other front end planning measurement 72%
methods (i.e., prepare for third party evaluations, internal
measures)
As a means of measuring or benchmarking front end 70%
planning process performance
More than once on most projects 42%
As an audit tool 42%
In a modified form for small or unusual projects 33%
To help capture lessons learned 28%
With the help of an outside facilitator 29%

Who Should Use the PDRI?

Any organization wishing to improve the overall performance


on its projects should use the PDRI.

The PDRI can benefit owners, designers, and constructors. Owners can use it
as an assessment tool for establishing a comfort level that, when reached, prompts
them to move forward with projects. Designers and constructors can use it as a
method of identifying poorly-defined project scope elements. By functioning as
an objective tool that provides a common basis for project scope evaluation, the
PDRI provides a means for all project participants to communicate and reconcile

14
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI

any differences they have. Because the PDRI for Infrastructure can accommodate
the jurisdictional intricacies, engineering complexities, and critical phasing issues
that are inherent to most infrastructure projects, it is a tool that offers unique
benefits to owners, users, and the public.

Owners should use the tool as a formal checklist of items that need to be
clearly defined and communicated to ensure that the design team fully understands
the project business objectives and drivers. Initially, owners should focus on the
elements in Section I, the Basis of Business Decision. Accurate definition of these
items will provide the strongest possible foundation on which the design team
can make its decisions going forward. These items should be well defined at
Phase Gate 2. As the project passes through the other phases, the owners should
participate in the PDRI assessment sessions to ensure that the design team has
correctly understood its requirements and is meeting the owner team expectations.
Attendance at these sessions also provides an opportunity for the owner and the
stakeholders—including operations and maintenance—to gain an understanding
of the project and any issues pertaining to compliance with mandates. This
sustained communication is essential to ensure that the design team is meeting
the expectations and requirements of the owner stakeholders.

The PDRI is valuable for planning inter-jurisdictional infrastructure projects


because, at an early stage, it prompts the owner and design team to validate their
business and design assumptions against the will of the public and jurisdictional
requirements. This assessment should be undertaken at Phase Gates 0 and 1, and
then should be confirmed with the public and any stakeholder jurisdictions in
hearings and meetings prior to proceeding with detailed scope development. Use
of the PDRI–Infrastructure at this early stage will identify public issues prior to
engagement, and the project team can have properly researched solutions and
recommendations ready for public comment.

Contractors may become involved in projects at various points of the front end
planning process and should use the PDRI to organize their work. Contractors
should also use the PDRI as an alignment tool to understand and participate in
the development of the owner’s business objectives and drivers; using it in this way
facilitates the design team’s understanding of the elements defined in Section I,
the Basis of Business Decision. The team should use this alignment check to make
decisions concerning cost, quality, and schedule as the project progresses through
the scope definition stage and into execution. As front end planning progresses, the

15
Chapter 2. Benefits of the PDRI

PDRI process helps the contractor clarify requirements outlined in Sections I and
II of the PDRI. It also ensures the right input from key owner stakeholders, such
as operations and maintenance, process engineering, research and development,
manufacturing, and business, among others. The elements contained in Section III
of the PDRI helps the contractor coordinate and execute planning in conjunction
with the owner organization.

Contractors are often given a request for proposal (RFP) on projects for which
the owner has defined all or a portion of the project scope, or for which the owner
has hired a third party engineering firm to develop the scope definition package.
In such instances, it is imperative that the contractor perform a PDRI assessment
as a risk analysis to determine the degree of definition; this kind of risk analysis
will help the contractor identify the potential weaknesses/areas of concern before
responding to the RFP. The contractor should make every attempt to get as many
of the project stakeholders as possible involved in this PDRI assessment session
to assure that the team is making the correct evaluations and assumptions before
proceeding to the next stage.

Contractors also may use the PDRI to determine if the work within their
control is ready to move to the next step. Many contractors spend a portion of the
project development effort performing design, procurement, and constructability
reviews prior to the work starting in the field. For instance, the PDRI can be used
to determine if, prior to the start of underground work or to the selection of a
subcontractor to perform the work, sufficient definition has been developed to
minimize schedule and/or cost impacts that may trigger mitigating strategies. This
can also be done prior to staring other major activities at the construction site.

Many infrastructure projects are broken into separate segments or phases,


and a PDRI–Infrastructure assessment should be conducted for each. In these
situations, coordination should be performed to ensure that critical issues are
addressed and that lessons are learned.

16
3
Instructions for Assessing a Project

Assessing a project is as easy as 1-2-3.

Individuals involved in front end planning should use the Project Score Sheet
shown in Appendices A and B when assessing a project. Two score sheets are
provided: the first is simply the unweighted checklist in Appendix A; the second
contains the weighted values and allows a front end planning team to quantify
the level of scope definition at any stage of the project on a 1000-point scale. The
unweighted version should be used in the team scoring process to prevent bias
in choosing the level of definition and in “targeting” a specific score. The team
leader or facilitator can easily score the project as the weighting session is being
held. If the project includes renovation work, the team should use the supplemental
issues to consider that are provided in selected element descriptions.

When to Use PDRI

The PDRI is a powerful tool that should be used at points throughout front
end planning to ensure continued alignment, process check-ups, and a continual
focus on the key project priorities. Many companies now find value in utilizing
this tool at various points in the early project planning process.

Project size, complexity, and duration will help determine the optimum times
that the PDRI tool should be used. To aid in the expanded use of this tool, Figure 3.1
illustrates four potential application points at which the PDRI could be useful.

Potential PDRI Application Points

1 2 2i 3

Design &
0 Feasibility 1 Concept 2 Detailed Scope 3 Construction

Front End Planning

Figure 3.1. Employing the PDRI, Application Points

17
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Regardless of the timing of the PDRI assessment, the same checklist/descriptions


should be used. The evaluation should be conducted according to the guidelines
outlined below. Objectives and overall scores of the PDRI assessments are given
in the following discussions.

PDRI 1 Review – This is a high-level assessment of the project following


Feasibility and prior to Phase Gate 1. It is part of the decision criteria for proceeding
to the next phase. This assessment is typically held for projects at the initial project
kick-off meeting, when an architect/engineering firm is brought on board. The
PDRI 1 Review should focus on the following areas:
• aligning the team with project objectives
• ensuring good communication between business/sponsor to project/
contractor team
• highlighting stakeholder expectations to facilitate reasonable engineering
estimates.

Typical PDRI scores at this assessment will be in the range of 550–800.

PDRI 2 Review – This is a high-level assessment of the project following


the Concept Development phase of the project, or Phase Gate 2. It is part of the
decision criteria for proceeding to the next phase. PDRI Section I, the Basis of
Project Decision, should be well-defined (with a low relative PDRI score) at the
end of this phase. For small or relatively simple projects, this assessment may not
be necessary. In addition, the PDRI 2 Review should focus on the following areas:
• aligning project objectives and stakeholders needs
• identifying high priority project deliverables that need to be completed
• helping to eliminate late project surprises
• facilitating communication across the project team and stakeholders.

Typical PDRI scores at this phase of the project may be in the range of 450–600.
The assessment will highlight the areas on which resources need to be focused
during the succeeding phase of front end planning.

18
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

PDRI 2i Review – This is an intermediate (i) assessment of the project during


the Detailed Scope phase of a project. It typically should be held midway through
this phase. Section II, the Basis of Design, and Section III, the Execution Approach,
should be well-defined during this phase of the project. The PDRI 2i Review
should focus on the following areas:
• assuring alignment of project objectives and stakeholders needs
• confirming that resources are properly deployed to get the largest value
for the time and effort being applied
• verifying scope in relation to the original project goals
• identifying and planning remaining activities to achieve the level of detail
necessary to complete front end planning in preparation for Phase Gate 3.

Typical PDRI scores at this phase of the project may be in the range of 300–450.

PDRI 3 Review – This is typically the final assessment of the project at the
end of front end project planning, prior to Phase Gate 3. The PDRI 3 assessment
should be conducted for all projects. At this stage, risk issues have been identified
and mitigation plans are in place or are being developed. Typical scores for this
review are 150 to 250, with a target of typically 200 or below.

In addition to the four PDRI reviews outlined above, the tool can be used at
other points. For instance, it can be used early in Feasibility as a checklist to help
organize work effort, or during the design phase (after Phase Gate 3) to verify
the design before moving on to construction. It has been used effectively as an
alignment tool during the kick-off of design/build projects.

Figure 3.2 shows approximate ranges of overall project scores based on the
timing of the assessment during front end planning. As planning progresses, the
level of definition improves and the overall score is reduced.

19
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

1000

800

600
PDRI
Score
400
Project Requires
Intervention
Good Project
200 Definition
Very Well
Defined Project
0
Feasibility Concept Detailed Scope

Figure 3.2. Score Ranges versus Planning Phase

As noted above, the PDRI consists of three main sections that are broken
down into 13 categories. The categories are further divided into 68 elements. The
elements are individually described in Appendix C, Element Descriptions. Elements
should be rated numerically from 0 to 5. The scores range from 0 – not applicable,
1 – complete definition to 5 – incomplete or poor definition, as indicated in the
legend at the bottom of the score sheet. The elements that are as well-defined as
possible should receive a perfect definition level of “one.” Elements that are not
completely defined should receive a “two,” “three,” “four,” or “five,” depending
on their levels of definition as determined by the team. A score of 2 indicates minor
deficiencies, a score of 3 indicates some deficiencies, and a score of 4 indicates
major deficiencies. Those elements deemed not applicable to the project under
consideration should receive a “zero,” and thus will not affect the final score.

It should be noted that establishing the basis for determining the level of
definition depends on developing the overall project scope of work such that
the project has a higher probability of achieving a cost or schedule estimate at
the ±10 percent level at Phase Gate 3. This level of definition roughly relates to
approximately 25–30 percent of design completion for the entire project.

Figure 3.3 outlines a method of assessing the level of definition of an element


at a given point in time. For those elements that are completely defined, no
further work is needed during front end planning. For those elements with minor

20
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

deficiencies, no further work is needed during the front end planning phase, and
the issue will not affect cost and schedule performance; however, the minor issues
identified will need to be tracked and addressed as the project proceeds into the
design phase. Elements that are assessed as having some deficiencies, as having
major deficiencies, or as incomplete should be addressed during front end planning
so that the project can move through Phase Gate 3.

WELL Defined POORLY Defined

CATEGORY 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
Element

Not Applicable

COMPLETE Definition
No further work required

MINOR Deficiencies
No further work required
prior to Phase Gate 3

SOME Deficiencies
Needs more work
prior to Phase Gate 3

MAJOR Deficiencies
Needs a lot more work
prior to Phase Gate 3

INCOMPLETE or POOR Definition


Little or nothing known

Figure 3.3. PDRI Definition Levels versus Further Work Required


During Front End Planning

The relative level of definition of a PDRI element is also tied to its importance to
the project at hand. The PDRI’s flexibility allows the project team some leeway in
assessing individual element definitions. For instance, if the issues missing from the
scope documentation of a particular PDRI element are integral to project success
(and to reduction of risk), the team can perhaps rate the issue at definition level
“three,” “four,” or even “five”. On a different project, the absence of definition
of these same issues within a PDRI element may not be of concern, and the team
might decide to rate the element at definition level “two.” As the old saying goes,
“do not turn off your brain” when you are using this tool.

21
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Assessing a PDRI Element

To assess an element, first refer to the Project Assessment Sheet in Appendix


A or B. Next, read its corresponding description in Appendix C. Some elements
contain a list of items that should be considered when their levels of definition
are evaluated. These lists may be used as checklists. Additional issues may be
applicable for renovation projects. All elements have five pre-assigned scores, one
for each of the five possible levels of definition.

Choose only one definition level (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) for each element based on
the perception of how well it has been addressed. The suggested method for making
this determination is open discussion among the project team members. When
considering the completeness of the PDRI elements, the front end planning team
needs to take into account the project’s desired operating performance alongside the
desired cost and schedule outcomes. It is important that all participants understand
the issues surrounding each of the elements and that the project leaders promote
a common understanding of the work required to achieve complete definition. It
is important to defer to the team members who are most knowledgeable about
any given issues (for example, storm water issues are deferred to the civil and
environmental discipline leads), while respecting the concerns of any of the other
team members. As the discussion unfolds, capture action items or “gaps.” An
example action item (gap) list is given in Appendix G.

Once you have chosen the appropriate definition level for the element, write
the value of the score that corresponds to the level of definition chosen in the
“Score” column. Do this for each of the 68 elements on the Project Score Sheet.
Be sure to assess each element.

The scores for all of the elements within a category should be added to produce
a total score for that category. The scores for all of the categories within a section
should then be added to arrive at a section score. Finally, the three section scores
should be added to achieve a total PDRI score.

Assessment Example

Consider that you are a member of a front end planning team responsible for
developing the scope definition package for a roadway project that will provide
vehicular access to a new midfield terminal project that is currently under

22
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

construction at a major international airport. Throughout front end planning,


your team has identified major milestones at which you plan to use the PDRI
to evaluate the current level of “completeness” of the scope definition package.
Assume that at the time of this particular evaluation the scope development effort
is underway, but it is not yet complete.

Your responsibility is to evaluate how well the project control requirements


have been identified and defined to date. This information is covered in PDRI
Category L, Project Control. As shown below, this category consists of five elements:
L1 Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates; L2, Design & Construction Cost
Estimates; L3, Project Cost Control; L4, Project Schedule Control; and L5, Project
Quality Assurance & Control. The unweighted assessment sheet is recommended
when projects are evaluated in a team setting.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
L. PROJECT CONTROL
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates
L2. Design and Construction Cost Estimates
L3. Project Cost Control
L4. Project Schedule Control
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

To fill out Category L, Project Control, follow the steps below:

Step 1: Read the description for each element in Appendix C. Some elements
contain a list of items that should be considered when their levels of
definition are evaluated. These lists may be used as checklists.

Step 2: Collect all data that you may need to properly evaluate and select the
definition level for each element in this category. This may require
input from other individuals involved in the scope development
effort.

23
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Step 3: Select the definition level for each element as described and show
below.

Element L1: Requirements for right-of-way and utility cost


estimates have been well defined. The project is being
constructed on existing airport property, therefore
there are no property acquisition costs. However,
utilities must still be brought to the site, and existing
utilities will require modification. The cost estimates
for the third party utility work to bring power to the
site are not entirely complete. You feel that this element
has some deficiencies that should be addressed prior
to authorization of the project. Definition Level = 3.

Element L2: Your team has prepared a thorough design and


construction cost estimate based upon the project’s
current design status. Reasonable contingencies as
well as labor/material escalation values have been
established. Your team recognizes that there are
unique insurance requirements that are necessary
on jobsites located around an operational airfield;
however, these have not yet been fully identified nor
have their costs been determined. You feel that this
element has some minor deficiencies that should
be addressed prior to authorization of the project.
Definition Level = 2.

Element L3: Although your team plans to specify methods for cost
control and financial reporting, it has not yet done
this work. Prior to starting work on this element, your
team had been focusing its efforts on completing the
costs elements as defined in element L2. The team is
particularly concerned about cash flow projections
and the costs of each of the project’s multiple phases.
It is incomplete. Definition Level = 5.

Element L4: Requirements for the project’s schedule are well


defined:
• the baseline schedule for both design and
construction has been established
• project phases have been identified
• long lead items have been researched and
considered

24
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

• municipality and airport review requirements


have been reviewed and their timing
requirements have been incorporated
• procurement methods and timing have been
established.
The project requires significant coordination and
phasing with numerous user groups and multiple
construction contracts. While the milestones for
each of these phases have been defined, not all of
the current completion dates for each of these phases
have been verified and updated. You feel that this
element has some minor deficiencies that should be
addressed prior to the authorization of the project.
Definition Level = 2.

Element L5: Your team has outlined the basic framework for the
project’s quality assurance and control. However,
these requirements only exist in outline format.
Decisions regarding responsibility of QA/QC during
the construction phase have not been finalized. The
type and requirements for the QA/QC system have
been started, but are also only in outline format. This
element has major deficiencies. Definition Level = 4.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
L. PROJECT CONTROL
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates X
L2. Design and Construction Cost Estimates X
L3. Project Cost Control X
L4. Project Schedule Control X
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control X

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

25
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

As the discussion progresses, be sure to capture action items and


comments for use during the final step of the PDRI process. This
accrued set of items and comments is referred to as a “gap” list
because it isolates the issues that need to be addressed to move the
project forward and identifies any gaps in the planning activities.

Step 4: For each element, write the score that corresponds to its level of
definition in the “Score” column. If the team feels that any or all
of the elements in a category are not applicable for a project, they
should be given a definition level of “0” and zeroed out. The weighted
score sheet is given below with the elements circled for the chosen
definition levels in this example.

Step 5: Add the element scores to obtain a category score. Repeat this process
for each element in the PDRI. In this example, the category has a
total score of 45. Add category scores to obtain section scores.

Definition Level
CATEGORY
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
L. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 80)
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates 0 1 3 5 7 10 7
L2. Design and Construction Cost Estimates 0 2 8 14 20 25 8
L3. Project Cost Control 0 1 5 9 13 15 15
L4. Project Schedule Control 0 1 5 9 13 17 5
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control 0 1 4 7 10 13 10
CATEGORY L TOTAL 45

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

Add section scores to obtain a total PDRI score. Completed PDRI


score sheets for fluid, people and freight, and energy projects are
included in Appendix D for reference.

Step 6: Take Action. In this example, Category L has a total score of 45


(out of 80 total points). The element scores indicate that the project
needs more work for elements L2, L3 and L5. Use the gap list to
identify issues that need additional attention.

26
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Philosophy of Use

Ideally, the project team conducts a PDRI evaluation at various points in


the project. Experience has shown that the scoring process works best in a
team environment, with a neutral facilitator who understands the process. The
facilitator provides objective feedback to the team and controls the pace of team
meetings. (See Appendix F for details on facilitation.) If this team-facilitator
arrangement is not possible, an alternative approach is to have key individuals
evaluate the project separately, then evaluate it together and ultimately agree on
a final evaluation. Even using the PDRI from an individual standpoint provides
a method for project evaluation. For example, the right-of-way (ROW) discipline
lead may utilize applicable portions of the PDRI to isolate land acquisition and
jurisdictional issues in order to stimulate discussion on areas of interest and/or
to evaluate potential risk areas. Such targeted assessments may help the project
team determine long lead or extended timeframe areas.

Experience has shown that the PDRI is best used as a tool to help project
managers (i.e., project coordinators and project planners) organize and monitor
the progress of the front end planning effort. In many cases, a planner may use
the PDRI prior to the formation of a team in order to understand major risk areas.
Using the PDRI early in the project life cycle will usually lead to high PDRI scores.
This initial result is normal, and the completed score sheet will give a road map
of areas that are weak in terms of definition.

The PDRI provides an excellent tool to use in early project team meetings
insofar as it provides a means for team members to align themselves on the project
and organize their work. Experienced PDRI users feel that the final PDRI score
is less important than the process used to arrive at that score. The PDRI can
also provide an effective means of handing the project off to other entities or
of maintaining continuity as new project participants are added to the project.

If the organization has front end planning procedures, execution standards,


and deliverables in place, many PDRI elements may be partially defined when the
project begins its front end planning. An organization may want to standardize
many of the PDRI elements to improve cycle time of planning activities.

PDRI scores may change on a day-to-day or week-to-week basis as team


members realize that some elements are not as well defined as they initially
assumed. It is important to assess the elements honestly. The planning process

27
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

is inherently iterative in nature, and any changes that occur in assumptions or


planning parameters need to be resolved with planning decisions as quickly as
possible. The target score may not be as important as the team’s ability over time
to resolve issues that harbor risk in a timely manner.

The PDRI was developed as a “point-in-time” tool with elements that are as
discrete as possible. Most of these elements constitute deliverables to the planning
process. However, a close review of the elements shows an embedded logic. Certain
ones must first be defined well before others can be defined. This sequential logic
works within project phases and from one phase to the next. Thus, the PDRI was
designed for iterative use during front end planning and is often used during each
project phase to evaluate progress prior to the next approval level.

In some instances, infrastructure projects can last many years or even decades,
with associated delays—especially in the public sector. In other cases, these projects
can be delayed for shorter periods as project personnel await administrative
decisions. For instance, delays can be caused by changes in political will, reallocation
of funding, or new regulations. It is important in these situations that the PDRI
assessments and planning documents be kept in order so that momentum can be
regained quickly in case of a re-start of the project.

Figure 3.4 outlines the logic at a section level. In general, Section I elements
must be well defined before the elements in Section II and III can be defined.
This process does not follow a typical construction project management (CPM)
approach, wherein certain elements must reach a minimum point of completion
before the elements downstream can start. With the PDRI, elements can often
be pursued concurrently; as information is gained downstream, elements already
defined can be revisited and redefined.

Figure 3.5 outlines the general logic flow of the PDRI categories. Again, the
flow does not follow a traditional CPM model. Moreover, the diagram is given
only as a guideline; with the PDRI, there are many other ways to organize the
work. For instance, if information gained in Category F, Site Information diverges
from what is expected or assumed, then the planner should assess the impact of
that difference on Categories A, B, C, D and E.

If an organization wants to standardize its front end planning process, the


logic presented in these diagrams could provide the basis for that development.
Full-sized color versions of Figures 3.4 and 3.5 are provided in Appendix E.

28
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

437 Points

Section I:
Basis of Project Decision
Categories A thru E
293 Points

Section II:
Basis of Design
Categories F thru I

270 Points

Section III:
Execution Approach
Categories J thru M

Figure 3.4. Infrastructure PDRI Section Logic Flow Diagram

Use of PDRI on Small or Renovation Projects

The PDRI can be customized to meet any organization’s needs.

Small or renovation/upgrade projects can also benefit from the PDRI process,
even if they are small, short in duration, and frequently performed. Many large
organizations have a number of these types of projects at any one time. Such
projects may be driven by environmental regulations, safety requirements, or by
the need to keep a facility in repair or in operation. They may also be focused on
restoring an historically significant building or on relocating a business function
or production line.

On small projects or renovations, the scope may not encompass many of the
elements contained in the entire PDRI. In particular, some of the Basis of Project
Decision elements found in Section I of the PDRI may not be clearly defined on
these kinds of projects. Although business planning is generally performed on
an owner’s overall program of small projects, it may be difficult to determine
whether specific business decisions directly apply to one individual project. Long
term use has shown that customizing the PDRI to reflect each individual project
is highly beneficial.

29
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project
30

112 Points 60 Points

Category J:
Category A:
Land
Project
Acquisition
Strategy
Strategy

143 Points 119 Points 80 Points

Category D: Category F: Category I:


Project Site Project Design
Requirements Information Parameters
67 Points 47 Points 80 Points

Category B:
Category K: Category L:
Owner/
Start Operator
Procurement Project End
Strategy Control
Philosophies
45 Points 47 Points 47 Points

Category H:
Category E: Category G:
Associated
Value Location and
Structures and
Analysis Geometry
Equipment

70 Points

Category
C: Project
Funding 83 Points
and Timing
Category M:
Project
Execution
Plan

Legend
Section I
Basis of Project Decision

Section II
Basis of Design

Section III
Execution Approach

Figure 3.5. Infrastructure PDRI Category Logic Flow Diagram


Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

After the release of the initial PDRIs in 1996, many companies attempted to
customize the elements to fit the needs of smaller projects. The description list
of PDRI includes language that should make it adaptable to smaller projects or
renovations. Experience has proven that gathering the project team around a well
understood and customized PDRI can save time, money, and frustration.

Smaller projects may range in size from $50,000 to $5,000,000 in total project
costs. Some may consist of one or two of the following design disciplines:
• environmental project to improve drainage and capture storm runoff
• airport runway or road pavement repairs or upgrades
• pipeline compressor or pump station upgrades
• repair or replacement of pipelines and manholes
• new electrical transmission feed
• instrument upgrade project.

In any of the above projects, the PDRI can be a very helpful tool in highlighting
gaps in thinking and execution. The following are some guidelines for using the
PDRI on small or “single-discipline” projects:
1. “Cross out” all elements that clearly do not apply.
Example: A storm water or drainage improvement project may not have
any instrumentation or equipment requirements. In such cases, cross
out (mark as NA) the Equipment List (Element H4), Electrical/Controls
(Element I5), and other elements as necessary prior to the assessment
session. Note: if there is any doubt regarding an element, then leave it
in until the team has had time to discuss it.
2. Convene the project team and assess the project using only the PDRI
elements that remain to be assessed; be sure to include those elements
specifically designated for renovation projects, if applicable. At the
conclusion of the PDRI assessment session, have representatives of
each discipline sign off to signify their agreement with the definition
of the project.
3. Revert to the normalized score (percentage) as a basis for determining
how well the project is defined.
4. Since some of the most heavily weighted items of Section I could receive a
“zero,” the facilitator should make the team aware of the elements that
have the most impact on the final score. Other elements may become
more important to predicting project success.

31
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

5. Alternatively, the tool can be used strictly as a checklist to identify issues


that need to be addressed to develop a good scope. Use of the PDRI
as an early checklist can have a great positive effect on the project
and help focus the project team toward a common goal. If the project
is a renovation, pay particular attention to the issues that have been
identified for these types of projects.

Normalizing the Score

If an organization decides to create a scaled-down version of the PDRI, it must


be aware of the fact that this procedure will alter the maximum possible score
from 1000 points to some lower number. Each time an element is deleted from
the score sheet, the maximum score for the project is reduced by that element’s
total weight. Further, not only will the maximum score be reduced, but the lowest
possible score that can be achieved with complete definition will also drop from
70 points to some lower number.

Rework example: For example, on infrastructure revamp projects, the PDRI


can be used effectively with some modification. Some elements may be “zeroed”
as not applicable, e.g., Public Involvement (A4) and Surveys and Mapping (F3).
A “not applicable” element essentially provides no risk (no potential negative
impact) to the project. Other elements may become more critical, e.g., Permitting
Requirements (F4) and Site Characteristics Available vs. Required (D5). After the
assessment, if the organization’s scaled-down version has a maximum possible
score of 752 (after certain elements are rated “not applicable” in the score sheet),
it may determine that a score of 120 (16 percent of the total applicable points)
must be reached before authorizing its small projects for design.

Teams on small-projects must also determine new PDRI target scores, which,
when reached, will trigger the project’s authorization for detailed design and
construction. Each organization should develop an appropriate threshold range
of scores for each phase of front end planning. These thresholds are dependent
upon the size, type, and complexity of each project.

Caution: Using the PDRI for this purpose should be done carefully, or else
elements that are more important for small projects may be given less emphasis
than needed. The imperative for using the PDRI in these situations is “use common
sense.” An experienced facilitator can help in this regard.

32
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

Implementation across an Organization

The first requirement for implementation of the PDRI across any owner or
contractor organization—i.e., using it on all projects—is the unwavering support
of upper management. Upper management must create a procedure that requires
the utilization of the PDRI before a project is authorized to proceed into the
execution phase. Many successful organizations require a PDRI report as a part
of their project approval process at Phase Gate 3. Some organizations require a
specific score of 200 or less before a project can be approved for the next phase.

There is some danger in too much focus on scoring, however. Some smaller
maintenance projects may be fully acceptable at a much higher PDRI score, as long
as the project risks have been defined and a mitigation plan is in place to control
the project. As stated above, common sense should prevail when PDRI results
from a project are being reviewed. Requiring teams to reach a specific score could
result in a team artificially adjusting the score so that its project can be executed
(to the detriment of the organization, the project, and the team participants). In
most cases, it is more beneficial for the sponsor to have a PDRI assessment with
a score above 200—along with identified risk issues (gap list) and corresponding
mitigation steps—than to have a PDRI assessment with a lower score and no
commentary. Sponsors should focus on the gap list generated in the assessment
session, not only on the PDRI score. Placing too much emphasis on the score can
lead to the use of the tool as merely an administrative exercise.

The second requirement for implementation across an organization is a local


champion. This person is an enthusiastic supporter and advocate of the application
of this tool. He or she gains knowledge about the tool and fosters its widespread
application by staying in contact with other organizations that use the PDRI.

The third requirement for implementation is training. Several facilitators


should be trained, with the number will varying by organization and according
to the number of projects that require approval. The objective is to ensure that
every project has access to a trained facilitator in a timely manner. The facilitator
should NOT be a member of that project team. In many organizations, project
managers are trained as facilitators for their peers’ projects.

In addition to developing a cadre of facilitators, every organization should


ensure that all of its key members should understand the PDRI. In most cases,
this is accomplished with just-in-time training. At the outset of each session, the

33
Chapter 3. Instructions for Assessing a Project

facilitator will brief the participants on the purpose of the PDRI process and
explain their respective roles in making the session a success. The facilitator
should further take the opportunity to comment on specific behaviors as the team
progresses through the assessment session. Soon, key members will be well trained
and know what to expect during future PDRI assessment sessions.

If the PDRI is implemented across an organization, its use should be monitored.


Many organizations have modified PDRI element descriptions to address proprietary
concerns and lessons learned, or to include specific terminology based on its
business environment.

34
4
What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

A low PDRI score represents a project definition package that is


well-defined and, in general, corresponds to an increased probability
for project success. Higher scores signify that certain elements
within the project definition package lack adequate definition.

The PDRI, in its various forms, has been used on hundreds of projects worth
billions of dollars in investment. As part of the tool-testing process during its
development, the PDRI for Infrastructure was used to assess the efficacy of the front
end planning efforts on four projects representing over $2 billion in investment;
planning was also assessed on an additional 21 completed projects representing
almost $6 billion in capital investment. These projects covered a wide range of
infrastructure projects and included tunnels, security perimeters, pipelines, wharfs,
electrical distribution, airport runways and taxiways, and roadways.

Table 4.1 compares project performance for the sample of 21 infrastructure


projects, using a 200-point PDRI score cutoff. Each project was assessed by a key
project participant and a PDRI score was determined after the fact, at a point just
prior to detailed design; actual performance results were captured rather than
estimated at that point. The 200-point cut-off has been used in previous PRDI
tools and represents a good break point in the validation data. Additionally an
analysis at the 150-point level is shown for comparison in Table 4.2.

The data show the mean performance for the projects as against the execution
estimate for design and construction. These data also show the absolute value of
changes as a percentage of total project cost. Projects with a PDRI score under
200 (a lower score is better) outperformed projects with a PDRI score above 200
in terms of cost, schedule, and change orders. The same can be said of projects
with a PDRI score below 150 and those scoring above 150. For this relatively small
sample, the differences in performance parameters are all statistically significant.
(For more information on this data analysis, see Reference 9.)

35
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

Table 4.1. Comparison of Projects with PDRI–Infrastructure Projects Scores


Above and Below 200
PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200
Cost 5% below budget 25% above budget
Schedule 13% behind schedule 30% behind schedule
Change Orders 3% of budget 10% of budget
(N=12) (N=9)

Table 4.2. Comparison of Projects with PDRI–Infrastructure Projects Scores


Above and Below 150
PDRI Score
Performance < 150 > 150
Cost 6% below budget 24% over budget
Schedule 7% behind schedule 28% behind schedule
Change Orders 2% of budget 8% of budget
(N=7) (N=14)

The projects used in these samples were submitted from industry professionals
from 15 different organizations, with project sizes ranging from approximately
$400,000 to over $2 billion and with an average cost of approximately $282
million. The evaluations provided here are valid for the samples as given. These
samples may or may not be indicative of projects in your organization and the
samples may be biased because of the size and types of projects making up the
sample. However, the results are convincing in terms of performance predictability.

The analysis revealed a significant difference in performance


between the projects scoring above 200 and the projects scoring
below 200 prior to detailed design and construction, for the
PDRI–Infrastructure. An even larger difference was seen for
those projects scoring below 150 and projects above 150.

36
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

Other PDRI Assessment Data

A large number of building and industrial projects were evaluated with the
appropriate PDRIs in a prior CII investigation. For each of these projects, PDRI
scores and project success criteria were computed. (Note: these projects were
also scored after the fact.) An analysis of these data yielded a strong correlation
between low (good) PDRI scores and high project success. For more information
on the validation sample and methodology, see Reference 6. These results are
consistent with those obtained from the PDRI–Infrastructure.

Table 4.3 compares project performance for a sample of 108 building projects
worth $2.3 billion, using a 200-point PDRI score cut-off. These data show the
mean performance for the projects as against the execution estimate for design and
construction. The data also show the absolute value of changes as a percentage of
total project cost. Projects with a PDRI score under 200 (a lower score is better)
statistically outperformed projects with a PDRI score above 200 in terms of cost,
schedule, and change orders. The PDRI score was determined just prior to the
beginning of detailed design, and the differences in performance parameters are
statistically significant.

Table 4.3. Comparison of Projects with PDRI–Building Projects Scores


Above and Below 200
PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200
Cost 3% above budget 9% above budget
Schedule 5% behind schedule 21% behind schedule
Change Orders 8% of budget 11% of budget
(N=25) (N=83)

A similar evaluation was performed on a sample of 129 industrial projects


representing approximately $6.7 billion. Table 4.4 summarizes the project
performance and PDRI score using the same 200-point PDRI score cut-off.
Again, projects with better scope definition (lower PDRI score) outperformed
projects with poorly defined scope in terms of cost performance at the 95 percent
confidence level.

37
Chapter 4. What Does A PDRI Score Mean?

Table 4.4. Comparison of Projects with PDRI–Industrial Projects Scores


Above and Below 200
PDRI Score
Performance < 200 > 200
Cost 4% below budget 4% over budget
Schedule 4% behind schedule 10% behind schedule
Change Orders 7% of budget 8% of budget
(N=75) (N=54)

The projects used in these samples were voluntarily submitted. The Building
PDRI sample included data from 24 organizations, including office, control
building, recreation, institutional, and research facilities. Project sizes ranged from
approximately $630,000 to $251 million, with an average cost of approximately
$22 million. The Industrial PDRI sample included data from 53 organizations and
represented heavy and light industrial projects, including chemical, pharmaceutical,
power, pulp and paper, refining, and metals facilities. Project size ranged from
$120,000 to $635 million, with an average size of approximately $53 million.

38
5
Concluding Remarks

The PDRI can benefit owners, developers, designers, and contractors. Facility
owners, developers, and lending institutions can use it as an assessment tool
for establishing a comfort level at which they are willing to move forward on
projects. Designers and constructors can use it as a means of negotiating with
owners when identifying poorly defined project scope definition elements. The
PDRI provides a forum for all project participants to communicate and reconcile
differences; because it is an objective tool, it provides a common basis for project
scope evaluation. It also provides excellent input into the detailed design process
and a solid baseline for design management.

The PDRI for Infrastructure can benefit the public as well. Since infrastructure
typically spans the public domain, the transparent communication of project
objectives and expectations to the public can enhance and facilitate planning.
Moreover, the PDRI can help the project team anticipate the public’s main concerns
and begin to address them pro-actively. Soliciting and acting upon public input
is an essential element of the PDRI for Infrastructure.

Anyone who wishes to improve the overall performance


of their infrastructure projects should use the PDRI.

How to Improve Performance on Future Projects

The following suggestions are offered to individuals or organizations who


adopt the PDRI with the desire to improve performance on their infrastructure
projects:
• Commit to early project planning. Effective planning in the early stages of
infrastructure projects can greatly enhance cost, schedule, and operational
performance while minimizing the possibility of financial failures and
disasters.
• Gain and maintain project team alignment by using the PDRI throughout
front end planning. Discussions around the scope definition checklists are
particularly effective in helping with team alignment.

39
Chapter 5. Concluding Remarks

• Use the CII Front End Planning Toolkit. This interactive Toolkit has
been developed to guide the project team through the front end planning
process, including where and how to employ the PDRI. Encourage its use
across the organization.
• Be especially cognizant of specific scope elements on renovation and
revamp projects. Use the specific R&R issues identified in the element
descriptions. Also, use CII Implementation Resource 242-2, Front End
Planning of Renovation and Revamp Projects, if your project is an
R&R project. This resource is especially helpful if the project includes a
shutdown/turnaround/outage scenario.
• Adjust the PDRI as necessary to meet the specific needs of your project.
The PDRI was designed so that certain elements considered inapplicable
to a particular project can be “zeroed out,” thus eliminating them from
the final scoring calculation.
• Use the PDRI to improve project performance. Build your own internal
database of PDRI–scored projects. Compute PDRI scores at various
times during scope development and correlate them to project success.
Based upon the relationship between the PDRI scores and project success,
establish your own basis for the level of scope definition that you feel is
acceptable for moving from phase to phase.
• Use caution when beginning detailed design of projects with PDRI scores
greater than 200. CII data have shown that a direct correlation exists
between high PDRI scores and poor project performance.
• PDRI scores are only a portion of the output. While PDRI scores, in
aggregate, demonstrate the level of project planning development, the more
valuable output from the process is the insight that can be gleaned from
the remarks, lessons learned, and coordinating tasks identified during the
assessment session. Executive leadership can better assess where and how
to commit limited planning resources to enhance project execution.

CII research has shown that the PDRI can effectively be used to improve
the predictability of project performance. However, the PDRI alone will
not ensure successful projects. When combined with sound business
planning, alignment, and good project execution, it can greatly improve
the probability of meeting or exceeding project objectives.

40
Appendix A:
Unweighted Project Score Sheet
An Excel™ version of this matrix is on the compact disc that accompanies this book.

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. PROJECT STRATEGY
A1. Need & Purpose Documentation
A2. Investment Studies & Alternatives Assessments
A3. Key Team Member Coordination
A4. Public Involvement
CATEGORY A TOTAL
B. OWNER/OPERATOR PHILOSOPHIES
B1. Design Philosophy
B2. Operating Philosophy
B3. Maintenance Philosophy
B4. Future Expansion & Alteration Considerations
CATEGORY B TOTAL
C. PROJECT FUNDING AND TIMING
C1. Funding & Programming
C2. Preliminary Project Schedule
C3. Contingencies
CATEGORY C TOTAL
D. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
D1. Project Objectives Statement
D2. Functional Classification & Use
D3. Evaluation of Compliance Requirements
D4. Existing Environmental Conditions
D5. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required
D6. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements
D7. Determination of Utility Impacts
D8. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work
CATEGORY D TOTAL
E. VALUE ANALYSIS
E1. Value Engineering Procedures
E2. Design Simplification
E3. Material Alternatives Considered
E4. Constructability Procedures
CATEGORY E TOTAL
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

41
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION
F1. Geotechnical Characteristics
F2. Hydrological Characteristics
F3. Surveys & Mapping
F4. Permitting Requirements
F5. Environmental Documentation
F6. Environmental Commitments & Mitigation
F7. Property Descriptions
F8. Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues
CATEGORY F TOTAL
G. LOCATION and GEOMETRY
G1. Schematic Layouts
G2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment
G3. Cross-Sectional Elements
G4. Control of Access
CATEGORY G TOTAL
H. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES and EQUIPMENT
H1. Support Structures
H2. Hydraulic Structures
H3. Miscellaneous Elements
H4. Equipment List
H5. Equipment Utility Requirements
CATEGORY H TOTAL
I. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS
I1. Capacity
I2. Safety & Hazards
I3. Civil/Structural
I4. Mechanical/Equipment
I5. Electrical/Controls
I6. Operations/Maintenance
CATEGORY I TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

42
Appendix A. Unweighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY
J1. Local Public Agencies Contr. & Agreements
J2. Long-Lead Parcel & Utility Adjustment
Identification & Acquisition
J3. Utility Agreement & Joint-Use Contracts
J4. Land Appraisal Requirements
J5. Advance Land Acquisition Requirements
CATEGORY J TOTAL
K. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY
K1. Project Delivery Method & Contr. Strategies
K2. Long-Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls Identif.
K3. Procurement Procedures & Plans
K4. Procurement Responsibility Matrix
CATEGORY K TOTAL
L. PROJECT CONTROL
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates
L2. Design & Construction Cost Estimates
L3. Project Cost Control
L4. Project Schedule Control
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control
CATEGORY L TOTAL
M. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN
M1. Safety Procedures
M2. Owner Approval Requirements
M3. Documentation/Deliverables
M4. Computing & CADD/Model Requirements
M5. Design/Construction Plan & Approach
M6. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination
& Agreements
M7. Work Zone and Transportation Plan
M8. Project Completion Requirements
CATEGORY M TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

43
Appendix B:
Weighted Project Score Sheet
An Excel™ version of this matrix is on the compact disc that accompanies this book.

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. PROJECT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 112)
A1. Need & Purpose Documentation 0
2 13 24 35 44
A2. Investment Studies & Alternatives Assessments 0
1 8 15 22 28
A3. Key Team Member Coordination 0
1 6 11 16 19
A4. Public Involvement 0
1 6 11 16 21
CATEGORY A TOTAL
B. OWNER/OPERATOR PHILOSOPHIES (Maximum Score = 67)
B1. Design Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22
B2. Operating Philosophy 0 1 5 9 13 16
B3. Maintenance Philosophy 0 1 4 7 10 12
B4. Future Expansion & Alteration Considerations 0 1 9 9 13 17
CATEGORY B TOTAL
C. PROJECT FUNDING AND TIMING (Maximum Score = 70)
C1. Funding & Programming 0 1 6 11 16 21
C2. Preliminary Project Schedule 0 2 7 12 17 22
C3. Contingencies 0 2 8 14 20 27
CATEGORY C TOTAL
D. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 143)
D1. Project Objectives Statement 0 1 6 11 16 19
D2. Functional Classification & Use 0 1 6 11 16 19
D3. Evaluation of Compliance Requirements 0 1 6 11 16 22
D4. Existing Environmental Conditions 0 1 6 11 16 22
D5. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required 0 1 5 9 13 18
D6. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements 0 1 4 7 10 11
D7. Determination of Utility Impacts 0 1 6 11 16 19
D8. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 4 7 10 13
CATEGORY D TOTAL
E. VALUE ANALYSIS (Maximum Score = 45)
E1. Value Engineering Procedures 0 1 3 5 7 10
E2. Design Simplification 0 0 3 6 9 11
E3. Material Alternatives Considered 0 1 3 5 7 9
E4. Constructability Procedures 0 1 5 9 13 15
CATEGORY E TOTAL
Section I Maximum Score = 437 SECTION I TOTAL
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition
45
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION (Maximum Score = 119)
F1. Geotechnical Characteristics 0 2 7 12 17 21
F2. Hydrological Characteristics 0 1 4 7 10 13
F3. Surveys & Mapping 0 1 4 7 10 14
F4. Permitting Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 15
F5. Environmental Documentation 0 1 5 9 13 18
F6. Environmental Commitments & Mitigation 0 1 4 7 10 14
F7. Property Descriptions 0 1 3 5 7 10
F8. Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues 0 1 4 7 10 14
CATEGORY F TOTAL
G. LOCATION and GEOMETRY (Maximum Score = 47)
G1. Schematic Layouts 0 1 4 7 10 13
G2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment 0 1 4 7 10 13
G3. Cross-Sectional Elements 0 1 4 7 10 11
G4. Control of Access 0 1 3 5 7 10
CATEGORY G TOTAL
H. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES and EQUIPMENT (Maximum Score = 47)
H1. Support Structures 0 1 4 7 10 11
H2. Hydraulic Structures 0 1 3 5 7 9
H3. Miscellaneous Elements 0 1 3 5 7 7
H4. Equipment List 0 1 4 7 10 11
H5. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9
CATEGORY H TOTAL
I. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS (Maximum Score = 80)
I1. Capacity 0 1 6 11 16 22
I2. Safety & Hazards 0 1 4 7 10 12
I3. Civil/Structural 0 1 5 9 13 15
I4. Mechanical/Equipment 0 1 3 5 7 10
I5. Electrical/Controls 0 1 3 5 7 10
I6. Operations/Maintenance 0 1 4 7 10 11
CATEGORY I TOTAL
Section II Maximum Score = 293 SECTION II TOTAL

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

46
Appendix B. Weighted Project Score Sheet

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 60)
J1. Local Public Agencies Contr. & Agreements 0 1 4 7 10 14
J2. Long-Lead Parcel & Utility Adjustment
0 1 5 9 13 15
Identification & Acquisition
J3. Utility Agreement & Joint-Use Contracts 0 1 4 7 10 12
J4. Land Appraisal Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10
J5. Advance Land Acquisition Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9
CATEGORY J TOTAL
K. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 47)
K1. Project Delivery Method & Contr. Strategies 0 1 5 9 13 15
K2. Long-Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls Identif. 0 1 4 7 10 13
K3. Procurement Procedures & Plans 0 1 4 7 10 11
K4. Procurement Responsibility Matrix 0 0 2 4 6 8
CATEGORY K TOTAL
L. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 80)
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates 0 1 3 5 7 10
L2. Design & Construction Cost Estimates 0 2 8 14 20 25
L3. Project Cost Control 0 1 5 9 13 15
L4. Project Schedule Control 0 1 5 9 13 17
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control 0 1 4 7 10 13
CATEGORY L TOTAL
M. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (Maximum Score = 83)
M1. Safety Procedures 0 1 4 7 10 12
M2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10
M3. Documentation/Deliverables 0 1 3 5 7 9
M4. Computing & CADD/Model Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 7
M5. Design/Construction Plan & Approach 0 1 4 7 10 14
M6. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination
0 1 4 7 10 13
& Agreements
M7. Work Zone and Transportation Plan 0 1 3 5 7 9
M8. Project Completion Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9
CATEGORY M TOTAL
Section III Maximum Score = 270 SECTION III TOTAL

PDRI TOTAL SCORE


Maximum Score = 1000

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

47
Appendix C:
Element Descriptions

The following descriptions have been developed to help generate a clear


understanding of the terms used in the Unweighted Project Score Sheet. Some
descriptions include checklists of sub-elements. These sub-elements clarify concepts
and facilitate ideas to make the assessment of each element easier. These checklists
are not all-inclusive and the user may supplement these lists when necessary.

The descriptions follow the order in which they are presented in the Unweighted
or Weighted Project Score Sheet; they are organized in a hierarchy by section,
category, and element. The score sheet consists of three main sections, each of
which is a series of categories broken down into elements. Some of the elements have
issues listed that are specific to projects that are renovations and revamps. These
issues are identified as “Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp
projects.” Use these issues for discussion if applicable. Scoring is performed by
the evaluation of each element’s definition level.

It should be noted that this tool and these descriptions have been developed
to address a variety of types of infrastructure projects that are “horizontal” in
nature and connect nodes in different types of infrastructure systems. Three
basic varieties of projects are addressed in this tool: 1) projects that convey
people and freight, such as highways and railroads; 2) projects that convey fluids,
such as pipelines and open channels; and 3) projects that convey energy, such
as transmission lines or microwave corridors. For example, a pipeline project
may connect a tank farm to a port facility, or transmission lines may connect
a power plant to a substation and then to a home or business. Throughout the
descriptions, the user will see sub-elements that relate to the variety of projects
the tool is meant to encompass. These sub-elements are provided in the order in
which they are discussed above. If the sub-element is not applicable to the project
that the user is assessing, then it should be ignored. (Note: the PDRI–Building
Projects and the PDRI–Industrial Projects should be used singly or combined for
the vertical (node) aspects of the infrastructure project, as deemed appropriate.)
Detailed user information is provided in Chapter 1 of this document. Particular
focus should be maintained to ensure that no gaps develop at the interfaces of
the vertical and horizontal elements during the project management team’s FEP
process. The sections, categories, and elements are organized as discussed below.

49
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION I: BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

This section consists of information necessary for understanding the project


objectives. The completeness of this section determines the degree to which the project
team will be able to achieve alignment in meeting the project’s business objectives.

Categories:
A – Project Strategy
B – Owner/Operator Philosophies
C – Project Funding and Timing
D – Project Requirements
E – Value Analysis

SECTION II: BASIS OF DESIGN

This section consists of geotechnical, hydrological, environmental, structural,


and other technical design elements that should be evaluated for full understanding
of their impacts on the project and its risk.

Categories:
F – Site Information
G – Location and Geometry
H – Associated Structures and Equipment
I – Project Design Parameters

SECTION III: EXECUTION APPROACH

This section consists of elements that should be evaluated for fully understanding
the requirements of the owner’s execution strategy and approaches to detailed
design, right-of-way acquisition, utility adjustments, and construction.

Categories:
J – Land Acquisition Strategy
K – Procurement Strategy
L – Project Control
M – Project Execution Plan

The following pages contain detailed descriptions for all of the elements in
the PDRI.

50
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION I: BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION

A. PROJECT STRATEGY

A1. Need & Purpose Documentation


The need for a project may be identified in many ways, including through
eliciting suggestions from operations and maintenance personnel,
engineers, planners, local elected officials, developers, and the public. The
importance of projects may also be determined by current market needs
or future growth. This process typically includes site visits and input from
individuals and/or agencies with relevant knowledge. Documentation
should assess the need and purpose of a potential project and should be
based on factual evidence of current and future conditions, including
why the project is being pursued. It will eventually serve as the basis for
identifying, comparing, and selecting alternatives. These considerations
may include the following:

q High-level project scope and q Constraints such as


definition geographic, institutional,
political, or technical
q Capacity improvement needs:
q Existing levels of service q Conformance with current
geometric, general owner,
q Modeling of future demands
or other jurisdictional
q Trend analysis and forecasted standards
growth
q Existing infrastructure
q Profitability or benefit analysis conditions
q Facility multi-modal or other q Safety improvements needs
multi-use capabilities, including and expectations (including
interface options event frequency, severity,
q Current and future economic and hazards mitigation,
development needs as well as compliance
requirements)
q Community concerns and critical
issues, such as impact on cultural q Vulnerability assessment
resources, adjacent facilities, land q Input into any required
use, traffic, visual and so on planning documents such
q Environmental and/or as a “Need & Purpose
sustainability drivers Statement” or other

q Mitigation and remediation issues q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Renovation & revamp project’s compatibility with


existing facilities

51
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

A2. Investment Studies & Alternatives Assessments


Various studies address possible alternatives when the solution is
unknown. In some cases, these studies may show that the project is not
economically justifiable, or that it has so many environmental or social
impacts that it is not viable. Early determination of these findings will
prevent unnecessary expenditures on preliminary engineering and related
costs and will also confirm the viability of proceeding with the selected
option. These studies may take the form of feasibility/route studies or
major investment studies. This economic model, sometimes known as
the regulatory regime, sets the economic rules guiding decision making
on the project. Issues to consider include the following:

q Profitability or value/benefit q Existing data at


governmental levels (e.g.,
q Identification of “show stoppers”
local, regional, national)
q Alternatives requirement
q Alternative profile layouts
determinations such as routes,
and preliminary mapping
acquisition strategy or technology
q Project corridor
q Stakeholder identification and
preservation
management
q Investment and financing
q Consultant reviews and selection
requirements, including
q Corridor selection and major public or private funds and
alternatives tax implications
q Location of nodes such as q Availability of insurance/
interchanges, stations, control bonding
points and depots
q Cost estimate of sufficient
q Preliminary surveys: quality to support the
q Population densities selected option
q Trends in land use and q Preliminary project
development schedule of sufficient depth
q Existing infrastructure for alternative duration
q Environmental conditions comparison
q Existing demand q Coordination with other
q Directional distribution and relevant planning efforts,
volumes short, medium, and long
q Economic, safety, security and term
social conditions q Other user defined
q Use of geographic information
systems (GIS), satellite imaging,
and light detection and ranging
(LIDAR) technologies

52
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

A.3 Key Team Member Coordination


Establishing a positive alliance among all key project team members
facilitates the potential for an efficient, successful outcome—particularly
if this alliance is achieved early during the planning process. The project
manager is typically a central figure in this coordination. Definition
of the roles and responsibilities of each key team member should be
documented. Infrastructure projects typically involve many different
stakeholders, in both the public and private sectors. All key team members
must be competent in their roles in the project at hand, informed of
project decisions, and given the opportunity to attend project planning
meetings. Establishing such a strong team will minimize negative
impacts on subsequent activities. Key team members may include the
following experts:
q Planners and programmers
q Project managers
q Design engineers
q Project controls personnel
q Right-of-way planners
q Environmental planners
q Construction engineers
q Operations and maintenance personnel
q Procurement personnel
q Marketing/business personnel
q Public relations personnel
q Consultants
q Local, regional, and national governmental
authorities, agencies, and officials
q Budgeting officers
q Safety personnel
q Other user defined

Specialized input into any expected meetings—such as a “Feasibility


Scoping Meeting,” “Project Concept Conference,” “Utility Coordination
Meetings,” or other meetings—should be considered when key team
members are chosen.

53
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

A.4 Public Involvement


Public involvement is an integral part of project development and
should be planned and managed. Most infrastructure projects have to
afford some level of public involvement to inform the public of project
scope issues and to measure public attitudes regarding the development
process. The level of public involvement and transparency of operations
is dependent upon a number of social, economic, and environmental
factors, along with the type and complexity of the project. In general,
public involvement, input, and interaction are important components
of successful infrastructure planning. Community involvement efforts
may include meetings with key stakeholders, including contact with
affected governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs),
first nation members or native inhabitants, property owners, business
interests, and citizens at public meeting and public hearings. Issues to
consider include the following:
q Policy determinations regarding public involvement
q Notification procedures and responsibilities
q Identification of key stakeholders
q Identification of utility providers
q Types of public involvement:
q Press releases and notices
q Public meetings/hearings
q Individual or group meetings with affected
property owners
q Local support and/or opposition
q Public involvement strategies after project approval
q Available website content
q Input of public involvement information into any
typical deliverables such as “Environmental Impact
Statements,” “Public Hearing Notices,” or other
forms of public documentation or communication
q Other user defined

54
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B. OWNER/OPERATOR PHILOSOPHIES

B1. Design Philosophy


A list of general design principles should be developed to achieve a
successful project that fulfills the functional requirements and assimilates
into the existing infrastructure system. Issues to consider include the
following:

q Design life q Automation philosophy


q Configuration strategy q Compatibility with other
uses or adjacent projects
q Reliability
and facilities
q Failure modes
q Aesthetics or image
q Design risk analysis requirements
q Life cycle cost studies q Compatibility with long-
range goals and other
q Safety improvement requirements, infrastructure improvement
(safety, health, and environmental programs
(SH&E), including event
frequency, severity, and hazards q Environmental
mitigation, as well as compliance sustainability
with applicable jurisdictional
q Access management
requirements)
q Geometric/alignment
q Security/anti-terrorism
enhancements based on project q System validation
vulnerabilities
q Commissioning
q Sustainability guidelines
q Decommissioning strategies
q Use of existing or new technology
q Other user defined

55
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B2. Operating Philosophy


A list of general design principles should be developed to preserve the
level of service desired at a sufficient capacity over an extended period
of time. This list focuses particularly on developing strategic operations
plans to prevent problems related to sub-optimal capacity. Issues to
consider include the following:
q Daily level of service requirements
q Capacity change requirements
q Operating schedules or timetables
q Technological needs assessment
q Future improvement schedule
q Flexibility to change layout
q Owner/operator of the facility through its life
q Third party operations personnel
q Safety strategy for hazards mitigation
q Training requirements
q Control requirements
q Personnel and equipment requirements
q Alternative operating procedures, (i.e., consideration
of manual versus automated modes)
q Utilities location in relation to facility
q Operational security
q Other user defined

56
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B3. Maintenance Philosophy


A list of general design principles should be developed to lay out guidelines
to maintain adequate and safe operations over an extended period of
time. Furthermore, a specific operations control and maintenance plan
should be in place, including interface and maintenance procedures.
Issues to consider include the following:

q Monitoring requirements q Output quality or


serviceability level
q Equipment access needs and
provisions q Maintenance and repair
cycles, both preventative
q Government regulated
and planned
maintenance
q Reliability:
q Safety strategy
q Spare equipment
q Documentation and training q Commonality of parts
requirements
q System redundancy
q Personnel and equipment q I nter med iate storage
requirements to permit independent
q Third-party maintenance shutdown
personnel q Mechanical /structural
integrity
q Environmental conservation
programs q S cheduled shut-dow n
frequencies and durations
q Selection of materials for design q Response for unplanned
and construction to minimize shutdowns and outages
maintenance activities
q Efficiency of process
q Warrantees
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Potential impacts to existing q Compatibility of


operations maintenance philosophy for
new systems and equipment
q Maintenance impact of renovation
with existing use and
projects
maintenance philosophy
q Common/spare parts (i.e.,
q Coordination of the project
consideration of repair versus
with any maintenance
replacement of existing
projects
components)
q Interruptions to existing and
adjacent facilities during R&R
work

57
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

B4. Future Expansion & Alteration Considerations


The possibility of expansion and/or alteration of this infrastructure
facility and site should be evaluated. These considerations consist of a
list of items that will facilitate the potential expansion or evolution of
facility use. Issues to consider may include the following:
q Regional/local infrastructure/capacity plans
q Interface with other future infrastructure projects
q Expected population densities along corridor and/or
capacity needs
q Future changes in demand
q Availability for added capacity and/or widening
q Vertical added capacity
q Horizontal added capacity
q Availability for project enhancement and/or
expansion (e.g., interchanges, pumping stations,
turbines, clarifiers, access ramps, frontages,
pumping stations, taxi-ways, rail sidings, switchgear,
transformers, additional land, etc.)
q Pending and future facility and product quality
constraints and regulations
q Corridor preservation (i.e., sloped to grade, with
potential for retaining walls in the future)
q Other user defined

C. PROJECT FUNDING AND TIMING

C1. Funding & Programming


Authorization of projects within national, regional, and local regulatory
agencies is a typical requirement prior to executing funding agreements.
As part of the authorization process, initial cost estimates must be
prepared. These estimates must assess funding provided for planning,
design, construction, right-of-way acquisition, utility adjustment,
maintenance, and other project expenses. Funding can be provided by the
project owner or from a third party. For public projects, this is normally
the government but can include elements of private financing. Third
parties for private projects can be financial institutions or other private
investors. As such, strategic measures must be in place for determining

58
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

the sources, levels, and forms of funding available to the project as it


competes against others for limited funds, whether public or private.
Issues to consider include the following:
q Sources and forms of funding
q Internal funding, equity, or debt
q Public private partnerships (PPP)
q Private entities
q Local government entities
q Federal and regional agencies
q Donations
q Funding for economically disadvantaged
communities
q Congruity with local infrastructure projects and
programs
q Other funding sources
q Comparison of funding options
q The impact of available project funds on project
phasing and sequencing, as well as risk profile of
project participants
q Cash flow spend plan for project
q Congruity with local infrastructure programs
q Breakdown of funding participation
q Franchise or operating periods before transfer
q Tax credits or liability of funding options
q Cost drivers, such as environmental/mitigation costs,
major work elements, limiting work conditions, or
major equipment procurement
q Estimates
q Initial construction cost estimates
q Initial right-of-way cost estimates
q Initial operating and maintenance cost estimates
q Input into any required planning documents such
as a “Programming Assessment Study,” “Advance
Funding Agreement,” or other early project
documentation
q Other user defined

59
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

C2. Preliminary Project Schedule


A preliminary project schedule should be developed, analyzed, and
agreed upon by the major project participants factoring in major risk
components. The following major risk components should be included
in this preliminary schedule:
• milestones
• unusual schedule considerations
• appropriate master schedule contingency time (float)
• the procurement plan (long-lead or critical pacing of
equipment/material and contracting)
• required submissions and approvals.

The project schedule is created to determine a timetable for the program


and to assess its constructability. It should be maintained and updated
throughout the course of front end planning with additional detail added
as knowledge is gained, including work breakdown structure (WBS).
It should be periodically updated and modified to show progress and
ensure that tasks are completed on time. Third-party activities that
are required to carry out the project need to be included in the project
schedule, and the appropriate relationships should be considered in
order to determine the critical path. The project schedule becomes the
basis for detailed scheduling of design and construction activities. (Note
that project schedule control is addressed in Element L4.) This schedule
should involve obtaining early input from and assigning responsibility
to the following project personnel:
q Owner/Operations
q Program/Project Management
q Design/Engineering
q Construction
q Procurement
q Other user defined
Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q The schedule should contain input from traffic or


flow control management personnel to coordinate
disruptions

60
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

R&R projects require a high level of planning to minimize risk because


they interface with existing operations and are many times performed
in conjunction with other on-going projects. Shutdowns/turnarounds/
outages are special cases in that they are particularly constrained in
terms of time and space, requiring very detailed plans and schedules.

C3. Contingencies
Project risks must be identified and understood so that proper contingencies
can be allocated and maintained in order to mitigate unforeseen issues.
The contingency management process should effectively communicate
the contingency magnitude and confidence level to all appropriate
stakeholders. Estimates are used to plan and budget the project from
the earliest stages of planning and are essential in managing project
contingency. It is important to have estimates of the proper accuracy,
consistency, and clarity at the right phase of the planning process.
Contingencies are forecasted and adjusted throughout the planning
process, based on level of confidence in the current estimate accuracy.
It is also important to assign ownership of the different contingency
allocations (such as management reserve, project contingency, and
contractor contingency) for the project, as well as authority to release
these funds. (Note that final cost estimates for the planning phase are
covered in Elements L1 and L2. Project cost control is addressed in
Element L3.) Issues to consider include the following:
Estimates evolve in terms of accuracy and may be based on
q Order-of-magnitude cost model
q Benchmarks
q Parametric cost estimates (e.g., $/unit)
q Unit Price estimate
q Detailed element cost estimate
Contingency set aside may include funds and/or schedule
for uncertainty in
q Weather
q Scope changes
q Unforeseen site conditions
q Extended overhead for potential project delays
q Critical path impact
q Market conditions

61
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Commodity pricing
q Currency exchange rates
q Escalation pricing
q Contracting strategy
q Labor availability
q Labor competency
q Project location
q Political stability
q Definition of project
q Other user defined

D. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

D1. Project Objectives Statement


This statement defines the project objectives and priorities for meeting
the business strategy, including project need and purpose. It should be
clear, concise, measurable, and specific to the project. It is desirable to
obtain consensus from the entire project team regarding these objectives
and priorities to ensure alignment. Specifically, the priorities among
cost, schedule, and value-added quality features should be clear. To
ensure the project is aligned to the applicable objectives, the following
should be considered:
q Stakeholder’s understanding of objectives, including
questions or concerns
q Constraints or limitations placed on the project
q Typical objectives with associated performance
metrics:

q Safety q Operational performance


q Quality q Maintainability
q Cost q Security
q Schedule including milestones q Sustainability, including
q Technology usage possible certification (for
example, by the U.S.
q Capacity or size
Green Building Council)
q Start-up or commissioning
q Other user defined
q Communication

62
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

D2. Functional Classification & Use


An essential step in the design process is the determination of the functions
that the project is to serve, including how the product or service will
be conveyed throughout the infrastructure system. Important in this
classification is whether the project is for private or public use. Examples
of functional types include the following:
q Capacities or volumes
q Intrastate or interstate
q Domestic or international
q Urban/suburban/rural
q Underground or above ground
q On-shore or off-shore
q Modes of conveyance:
q Automobiles and trucks q Conveyors (e.g., gravity,
q Aircraft power, and belt)
q Trains q Pressure or gravity
q Barges q Conduction
q Ships q Electromagnetic

q Types of product(s) to be conveyed


q Freight q Solids
q Pedestrians q Power
q Fluids q Information or data
q Gases

q Types of conveyance
q Rail q Pipe, gravity or pressure
q Road q Open channel
q Runway q Harbor or reservoir
q Conveyer belts q Lines or cable
q Pedestrian movers (e.g., q Energy (e.g., microwave,
escalators and moving infrared, and sound)
walkways)

q Other user defined

63
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

D3. Evaluation of Compliance Requirements


A fundamental part of decision making is the understanding of adherence
requirements to various local, regional, and national plans. As a basic
part of project development, project planners must determine, document,
and understand the applicable requirements. (Note that compliance
requirements for permitting and environmental issues are addressed in
more detail in Category F.) Issues to consider for compliance include
the following:
q Compliance with existing plans, codes, and
standards, including
q Coastal zone management
q Security and anti-terrorism
q Wetlands encroachment
q Intracoastal waterways
q Metropolitan planning
q Regional transportation plans
q Statewide transportation improvement program
(STIP)
q Federal directives
q National, regional, or local requirements defined and
understood, including input from
q Regional highway departments
q Municipal departments
q Public utilities commission
q Public housing authorities
q Railroad companies
q Ports and harbors
q Transit authorities
q Governmental councils or regulatory commissions
(e.g., the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC))
q General counsel
q Utilization of Design Standards
q Owner’s
q Contractor’s
q Mixed

64
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Construction and operations residuals management


(e.g., handling of excess excavated soils and sludge
handling)

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Clear definition of controlling specifications,


especially where new codes and regulations will
override older requirements
q Assurance that specifications support replacement of
any obsolete systems or equipment
q Other user defined

D4. Existing Environmental Conditions


Decision making requires an understanding of existing environmental
conditions, which must be ascertained from a variety of sources, including
previous surveys, geographic information systems, and resource agency
databases. Identifying problematic issues at an early stage in the project
development process enables better decision making and gives project
personnel adequate time to address and mitigate these concerns. (Note
that many of these issues are addressed in more detail in Category F.)
Issues to consider include the following:
q Natural resource surveys
q Endangered species
q Wetland status
q Bodies of water
q Existing and potential park system land
q Permit requirements
q Cultural resource surveys
q Historical preservation
q Existence of cemeteries
q Archaeological sites
q Local customs
q Air quality surveys
q Mobile source pollutants
q Air quality analysis
q Congestion mitigation-air quality
q Noise surveys including evaluation of need for
abatement

65
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Hazardous materials
q Existing land use (e.g., the existence of an
underground storage tank)
q Superfund and regulatory agency database review
q Contaminated material not classified as hazardous
q Climatic data
q Site visits
q Local inhabitant interviews
q Socioeconomic impacts
q Other user defined

D5. Site Characteristics Available versus Required


An assessment of the discrepancy between the available site characteristics
and the required site characteristics is needed. The intent is to ensure
that the project team has taken into consideration the need to improve
or upgrade existing site utilities and support characteristics. Issues to
consider should include the following:
q Capacity
q Utilities
q Fire water
q Cooling water
q Power
q Waste treatment/disposal
q Storm water containment and/or transport system
q Type of buildings/structures
q Land area
q Amenities
q Food service
q Change rooms
q Medical facilities
q Recreation facilities
q Ambulatory access
q Product shipping facilities
q Material receiving facilities
q Material or product storage facilities

66
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Security
q Setbacks
q Sight lines
q Clear zones
q Access and egress
q Fencing, gates, and barriers
q Security lighting
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Complete condition assessment of existing facilities


and infrastructure
q As-built accuracy and availability (i.e., update/verify
as-built documentation prior to project initiation)
q Worksite availability and access for R&R activities
q Existing space available to occupants during
renovation work
q Uncertainty of “as-found” conditions, especially
related to
q Structural integrity; steel or concrete loading
q Sub-base conditions
q Piping capacity/integrity/routing
q Location, condition, and capacity of electrical
systems components
q Installed equipment
q Condition of required isolation points
q Investigation tools to assist in the documentation of
existing conditions:
q Photographs/video
q Remote inspection
q Laser scanning
q Infrared scanning
q Ground penetrating radar
q Ultrasonic testing
q Hydro-excavation
q Other user defined

67
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

D6. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements


A scope of work has been defined and documented for the decommissioning
and dismantling of existing equipment/piping/structures/pavements that
may be necessary for completing new construction. This scope of work
should support an estimate for cost and schedule. Evaluation criteria
should include the following
q Timing/sequencing
q Permits
q Approval
q Safety and security requirements
q Hazardous operations and/or materials
q Plant/operations requirements
q Storage or disposal of dismantled equipment/
materials
q Narrative (scope of work) for each system
q Environmental assessment
q Are the systems or items that will be
decommissioned/dismantled:
q Named and marked on process flow diagrams
piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs), or
flow schematics
q Denoted on line lists and equipment lists
q Denoted on piping plans or photo drawings
q Delineated by zone or boundary
q Sustainability issues, including reuse of materials
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Use of photographs, video records, and other media


in scope documents to ensure that existing conditions
are clearly defined
q Physical identification of extent of demolition to
clearly define limits
q Segregation of demolition activities from new
construction, and operations (e.g., physical
disconnect or “air gap”)
q Establish decontamination and purge requirements to
support dismantling.

68
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

D7. Determination of Utility Impacts


Infrastructure projects often necessitate the adjustment of utilities to
accommodate the design and construction of the proposed project. Failure
to mitigate utility conflicts in the design process or to relocate facilities in
a timely manner can result in unwarranted delays and increased project
costs. Issues to consider include the following:

q Field verification of existing q Local ordinances or


utilities facilities and capacity industry standards
q Field verification with proposed q Safety clearance or physical
alignment or project footprint separation requirements
q Necessary utility facility repair q Availability of alternative
and modernization or expansion right-of-ways
q Physical constraints to utility q Action plans for utility
placement adjustments
q Schedule/cost impacts of utility q Regional or local
relocations and adjustments regulations related to utility
adjustment
q Determination of utility location
in existing right-of-way or q Other user defined
boundaries

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Determination of utility locations or relocations in


relation to renovation work
q Accessibility of utilities for relocation work

D8. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work


The project manager’s complete narrative description of the project should
be developed and oriented towards the architect/engineer/contracting
agent; this narrative should be generally discipline oriented and should
lay out the major components of work to be accomplished. It should
also be tied to a high-level work breakdown structure (WBS) for the
project. Items to consider would include the following:
q Background information
q Project summary
q High-level WBS
q Level of requirement development by each discipline
q Sequencing of work

69
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Interface issues for various contractors, contracts, or


work packages
q Exclusions and limitations to the scope of work
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Identification of specific interface or coordination


efforts with operations and owner’s staff

E. VALUE ANALYSIS

E1. Value Engineering Procedures


Procedures for conducting Value Engineering (VE) during front end
planning—and later in the project during design and construction—
need to be in place. VE methodology should be used to assess a project’s
overall effectiveness or how well the project meets identified needs. VE
is designed to consolidate the expertise and experience of individuals to
produce the most effective solution to the conveyance need. For instance,
study findings may show that redesign of an alternative is needed; in such
cases, concepts or schematics may require revisions. Issues to consider
include the following:

q Policy requirements and q Report preparation and


procedures recommendations
q Team member and team leader q Approved response
identification submittals
q Session attendance requirements q Planning document
revisions
q Frequency of assessments
q Other user defined
q Documentation requirements
q Strategic resource collection and
studies
q Lessons learned review
q Redundancy factors
q Over-capacity factors
q Life-cycle and replacement costs
q Environmental impact resolution

70
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

E2. Design Simplification


Procedures for conducting design simplification during front end planning
and later in the project need to be in place. In this step, the project
team identifies and documents activities or strategies—through studies
or reviews—for reducing the number of process steps, the number of
interchanges, the number of bridges, the length of route, the extent
of right-of-way, or the amount of equipment needed in the design.
This streamlining of the project helps optimize performance without
compromising safety, function, reliability, or security. Items to evaluate
for simplification include the following:

q Redundancies q Flexibility
q Overcapacity q Discretionary scope issues
q Horizontal or vertical alignment q Discretionary spares
q Above or below ground or water q Controls simplification
q Retaining walls versus q Other user defined
embankments
q Commonality

E3. Material Alternatives Considered


A structured approach should be in place to consider and select among
material alternatives; this approach should include sustainability
considerations that begin during front end planning and continue as the
project progresses. Rejected material alternatives should be documented.
Material evaluation should include the following:
q Cost effective materials of construction
q Life-cycle analysis, including operations and
maintenance considerations
q Modularized or pre-fabricated components
q Ease or cost effectiveness during construction
q Sustainability considerations (e.g., use of local
materials, pollution abating concrete, recycled
materials, and LED lighting)
q Environment in which materials are to be installed or
operated (e.g., hot, humid, corrosive, etc.)
q Other user defined

71
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

E4. Constructability Procedures


A structured process and procedures should be in place for constructability
analysis during front end planning and as the project proceeds into
design and construction. CII defines constructability as
the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning,
design, procurement, and field operations to achieve overall project
objectives. Maximum benefits occur when people with construction
knowledge and experience become involved at the very beginning of
a project.

Provisions have been made to provide this on an ongoing basis. This


process includes examining design options that minimize construction
costs while maintaining standards of safety, security, quality, and
schedule. This process should be initiated in the front end planning process
during concept or detailed scope definition. Elements of constructability
during front end planning include the following:

q Constructability program already q Development of site layouts


established for efficient construction
q Construction knowledge/ q Early identification of
experience used in project project team participants
planning for constructability analysis
q Early construction involvement in q Use of advanced
contracting strategy development information technologies
q Developing a construction- q Other user defined
sensitive project schedule, with
operations input and operational
needs considered
q Consideration of major
construction methods in basic
design approaches

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Installability (e.g., smaller components/modules/pre-


assembly to facilitate installation in congested areas)
q Opportunities to perform as much work as possible
outside of shutdowns or outages
q Development of an operations-sensitive project
schedule (e.g., minimization of shutdown/turnaround
work and hot work in operating areas, and reduction
of traffic disruption at high volume times)

72
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION II: BASIS OF DESIGN

F. SITE INFORMATION

F1. Geotechnical Characteristics


Geotechnical and soil test evaluations of the project footprint should be
developed. Ways in which the project will be affected by geotechnical
characteristics should be considered. Items to evaluate and consider
include the following:
q General site descriptions (e.g., terrain, spoil removals,
and areas of hazardous waste)
q Collection of all previous geotechnical investigation
data
q Soil composition and strata structure
q Potential soil expansion considerations
q Soil densities and compaction requirements
q Seismic requirements, including liquefaction potential
q Foundation requirements
q Allowable bearing capacities
q Pier/pile capacities
q Water table
q Groundwater flow rates and directions
q Soil percolation rate and conductivity
q Karst formations, caves, or mines
q Man-made/abandoned facilities
q Existing foundations or subsurface structures
q Existing or abandoned landfills
q Existing or abandoned cemeteries
q Site characterization to identify areas of hazardous or
toxic soils
q Soil treatment and remediation needs
q Soil boring tests and test pits
q Horizontal directional drilling versus open cut
q Geological baseline reports (GBR)
q Other user defined

73
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F2. Hydrological Characteristics


Hydraulic information should be reviewed and analyzed at a high level
prior to selection of alternatives and detailed design. This information
is necessary for determining hydraulic structural requirements and
detention facilities, as well as preliminary right-of-way requirements.
Issues to consider include the following:
q Drainage basin characteristics
q Size, shape, and orientation
q Slope of terrain
q Groundwater
q Watershed development potential
q Geology
q Surface infiltration
q Antecedent moisture condition
q Storage potential (e.g., overbank, wetlands, ponds,
reservoirs, and channels)
q Flood plain characteristics
q Waves, tides, and currents
q Soil types and characteristics
q Cathodic protection requirements
q Ground cover and erosion concerns, including scour
susceptibility
q Meteorological characteristics
q Precipitation types and amounts
q Peak flow rates
q Hydrographs
q Special precipitation concerns
q Storm water runoff control
q Potential impacts of future development
q Affected communities or agencies such as watershed
districts/regulations
q Other user defined

74
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F3. Surveys & Mapping


Once it has been determined that a corridor or site needs to be studied,
a reconnaissance of the corridor/site should be conducted. This includes
a study of the entire area. The study facilitates the development of one
or more routes or corridors or location options. It provides sufficient
detail to enable appropriate officials to recommend the optimal location.
Issues to consider include the following:
q Existing geographic/mapping information from
general sources or previous study, including
geographical information system data
q Right-of-entry requirements
q Surveying consultant requirements
q Aerial photography from general sources or previous
studies and surveys
q Regional demographic maps, identifying areas of
special impact
q Existing right-of-way maps/inventory, including
easements
q Preliminary survey, including recovery of existing
monuments
q Topography (contours)
q Existing structure locations
q Grid ticks and centerlines
q Geotechnical summaries
q Utility information
q Satellite/light detection and ranging (LIDAR) surveys
q Affected area maps
q Special property owner concerns
q Use of subsurface utility engineers (SUE)
q Other user defined

75
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F4. Permitting Requirements


Permitting usually begins concurrently with surveys and continues
throughout project construction. Personnel responsibilities should be
clearly delineated and specific to each permit, including a listing of all
organizations that may require permitting. In many cases, permits must
be obtained before further approval of project development activities
and site access; in some cases permits may have schedule constraints.
Issues to consider include the following:
q Noise
q Traffic
q Building
q Navigation
q Land use or zoning
q Operating
q Approved points of discharge permits
q Grading and erosion permits
q Local, regional, or national jurisdictional permits
q Construction
q Utility
q Crossing
q Waterway permits (e.g., the U.S. Rivers and Harbors
Act Section 10 requirements)
q Wetland permits (e.g., the U.S. Clean Water Act
Section 404 requirements)
q Flora and fauna permits (e.g., those required by the
U.S. Endangered Species Act)
q Resource agency permits (e.g., those administered by the
U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC))
q Historic and cultural association permits
q Pollutant and emissions permits
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Original intent of codes and regulations and any


“grandfathered” requirements

76
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F5. Environmental Documentation


Funding sources and the project’s environmental classification drive the
type of environmental documentation that is required. Environmental
documentation should provide a brief summary of the results of analysis
and coordination, as well as information about the social, economic,
and environmental impacts of a project. This summary should include a
determination of what decision should be made on a project’s construction,
location, and design. In addition, the document should describe early
interagency coordination and preliminary public involvement, including
estimates of time required for milestones. While some jurisdictions may
have policies that differ from those of federal agencies, most follow U.S.
classifications. Typical types of environmental documentation include
the following:
q Environmental Assessments (EA)
q Environmental Impact statements (EIS)
q Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
q Categorical Exclusions (CE)
q Potential Outcomes
q Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
q Notice of Intent (NOI)
q Record of Decision (ROD)
q Categorical Exclusion (CE)
q Section 4F documentation (e.g., parks and recreation
areas, refuges, cultural resources, and other sites)
q Environmental monitoring
q Environmental constraints should be incorporated
into preliminary right-of-way maps and schematics
(as described in Element F7).
q Other user defined

(Note: All jurisdictions have specific environmental policies and


requirements that need to be understood by planners. For example,
the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires three
levels of environmental analysis. At the first level, an undertaking may
be categorically excluded (CE) from a detailed environmental analysis
if it meets certain previously determined federal criteria for having no
significant environmental impact. At the second level of analysis, a federal

77
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

agency prepares a written Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine


whether or not a federal undertaking would significantly affect the
environment. If this is not the case, the agency issues a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
is a more detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) announces an agency’s decision to prepare
an EIS for a particular action and must be published in the Federal
Register. The public, other federal agencies, and outside parties may
provide input into the preparation of an EIS and then comment on the
draft EIS when it is completed. Following the final EIS, the agency will
prepare a Record of Decision (ROD).)

F6. Environmental Commitments & Mitigation


Environmental commitments determine what a project’s involved
parties can and cannot do to protect the environment. Environmental
commitments begin at the earliest phase of project development, although
completion of commitments may not occur until the operation and
maintenance phase of a project. Because there is a substantial time gap
between the beginning and end of a commitment, it is imperative that
commitments are communicated from environmental clearance through
detailed design, pre-bid conference, project letting, maintenance, and
operation. Issues to consider include the following:
q Avoidance commitments
q Compensation commitments
q Enhancements commitments
q Minimization commitments
q Habitat mitigation
q Water quality facilities management
q Wetland mitigation
q Storm water management plans
q Cultural resources mitigation
q Noise abatement remediation
q Hazardous materials abatement locations
q Environmental remediation plans
q Other user defined

78
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F7. Property Descriptions


Property descriptions are prepared as exhibits for the conveyance of
property interests that will be affected by a project. The property
descriptions reflect a boundary survey showing ownership and including
legal descriptions, as well as parcel plat determinations. Property
descriptions should be summarized from survey information into a form
of documentation that can be logged into project information systems.
The level of confidence and validation of the documentation—such
as field verified versus scaled from existing maps—should be noted.
Information needed includes the following:
q Type of property or businesses affected
q Historical data used in preparing the survey
q Parcel plats
q Parcel size and area
q Control reference point data
q Easements
q Centerline station ties
q Control of access lines
q Gates, fences, and barriers
q County, city, federal, or other jurisdictional boundary
lines
q Review of existing right-of-way maps from previous
projects
q On-site canvas of the proposed affected properties
q Appraisal maps and records
q Abstractor’s indices
q Real property records
q Mineral and water rights
q Other user defined

79
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

F8. Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues


A right-of-way map is a compilation of internal data, property descriptions
with field notes and parcel plats, appraisal information, and improvements
related to the project. Right-of-way maps are typically internal planning
and management documents, with significant impact on the project
development process. Preparation of these maps normally begins after
obtaining schematic design approval. Parcels that may cause difficulties
in acquisition should be identified, including indications of specific site
conditions or characteristics that may cause delays or problems. Issues
to consider include the following:
q Parcel numbers and priority
q Existing site information
q Improvements within right-of-way
q Previous uses of land
q Zoning
q Utility locations
q Record ownership data of adjacent properties
q Existing boundaries and limits
q Existing drainage channels and easements
q Design information
q Access control lines
q Configuration of infrastructure project
q Hydraulics
q Maintenance access or connecting ramps
q Limit of flood pool
q Parcel information
q Property owner name
q Parcel title requirements
q Parcel number
q Parent tract
q Type of conveyance, if known (e.g., donation,
negotiation, and condemnation)
q Station to station limits and offset
q Area in acres and/or square feet
q Area of uneconomic remainders

80
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Property lines
q Bearing and distance to control points
q Property descriptions
q Inherent parcel issues that may cause difficulties in
right-of-way acquisition
q Landfill and superfund records
q Hazardous material exposure (e.g., poly-
chlorinated biphenyls (PCB) transformers or
underground storage tank locations)
q Wetlands identification
q Floodway identification
q Endangered species locations
q Stockpiles and production sites
q Outfall locations
q Oil and gas well piping
q Railroad and/or roadway interests
q Special use properties (e.g., government use,
alcohol sales, and cemeteries)
q Beautification and signage
q Land use impacts
q Socioeconomic impacts
q Economic development/speculation
q Legal (lawyer) activity in area
q Title curative issues
q National, regional, or locally owned properties
q Number of partial takings
q Splitting of parcels
q Landlocked parcels
q Existing easements
q Cultural issues
q Public park space
q Cultural resources
q Historical landmarks
q Archeologically sensitive sites
q Other user defined

81
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G. LOCATION and GEOMETRY

G1. Schematic Layouts


The submission of schematic layouts should include basic information
necessary for the proper review and evaluation of the proposed
improvement. The schematic is essential for use in public meetings and
coordinating design features. Format and delivery should be tailored to
the audience. Issues to consider include the following:
q General project information (e.g., q Location of retaining and
boundary limits, speed or volume, noise abatement walls
and classification)
q Projected capacities
q Location of structures (e.g.,
q Control of access during
interchanges, main lanes,
and after construction
frontages, ramps, levees, channels,
ditches, dam structures, towers, q Existing structures and
utilities, and drainage structures) removal of improvements
q Signage schematics q Master plan zoning map
q Profiles and alignments q Soils maps
q Overhead and underground q Cut and fill balance
right-of-way q Jurisdictional map
q Added or future capacity analyses q Watershed/water basin
q Tentative right-of-way limits delineation
q Geometrics q Other user defined

Location/arrangement drawings identify the location of each major


project item, including equipment, support structure, or miscellaneous
elements. These drawings should include the following:
q Location, including coordinates q Elevation views
q Coordination of location among q Visibility or line of sight
all items
q Access
q Setbacks
q Other user defined
q Interface

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects


q Renovation work in relation q Clear identification
to existing structures and of existing systems
demolition and equipment to be
removed, rearranged, or
q Detours or bypasses
to remain in place
q Temporary conveyance facilities

82
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment


Due to the near permanent nature of the right-of-way alignment once
the infrastructure project is constructed, it is important that the proper
alignment be selected according to the system’s design speed, pressure
pipe hydraulics, open channel hydraulic parameters, existing and future
roadside or adjacent development, subsurface conditions, topography,
among other parameters. Issues to consider include the following:
q Horizontal geometry q Upstream and downstream
control structures/
q Vertical geometry
parameters
q Design exceptions or waivers
q Social/political constraints
identified and validated
q Constrained right-of-way
q Pipeline or power line
zones areas (i.e., choke
corridors and easements
points)
q Sight distances
q River, lake, or ocean
q Geometry referenced to a crossings, including
surveying control system landfall or transitions
q Crossover grades and profiles q Existing above-ground
q Vertical lift and underground utilities,
especially in dense urban
q Vertex data areas
q Access to target users or q Horizontal directional
market drilling (HDD)/tunneling
q Proximity to raw materials feasibility

q Natural corridors q Other user defined

83
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G3. Cross-Sectional Elements


Cross-sections are an important design element related to the cost and
schedule of the proposed project. The width of the right-of-way will be
controlled by the proposed design. Examination of the typical cross-
section will indicate those elements of design affecting the width of the
proposed right-of-way and utility adjustments, among other factors.
Issues to consider include the following:
q Maintenance access
q Cut or fill slopes
q Easements
q Horizontal clearances to obstructions
q Pavement cross slopes
q Frontage roads and ramp radii
q Sidewalks and pedestrian elements
q Noise abatement (e.g., walls, structures, or operating
limitations)
q Number and width of road lanes
q Width of median
q Width of shoulder
q Pipeline support berm width
q Extent of berm areas
q Channel levee widths
q Cross drainage structures
q Extent of side slopes and ditches, including levees and
dams
q Linear profile for hydraulic/hydrostatic testing
q Channel routing models
q Other user defined

84
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

G4. Control of Access


It is important during front end planning to maintain access to specific
portions of the infrastructure project for both construction and permanent
access. Planners need to address the concerns of controlled access limits
to and from adjacent property or facilities. Access control should be
coordinated with right-of-way acquisition, including access deeds and
restrictions. Issues to consider include the following:
q Entrance/exit locations and q Bypasses
length
q Access to runways
q Growth capacity
q Intermodal interface
q Access deed restrictions
q Pumping or support
q Safety and security of access stations
q Trunk tie-ins q Valve tie-ins
q Special required access lanes q Pig access
q Bike and pedestrian lanes q Cleanouts
q High Occupancy Vehicle
q Pretreatment, including
(HOV)/High Occupancy
bar screens, grit removal,
Toll (HOT) lanes
grinders, and compactors
q Truck-only lanes
q Desalting and settling
q Crossover lanes or access
tanks
q Turnarounds
q Manholes
q Frontage road requirements
q Transformer location
q Controlled access systems,
including life safety q Switching stations
requirements q Data security
q Split-parcel access q Integration and
requirements compatibility
q Driveway access requirements q Other user defined
q Waiting lanes or rails

85
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

H. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES and EQUIPMENT

H1. Support Structures


Infrastructure projects often require support structures for conveyance
requirements along the extent of right-of-way, e.g., bridges for freight,
people, or pipelines. As a result, right-of-way requirements must take
into account the impacts of structure design on the affected corridor. For
example, pipelines may need to span a gap while maintaining a specified
grade, and transportation and distribution facilities must span long gaps
while maintaining a specified clearance above a transportation corridor.
Planners should address the following structural considerations:
q Structure locations q Retaining walls and
abutments
q Materials of construction
q Vertical and horizontal
q Foundation requirements
alignment
q Seismic requirements
q Fencing
q Right-of-way impacts
q Lightning protection
q Towers
q Safety lighting
q Stringing requirements
q Maintenance accessibility
q Toll plazas
q Pipe racks
q Safety tolerances
q Cable trays
q Maximum height
q Span gap
q Minimum clearances
q Maximum loads and q Special load requirements
capacities (e.g., ice, wind, and heavy
load)
q Clear roadway width
q Thrust blocks
q Utilities attached to bridge
structures q Valve and pumping
stations/enclosures
q Turnarounds
q Other user defined
q Access requirements
q Maintenance of right-of-way

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects


q Current condition and life q Bypasses or temporary
expectancy conveyance
q Temporary signage q Detour bridge requirements
or lane rerouting
q Maximum construction bridge
loading

86
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

H2. Hydraulic Structures


In the analysis or design of drainage facilities, the relative importance
of facility will determine the appropriate investment of time, expense,
concentration, and completeness. Some of the basic components inherent
in the design or analysis of any pipeline, channel, or highway drainage
facility include the following types of data:
• surveys of existing characteristics
• estimates of future characteristics
• engineering design criteria
• discharge estimates
• structure requirements and constraints
• receiving facilities.

Issues to consider include the following:


q Open channels, tunnels, and q Special required easements
outfall structures
q Hydraulic routing
q Right-of-way impact
q Environmental impact q Hydraulic channel controls

q Storm drain systems q Wildlife crossing structures

q Emergency spillways q Life-cycle maintenance


considerations and costs
q Collection basins
q Multipurpose requirements
q Culverts (e.g., flood control plus
power generation)
q Fluid energy abatement
q Erosion control
q Inlets/outlets
q Other user defined
q Irrigation controls
q Street cleaning requirements

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Current condition and life expectancy


q Bypasses or temporary conveyance

87
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

H3. Miscellaneous Elements


In addition to typical pipeline, water channel, energy, and/or roadway
design elements, the following features may require consideration and
planning. In some cases, acquisition of additional right-of-way may be
required. These items should be identified and listed, and may include
the following:
q Longitudinal barriers
q Rip-rap/gabions/soil retaining structures
q Fencing
q Emergency management issues
q Noise abatement walls
q Visual architectural blending structures
q Maintenance and storage yards
q Tollway structures
q Border and immigration structures
q Parking
q Rest areas and stops
q Blast deflection devices
q Signage, delineation, roadway markings, and
historical markers
q Extended shoulders for service
q Truck weigh stations
q Pedestrian separations and ramps
q Emergency median openings and widths
q Runaway vehicle lanes
q Hazardous material traps
q Storm septors and other storm water control devices
q Emergency spillway area
q Berms or containment structures
q Other user defined

88
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

H4. Equipment List


Project-specific installed equipment should be defined and listed. In
some cases, equipment may have to be manufactured and purchased
specifically for construction of the facility. In situations in which owners
are furnishing equipment, the equipment should be properly defined and
purchased. Items may include the following:
q Traffic control devices
q Low-volume roads
q School zones
q Highway-rail or light-rail transit grade crossings
q Bicycles
q Temporary
q Intelligent transportation systems devices
q Cameras
q Loop detectors
q Sensors
q Monitors
q Specialized equipment (e.g., tunnel boring machines
(TBM), dredges, and cranes)
q Electronic signage
q Highway traffic signals
q Toll equipment
q Rest area requirements
q Turbines
q Compressors
q Pumps
q Conveyor systems
q Grinders
q Clarifiers
q Tanks or basins
q Filtering
q Transformers
q Electrical substations (breakers, disconnect switches,
and protection and control equipment)
q Spares and commonality requirements
q Other user defined

89
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Training requirements for equipment operation have been defined, with


responsibilities established in some of the following areas:
q Control systems
q Information systems and technology
q Equipment operation
q Maintenance of systems
q Training materials and equipment (e.g., manuals and
simulations)
q Safety
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Identification of systems and equipment as new,


existing or relocate, existing or in place, remove, etc.
q Clear definition of any modifications to existing
systems and equipment

H5. Equipment Utility Requirements


A tabulated list of utility requirements for all major installed equipment
items should be developed for an understanding of overall utility load and
distribution for the facility. As part of this determination of requirements,
it may be appropriate to perform a utility optimization study. Items to
consider include the following:
q Power q Steam
q Hard line q Sewage
q Solar
q Communications, including
q Auxiliary or backup cables or fiber-optics
q Water q Fuel
q Air and specialty gasses q Other user defined

90
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS

I1. Capacity
In general, a capacity study is required for scope definition of many
infrastructure projects. These studies provide a description of the
related process flows and interactions, allowing the planning team to
ensure adequate facility capacity while guarding against over- or under-
design. The capacity study should fit within the need and purpose of
the project as defined in Element A1. Capacity studies generally include
flow diagrams, which construction organizations refer to variously by
the following acronyms:
q EFDs Engineering Flow Diagrams
q MFDs Mechanical Flow Diagrams
q PMCDs Process & Mechanical Control Diagrams
q P&IDs Process and Instrumentation Diagrams
q CCS Corridor Capacity Study
q SLD Single Line Diagrams

Capacity studies should address the following areas:


q Flow of resources and q Safety/security systems
outputs
q Sustainability concerns
q Contractual requirements
q Special notations
q Primary control loops for the
q Level of service
major equipment items
q Level of flow
q Capacity constraints and
growth considerations q Standard component size
q Major equipment items q Service/industry standards
q Utilities q Other user defined
q Instrumentation

91
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Following are typical items to consider for people and freight-type


projects:
q Traffic capacity studies q Corridor capacity
q Passenger or freight handling q Taxiways and parking
aprons
q Interchanges
q Instrumentation and
q Signage
lighting
q Security check points
q Runway orientation
q Tolling
q Controlled air space
q Vehicle parking
q Airport/port layout plan
q Rail switch location
q Lock capacity
q Siding rails and spurs

Following are typical items to consider for fluid-type projects:


q Piping q Leakage
q Hydraulic profile q Friction and head loss
q Flow rate q Valves
q Containment and storage q Equipment
q Open channel q Control
q Dewatering systems q Piping specialty items

Following are typical items to consider for energy-type projects:


q Grid integration q Tie-ins or interchanges
q Transmission line capacity q Transformers and switching
gear
q Resistance and impedance
q Telecommunication media
q Generation
(e.g., fiber-optic, power
q Bandwidth capacity line carrier (PLC), or
microwave)

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects


q Definition of owner’s q Scope of work on existing
requirements for updating flow diagrams (i.e., clouding
existing flow diagrams or shading to indicate new,
refurbished, modified, and/
q Tie-in points
or relocated equipment,
q Accuracy of existing capacity piping, instruments, and
studies and flow diagrams controls).
(i.e., field verify)

92
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Since incomplete information in capacity studies can cause project


escalation, it is important to understand a project’s level of completeness.
These studies generally evolve as the project scope definition is developed.
However, the study documents must be complete enough to support the
required accuracy of estimate.

I2. Safety and Hazards


This element refers to a formal process for identifying and mitigating
safety and environmental hazards. This process is used to identify
potential risk of injury to the environment or populace for certain types
of infrastructure projects. Many jurisdictions—or organizations—will
have their own specific compliance requirements; for example, in the
United States, OSHA Regulation 1910.119 compliance is required for
oil and gas conveyance. The important issue is whether the owner has
clearly communicated the requirements, methodology, and responsibility
for the various activities to the project team. If the analysis has not been
conducted, the team should consider the potential of risks that could
affect the schedule and cost of the project. Issues to consider include
the following:
q Handling of nuclear materials
q Cleanup requirements in case of spills
q Containment requirements
q Confined space
q Air monitoring
q Hazardous Operations (HAZOP) requirements
q Other user defined

93
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I3.Civil/Structural
A clear statement of civil/structural requirements should first be
identified or developed and then documented as a basis of design. This
documentation should include some of the following issues:
q Client specifications (e.g., basis for design loads,
capacity, and vulnerability and risk assessments)
q Future expansion considerations
q Physical requirements
q Seismic requirements
q Safety considerations
q Construction materials (e.g., concrete, steel, and
client standards)
q Sustainability considerations, including certification
q Standard or customized design
q Definition of nomenclature and documentation
requirements for civil drawings
q Overall project site plan
q Project phasing requirements
q Interim traffic or by-pass control plans
q Structures
q Location of equipment and facilities
q Utilities
q Roads and paving
q Grading/drainage/erosion control/landscaping
q Corrosion control/protective coatings
q Minimum clearances
q Architectural theme
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Existing structural conditions (e.g., foundations,


building framing, and harmonics/vibrations)
q Potential effect of noise, vibration, and restricted
headroom in installation of piling and on existing
operations
q Underground interference that necessitates shallow-
depth designs

94
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I4. Mechanical/Equipment
A clear statement of mechanical and equipment design requirements
should first be identified or developed, and then documented as a basis of
design. This documentation should include some of the following issues:
q Life cycle costing basis
q Energy conservation
q Sustainability considerations, including certification
q Equipment/space special requirements with respect to
environmental conditions (e.g., air quality and special
temperatures)
q System redundancy requirements
q Special ventilation or exhaust requirements
q Acoustical requirements
q Water treatment
q Auxiliary/emergency power requirements
q System zones and control strategy
q Air circulation requirements
q Outdoor design conditions (e.g., minimum and
maximum yearly temperatures)
q Indoor design conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity,
pressure, and air quality)
q Emissions control
q Utility support requirements
q Plumbing requirements
q Special piping requirements
q Seismic requirements
q Fire protection systems requirements
q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Renovation projects’ alteration of existing mechanical


design assumptions
q Potential reuse of existing equipment and systems for
renovation project
q New bypasses and tie-in requirements

95
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I5. Electrical/Controls
A clear statement of electrical design requirements should be identified or
developed, and then documented as a basis of design. This documentation
should include some of the following issues:
q Life cycle costing basis q Code and safety
requirements
q Electrical classification based
on environment q Alternate energy systems
(e.g., solar and wind)
q Programmable logic
controllers (PLC) versus q Flow measuring and
Distributed Control System monitoring
(DCS)
q Special lighting
q Local versus remote control considerations (e.g.,
security, lighting levels,
q Automated versus manual
exterior/security, use of day
control
lighting, color rendition,
q Energy consumption/ signage or traffic lights)
conservation
q Voice, data, and video
q Sustainability, including communications
certification requirements
q Power sources with available q Telecommunication and
voltage/amperage data systems
q Electrical substations, q Instrumentation
transformers, switching gear
q Advanced audio/visual
q Uninterruptable power (A/V) connections
source (UPS) and/
q Personnel sensing
or emergency power
requirements q Security/access control
systems
q Lightning/grounding
requirements q Other user defined

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Integration of new technology with existing systems,


including interface issues
q Safety systems potentially compromised by any new
technology
q Renovation projects’ alteration of existing electrical
design assumptions
q Potential reuse of existing equipment and systems for
renovation project

96
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

I6. Operations/Maintenance
A clear statement of operations/maintenance design requirements
should first be identified or developed, and then documented as part of
the basis of design. Operations and maintenance activities are related
to the performance of routine, preventive, predictive, scheduled, and
unscheduled actions aimed at preventing equipment failure or decline.
These activities maintain the correct level of efficiency, reliability, and
safety. Operational efficiency represents the life-cycle cost-effective mix of
preventive, predictive, and reliability-centered maintenance technologies,
coupled with equipment calibration, tracking, and computerized
maintenance management capabilities. This mix of technologies and
capabilities ensures reliability, safety, occupant comfort, and system
efficiency. Sustainability concerns should be addressed as appropriate.
Design parameters for operations/maintenance should be considered for
infrastructure components such as levees, utilities, roadway structures,
drainage structures, traffic control devices, vegetation, and other items
related to infrastructure projects. To the extent practical, the use of
desirable design criteria regarding maximum side-slope ratios and ditch
profile grades will reduce maintenance and make required maintenance
operation easier to accomplish. Items to consider include the following:
q Accessibility:
q Access roads, gates, and ramps
q Seasonal access requirements
q Restricted access
q Surveillance and intrusion detection systems
q Elevated and subsurface access
q Valve and pumping station
q Barriers/obstructions/berms/fences
q Egress and access structures
q Manholes
q Platforms
q Vaults
q Underground pedestrian tunnels
q Steam stations

97
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

q Safety
q Confined space permitting
q Fall protection
q Overhead power lines
q Underground utilities
q Emergency response evacuation and
communications system
q Detour or bypass options
q Temporary structures for maintenance
q Repair parts storage and fabrication facilities
q Surface finishes (e.g., paint and hot-dip galvanized)
q Right-of-way vegetative clearing and maintenance
q Types of vegetation
q Overhead interferences
q Remote monitoring capabilities
q Other user defined

98
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

SECTION III: EXECUTION APPROACH

J. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY

J1. Local Public Agencies Contracts & Agreements


Contractual agreements with local public agency (LPA) participants
may be required. The execution of contractual agreements establishes
responsibilities for the acquisition of right of way, adjustment of utilities
and cost sharing between the LPA(s) and the project owner. The type of
contract to be used is determined by whether the LPA chooses to administer
right-of-way activities and payments or defers those responsibilities to
the owner. In some cases an agreement must be entered into before a
project is released for right-of-way acquisition. Issues to consider include
the following:
q Master agreement governing q Prerequisites to secure right-
local agency project advance of-way project release on
funding non-federal-aid projects
q Cost participation and work q Request for determination
responsibilities between the of eligibility
owner and LPAs or others
q Compatibility with local
q Reimbursement to the Local regulations and procedures
Public Agencies (LPA) or
q Long-term operation and
others for purchased parcels
maintenance responsibility
q Lender requirements or
q Other user defined
stipulations

J2. Long-lead Parcel & Utility Adjustment Identification and Acquisition


Right-of-way acquisition and utility adjustment are almost always on the
critical path of an infrastructure project. It is important to identify and
focus on all parcels within the right-of-way (ROW), but those that might
cause delay—such as those that may require eminent domain acquisition
or have other inherent problems (as identified in Element F7)—require
special attention. Utilities with a history of slow response in making
adjustments should be aggressively managed. It should be noted that
ROW and utility adjustment issues may be of concern even in cases in

99
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

which the parcel or utility is owned by a separate public entity. A strategy


must be developed to address these problematic parcels and/or utility
adjustments. Issues to consider include the following:
q Identification and prioritization of long-lead parcels
and utilities
q Defining responsible party for parcel acquisition and
utility adjustment
q Appraisal responsibility and performance
q Acquisition of parcels
q Relocation of displaced land owners
q Abatement and removal of existing improvements
q Other user defined

J3. Utility Agreement & Joint-Use Contracts


Prioritizing utility agreements may be essential to ensure that the
concurrent review and approval processes are coordinated and efficient.
The utility agreements and joint-use contracts effectively enable the
utility to share space on public or private right-of-way and to complete
utility adjustments. (Note that single utilities are sometimes owned and
controlled by separate public entities and must be coordinated.) Issues
to consider include the following:
q Utility agreements, plans, and estimates
q Public or private utilities
q Crossing permits for transportation vectors (e.g.,
highways, railroads, and canals)
q Supporting documentation
q Transmittal memo from district to division
q Crossing and parallel encroachment permits
q Compatibility with jurisdictional regulatory and
approval processes
q Other user defined

100
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

J4. Land Appraisal Requirements


Acquisition should not begin until a formal right-of-way release or
organizational go-ahead is obtained. An early step in acquisition is to
determine the value of parcels for reimbursement. Ensuring that appraisal
occurs in a timely manner is essential. Appraisal requirements include
the following:
q Pre-appraisal contacts
q Determination of number of appraisers required
q Determination of appraisal assignments
q Use of in-house or contract appraisers
q Prioritization of parcel appraisals, if required
q Other user defined

J5. Advance Land Acquisition Requirements


Because advance acquisition involves the acquisition of right-of-way
before normal release for right-of-way acquisition is given for the project,
advance acquisition requirements need to be identified and addressed as
soon as possible in the project. Although this process bypasses detailed
environmental scoping, consideration for environmental effects should
be made when parcels are slated for advance acquisition. (Note: this is
not the acquisition of long-lead parcels that occurs through the normal
release process.) Examples of advance acquisition include the following:
q Protective buying to prevent imminent parcel
development that would materially increase right-of-
way costs
q Hardship acquisition of a parcel at the property
owner’s request
q Donation of land for right-of-way purposes for no
consideration
q Acquisition of parcels with multiple, sometimes
undivided, owners or unknown owners
q Other user defined

101
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

K. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

K1. Project Delivery Method & Contracting Strategies


The methods of project design and construction delivery, including fee
structure and risk allocation for the project should be identified. Types
of project delivery methods and contract strategies to consider include
the following:
q Owner self-performed q Design/build scope
package considerations
q Selected methods (e.g.,
design/build, construction q Solicitation package is
management (CM) at risk, competitive in the market
competitive sealed proposal, place (i.e., biddability)
bridging, design-bid-build,
q Craft labor studies
multi-prime, and sole source
negotiated) q Small business and
disadvantaged business
q Requirements under
contract requirements
franchises, concessions, or
other agreements q Local content requirements
q Designer and constructor q Other user defined
qualification selection process
q Compensation arrangement
(e.g., lump sum, cost-plus,
and negotiated)

K2. Long-Lead/Critical Equipment & Materials Identification


Installed equipment and material items with long lead times may affect
the design and construction schedule. These items should be identified
and tracked. A strategy should be developed to expedite these items if
possible. Examples may include some of the following items:
q Engineered components q Computer and/or software
systems
q Toll equipment
q Pumps, piping, and valves
q Electronic information
boards q Transformers and
switchgear
q Bridge or tower structural
components q Cable
q Pre-cast elements q Structural steel
q Directional lighting systems q Other user defined

102
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

K3. Procurement Procedures & Plans


Procurement procedures and plans include specific guidelines, special
requirements, or methodologies for accomplishing the purchasing,
expediting, and delivery of equipment and materials required for the
project. Issues to consider include the following:
q Responsibility for performing q Definition of source
procurement inspection requirements and
responsibilities
q Listing of approved vendors,
if applicable q Definition of traffic/
insurance responsibilities
q Client or contractor purchase
orders q Definition of procurement
status reporting
q Reimbursement terms and
requirements
conditions
q Additional/special owner
q Equipment/material
accounting requirements
specifications
q Definition of spare parts
q Guidelines for supplier
requirements
alliances, single source, or
competitive bids q Incentive/penalty strategy
for contracts
q Guidelines for engineering/
construction contracts and q Delivery requirements
approval
q Receiving, staging, and
q Responsibility for owner- storage
purchased items q Warranty
q Financial
q Operating manual
q Shop inspection requirements and training
documentation (e.g.,
factory acceptance tests) q Restricted distribution of
construction documents for
q Expediting and tracking
security and anti-terrorism
q Tax strategy considerations
q Depreciation capture q Other user defined
q Local sales and use tax
treatment
q Investment tax credits
q Local regulations (e.g.,
tax restrictions and tax
advantages)

103
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

K4. Procurement Responsibility Matrix


A procurement responsibility matrix should be developed showing
authority and responsibility for procurement. This matrix should outline
responsibilities for the following:
q Engineering, design and q Consulting services
professional services
q Commissioning and start-
q Engineered equipment up materials
q Construction q Source inspection
q Bulk materials q Other
q Fabrication/modularization

Additional items to consider for Renovation & Revamp projects

q Utilization of reused and existing equipment,


materials, lines, and electrical and instrumentation.
q Availability of procurement support during time-
constrained R&R work, especially when expedited
material services are required.

L. PROJECT CONTROL

L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates


Right-of-way costs are defined as those instances in which there is an
interest in land acquired; these costs include all costs necessary to acquire
the property. In some cases, land and interests in land must be acquired
outside of existing right-of-way for or by the utility. The cost estimates
in some cases are prepared by the utility and submitted in support of the
utility agreement and the plans required for the proposed work. These
estimates should cover only the work for clearing infrastructure project
construction. Issues to consider include the following:
q Cost of right-of-way q Salaries and expenses of
employees engaged in the
q Amounts paid to fee appraisers
valuation and negotiation
for appraisal of the right-of-way
q Right-of-way costs
q Costs normally paid that are
incurred by a utility
incidental to land acquisition
q Cost of utility adjustment
q Payment of property damages
and bringing necessary
and losses to improvements
utilities to site
q Recording costs
q Other user defined
q Deed fees

104
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

L2. Design & Construction Cost Estimates


The project cost estimates should address all costs necessary for
completion of the project —excluding the right-of-way acquisition and
utility adjustment costs that are addressed in Element L1. These cost
estimates may include the following:
q Design costs q Miscellaneous expenses
q Construction contract q Specialty consultants
estimate q Inspection and testing
services
q Professional fees
q Bidding costs
q Construction management q Site clearance
fees
q Environmental impact
q General conditions costs mitigation measures
q Trades resource plan q Jurisdictional permit fees
q Sureties
q Administrative costs
q Other expenses
q Inspection costs
q Taxes
q Environmental monitoring
q Depreciation schedule
q Public relations q Capitalized/expensed
q Contingencies q Tax incentives
q Contractors’ sales tax
q Cost escalation for labor
and materials q Utility costs during
q Cost escalation for elements construction—a cost to the
beyond the project cost project, whether paid by
estimates owner or contractor

q Start-up and commissioning q Interest on borrowed funds


costs (i.e., the cost of money)

q Capitalized overhead q Site surveys and soils tests

q Safety, health, and q Availability of construction


environmental items lay-down and storage at
site, or in remote or rented
q Site-specific insurance facilities
requirements
q Licensing
q Incentives
q Other user defined

105
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

L3. Project Cost Control


Procedures for controlling project cost need to be outlined and
responsibility should be assigned. These procedures may include some
of the following cost control requirements:
q Financial (client/regulatory)
q Phasing or area sub-accounting
q Capital versus non-capital expenditures
q Report requirements
q Payment schedules and procedures
q Cash flow projections/draw down analysis
q Cost code scheme/strategy
q Costs for each project phase
q Periodic control check estimates
q Change order management procedure, including
scope control and interface with information systems
q Costs pertaining to right-of-way acquisition and
utility adjustment during project execution
q Project and financial control software
q Other user defined

106
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

L4. Project Schedule Control


The project schedule is created to show progress and to ensure that the
project is completed on time. The schedule is necessary for design and
construction of the facility. A schedule format and control procedures
should be developed during front end planning, and should include
assignment of responsibilities. Typical items to consider include the
following:

q Milestones
q Required submissions and/or approvals
q Resource loading requirements
q Required documentation/responsible party
q Baseline schedule versus progress-to-date schedule
q Critical path activities, including field surveys
q Contingency or “float time”
q Force majeure
q Permitting or regulatory approvals
q Activation and commissioning
q Liquidated damages/incentives
q Unusual schedule considerations
q Unscheduled delays due to adverse weather
q Owner determination of how special project issues
will be scheduled
q Selection, procurement, and installation of
equipment
q Stages of the project that must be handled
differently than other project stages
q Tie-ins, service interruptions, and road closures
q Other special project issues

q Other user defined

107
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control


Quality assurance and quality control procedures for the project need
to be established, and should include assignment of responsibilities for
approvals. These procedures may include the following:
q Administration of contracted professional services
q Responsibility during design and construction
q Testing of materials and workmanship
q Quality management system requirements, including
audits (e.g., ISO 9000)
q Environmental quality control
q Submittals
q Inspection reporting requirements, including “hold or
witness” points
q Progress photos
q Reviewing changes and modifications
q Communication documents (e.g., Requests for
Information and Requests for Qualifications)
q Lessons-learned feedback
q Correction of impaired materials, equipment, and
construction
q Jurisdictional quality control requirements such as
those outlined in U.S. National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)
q Other user defined

108
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN

M1. Safety Procedures


Safety procedures and responsibilities must be identified for design
consideration and construction. Safety issues to be addressed may
include the following:
q Staging area for material q Pre-task planning
handling
q Safety for motorists and
q Transportation of personnel workers, including work
and material to/from off-site zone safety
storage
q Requirements for safety
q Environmental safety personnel (e.g., designated/
procedures, including dedicated and third party)
hazardous material handling
q Safety orientation and
q Right-of-way needs for safe planning
construction
q Safety communication
q Safety in utility adjustment
q Safety incentives
q Interaction with the public/
q Owner Controlled
securing site
Insurance Program (OCIP)
q Working at elevations/fall
q Development of site-specific
hazards
safety plan
q Excavation
q Crane action plans
q Evacuation plans and
q Contractor requirements
procedures
q Sub-contractor requirements
q Drug testing
q Other special or unusual
q First aid stations
safety issues
q Location and/or availability
of medical facilities
q Accident reporting and
investigation, including
incident management

109
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M2. Owner Approval Requirements


All documents that require owner approval should be clearly defined.
These documents may be developed in planning or during design or
construction. These may include the following:
q Project objectives statement q Electronic model reviews
q High-level scope and project q Durations of approval cycle
definition compatible with schedule
q Design philosophy q Individual(s) responsible for
reconciling comments before
q Operating philosophy
return
q Maintenance philosophy
q Types of drawings that
q Project milestone or require formal approval
resource-loaded schedule
q Purchase documents
q Corridor selection q Data sheets
q Permit responsibility matrix q Inquiries
q Bid tabs
q Schematic design approval
q Purchase orders
q Project design parameters
q Change management
q Land acquisition strategy, approval authority
including acquisition release
q Quality assurance/quality
q Milestones for drawing control plan
approval
q Vendor information
q Comment
q Approval q Other
q Bid issued
q Construction

110
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M3. Documentation/Deliverables
Deliverables during design, construction, and commissioning of the
facility should be identified. The following items should be included in
a list of deliverables:
q Field surveying books
q Estimates
q Required submissions and/or approvals
q Drawings
q Project correspondence
q Permits
q Project data books (e.g., quantity, format, contents,
and completion date)
q Equipment folders (e.g., quantity, format, contents,
and completion date)
q Design calculations (e.g., quantity, format, contents,
and completion date)
q Procuring documents
q As-built documents
q Quality assurance documents
q Updated information systems and databases
q Operations and maintenance manuals
q Plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) checklist
and data sheet
q Other user defined

111
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M4. Computing & CADD/Model Requirements


Computing hardware, software, and Computer Aided Drafting
and Design (CADD) requirements to support planning, design, and
construction should be defined. These requirements should include any
hard or soft model needs and computing guidelines. Evaluation criteria
should include the following:
q Handling of life cycle facility data including asset
information, models, and electronic documents
q Civil Information System (CIS) requirements
q Geographical Information System (GIS) requirements
q Building Information Modeling (BIM) requirements
q Owner/contractor standard symbols, file formats and
details
q Information technology infrastructure to support
electronic modeling systems, including uninterruptible
power systems (UPS) and disaster recovery
q Application software preference—e.g., 2D and 3D
CADD or application service provider (ASP)—
including licensing requirements
q Configuration and administration of servers and
systems documentation defined
q Compatibility requirements of information systems
(e.g., design information system or construction
information system)
q Security and auditing requirements defined
q Physical model requirements
q Other user defined

112
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M5. Design/Construction Plan & Approach


A documented plan should be developed identifying specific approaches
to be used in designing and constructing the project. This plan may
include the following items:
q Organizational structure q Quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) plan
q Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) q Environmental monitoring
plan
q Interface with other projects
or facilities, including q Design and approvals
coordination sequencing of events
q Responsibility matrix q Integration of permitting,
design, right-of-way
q Subcontracting strategy
acquisition, utility
q Project labor agreements adjustment, and
q Work week plan/schedule, construction
including weekend and night q Materials management,
work including field
q Permitting requirements and equipment and materials
action plan transportation, receiving,
warehousing, staging,
q Design and approval of maintenance, and control
sequencing with parcel
acquisition q Contractor meeting/
reporting schedule
q Construction sequencing of
events q Partnering or strategic
alliances
q Site logistics plan
q Alternative dispute
q Integration of safety resolution
requirements/program with
plan q Responsibility for
furnishings, equipment,
q Identification of critical and built-ins
activities that have potential
impact on facilities (i.e., q Public relations
existing facilities, traffic and community
flows, and utility shut downs communications
and tie-ins) q Other user defined

113
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M6. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination & Agreements


Coordination with appropriate private owners, contractors, resource
agencies, local governmental entities, and the public plays a vital role
in project execution planning of proposed infrastructure projects. Both
public and private entities may be responsible for coordination during
project execution, and agreements should be in place to ensure efficient
project delivery. Coordination is initiated at the appropriate levels.
Coordination entities to consider may include the following:
q Owner/funding sources
q Key contractors and suppliers
q State historic preservation offices
q Natural resource conservation services
q Environmental protection agencies (e.g., the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA))
q Air quality boards
q Fish and wildlife services
q International boundary and water commissions
q Federal emergency management organizations (e.g.,
the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA))
q Offices of habitat conservation
q Law enforcement agencies
q Immigration agencies
q Parks and wildlife agencies
q Federal, state, and municipal building departments
q Railroad agencies
q Federal agencies (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE))
q Flood control district
q Departments of transportation
q Utility companies
q Special districts (e.g., municipal utility districts
(MUDs) and roadway utility districts (RUDs))
q Other user defined

114
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M7. Work Zone and Transportation Plan


A preliminary work zone and transportation plan should be developed
to establish a full understanding of project logistics and safety. The
plan should clearly show provisions for safe and efficient operation of
all modes of transportation that are adjacent to or concurrent with the
project during construction; this plan should include considerations for
the safety of construction workers and inspection personnel. The plan
should address the use of heavy equipment and the delivery and storage
of equipment and materials during construction. The plan should be
compliant with national, regional, and local jurisdictional requirements.
Issues to consider include the following:
q Compliance with q Clear zone protection devices
requirements (e.g., a q Concrete traffic barriers
transportation department’s
q Metal beam guard fencing
Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) q Appropriate end
or other compliance treatments
publications) q Other clear zone protection
q Control plan, including devices q Other
provisions to minimize appropriate warning devices
disruption of services or q Special permitting (e.g.,
functionality (e.g., lane for moving equipment or
rental requirements for a materials across a levee or a
road construction project beach)
or liquidated damages for
service down-time) q Hazardous material
movement
q Detours or bypass plans
q Pedestrian safety
q Appropriate signs, markings,
and barricades per the traffic q Oversized loads
control plan q Heavy hauls and lifts
q Safety equipment q Transportation, including
q Barrels barges, sea-lifts, rail, trailers,
q Signage and other equipment
q Flagmen q Remote location access
q Positive barriers q Other user defined
q Vertical panels
q Other safety equipment

115
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

M8. Project Completion Requirements


Issues related to project completion should be addressed to make sure
that the project has a smooth transition to operations. The owner’s
required sequence for turnover of the project for pre-commissioning,
testing, and start-up activation should be developed. It may include the
following items:

q Sequence of turnover, including system identification


and priority
q Contractor’s and owner’s required level of
involvement
q In pre-commissioning
q In training
q In testing
q Clear definition of mechanical/electrical acceptance/
approval requirements

Start-up requirements should be defined and responsibility should be


established. A process should be in place to ensure that start-up planning
will be performed. Issues include the following:
q Start-up goals
q Leadership responsibility
q Sequencing of start-up
q Technology start-up support on-site, including
information technology
q Feedstock/raw materials
q Off-grade waste disposal
q Quality assurance/quality control
q Work force requirements

116
Appendix C. Element Descriptions

Substantial Completion (SC) is the point in time when the facilities are
ready to be used for their intended purposes. Preliminary requirements
for substantial completion need to be determined to assist the planning
and design efforts. The following requirements may need to be addressed:
q Specific requirements for SC responsibilities
developed and documented
q Warranty, permitting, insurance, and tax implication
considerations
q Technology start-up support on-site, including
information technology and systems
q Equipment/systems start-up and performance testing
q Occupancy phasing
q Final code inspection
q Calibration
q Verification
q Documentation
q Training requirements for all systems
q Community acceptance
q Landscape requirements
q Punch list completion plan and schedule
q Substantial completion certificate
q Other user defined

117
Appendix D:
Examples of Completed PDRIs

Example Project 1: Fluids

Project Type: Fluids

Project: Pipeline

Scope: Approximately 70 km pipeline; shared route


corridor; developing countries.

Budget: Final cost approximately $130 million

Scheduled Completion: June 2007

Date Scored: February 16, 2010

Objective of the Meeting: Use the PDRI for Infrastructure on a completed


project as a tool to validate research hypothesis
about front end planning.

Methodology: Project team retroactively evaluated each element


and collectively scored the project according to its
scope definition within each element.

Project Status: 100 percent complete with construction and start-


up

Performance Data: $30 million over budget. Two months behind


schedule. Change orders representing two percent
of total costs.

Success rating: Four out of five.

Major Findings/Areas Overrun in execution duration due to change


for Further Study: orders, government regulation changes, and late
mobilization of workers. Land acquisition also
contributed to delay and cost increases. Overall
business performance was better than expected.

119
Appendix D. Example Project

Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure


Project Score Sheet: Example Project 1: Fluids

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. PROJECT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 112)
A1. Need & Purpose Documentation 0
2 13 24 35 44 2
A2. Investment Studies & Alternatives Assessments 0
1 8 15 22 28 1
A3. Key Team Member Coordination 0
1 6 11 16 19 6
A4. Public Involvement 0
1 6 11 16 21 1
CATEGORY A TOTAL 10
B. OWNER/OPERATOR PHILOSOPHIES (Maximum Score = 67)
B1. Design Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22 7
B2. Operating Philosophy 0 1 5 9 13 16 5
B3. Maintenance Philosophy 0 1 4 7 10 12 4
B4. Future Expansion & Alteration Considerations 0 1 9 9 13 17 0
CATEGORY B TOTAL 16
C. PROJECT FUNDING AND TIMING (Maximum Score = 70)
C1. Funding & Programming 0 1 6 11 16 21 6
C2. Preliminary Project Schedule 0 2 7 12 17 22 7
C3. Contingencies 0 2 8 14 20 27 8
CATEGORY C TOTAL 21
D. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 143)
D1. Project Objectives Statement 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D2. Functional Classification & Use 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D3. Evaluation of Compliance Requirements 0 1 6 11 16 22 6
D4. Existing Environmental Conditions 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
D5. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required 0 1 5 9 13 18 5
D6. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements 0 1 4 7 10 11 0
D7. Determination of Utility Impacts 0 1 6 11 16 19 6
D8. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
CATEGORY D TOTAL 21
E. VALUE ANALYSIS (Maximum Score = 45)
E1. Value Engineering Procedures 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
E2. Design Simplification 0 0 3 6 9 11 3
E3. Material Alternatives Considered 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
E4. Constructability Procedures 0 1 5 9 13 15 9
CATEGORY E TOTAL 14
Section I Maximum Score = 437 SECTION I TOTAL 82
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

120
Appendix D. Example Project

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION (Maximum Score = 119)
F1. Geotechnical Characteristics 0 2 7 12 17 21 12
F2. Hydrological Characteristics 0 1 4 7 10 13 7
F3. Surveys & Mapping 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
F4. Permitting Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 15 5
F5. Environmental Documentation 0 1 5 9 13 18 1
F6. Environmental Commitments & Mitigation 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
F7. Property Descriptions 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
F8. Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues 0 1 4 7 10 14 4
CATEGORY F TOTAL 32
G. LOCATION and GEOMETRY (Maximum Score = 47)
G1. Schematic Layouts 0 1 4 7 10 13 4
G2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
G3. Cross-Sectional Elements 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
G4. Control of Access 0 1 3 5 7 10 3
CATEGORY G TOTAL 9
H. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES and EQUIPMENT (Maximum Score = 47)
H1. Support Structures 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
H2. Hydraulic Structures 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
H3. Miscellaneous Elements 0 1 3 5 7 7 1
H4. Equipment List 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
H5. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
CATEGORY H TOTAL 5
I. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS (Maximum Score = 80)
I1. Capacity 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
I2. Safety & Hazards 0 1 4 7 10 12 1
I3. Civil/Structural 0 1 5 9 13 15 5
I4. Mechanical/Equipment 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
I5. Electrical/Controls 0 1 3 5 7 10 3
I6. Operations/Maintenance 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
CATEGORY I TOTAL 12
Section II Maximum Score = 293 SECTION II TOTAL 58

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

121
Appendix D. Example Project

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 60)
J1. Local Public Agencies Contr. & Agreements 0 1 4 7 10 14 7
J2. Long-Lead Parcel & Utility Adjustment
0 1 5 9 13 15 5
Identification & Acquisition
J3. Utility Agreement & Joint-Use Contracts 0 1 4 7 10 12 4
J4. Land Appraisal Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 3
J5. Advance Land Acquisition Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 3
CATEGORY J TOTAL 22
K. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 47)
K1. Project Delivery Method & Contr. Strategies 0 1 5 9 13 15 13
K2. Long-Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls Identif. 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
K3. Procurement Procedures & Plans 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
K4. Procurement Responsibility Matrix 0 0 2 4 6 8 0
CATEGORY K TOTAL 15
L. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 80)
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
L2. Design & Construction Cost Estimates 0 2 8 14 20 25 14
L3. Project Cost Control 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
L4. Project Schedule Control 0 1 5 9 13 17 9
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control 0 1 4 7 10 13 10
CATEGORY L TOTAL 35
M. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (Maximum Score = 83)
M1. Safety Procedures 0 1 4 7 10 12 1
M2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
M3. Documentation/Deliverables 0 1 3 5 7 9 3
M4. Computing & CADD/Model Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 7 1
M5. Design/Construction Plan & Approach 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
M6. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination
0 1 4 7 10 13 1
& Agreements
M7. Work Zone and Transportation Plan 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
M8. Project Completion Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 5
CATEGORY M TOTAL 14
Section III Maximum Score = 270 SECTION III TOTAL 86

PDRI TOTAL SCORE


Maximum Score = 1000
226
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

122
Appendix D. Example Project

Example Project 2: People and Freight

Project Type: People and Freight

Project: Highway

Scope: Approximately nine kilometer highway corridor


expressway extension, tolled; reduced to seven
kilometer after scope changes; tropical location
in environmentally sensitive area.

Budget: Final cost approximately $200 million

Scheduled Completion: December 2011

Date Scored: February 18, 2010

Objective of the Meeting: Use the PDRI for Infrastructure on a completed


project as a tool to validate research hypothesis
about front end planning.

Methodology: Project Manager evaluated each element and scored


the project according to its scope definition within
each element.

Project Status: 100 percent complete with feasibility, concept, and


detailed scope; before design and construction

Performance Data: Within budget due to scope reduction. Over 40


months over schedule. Change orders representing
three percent of total costs.

Success rating: Three out of five.

Major Findings/Areas Many delays caused by significant changes in scope.


for Further Study: Access to properties had significant impact on
surveying and geotechnical studies. Changes in
funding changed scope of work.

123
Appendix D. Example Project

Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure


Project Score Sheet: Example Project 2: People and Freight

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. PROJECT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 112)
A1. Need & Purpose Documentation 0
2 13 24 35 44 2
A2. Investment Studies & Alternatives Assessments 0
1 8 15 22 28 15
A3. Key Team Member Coordination 0
1 6 11 16 19 1
A4. Public Involvement 0
1 6 11 16 21 1
CATEGORY A TOTAL 19
B. OWNER/OPERATOR PHILOSOPHIES (Maximum Score = 67)
B1. Design Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22 7
B2. Operating Philosophy 0 1 5 9 13 16 5
B3. Maintenance Philosophy 0 1 4 7 10 12 10
B4. Future Expansion & Alteration Considerations 0 1 9 9 13 17 1
CATEGORY B TOTAL 23
C. PROJECT FUNDING AND TIMING (Maximum Score = 70)
C1. Funding & Programming 0 1 6 11 16 21 11
C2. Preliminary Project Schedule 0 2 7 12 17 22 2
C3. Contingencies 0 2 8 14 20 27 27
CATEGORY C TOTAL 40
D. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 143)
D1. Project Objectives Statement 0 1 6 11 16 19 6
D2. Functional Classification & Use 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D3. Evaluation of Compliance Requirements 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
D4. Existing Environmental Conditions 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
D5. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required 0 1 5 9 13 18 1
D6. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
D7. Determination of Utility Impacts 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D8. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 4 7 10 13 7
CATEGORY D TOTAL 19
E. VALUE ANALYSIS (Maximum Score = 45)
E1. Value Engineering Procedures 0 1 3 5 7 10 5
E2. Design Simplification 0 0 3 6 9 11 6
E3. Material Alternatives Considered 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
E4. Constructability Procedures 0 1 5 9 13 15 5
CATEGORY E TOTAL 17
Section I Maximum Score = 437 SECTION I TOTAL 118
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

124
Appendix D. Example Project

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION (Maximum Score = 119)
F1. Geotechnical Characteristics 0 2 7 12 17 21 2
F2. Hydrological Characteristics 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
F3. Surveys & Mapping 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
F4. Permitting Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
F5. Environmental Documentation 0 1 5 9 13 18 1
F6. Environmental Commitments & Mitigation 0 1 4 7 10 14 7
F7. Property Descriptions 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
F8. Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
CATEGORY F TOTAL 15
G. LOCATION and GEOMETRY (Maximum Score = 47)
G1. Schematic Layouts 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
G2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
G3. Cross-Sectional Elements 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
G4. Control of Access 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
CATEGORY G TOTAL 4
H. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES and EQUIPMENT (Maximum Score = 47)
H1. Support Structures 0 1 4 7 10 11 4
H2. Hydraulic Structures 0 1 3 5 7 9 3
H3. Miscellaneous Elements 0 1 3 5 7 7 1
H4. Equipment List 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
H5. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
CATEGORY H TOTAL 10
I. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS (Maximum Score = 80)
I1. Capacity 0 1 6 11 16 22 11
I2. Safety & Hazards 0 1 4 7 10 12 1
I3. Civil/Structural 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
I4. Mechanical/Equipment 0 1 3 5 7 10 3
I5. Electrical/Controls 0 1 3 5 7 10 7
I6. Operations/Maintenance 0 1 4 7 10 11 10
CATEGORY I TOTAL 33
Section II Maximum Score = 293 SECTION II TOTAL 62

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

125
Appendix D. Example Project

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 60)
J1. Local Public Agencies Contr. & Agreements 0 1 4 7 10 14 10
J2. Long-Lead Parcel & Utility Adjustment
0 1 5 9 13 15 5
Identification & Acquisition
J3. Utility Agreement & Joint-Use Contracts 0 1 4 7 10 12 4
J4. Land Appraisal Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
J5. Advance Land Acquisition Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
CATEGORY J TOTAL 29
K. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 47)
K1. Project Delivery Method & Contr. Strategies 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
K2. Long-Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls Identif. 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
K3. Procurement Procedures & Plans 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
K4. Procurement Responsibility Matrix 0 0 2 4 6 8 6
CATEGORY K TOTAL 9
L. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 80)
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates 0 1 3 5 7 10 5
L2. Design & Construction Cost Estimates 0 2 8 14 20 25 8
L3. Project Cost Control 0 1 5 9 13 15 13
L4. Project Schedule Control 0 1 5 9 13 17 9
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control 0 1 4 7 10 13 10
CATEGORY L TOTAL 42
M. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (Maximum Score = 83)
M1. Safety Procedures 0 1 4 7 10 12 7
M2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
M3. Documentation/Deliverables 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
M4. Computing & CADD/Model Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 7 3
M5. Design/Construction Plan & Approach 0 1 4 7 10 14 10
M6. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination
0 1 4 7 10 13 7
& Agreements
M7. Work Zone and Transportation Plan 0 1 3 5 7 9 3
M8. Project Completion Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 3
CATEGORY M TOTAL 35
Section III Maximum Score = 270 SECTION III TOTAL 115

PDRI TOTAL SCORE


Maximum Score = 1000
295
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

126
Appendix D. Example Project

Example Project 3: Energy

Project Type: Energy

Project: Highway

Scope: Replacement of an existing electrical substation


that was unable to keep up with voltage demands
in a densely populated area.

Budget: Final cost approximately $32 million

Scheduled Completion: May 2008

Date Scored: March 12, 2010

Objective of the Meeting: Use the PDRI for Infrastructure on a completed


project as a tool to validate research hypothesis
about front end planning.

Methodology: Benchmarking advisor provided project information


collected from the project’s management team and
historical data.

Project Status: 100 percent complete with front end planning,


design, and construction

Performance Data: $700,000 under budget. Five months behind


schedule. Change orders representing one percent
of total costs.

Success rating: Four out of five.

Major Findings/Areas A change in priorities during execution gave an


for Further Study: opportunity to reduce cost and led to an increase
in project duration.

127
Appendix D. Example Project

Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure


Project Score Sheet: Example Project 3: Energy

SECTION I – BASIS OF PROJECT DECISION


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
A. PROJECT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 112)
A1. Need & Purpose Documentation 0
2 13 24 35 44 2
A2. Investment Studies & Alternatives Assessments 0
1 8 15 22 28 1
A3. Key Team Member Coordination 0
1 6 11 16 19 6
A4. Public Involvement 0
1 6 11 16 21 1
CATEGORY A TOTAL 10
B. OWNER/OPERATOR PHILOSOPHIES (Maximum Score = 67)
B1. Design Philosophy 0 2 7 12 17 22 2
B2. Operating Philosophy 0 1 5 9 13 16 1
B3. Maintenance Philosophy 0 1 4 7 10 12 1
B4. Future Expansion & Alteration Considerations 0 1 9 9 13 17 1
CATEGORY B TOTAL 5
C. PROJECT FUNDING AND TIMING (Maximum Score = 70)
C1. Funding & Programming 0 1 6 11 16 21 1
C2. Preliminary Project Schedule 0 2 7 12 17 22 7
C3. Contingencies 0 2 8 14 20 27 2
CATEGORY C TOTAL 10
D. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS (Maximum Score = 143)
D1. Project Objectives Statement 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D2. Functional Classification & Use 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D3. Evaluation of Compliance Requirements 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
D4. Existing Environmental Conditions 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
D5. Site Characteristics Available vs. Required 0 1 5 9 13 18 1
D6. Dismantling & Demolition Requirements 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
D7. Determination of Utility Impacts 0 1 6 11 16 19 1
D8. Lead/Discipline Scope of Work 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
CATEGORY D TOTAL 8
E. VALUE ANALYSIS (Maximum Score = 45)
E1. Value Engineering Procedures 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
E2. Design Simplification 0 0 3 6 9 11 0
E3. Material Alternatives Considered 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
E4. Constructability Procedures 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
CATEGORY E TOTAL 3
Section I Maximum Score = 437 SECTION I TOTAL 36
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

128
Appendix D. Example Project

SECTION II – BASIS OF DESIGN


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
F. SITE INFORMATION (Maximum Score = 119)
F1. Geotechnical Characteristics 0 2 7 12 17 21 2
F2. Hydrological Characteristics 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
F3. Surveys & Mapping 0 1 4 7 10 14 0
F4. Permitting Requirements 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
F5. Environmental Documentation 0 1 5 9 13 18 1
F6. Environmental Commitments & Mitigation 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
F7. Property Descriptions 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
F8. Right-of-Way Mapping & Site Issues 0 1 4 7 10 14 0
CATEGORY F TOTAL 7
G. LOCATION and GEOMETRY (Maximum Score = 47)
G1. Schematic Layouts 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
G2. Horizontal & Vertical Alignment 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
G3. Cross-Sectional Elements 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
G4. Control of Access 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
CATEGORY G TOTAL 4
H. ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES and EQUIPMENT (Maximum Score = 47)
H1. Support Structures 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
H2. Hydraulic Structures 0 1 3 5 7 9 0
H3. Miscellaneous Elements 0 1 3 5 7 7 1
H4. Equipment List 0 1 4 7 10 11 1
H5. Equipment Utility Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
CATEGORY H TOTAL 4
I. PROJECT DESIGN PARAMETERS (Maximum Score = 80)
I1. Capacity 0 1 6 11 16 22 1
I2. Safety & Hazards 0 1 4 7 10 12 1
I3. Civil/Structural 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
I4. Mechanical/Equipment 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
I5. Electrical/Controls 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
I6. Operations/Maintenance 0 1 4 7 10 11 4
CATEGORY I TOTAL 9
Section II Maximum Score = 293 SECTION II TOTAL 24

Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

129
Appendix D. Example Project

SECTION III – EXECUTION APPROACH


CATEGORY Definition Level
Element 0 1 2 3 4 5 Score
J. LAND ACQUISITION STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 60)
J1. Local Public Agencies Contr. & Agreements 0 1 4 7 10 14 0
J2. Long-Lead Parcel & Utility Adjustment
0 1 5 9 13 15 0
Identification & Acquisition
J3. Utility Agreement & Joint-Use Contracts 0 1 4 7 10 12 0
J4. Land Appraisal Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 0
J5. Advance Land Acquisition Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 0
CATEGORY J TOTAL 0
K. PROCUREMENT STRATEGY (Maximum Score = 47)
K1. Project Delivery Method & Contr. Strategies 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
K2. Long-Lead/Critical Equip. & Mat’ls Identif. 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
K3. Procurement Procedures & Plans 0 1 4 7 10 11 4
K4. Procurement Responsibility Matrix 0 0 2 4 6 8 2
CATEGORY K TOTAL 8
L. PROJECT CONTROL (Maximum Score = 80)
L1. Right-of-Way & Utilities Cost Estimates 0 1 3 5 7 10 0
L2. Design & Construction Cost Estimates 0 2 8 14 20 25 2
L3. Project Cost Control 0 1 5 9 13 15 1
L4. Project Schedule Control 0 1 5 9 13 17 5
L5. Project Quality Assurance & Control 0 1 4 7 10 13 1
CATEGORY L TOTAL 9
M. PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN (Maximum Score = 83)
M1. Safety Procedures 0 1 4 7 10 12 1
M2. Owner Approval Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 10 1
M3. Documentation/Deliverables 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
M4. Computing & CADD/Model Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 7 1
M5. Design/Construction Plan & Approach 0 1 4 7 10 14 1
M6. Intercompany and Interagency Coordination
0 1 4 7 10 13 4
& Agreements
M7. Work Zone and Transportation Plan 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
M8. Project Completion Requirements 0 1 3 5 7 9 1
CATEGORY M TOTAL 11
Section III Maximum Score = 270 SECTION III TOTAL 28

PDRI TOTAL SCORE


Maximum Score = 1000
88
Definition Levels
0 = Not Applicable 2 = Minor Deficiencies 4 = Major Deficiencies
1 = Complete Definition 3 = Some Deficiencies 5 = Incomplete or Poor Definition

130
Appendix E:
Logic Flow Diagrams

131
Section Diagram

437 Points

Section I:
Basis of Project Decision
Categories A thru E

293 Points

Section II:
Basis of Design
Categories F thru I

270 Points

Section III:
Execution Approach
Categories J thru M

Logic Flow Diagrams


Project Definition Rating Index
(PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects
September 2013 Rev. 1
Page 1 of 2
Category Diagram
112 Points 60 Points

Category J:
Category A:
Land
Project
Acquisition
Strategy
Strategy

143 Points 119 Points 80 Points

Category D: Category F: Category I:


Project Site Project Design
Requirements Information Parameters
67 Points 47 Points 80 Points

Category B:
Category K: Category L:
Owner/
Start Operator
Procurement Project End
Strategy Control
Philosophies
45 Points 47 Points 47 Points

Category H:
Category E: Category G:
Associated
Value Location and
Structures and
Analysis Geometry
Equipment

70 Points

Category
C: Project
Funding 83 Points
and Timing
Category M:
Project
Execution
Plan
Legend

Section I
Basis of Project Decision

Section II Logic Flow Diagrams


Basis of Design
Project Definition Rating Index
Section III (PDRI) for Infrastructure Projects
Execution Approach September 2013 Rev. 1
Page 2 of 2
Appendix F:
Facilitation Instructions

After many years of observing the PDRI process, the research team has
determined that an external facilitator—a person who is not directly involved
with the project—is essential to ensuring that the PDRI assessment session is
effective. Whether the facilitator is a person internal to the organization or an
outside consultant, he or she should be experienced in front end planning, should
be familiar with the PDRI tool and terminology, and should have excellent
facilitation skills. The following issues should be addressed by the facilitator to
prepare for and conduct the PDRI assessment.

Pre-meeting Activities
The facilitator should establish a meeting with the project manager/engineer
to receive a briefing on the nature and purpose of the project to be evaluated. The
facilitator’s objective should be to learn enough about the project from the project
manager/engineer to be able to ask intelligent/probing questions of the project team
members during the session. Many times in PDRI assessment sessions, the open-
ended discussions concerning key elements provide the most value. Therefore, it is
the responsibility of the facilitator to ask the types of questions that will generate
an open discussion. Gaining some insight into the nature and circumstances of
the project prior to the assessment helps in the formulation of such questions.

This meeting also serves as a good opportunity to preview the PDRI elements
to see if any of them do not apply to the project at hand. This is especially true
for small projects or renovations. In some cases, it is obvious that some of the
elements do not apply, and these can be removed in advance to save the team
time in the assessment.

The facilitator should inform the project manager that this is her/his opportunity
to listen to the team members to see how well they understand the scope of work.
The project manager should work with the facilitator to probe the design team
and the owner to ensure clear two-way understanding of scope requirements and
expectations. If the project manager dominates the discussion and the subsequent
scoring, the rest of the design team will quickly “clam up” and fall in line. This
will result in a PDRI assessment that reflects the understanding of the project
manager, not the team members.

137
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

The facilitator should remind the project manager that the PDRI assessment
session is an opportunity for team building and alignment of the team members
on the project’s critical requirements. Experience has shown that serving food—
perhaps lunch or breakfast—can help to increase participation as well as interaction
between team members.

The facilitator and project manager should discuss who, among the key
stakeholders, should attend the session. Ensure that all key stakeholders are in
attendance. Reducing the number of attendees will make the session go more
efficiently, but this may compromise the true value of the PDRI assessment.
Work with the project manager to send out meeting notices in time for the major
stakeholders to be able to attend.

Logistics
The facilitator should ensure that the facilities are large enough to comfortably
accommodate the key project stakeholders. One method of assessment is to utilize
a computer projector to keep score as the assessment progresses. Therefore, a room
with a screen, a computer, and a projector is a plus. The PDRI scores can also be
tabulated manually. When tabulated manually, separate score sheets and element
definitions should be given to each participant so the entire team can follow along.

The assessment session takes approximately two to four hours per project. It
could take the full four hours for an inexperienced team or for a more experienced
team faced with a very complex project. As teams within an organization get
accustomed to the PDRI sessions, the time will drop to around two hours. However,
it is the discussion occurring during the assessment session that is perhaps its
most important benefit. Do not allow an artificial time limit to restrain open
communications between team members. Some organizations conduct the sessions
over an extended lunch period. In these situations, it is best to start with a short
lunch period as an ice breaker and then to conduct the session.

The facilitator should use the following checklist to ensure that the room is
set up in advance:
q Make sure the computer, projector, and programs are functioning.
q Make sure a flip chart is available.

138
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

q Set up the notes and action items pages.


q Make sure all participants have the proper handouts.
q When using the automated PDRI Scoring Programs, make sure the
operator is skilled. Lack of computer skills and preparation can lead
to ineffectiveness.
q Ensure that the programs are loaded and working prior to the session.
q Designate a scribe to capture actions on a flip chart as the session
progresses.

Participants
Suggested attendees of the assessment session may include the following:
q Engineering Team Discipline Leads and Support Services, as required
q Project Manager/Project Engineer(s)
q Owner Engineering Project Representatives
q Owner Business Sponsor
q Owner Operations – Key Personnel
q Owner Support Services – Maintenance, Construction, Safety,
Environmental, Logistics, QA/QC, Procurement, among others
required
q Contractors if possible.

It is important that all assessment session participants come prepared to


actively engage in the assessment. Typically this involvement can be facilitated by
sending the PDRI assessment sheets and element descriptions out ahead of time
as a pre-reading assignment. Expectations of participants include the following:
q All participants should be prepared to discuss their understanding of
the elements that apply to them and to voice any concerns they have
about them.
q Design/engineering should be prepared to explain what they are doing
with regard to each PDRI element.
q Owner representatives should voice their expectations and question
the planning team to ensure their full understanding.

139
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

Roles and responsibilities during the assessment session should include the
following:
q The project manager should assist the facilitator to probe the team
members for answers and insight.
q The facilitator will ensure that all participants have an opportunity to
voice their opinions and concerns.

Conducting the session


The facilitator should use the following checklist to ensure that the session is
meaningful and useful to the team:
q The facilitator or project manager should define the purpose and
desired outcomes of the assessment session.
q The facilitator should provide the team members with a short
overview of the PDRI.
q The project manager should give a quick update of the project and its
status, including progress supporting the estimate and plan.
q The facilitator should explain the scoring mechanism (Definition
Levels 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) and explain that the evaluation is a
consensus activity.
q The facilitator should explain that certain elements may apply more
to certain team members or stakeholders. The facilitator should make
sure that these key stakeholders have the greatest say in deciding the
level of definition.
q The facilitator should keep the session moving and not allowing the
participants to “bog down.” Participants often want to “solve the
problem” during the assessment session. The facilitator should not
allow this to happen. It is important to remember that the session is to
perform a detailed assessment only and that actions can be performed
later.
q The facilitator should always challenge assumptions and continue to
ask the question, “Is the material in writing?”
q The following assessment session objectives should be noted at the
start of the meeting:
1. Capture the degree of definition for each element.
2. Capture significant comments from open discussions.
3. Capture action items, assign responsibility and due dates—either at
the end of the session, or shortly thereafter.

140
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

4. Ensure that the team understands the notes captured and agrees
with the path forward.
5. Create alignment among the session attendees.

Roles and responsibilities/expectations


q Post session activities: The facilitator should ensure that the PDRI
notes, action items, and score card are all published within 48 hours
of the sessions. The ideal target is 24 hours.
q If possible, the facilitator should stay engaged with the team to ensure
that all action items are completed as required to support the scope
definition process.
q The project manager should ensure that the actions are addressed.

Small Project Considerations


q Small retrofit projects or single discipline projects may have several
elements that do not apply.
q As previously mentioned, the facilitator and project manager can meet
ahead of time to identify some of these inapplicable elements.
q Assigning a zero to a significant number of PDRI elements can greatly
affect the score. It is best to use the normalized score in these cases,
because less significant elements can have a more significant impact
on the overall score. Be careful in interpretation of this score.

The PDRI was originally designed to evaluate the definition of an entire unit,
building, facility, or item of infrastructure. On smaller retro-fit projects, the facilitator
may have to make the leap from an entire infrastructure project to a small component
of existing infrastructure. For example, a project to install a new substation may
not have a product, a technology, or require any process simplification. It does,
however, have a design capacity that it is expected by the owner/operators.

Experience has shown that the smaller retro-fit projects do not get the same
level of attention from owner operations that a larger project might receive. In
many cases, the PDRI assessment session may be the very first opportunity the
planning design team has to meet with the owner operations personnel to discuss the
expectations of the project. The facilitator must be fully aware that such situations
are possible before conducting the session. In such cases, the facilitator should
make a special effort to ensure that 1) the owner’s operation personnel attend
the session and 2) open discussions take place to establish mutual understanding.

141
Appendix F. Facilitation Instructions

Alliance-Planned Projects
Many smaller projects are conducted by an alliance design firm. These firms
act as the design/engineering capability for the facility owner and may execute
numerous small projects per year. Many of the PDRI elements refer to location,
standards, stress requirements, hazard analysis, deliverables, accounting, and other
repetitive requirements. For these types of projects, the facilitator will merely have
to ask the question, “Is there anything different or unusual about this project
for this element?” It is also a good time to ask whether there is any opportunity
for improvement in any of these areas that would improve the project and other
projects to follow.

142
Project title/date:
(Sorted in order of PDRI element)
PDRI
Item PDRI Level of Date
Element Item Description Responsible
# Element(s) Definition Completed
Score

Example Action List


Appendix G:
143
Appendix G. Example Action List
144

Example Pipeline Project

Project title/date: Project Assessment Session Action Items for Big Oil Pipeline, June 22, 20xx
(Sorted in order of PDRI element)
PDRI
Item PDRI Level of Date
Element Item Description Responsible
# Element(s) Definition Completed
Score
Finalize need and purpose documentation and get management
1 A1 3 24 July 1, 20xx John Ramos
buy-off.

2 A4 5 21 Develop a public involvement plan for the project. July 1, 20xx Jake Blinn

3 C3 3 14 Develop a contingency plan for the project. July 1, 20xx Sue Howard

Develop a project objective statement and get buy-off from key


4 D1 5 19 July 15, 20xx Jose Garcia
stakeholders.

Finalize pipeline capacity study:


• tie back to business plan
5 I1 4 16 • look at venture partner obligations July 31, 20xx Jake Blinn
• flow rates
• friction and head loss
• and so on

Begin working on preliminary (Class 1) right-of-way and


6 L1 4 7 July 31, 20xx Tina Towne
utilities cost estimates.

And so on…..
References

1. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Industrial Projects. Research


Report 113-11. Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1995.

2. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for Building


Projects. Research Report 155-11. Construction Industry Institute,
Austin, Texas, 1999.

3. Pre-Project Planning Tools: PDRI and Alignment, Research Summary


113-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 1997.

4. Alignment during Pre-Project Planning, Implementation Resource 113-3,


Version 4.0, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2013.

5. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index – Building Projects,


Implementation Resource 155-2, Version 4.0, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, Texas, 2013.

6. Data Analysis to Support Front End Planning Implementation. Research


Report 213-11. Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2005.

7.
Front End Planning: Break the Rules, Pay the Price, Research Summary
213-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas, 2006.

8. PDRI: Project Definition Rating Index – Industrial Projects,


Implementation Resource 113-2, Version 4.0, Construction Industry
Institute, Austin, Texas, 2013.

9.
Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp Projects: An Overview,
Research Summary 242-1, Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas,
2008.

10. Front End Planning for Renovation and Revamp, Implementation


Resource 242-2, Version 4.0, Construction Industry Institute, Austin,
Texas, 2013.

11. Development of the Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure


Projects. Research Report 268-11, Construction Industry Institute,
Austin, Texas, 2010.

145
Project Definition Rating Index for Infrastructure Projects
Research Team
(2008 – 10)

* Mahir Aydin, Ontario Power Generation


Evan Bingham, Arizona State University
Homer D. Bothe, DFW International Airport
Eskil E. Carlsson, CSA Group, Co-Chair
Paul Mickey Collins, Pathfinder, LLC.
* Don Cooley, CH2M HILL
Brian Foy, Burns & McDonnell
Dennis W. Gardner, Mustang
** G. Edward Gibson, Jr., Arizona State University
* David R. Halicks, Tennessee Valley Authority
Tim Hoopengarner, JMJ Associates
Chad Kendrick, Southern Company
Steve Laskowski, Fluor Corporation
* Robert Mitrocsak, U.S. Architect of the Capitol
Jim Palmer, Hill International
Richard Payne, Jacobs
Scott Penrod, Walbridge
Tim Podesta, BP, Co-Chair
Richard Rye, Hill International
Rick Stogner, University of Alabama
James B. Vicknair, WorleyParsons

* Contributing authors
** Coordinating author

Editor: Jacqueline Thomas


CII Member Organizations

Abbott AMEC
Air Products and Chemicals AZCO
Ameren Corporation Alstom Power
American Transmission Company Audubon Engineering Company
Anglo American Baker Concrete Construction
Anheuser-Busch InBev Barton Malow Company
Aramco Services Company Bechtel Group
ArcelorMittal Bentley Systems
Architect of the Capitol Bilfinger Industrial Services
BP America Black & Veatch
CITGO Petroleum Corporation Burns & McDonnell
Cameco Corporation CB&I
Cargill CCC Group
Chevron CDI Engineering Solutions
ConocoPhillips CH2M HILL
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CSA Central
DTE Energy Coreworx
The Dow Chemical Company Day & Zimmermann
DuPont Dresser-Rand Company
Eastman Chemical Company eProject Management
Ecopetrol Emerson Process Management
Eskom Holdings Faithful+Gould
ExxonMobil Corporation Fluor Corporation
General Electric Company Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
General Motors Corporation GS Engineering & Construction Corporation
GlaxoSmithKline Gross Mechanical Contractors
Global Infrastructure Partners Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Huntsman Corporation Hatch
International Paper Hilti Corporation
Irving Oil Limited IHI E&C International Corporation
Kaiser Permanente IHS
Koch Industries Industrial Contractors Skanska
Eli Lilly and Company International Rivers Consulting
Linde North America JMJ Associates
LyondellBasell JV Driver Projects
Marathon Oil Corporation Jacobs
National Aeronautics & Space Administration KBR
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Kiewit Corporation
Occidental Petroleum Corporation Kvaerner North American Construction
Ontario Power Generation Lauren Engineers & Constructors
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A - Petrobras Leidos Constructors, LLC
Petroleos Mexicanos Matrix Service Company
Petroliam Nasional Berhad McCarthy Building Companies
Phillips 66 McDermott International
Praxair Midwest Steel
The Procter & Gamble Company Parsons
Public Service Electric & Gas Company Pathfinder
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) POWER Engineers
SABIC - Saudi Basic Industries Corporation Quality Execution
Sasol Technology Richard Industrial Group
Shell Global Solutions US The Robins & Morton Group
Smithsonian Institution S&B Engineers and Constructors
Southern Company SKEC USA
Statoil ASA SNC-Lavalin
SunCoke Energy Technip
TNK-BP Tenova
Teck Resources Limited TOYO-SETAL Engenharia
Tennessee Valley Authority URS Corporation
TransCanada Corporation Victaulic Company
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Walbridge
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/ Wanzek Construction
Engineering Laboratory Wilhelm Construction
U.S. Department of Defense/Tricare Management Willbros United States Holdings
Activity Wood Group Mustang
U.S. Department of Energy WorleyParsons
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Yates Construction
U.S. Department of State Zachry Holdings
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Zurich
U.S. General Services Administration
Vale
The Williams Companies