Saep 303 PDF

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-303 21 November 2016

Engineering Reviews of Project Documentation
Document Responsibility: Electrical Systems Designs and Automation Standards
Committee
Contents
1 Scope ................................................................ 2
2 Applicable Documents ....................................... 2
3 Definitions .......................................................... 3
4 Instructions ........................................................ 4
5 Reviews and Project Non-Conformity
Resolution ................................................ 19
6 Responsibilities ................................................ 20
Revision Summary................................................. 22
Appendix A - Project Non-Conformity

Escalation Process ................................... 23
Appendix B - List of all Equipment
and Lines Carrying H2s ............................ 34
Appendix C - Engineering Design Review
Submittal Checklist ................................... 35
Previous Issue: 13 December 2011 Next Planned Update: 21 November 2019

Page 1 of 35
Contact: Bugshan, Jamal A. (bugshaja) on phone +966-13-8809650
©Saudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Electrical Systems Designs and Automation Standards Committee SAEP-303
Issue Date: 21 November 2016
Next Planned Update: 21 November 2019 Engineering Reviews of Project Documentation
1 Scope
1.1 This Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure (SAEP) establishes the instructions
and responsibilities used by Saudi Aramco Reviewing Organizations (SAROs)
when conducting formal engineering reviews of project packages relating to
capital and non-capital projects.
1.2 The purpose of engineering reviews is to provide technical assurance to Saudi

Aramco that the project is being developed in accordance with all applicable
Saudi Aramco Standards, Procedures, and other mandatory requirements at all
stages of project development. In addition, engineering reviews add value by
applying recognized and generally-accepted good engineering practices by
leveraging considerable domestic and international design and operational
engineering experience.
SAROs provide only a general review of the project. Full responsibility of the
project is with PRO.
2 Applicable Documents
The requirements contained in the following documents apply to the extent specified in
this procedure:
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-12 Project Execution Plan
SAEP-13 Project Environmental Impact Assessments
SAEP-14 Project Proposal
SAEP-16 Project Execution Guide for Process Automation
Systems
SAEP-21 Project Execution Requirements for Saudi Aramco
Royalty/Custody Metering Systems
SAEP-27 Pipelines/Piping Hydraulic Surge Analysis
SAEP-125 Preparation of Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards
SAEP-127 Security and Control of Saudi Aramco Engineering
Data
SAEP-334 Retrieval, Certification, and Submittal of Saudi
Aramco Engineering and Vendor Drawings
SAEP-341 Equipment Life Cycle Cost Procedure
SAEP-360 Project Planning Guidelines
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use
Page 2 of 35
SAEP-367 Value Improving Practices Requirements

SAEP-1350 Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation
and Revision Procedure
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

SAES-A-030 Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability (RAM)
Study Execution
SAES-A-202 Saudi Aramco Engineering Drawing Preparation
SAES-L-133 Corrosion Protection Requirements for Pipelines,
Piping, and Process Equipment
SAES-P-100 Basic Power System Design Criteria
SAES-P-111 Grounding
SAES-T-481 In-Plant Voice Paging System
 Saudi Aramco General Instruction

GI-0002.710 Mechanical Completion and Performance
Acceptance of Facilities
3 Definitions
3.1 Organizations and Reviewing Entities
Saudi Aramco Reviewing Organizations (SAROs): This term refers to all

Saudi Aramco organizations involved in reviewing project documents.
Project Responsible Organization (PRO): The organization responsible for

managing the project. For capital projects, this organization reports to the Vice
President, Project Management. For non-capital projects, this organization is
usually the proponent.
MSAERs: Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirements
PMOD: Project Management Office Department
3.2 Review Documentation
Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP): Refer to SAEP-1350. For projects using
the Capital Management System (CMS), DBSP refers to the portion of FEL 2
after the Gate Alternative Selection and prior to the G2 Gate.
Project Proposal (including Technical Proposal Documents within Contract

Bid Packages): Refer to SAEP-14. For projects using the Capital Management

Page 3 of 35
System (CMS), Project Proposal refers to the portion of FEL 3 before the
Project Proposal Approval.
Detailed Design: A set of documents used for project construction and material
procurement. For projects using the Capital Management System (CMS),
Detailed Design refers to the Detailed Design portion of the Execution Phase.
3.3 Review Methods
Engineering reviews are generally organized based on one of the two following
methods:
Across-the-Board Review (ABR): This is a review simultaneously carried out

by all involved engineering disciplines. ABRs must be conducted through the
eReview system.
Discipline Specific Review (DSR): This is a review carried out by a specific

engineering discipline. DSRs must be conducted through the Engineering
Service Request system in SAP.
4 Instructions
4.1 Number, Type, and Method of Reviews
ABRs are conducted by SAROs once during Project Proposal on the last issue of
the Project Proposal review package before the Project Proposal Approval.
ABRs are conducted by SAROs once during Detailed Design, preferably at the
stage indicated in Section 4.5.1 for each discipline.
4.2 Requesting and Planning Engineering Reviews
4.2.1 To request an engineering review, either in the Project Proposal or

Detailed Design phase, PRO shall address a letter to the Manager(s) of
the appropriate SAROs requesting that a review be performed. The letter
shall state the type of review to be performed, the review format to be
used, expected start date, and the name of the PRO representative
responsible for coordinating the review.
4.2.2 Include in the Project Proposal the proposed number, method, and type
of the engineering reviews for the Detailed Design phase of the project.
DSRs shall be carried out during the Detailed Design phase at the
percent completion stage agreed to by PRO and SAROs during the
Project Proposal meeting. Required percent completions are given for
each discipline in Section 4.5.1.

Page 4 of 35
ABRs shall be carried out during the Detailed Design phase at the overall
project percent completion stage agreed to by PRO and SAROs during
the Project Proposal meeting.
4.3 Review Submittals
4.3.1 General
The submittals described in this paragraph should bear the appropriate

stamps identifying the stage of completion. All submittals are
accompanied by a Saudi Aramco standard transmittal form identifying
the package and the action to be taken by the receiving organization and
the due date for the required action. All scheduled reviews shall be
submitted via the eReview system.
PRO must include a document in each Index for all Detailed Design
review requests that indicates the cut-off dates for all MSAERs.
4.3.2 PRO must complete and attach the Engineering Design Review
Submittal Checklist per Appendix C to the initial package submittal.
Failure to do so will result in package rejection.
4.4 Review Schedule
4.4.1 Engineering reviews of DBSPs and Project Proposal packages require a

minimum of 10 business days and Detailed Design packages require a
minimum of 15 business days, respectively. Business days are as stated
on the Saudi Aramco operational calendar. The review period begins on
the day following the date that the review material was received by the
SAROs.
A shorter review period is allowed on written mutual agreement between

PRO and SARO department managers under Section 4.2. PRO shall
provide a longer review period at the request of the SARO. Review
requests that do not meet the minimum number of days that do not have
the above-mentioned written mutual agreement filed as a separate
document in each index shall be rejected.
4.4.2 The review period to perform a DSR shall be established via the approval
mechanism in the Engineering Service Request system in SAP.
4.5 Review Documentation
4.5.1 Review Requirements
In these tables, the first column gives the documentation required for
Page 5 of 35
both ABRs and DSRs. The second column gives details of the required
documentation as well as the required percent completion for each
discipline for DSRs. All review requests, including Project Proposal
reviews, must contain all of the listed documents. PRO must include a
document in each Index showing the file name(s) of the review
documents corresponding to the required documents.
Review Requirements
Document Comments
Architectural (Project Proposal)

1 Plans Site Plan: Generals site arrangement – new and
existing buildings, building access, roads, and parking.
Floor Plans: Functional plan and circulation.
2 Indicate building classifications (tiers)
3 For Tier 1, perform LEED certification
requirements, if needed.
Architectural (30% Detailed Design) Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Plans Site Plan: Generals site arrangement – new and
existing buildings, building access, roads, and parking
(75% complete)
Floor Plans: Functional plan and circulation, building
system, grids, and overall dimensions (100%
complete)
2 Building sections General structure, building volumes, floor heights,
vertical circulation elements (100% complete)
3 Building elevations Overall elevations – shapes, heights, and volumes
(100% complete)
1 Plans Site Plan: New, support, and existing buildings, roads,
parking, and open areas (100% complete)
Floor Plans: Detailed layout – openings, circulation,
exits, egress routes, floor levels, generals finishes, wall
assemblies, dimensions – exterior and interior (100%
complete)
Roof Plan: Primary and secondary roof grain systems,
access and equipment (if applicable), levels, slopes,
outlets, parapet walls, structures at adjacent levels
(below/above), overall dimensioning (100% complete)
Reflected Ceilings: Acoustic ceiling layouts, lighting
(100% complete)

Page 6 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
2 Building sections Assemblies – floors, finishes, walls, roofs, overhangs,

relation to structural elements, wall types, levels –
interior and exterior (100% complete)
3 Building Elevations Detailed elevations – volumes, openings, heights,
façade elements, finishing material descriptions (100%
complete)
4 Schedules Doors and windows: Shapes, sizes, specifications,
materials (100% complete)
1 Plans Site Plan: New, support, and existing buildings, roads,
parking, hard and soft scape, setting-out, vertical
planning (100% complete)
Floor Plans: Circulation, exits, egress routes, guards
and railings, vertical circulation elements, internal
levels, interior dimensions (100% complete)
Roof Plan: Roof circulation and protection, draining
systems, full dimensioning (100% complete)
Reflected Ceilings: Electrical/mechanical coordination
(100% complete)
2 Sections Building Sections: Assembly fire ratings, fire-protection
assemblies, section call-outs: insulation, joints,
flashings, copings – descriptive references, levels,
vertical dimensioning – interior and exterior (100%
complete)
Wall Sections: Building-envelope assemblies – walls,
sills, headers, thresholds, eaves, gutters (100%
complete)
3 Elevations and Elevation Call-outs Secondary façade elements – sills, cladding, grooving,
flashings, coping, etc. – descriptive references, levels
and vertical dimensioning, architectural finishes (100%
complete)
4 Building Details Construction/assembly methods. Shapes, sizes,
specifications, and finishing materials (100% complete)
5 Architectural Finishes Interior and exterior finishing material schedules
(100% complete)
Asset Integrity Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Plot Diagrams, P&ID and PFD Drawing, 90%
2 Hazardous area classification Design Document 90%

Page 7 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
3 Risk assessments studies as basis for Design Document 60%

identifying all Safety critical elements
4 List of Safety critical elements under Design Document 90%
the associated barrier in the AIMS
manual
5 MOC process covering (design Design Document 90%
alteration) for all SCE’s throughout the
design phase
6 Cause and effect diagrams Drawing, 90%
7 Integrity Operating Windows (critical Design Document 90%
process Parameters) related to SCE’s
8 Material specifications Material Spec, 90%
9 Project Construction and QA/QC Plans QA document 90%
(when available)
10 Construction, inspection/testing and Design Document, 90%
maintenance procedures
11 Pre-start up review, close-out and Design Document, 90%
handover procedures
12 Samples of Integrity Performance Design Document 90%
Standards
Asset Reliability Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Updated RAM Study per SAES-A-030 Engineering Study 90%
Cathodic Protection Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Plot Plans Show existing and new structures
2 Design Calculations Include resistivity data
3 Details of Buried Structures Type, size, material, location
4 Vessels and Tanks Details Size, contents, foundations, grading
5 Existing C.P. Systems Details
6 C.P. Remote Monitoring Systems
Civil (Roads, Grading, etc.) Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 Plot Plans
2 Calculations - Roads, Pavements, and 100% completion
geometry, Grading (Water run off)
3 Foundation Location Plans

Page 8 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
4 Site Grading Plans, Layouts, Sections,

Details
5 Foundation Drawings, including details
6 Reflect the approved Concrete
Exposures from DBSP
7 Concrete Mix (concrete type, Cement
type, aggregates
8 Road Safety Audit Assessment report
9 Fence classifications
10 Indicate soil improvement if any and
what would be the achieved CBR value
11 Road Classifications
12 Storm water system layout and flow
direction
13 Storm water calculation indicating the
frequency
14 For projects going to use existing
concrete structures, provide concrete
assessment report.
Communications Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 Scope of Work
2 Drawings
3 Project Plan
4 Material List
5 Show all disciplines including: Outside
plant systems, structured cabling
system, Data Network System,
Wireless System, Telephone
Switching, Special circuits and
services, Video Conferencing, VSAT
Communications Towers, fiber optics
backbone network, microwave
systems, SCADA connectivity
solutions, and Communications
Facilities with required civil,
Mechanical, DC/AC power, and Plant
Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) Architecture
and all of its components.

Page 9 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
6 In-plant voice paging system Refer to SAES-T-481

7 Process Automation Network, Security, All fiber optic cables that are being covered by
and CCTV Fiber Optic cables Communication Discipline
Control Systems Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 P&IDs At 30%.
2 DCS Block Diagrams
3 Logic Diagrams
4 Cause and Effect Diagrams If there is ESD
5 Control Rooms and PIB Rooms
6 Hardware Material List (Preliminary list)
7 DCS Schematics (Preliminary List)
8 Instrument Loop Diagrams
9 Estimated I/O Summary Tables
10 Structured Wiring Design
11 Control System Architecture Design
12 Human-Machine Interface Design
13 Reporting Design
14 Advanced Control Design
15 Sequence Control Design (e.g., OMSB)
16 Application Interpath Design
17 Control System Data Network
Interconnect Diagrams
18 Control System Security Design
Electrical Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Electrical Design Data Power source (including voltage and minimum and
ultimate short-circuit levels and X/R ratios) and
electrical load data (including calculations of maximum
operating load and projected future load for each
transformer)
2 Electrical Area Classification Drawings Showing plan and section views
3 Material Specifications for major Transformers, motors, switchgear, motor control
electrical equipment centers, generators, UPS, high voltage (i.e., >1,000 V)
switches
4 One Line Diagrams (Overall) Showing all equipment ratings
Page 10 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
5 One Line Diagrams (Substation) Showing all major equipment ratings (continuous
kVA/HP/current, short circuit, interrupting, transformer
impedance), basic protective relaying, circuit breaker
and/or normal switching positions, power system
automation block diagrams
6 Substation Drawings Plan views showing equipment layout inside and
outside the building, external elevations of building,
grounding layout
7 System studies which form the basis of Should include:
the equipment ratings shown on the - load flow
one line diagrams - short circuit
- motor starting
- arc flash
- grounding calculations (as per SAES-P-111)
8 Additional power system studies as As per SAES-P-100
applicable
9 Typical installation drawings, electrical At 90% Detailed Design only
cable schedule, underground cable
layout, grounding drawings and
Conduit/cable tray/ junction box cable
filling calculations
Environmental Engineering Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 Scope of Work
2 Project Description
3 Material Specifications and Data
Sheets for wastewater treatment
equipment
4 Wastewater treatment systems studies
which for the basis of the equipment
design
5 Specifications of Ambient Air Quality
and Meteorology Monitoring Stations,
if required by the project scope
6 Design details/drawings for
groundwater monitoring wells,
as required by the project scope
7 Construction Contractor Work Scope
8 Plot Plans
9 PFDs

Page 11 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
10 P&IDs
11 Design Calculations For any equipment with an environmental emission
12 Environmental Impact Assessment All Reviews
13 Environmental/Social Health Impact All Reviews
Assessment (ESHIA)
14 Design details of radioactive storage
facilities.
15 Manufacturer’s specifications for any
sources of ionizing radiation
(equipment generating ionizing
radiation or radioactive sources) that
are part of the design or required to
carry out the project.
Geotechnical (off-shore) Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Design Concept Project Proposal only
2 Scope of Work Detailed Design only
3 Pile Design and Installation 30% Detailed Design
4 On-bottom Stability and Mudmats 30% Detailed Design
5 Flooding and Grouting System Design 90% Detailed Design
and Drivability
Geotechnical (on-shore) Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Scope of Geotechnical Investigation
2 Geotechnical Report
3 Foundation Types and Load Indications
4 Earth Work Plans and Specifications
5 Construction Procedures for Special i.e., evaporation ponds and quay walls
Projects
Heat Exchangers and Boilers Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 P&IDs and PFDs
2 Equipment Data Sheets
3 Pressure vessels & storage tanks At 60% Completion
HVAC Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 P&IDs
2 Specifications

Page 12 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
3 Calculations
4 System Diagrams
5 Scope of Work
6 Equipment Layout
7 Equipment Schedules
Instrumentation Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 PFDs Samples (for DSR only)
2 P&IDs Samples
3 Instrument Installation Schedules Samples
4 Instrument Specification Sheets One sample for each different instrument
5 Console/Panel/Rack Drawings (C/P/R) Only General Layouts
6 Instrument Interconnection Wiring Samples for JBs, Marshaling cabinets, C/P/R drawings
Diagrams
7 Layouts Instrument Points and Lines Samples
8 ESD System Drawings Samples of Cause and Effect, Basic Logic Diagram
and ESD Logic Narrative
9 Equipment Protection System Samples of Basic Logic Diagram, and Logic Narrative
Drawings
10 Instrument Loop Diagrams Sample for each different Loop Template
11 System Block Diagram Full set, should be completed at the start of a project
12 Logic Diagrams and Logic Narrative for Samples
Batch or Sequential control
13 Typical installation drawings, electrical At 90% Detailed Design only
cable schedule, underground cable
layout, grounding drawings and
Conduit/cable tray/ junction box cable
filling calculations
Materials and Corrosion Control Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Scope of Work Submit for background information
2 Process Flow Diagrams (including Submit for background information
Process Description/Data)
3 P&IDs Submit before POs are issued
4 Material Specifications/Selection Submit before POs are issued

Page 13 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
5 Equipment and Lines with H2S Submit before PRs or POs are issued
(Appendix B)
6 Equipment Data Sheets Submit before POs are issued
7 Corrosion Management Program Submit and get approval before POs are issued
(see SAES-L-133, Section 8)
Paints and Coatings Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 PFDs Specify temperature, pressure, and fluid composition
for internal coatings. Specify temperature for external
coatings. Specify insulation, if any.
2 Material Specifications and Equipment Identify which metallurgies are specified
Data Sheets
3 Coating “Map” Identify which coatings are specified for which
services.
Piping Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 P&IDs and PFDs
2 Scope of Work
3 Piping Material Specifications Submit before PRs or POs are issued
4 Plot Plans
5 Piping Plans, Layouts, Sections, and
Details
6 Isometrics
7 Piping Support Details
8 Calculations
9 Safety Instruction Sheets At least 90% complete.
10 Hydrostatic Test Diagrams
Plant Management Systems Typical % completion for DSRs =60%
1 Installation and Commissioning Plan
2 Architecture Design
3 Application Design
4 Human Interface Design
5 Integration Design
6 Computer Room(s) Design
7 Structured Wiring Design

Page 14 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
8 Development Plan
9 Boundary Specification
10 Application Interpath Design
11 Communication Network Interconnect
Diagrams
12 Plant Management System Security
Diagrams
13 Flare Monitoring System
Plumbing and Utilities Typical % completion for DSRs = 60%
1 P&IDs
2 Material Specifications
3 Plot Plans
4 Hazardous Area Classifications
5 Calculations
6 Layout Drawings, Sections, and Details
Pressure Vessels and Storage Tanks Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Equipment Data Sheets
Process Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Design Data Requirements Project Proposal only
2 Process Simulation model
3 Process Simulation report
4 Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs)
5 Heat & Material Balance
6 Utility balances and Utility Flow
Diagrams (UFDs)
7 Technology Licensor selection report Project Proposal only
8 Process Equipment List
9 Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams
(P&IDs)
10 Process Equipment datasheets
11 Hydraulic design reports.
12 Catalysts and Chemicals Summary Project Proposal only

Page 15 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
13 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA,

HAZOP, LOPA, SIL, QRA, etc.) Report
14 Technical License Agreements Project Proposal only
15 Environmental Impact Assessment Project Proposal only
(Final)
16 Plot Plans Project Proposal only
17 Material Selection Diagrams (MSDs)
and piping specifications
18 Hazardous Area Classification
Determination and Drawings
19 Operating procedures / manual Detailed Design only
20 Product and in-process QC
sampling/testing plan
21 Project commissioning schedule.
Process Engineering Typical % completion for DSRs = 30%
1 Scope of Work
2 Design Basis Documentation
(Design Data Requirements)
3 PFDs
4 Heat and Material Balance (H&MB)
5 Process Simulation (model) and report
6 Utility Flow Diagram (UFD)
7 P&IDs
8 Process Equipment Data Sheets
9 Catalyst and Chemicals summary
Rotating Equipment Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Process Description
2 Basic Engineering data
3 PFDs
4 P&IDs
5 Plot Plan

Page 16 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
6 Rotating Equipment List, with indication

of equipment to be evaluated and
procured based on LCC
(as per SAEP-341)
7 Equipment data sheets
8 RFQs showing Purchase Specifications
Structural (off-shore) Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Design concept Project Proposal only
2 Float-over analysis/design/procedures Project Proposal only
3 Floatation analysis Project Proposal only
4 Weight reporting
5 Scope of Work Detailed Design only
6 In-Place Design Detailed Design only
7 Float-over analysis/design/procedures Detailed Design only
8 In-place Fatigue Detailed Design only
9 Upending Analysis/Procedures Detailed Design only
10 Riser/Riser Guard/J-tube Design Detailed Design only
11 Primary Steel Drawings/Joints/Details Detailed Design only
12 Boat Collision Checks Detailed Design only
13 Boat Landing/Boat Fender Design Detailed Design only
14 Earthquake Analysis Detailed Design only
15 Flooding and Grouting System Design Detailed Design only
16 Resolved comments from Project Detailed Design only
Proposal
17 Soft copy of the design data (computer
input file) as applicable (SACS/STAAD
model).
Structural (on-shore) Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Scope of Work 100% completion
2 Plot Plans 100% completion
3 Calculations, including concrete 100% completion
foundations
4 Foundation Location Plans 100% completion

Page 17 of 35
Review Requirements
Document Comments
5 General Structural Drawings 90% completion

6 Detailed Structural Drawings, including 90% completion
connections and foundations
7 Soft copy of the design data (computer
input file) as applicable (SACS/STAAD
model).
Notes:
a. The review of structural steel shop drawings or material take-off's is not considered part of the normal
structural design package review.
b. The submittal should contain “typical” design calculations and structural drawings of different structural
elements such as: beams, columns, bracing, steel connections, anchor bolts, frames, pipe racks, pipe
supports, buildings (Process Interface Buildings, Control Buildings, Substations, Offices, Villas, etc.),
platforms, equipment foundations (pump, compressor, turbine, generator, etc.), structure foundation.
Valves Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%.
1 P&IDs
2 Material Specifications
3 Piping Layout Or location of vertical valves
Welding Typical % completion for DSRs = 90%
1 Material specifications and equipment Include thicknesses and materials
data sheets
2 Welding Specifications
4.5.2 All documents for review shall contain evidence of design agency
quality assurance and quality control through:
(a) Document revision control numbering, dating, and marking in
accordance with SAES-A-202,
(b) A general note citing the applicable engineering standards cut-off
date for project (see SAEP-125 Sec 3.1 and SAEP-14, Sec 3.2.8.1),
(c) “Designed by” designer initials,
(d) “Checked by” checker initials (i.e., design verified via intra-
discipline review) and
(e) “Approved by” responsible engineer initials (i.e., design is
validated via project-team inter-discipline design review and off-
project discipline engineering review).

Page 18 of 35
PRO must include a document in each Index that contains a list of the
full names, initials, roles, and qualifications of the engineers who have
initialed documents in that index.
4.5.3 The review shall enable the following:

(a) Reviewers shall have access to documentations in the system for all
design cycles.
(b) Formal system to track all documentation that have been or will be
submitted for review throughout the design cycle.
5 Reviews and Project Non-Conformity Resolution
5.1 SARO Engineers shall perform the review of design documentation and make
appropriate comments in the eReview system.
5.2 SARO comments shall clearly reference the issue being discussed (e.g., state
equipment name, tag number, drawing number), clearly state the issue and
provide recommended resolution. All comments must be properly classified in
the eReview system.
5.3 PRO shall generate responses to all SARO comments and enter these responses
into the eReview Comments Management System such that the relevant SARO
Engineer is notified of the proposed resolution.
5.4 PRO shall update the status of all comments in the eReview Comments
Management System such that everyone involved in the project can access all
comments and their proposed resolutions.
5.5 After all Project Proposal Reviews are completed, PRO shall compile the
“Project Proposal Review Report”, per the CMS Manuals, RAPID Matrix, and
book of deliverables, detailing all comments and their resolutions, and distribute
to all SAROs.
5.6 Using the eReview Comments Management System, PRO shall request approval
to close a review comment from the SARO Engineer who entered a comment.
5.7 SARO Engineer shall respond in a timely manner to PRO requests to close items
and make every effort to work with SARO to come to an appropriate resolution.
5.8 All review comments must be closed in the eReview Comments Management
System before the commencement of the next review cycle.
5.9 Review comments cannot be marked as closed until they are approved in the
eReview Comments Management System by the SARO Engineer who entered

Page 19 of 35
the comment.
5.10 Where a resolution to an outstanding issue or review comment cannot be

reached, SARO Engineer shall escalate significant issues using the escalation
procedure in Appendix A.
5.11 Per the CMS Manuals, RAPID Matrix, and book of deliverables, certain SAROs
have to “Agree” to the DBSP and Project Proposal Packages. This means that
the Managers of these SARO shall approve these packages before the project
progresses past this point.
5.11.1 All review comments must be closed in the eReview Comments

Management System before the commencement of the approval
workflow.
5.11.2 When all review comments are resolved, PRO shall route the approval
workflows for these packages, via the SAP application “e-Approval” to
these SAROs for approval.
5.12 When a SARO receives an approval workflow for DBSP or Project Proposal,
5.12.1 SARO shall verify that all comments have been closed via the eReview
Comments Management System.
5.12.1 If all comments have been closed to SARO's satisfaction, approval

workflows shall be approved. If comments have not been resolved to
SARO's satisfaction, approval workflows shall be rejected.
6 Responsibilities
6.1 PRO is responsible for:

1. Obtaining agreement with SAROs for:
a) The number, method(s), type, timing, and required documentation for
the Project Proposal Review(s).
b) The number, method(s), type, timing, and required documentation for
Detailed Design Review(s).
2. Planning, forecasting, and requesting engineering reviews a minimum of
two weeks in advance of the review, and notifying appropriate SAROs of
anticipated reviews. PRO is must include a copy of the required
communication requesting the review. Failure to produce the copy of the
communication requesting the review will extend the review period by two
weeks.

Page 20 of 35
3. Conducting in-house preliminary reviews prior to requesting an

engineering review be performed. PRO must provide a separate document
for each Index containing the comments and resolutions resulting from the
preliminary in-house review for that Index.
4. Ensuring the functional requirements of the Design Basis Scoping Paper
and/or Project Proposal are met.
5. Coordinating and implementing SAEP-compliant engineering reviews.
PRO shall not be able to shorten the required review period specified in
Section 4 without including the required written mutual agreement as a
document in each Index.
6. Timely delivery of complete and legible review documents to the
appropriate SAROs. PRO shall ensure that all documents are submitted in
(.pdf format) such that comments can be added using the “sticky note”
functionality.
7. Notifying all SAROs if documents are added to, or deleted from, the
engineering review. Any documents added to the review resets the review
Start Date to the first business day following the date the last document was
added and the review End Date to the period specified in paragraph 4.4.1.
8. Providing adequate time for SAROs to perform the requested review.
9. Providing any additional documents needed to assist in the review effort
(e.g., draft purchase requisitions for items of critical equipment that may
need to be issued prior to the scheduled Detailed Design Review).
10. Resolving SAROs’ review comments using the Comments Management
System within the eReview system.
11. Administering the electronic reviews so that the review process and
comment resolution appears seamless to the review agents.
12. Developing a design that is sound and meets all relevant Saudi Aramco,
Industry, International and National Codes and Standards. Reviews
conducted by SAROs do not relieve PRO of their responsibility to produce
a quality design package.
13. Submitting a form with each review request that specifies the disciplines
for each SARO that are included in the review.
14. Maintaining all classification data associated with each review comment
“as entered” in the eReview system. Any and all changes to the
classification data require the approval of the comment originator. It is
completely unacceptable for PRO to require SAROs take the time to enter
classification data, such as comment type (Standard Violation,
Page 21 of 35
Clarification, etc.), for each comment only to have PRO not use this
unaltered metadata in the PRO reporting statistics.
6.2 SAROs are responsible for:

1. Reviewing design documents within the agreed time frame.
2. Allocating appropriate resources to conduct the review.
3. Notifying the PRO if the review cannot be completed within the period
specified by the PRO.
4. Providing specific comments, not general statements, and suggesting
alternatives where appropriate to correct engineering deficiencies and
non-compliances.
5. Recommending further reviews depending on the technical complexity of
the project and initial review findings.
6. Establishing a single point of contact for the project in each Engineering
Department.
7. Providing review comments to PRO in the mutually acceptable electronic
format.
8. Notifying PRO if there are no comments.
9. Obtaining the necessary skill sets through the PMOD training center to
conduct electronic reviews.
6.3 PRO may elect to utilize a third party review at any design stage for CMS
Project Characterization C1 projects as defined in SAEP-360.
1. PRO remains accountable for the design and review of the design.
2. PRO shall cause third party to comply with all review responsibilities
highlighted under Section 6.2.
Revision Summary
13 December 2011 Major revision.
21 November 2016 Major revision is required in order to align SAEP-303 with the CMS system and to
incorporate many enhancements required to improve the review and implementation of
recommendations.

Page 22 of 35
Appendix A - Project Non-Conformity Escalation Process
A.1 Scope of the Escalation Process
This Annex provides escalation process and instructions of non-conformities during

projects to Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirements or GIs including
delinquency that have direct impact on the projects’ safety, integrity, and cost.
A.2 Purpose
The purpose of this Escalation Process is to:

 Define a structured Escalation Process during projects with clear roles and
responsibilities, non-conformities Levels, escalation level, and escalation
notification approach.
 Implement a unified and timely method for escalating non-conformities and
delinquency in matters related to projects’ safety, integrity, and cost.
A.3 Definitions
ACD: Agreed Completion Date
Escalation Process: A structured mechanism to progressively escalate new or pending

Non-Conformities and technical deficiencies to the concerned management.
NCA: Non-Conformities Action starts the Escalation Process by sending the

Non-Conformity Form (NCF) to the Saudi Aramco organizations and/or Contractors
responsible for Non-conforming actions.
NCF: Non-Conformity Form (NCF) issued to the Saudi Aramco organizations and/or
Contractors responsible for Non-conforming actions.
Non-Conformities or Technical Deficiencies: Non-compliance to any MSAER or

project specifications in projects or operating facilities.
MSAER: Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirements (Standards,

Procedures, Materials Specifications, Engineering Manuals)
MCC: Mechanical Completion Certificate.
Repeated Non-Conformity: A non-compliance of the same MSAER, project

specifications or standard drawings in the same activity area that occurred more than
once within a year.

Page 23 of 35
Integrity Non-Conformity: Asset Non-compliance to MSAER that have potential

impact on life, capital assets, or environment, see Table 1.
Table 1 - Definition of Integrity Non-Conformity Tier I and Tier II

Integrity Potential Integrity Impact
Non-Conformity Capital Assets
Tier Level Life (People Safety) Environment
(Property / Production)
One or more fatalities or
A fire or explosion resulting A release of Hazardous or
major injuries
Tier I in greater than $25,000 of Toxic material above Tier
(hospitalization or days
direct cost. 1 level (see Section A.9)
off work).
A fire or explosion resulting A release of Hazardous or
Tier II Minor injury in greater than or equal to Toxic material above Tier
$2,500 of direct cost. 2 level (see Section A.9)
A.4 Non-Conformities Levels
The non-conformities Levels can be categorized into three levels: Major, Medium, and
Minor. The following table summarizes the non-conformities Levels and approval
levels.
Table 2 - Summary of Non-Conformity Level vs Approval Levels

Escalation Level
Non-Conformity
Level Manager Division Head Unit Head or
Group Leader
Major O
Medium O
Minor O
O: Approval

Page 24 of 35
4.1 Major Non-conformities
4.1.1 Non-conformity in project design or missing requirements in project

design that may lead to a Safety or Integrity Non-Conformity Tier I
(see Table 1), typically characterized by immediate or short term (within
a year) impact realization.
4.1.2 Non-Conformities or Technical Deficiencies that result in more than

$1MM loss to the company per year or per the project.
4.1.3 Actions that violate the corporate values by submitting forged reports
and counterfeit materials.
4.1.4 Starting a project or design document which excludes ANY Mandatory

Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement (MSAER) or GIs, without
securing the required waiver approved by applicable management level
authority.
4.1.5 Non-conformities to MSAER or GIs, project specifications and drawings

that if it is not corrected, the safety and integrity of the next phase will be
jeopardized; or if such Non-conformity, if not corrected in a timely
manner, will lead to either:
 More severe damage,
 Additional cost for project/operation phases, or
 More complexity in project/operation phases.
4.1.6 Non-Conformities or Technical Deficiencies that result in a delay for

ANY project deadline/Phase.
4.1.7 Delinquent Medium Non-Conformity level item.
4.1.8 Repeated Medium or Major Non-Conformity item within a year.
4.2 Medium Non-conformities
4.2.1 Integrity Non-Conformity Tier II (see Table 1), typically characterized

by med-term (1-3 year) impact realization.
4.2.2 Non-Conformities to MSAER or GI, project documents and drawings

that if it is not corrected, the safety and integrity will be impacted in the
med-term; or Non-Conformity, if not corrected in a timely manner, may
lead to a rework on the design, change in the material procurement or
change/rework during the project construction / commissioning.

Page 25 of 35
4.2.3 The Non-Conformity will be categorized ‘YES’ item as defined in

GI-0002.710 during the partial MCC stage.

$250M but less than $1MM loss to the company per year or per the
project.
4.2.5 Delinquent Minor Non-Conformity level item.
4.1.6 Repeated Minor Non-Conformity item within a year.
4.3 Minor Non-conformities
4.3.1 Integrity Non-Conformity with potential long term impact realization.
4.3.2 Non-Conformities to MSAER, project specifications and approved

drawings provided the next phase of work is not dependent on the
correction of the Non-Conformities.
4.3.3 The Non-Conformity will be categorized ‘NO’ item as defined in

GI-0002.710 during the partial MCC stage.

$10M but less than $250M loss to the company per year or per the
project.
A.5 Escalation Levels
5.1 Major Non-Conformity Escalation
Non-conformity Form (NCF) Level III, signed by the responsible ES Manager,

shall be addressed to the responsible Manager of the Proponent (Projects and/or
Operations). Non-conformity Level III Form shall include the Non-Conformity
description, non-compliance reasons, and business impact.
5.2 Medium Non-Conformity Escalation
Non-conformity Form (NCF) Level II, signed by the ES Division Head, shall be
addressed to the responsible Department Head of the Proponent (Projects and/or
Operations). Non-conformity Level II Form shall include the Non-Conformity
description, non-compliance reasons, and business impact.
5.3 Minor Non-Conformity Escalation
Non-conformity Form (NCF) Level I, signed by the responsible ES Unit Head,

shall be addressed to the responsible Project Manager. Non-conformity Level I

Page 26 of 35
Form shall include the Non-Conformity description, non-compliance reasons,

and business impact.
A.6 Instructions and Process
6.1 The process outlined in Figures 1 and 2 of this section shall be used for all non-
conformity Escalation.
6.2 Non-Conformity or technical deficiencies shall be reported/logged in a timely

manner in the “Non-Conformity and Escalation Actions Log” with clear
description, appropriate Non-conformities Levels, and status of
actions/delinquency.
6.3 The status of “Non-Conformity and Escalation Actions Log” shall be updated
regularly by the ES Responsible Engineer.
Figure 1 - Escalation Process Detail Steps

Page 27 of 35
Non-Conformity Level
Minor Medium Major
Initiate NCA Initiate NCA Initiate NCA
Yes Meet Yes Meet Yes Meet

ACD? ACD? ACD?
No No No
Grant Grant Grant

Extension? Extension? Extension?
Yes No Yes No Yes No

Completed Completed Completed
On new ACD? On new ACD? On new ACD?
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Next level Next level Escalation to AA

Close NCA Close NCA Close NCA
Escalation Escalation Head or Auditing
Figure 2 - Escalation Process per Non-Conformity Level
6.4 The “Non-Conformity and Escalation Actions Log” shall be reviewed monthly
in the Department Communication Meeting.
6.5 Incomplete or delinquent Major Non-Conformity Items shall be escalated to

ES Admin Area Head or reported to Auditing.
6.6 Typically, Non-Conformity Escalation Process shall be initiated when the

comment are not closed and implemented by the project during the design
review comment resolution meeting. However, Non-Conformity Escalation
Process can be initiated at any project cycle when such Non-Conformity is
identified and not addressed in due time.
A.7 Responsibilities
7.1 Responsible ES Manager
7.1.1 Review the “Non-Conformity and Escalation Actions Log” on monthly

basis.
7.1.2 Approve the escalation of Non-Conformity items to the next level.

Page 28 of 35
7.2 Responsible ES Division Head
7.2.1 Categorize submitted Non-Conformity items as Minor, Medium or

Major; reflect such categorization in the “Non-Conformity and
Escalation Actions Log”.
7.2.2 Communicate the Non-Conformity items in writing to the Responsible

Manager.
7.2.3 Approve the Moderate NCF with the initial Agreed completion date.
7.2.4 Escalate overdue moderate Non-conformity action to the next level.
7.3 Responsible ES Unit Head or Group Leader
7.3.1 Report immediately Non-Conformity items to the Responsible ES

Division Head.
7.3.2 Assign the required resources and backup to address the Non-
Conformity items.
7.3.3 Approve the NCF form for minor Non-conformity action with the initial
Agreed completion date.
7.3.4 Escalate overdue minor Non-conformity action to the next level.
7.4 Responsible ES Engineer
7.4.1 Report immediately Non-Conformity items to the Responsible ES Unit

Head and Responsible Division Head.
7.4.2 Fill the initial Non-Conformity Form (NCF).
7.4.3 Report/Flag delinquency or incompletion of the Non-Conformity items.
7.4.4 Update periodically the status of the Non-Conformity items in the

“Non-Conformity and Escalation Actions Log”.

Page 29 of 35
A.8 Samples of Non-Conformities and Their Level

Non-conformity
No. Sample of Non-conformity or Technical Deficiency
Level
Non-compliance to MSAER or technical deficiencies that have potential
1 Major
impact on life, capital assets, or environment.
Starting a project or project document which excludes ANY MSAER,
2 Major
without securing the required waiver approved.
3 Forged Quality/testing/verification Documents Major
4 Technical Integrity deficiencies with immediate or short term impact Major
5 Procurement and/or Installation of counterfeit materials Major
Placing RVL/Inspectable materials and equipment with unapproved

6 Medium
source
7 Not addressing Critical AIMS assessment recommendations on time Medium
8 Use of non-approved products Medium
9 Use of non-approved Service providers Medium
10 Processing Modification without MoC Medium
11 Poor or incomplete quality submittals or documentations Minor
Technical deficiencies yielding loss of greater than $10,000 but less

12 Minor
than $250M.

Page 30 of 35
A.9 Integrity Non-Conformity - Material Release Threshold
Table 3 - Material Release Threshold for Tier I and Tier II Integrity Non-Conformity
Tier 1 Tier 2
(Categories below refer to (Categories below refer to
API/ANSI standard RP 754) API/ANSI standard RP 754)
Material Hazard Classification Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Indoor
(with example materials) release release release release
Flammable Gases – e.g.:
 Methane, ethane, propane,
butane, 500 kg 250 kg 50 kg 25 kg
 Natural gas
 Ethyl mercaptan
Liquids with Boiling Point ≤ 35°C
(95°F) and Flash Point < 23°C
(73°F) – e.g.:
500 kg 250 kg 50 kg 25 kg
 Liquefied petroleum (LPG)
 Liquefied natural gas (LNG)
 isopentane
Liquids with Boiling Point > 35°C
(95°F) and Flash Point < 23°C (73°F)
e.g.:
 gasoline/petrol, toluene,
xylene, 1,000 kg 500 kg 100 kg 50 kg
or or or or
 condensate
7 bbl 3.5 bbl 1 bbl 0.5bbl
 methanol
 ˃15 API Gravity crude oils
(unless actual flashpoint
available)
Liquids with Flash Point ≥ 23°C
(73°F) and ≤ 60°C (140°F) – e.g.:
2,000 kg 1,000 kg 100kg 50 kg
 Diesel, most kerosenes,
or or or or
 ˂15 API Gravity crude oils 14 bbl 7 bbl 1 bbl 0.5 bbl
(unless actual flashpoint
available)
Liquids with Flash Point > 60°C
(140°F) released at a temperature at
or
above its flash point – e.g.: 2,000 kg 1,000 kg 100 kg 50 kg
or or or or
 Asphalts, molten Sulphur,
14 bbl 7 bbl 1 bbl 0.5 bbl
 Ethylene glycol, propylene
glycol,
 Lubricating oil

Page 31 of 35
Tier 1 Tier 2
Liquids with Flash Point < 60, °C
(140, °F) released at a temperature
at or
below its flash point – e.g.: 1,000 kg 500 kg
Not Not
or or
 Asphalts, molten Sulphur, applicable applicable
10 bbl 5 bbl
 Ethylene glycol, propylene
glycol,
 Lubricating oil
TIH Zone A Materials – includes:
5 kg 2.5 kg 0.5 kg 0.25 kg
 Acrolein (stabilized)
TIH Zone B Materials- includes:
 Hydrogen sulphide (H2S). 25 kg 12.5 kg 2.5 kg 1.3 kg
 Chlorine (CL2)
TIH Zone C Materials –includes:
 Sulphur Dioxide (SO2). 100 kg 50 kg 10 kg 5 kg
 Hydrogen Chloride (HCL)
TIH Zone D Materials –includes:
 Ammonia (NH3). 200 kg 100 kg 20 kg 10 kg
 Carbon monoxide (CO)
Other Packing Group I Materials –
includes:
 Aluminum alkyls
 Some liquid amines
500 kg 250 kg 50 kg 25 kg
 Sodium cyanide
 Sodium peroxide
 Hydrofluoric acid (> 60%
solution)
Other Packing Group II Materials –
includes:
 Aluminum chloride
 phenol 1,000 kg 500 kg 100 kg 50 kg
 calcium carbide or or or or
 carbon tetrachloride 7 bbl 3.5 bbl 1 bbl 0.5bbl
 some organic peroxides
 Hydrofluoric acid (˂ 60%
solution)

Page 32 of 35
Tier 1 Tier 2
Other Packing Group III Materials –
includes:
 Sulphur
 Lean amine
 Calcium oxide 2,000 kg 1,000 kg 100 kg 50 kg
or or or or
 Activated carbon
14 bbl 7 bbl 1 bbl 0.5 bbl
 Chloroform
 Some organic peroxides
 Sodium fluoride
 Sodium nitrate
Strong Acids or Bases – includes:
 Sulphuric acid, hydrochloric 2,000 kg 1,000 kg 100 kg 50 kg
acid or or or or
 Sodium hydroxide (caustic) 14 bbl 7 bbl 1 bbl 0.5 bbl
 Calcium hydroxide (lime)
Moderate Acids or Bases – includes: 1,000 kg 500 kg
 Diethylamine (corrosion None None or or
inhibitor) 10 bbl 5 bbl
kg: Kilogram
bbl: barrels

Page 33 of 35
Appendix B - List of all Equipment and Lines Carrying H2S
BI- Project: Package:

Prepared by: Reviewed by: Date:
Pipe circuit or Type of Wet H2S H2S partial Design/ Design/ HIC-resistant PR/PO
SAIR
No. equipment no. service concent. pressure operating operating steel specified Justification number (if
comments
exposed to H2S* carrying H2S (ppm) (psia) temp (ºC) pressure (psia) (Y/N)? developed)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
* This numbering shall be easily traced back to attached drawings.
SA Project Manager Proponent Rep Concurrence:

Signature:
SAIR Signature: CSD Approval:
Page 34 of 35
Appendix C - Engineering Design Review Submittal Checklist
BI # BI Title
Order # Order Title
Following Capital Management System (CMS) ☐ Yes ☐ No
IPT Leader and Members Department Login ID
☐ FEL-1 ☐ FEL-2
Project Stage: ☐ FEL-3
Skip next part
Deliverable ☐ DBSP ☐ Project Proposal ☐ Detailed design

Duration
(including ☐ 15 Business Days ☐ 20 Business Days ☐ 25 Business Days
Notification period)
Contract type ☐ LSTK ☐ LSPB ☐ LS
Design office Contact
Cycle ☐ 30% ☒ 60% ☐ 90%
☐ A letter signed by the project department manager has been sent.
Design agency quality assurance and control including:

☐ Citing MSAER’s cut-off date for project.
☐ Designer initials.
☐ Checker initials.
☐ Approval initials.
☐ Submittals should bear the appropriate watermarking identifying the stage of completion.
☐ Comments log for previous review cycle is attached except for 30% of PP
Page 35 of 35

Saep 303 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saep 303 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-303 21 November 2016

Appendix A - Project Non-Conformity

Previous Issue: 13 December 2011 Next Planned Update: 21 November 2019

©Saudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

1.2 The purpose of engineering reviews is to provide technical assurance to Saudi

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-367 Value Improving Practices Requirements

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

 Saudi Aramco General Instruction

3.1 Organizations and Reviewing Entities

Saudi Aramco Reviewing Organizations (SAROs): This term refers to all

Project Responsible Organization (PRO): The organization responsible for

3.2 Review Documentation

Project Proposal (including Technical Proposal Documents within Contract

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

3.3 Review Methods

Across-the-Board Review (ABR): This is a review simultaneously carried out

Discipline Specific Review (DSR): This is a review carried out by a specific

4.1 Number, Type, and Method of Reviews

4.2 Requesting and Planning Engineering Reviews

4.2.1 To request an engineering review, either in the Project Proposal or

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

4.3 Review Submittals

The submittals described in this paragraph should bear the appropriate

4.4 Review Schedule

4.4.1 Engineering reviews of DBSPs and Project Proposal packages require a

A shorter review period is allowed on written mutual agreement between

4.5 Review Documentation

4.5.1 Review Requirements

Architectural (Project Proposal)

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

2 Building sections Assemblies – floors, finishes, walls, roofs, overhangs,

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

3 Risk assessments studies as basis for Design Document 60%

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

4 Site Grading Plans, Layouts, Sections,

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

6 In-plant voice paging system Refer to SAES-T-481

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

13 Process Hazard Analysis (PHA,

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

6 Rotating Equipment List, with indication

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

5 General Structural Drawings 90% completion

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

4.5.3 The review shall enable the following:

5 Reviews and Project Non-Conformity Resolution

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

5.10 Where a resolution to an outstanding issue or review comment cannot be

5.11.1 All review comments must be closed in the eReview Comments

5.12.1 If all comments have been closed to SARO's satisfaction, approval

6.1 PRO is responsible for:

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

3. Conducting in-house preliminary reviews prior to requesting an

6.2 SAROs are responsible for:

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Appendix A - Project Non-Conformity Escalation Process

A.1 Scope of the Escalation Process