Saep 40

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-40 26 April 2020

Value Assurance Process
Document Responsibility: Project Management Office Standards Committee
Contents
Summary of Changes (rev. 17 Oct. 2019) ............... 2
1 Introduction ....................................................... 4
2 Conflicts and Deviations ................................... 5
3 References........................................................ 6
4 Terminology ...................................................... 6
5 Value Assurance (VA) Process ......................... 6
6 VA Focus Areas by Gate................................. 12
7 VA Procedure.................................................. 21
Appendices ............................................................ 29
Appendix A - VA Process Workflow ....................... 30
Appendix B - VA Team Composition ..................... 31
Appendix C - IPT Risk Profile Analysis .................. 32
Appendix D - Prioritization of VA
Recommendations ........................... 34
Document Summary .............................................. 36
Previous Issue: 17 October 2019 Next Revision: 17 October 2024

Contact: PMOD/Capital Program Efficiency Division - General Supervisor Page 1 of 36
©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved.
Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Document Responsibility: Project Management Office Standards Committee SAEP-40
Publish Date: 26 April 2020
Next Revision: 17 October 2024 Value Assurance Process
Summary of Changes (rev. 17 October 2019)

Paragraph Change Type
No. Technical Change(s)
Number (New, Modification,..)
4 Value Provide an independent assessment which
1 Assurance Modification highlights risks, opportunities, gaps, etc., to
(VA) Process support the Decision Maker for the Gate decisions
and once the project passes into the Execution
2 Table 1 - Deletion Phase, periodic status engagements are held at
intermediate project milestones
The intent of this phase is considered complete
and therefore formal VAR review and gate
engagement is not mandatory if the project met
the following conditions:
• The project has been reviewed by Corporate
Staff Review (CSR)
5.1 FEL1
3 Modification • Part of an approved Business Plan
(Gate 1)
• No significant changes of project’s scope, cost
and/or schedule baselines from approved
Business Plan.
It is incumbent on the IPT and Project Sponsor to
provide the supportive documentations of meeting
the aforementioned conditions
The Value Assurance Review process begins with
the development of “Project FEL Assurance
Review Plan” deliverable. The Project Value
6.1 Project VA Assurance Plan deliverable is a document
4 Plan Addition prepared by the IPT Leader that provides a plan to
Preparation interact with Value Assurance before each Gate in
order to ensure proper submittal of all
deliverables, and subsequently, completion of the
Assurance Review Report by Value Assurance.
IPT Leader and VA Leader shall agree on the
applicable versus inapplicable deliverables; when
6.1 Project VA
there is disagreement IPT Leader shall obtain
5 Plan Addition
concurrence from responsible Functional
Preparation
Organizations with roles D and/or A as per
RAPID Matrix
6.1 Project VA
VA Leader: R=Recommend
6 Plan Modification
IPT Leader: A-Agree
Preparation
©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 36

Paragraph Change Type

No. Technical Change(s)
Number (New, Modification,..)
It is the responsibility of IPT Leader and Project
6.3 VA Sponsor to secure signed off and completed
7 Review Addition project deliverables and endorsed by all
Execution stakeholders prior to the start of the VA review
process.
It is the responsibility of the IPT Leader and the
Project Sponsor to maintain, track and document
6.3 VA
all open VA findings, including the ones
8 Review Addition
presented to the Decision Maker and ensure
Execution
proper closure, throughout the project
development phases.
Contact: Abdulgader Mubarak (mubaraaz) on
9 Footer Modification
+966-13-8804691
SAEP-17, Project Stage and Gate Governance
10 Modification Project Sponsor Guides
Target Setting (TS) Process Guidelines

1 Introduction
1.1 Objective
This procedure governs the Value Assurance (VA) Process of the Capital Management
System (CMS). It details the implementation of the VA Process during all phases of the
Stage Gate Front End Loading (FEL) to support project governance and decision-making
at the Gate.
1.2 Applicability
The VA Process is applicable to all projects (depending upon project characterization1)

that follow the CMS, except for:
 BI-19s (Capital items valued at $4.0MM or below).
 Exploration projects (BI-33).
 Unconventional gas development projects (BI-34).
Please note that this is only applicable during the pilot phase.
 Development drilling projects (BI-60).
 Projects that are Monetary Appropriations only such as:
o Enterprise Computing Systems
o Communications Networks Upkeep
o Innovation and Technology Deployment
o Research and Development Center
o Community Utility Equipment
o Transportation Equipment
o Medical Equipment
o EXPEC Computer Center
o Advanced Research Center Equipment
1.3 Validity
Roles and Responsibilities defined in this document are based on the Saudi Aramco
organizational structure valid as of issuance date of this procedure. Any organizational
changes impacting the organizational entities represented in this document will require
review, and update as required, of the Roles and Responsibilities for the set of the
activities described.
1
A and B type projects are characterized by higher complexity, risk, and CAPEX vs. C and C1 Type projects.
For details on project characterization, refer to SAEP-71.

1.4 Capital Management System (CMS)
The CMS is the general framework adopted by Saudi Aramco to manage the activities,
clarify roles and responsibilities, and enable timely and informed decision-making of its
Capital Projects. The CMS aims at consistently improving Saudi Aramco performance
in Capital Planning, Execution, and Ownership, by utilizing enablers that ensure
efficient and on-time delivery of optimized assets/facilities/systems. In addition, the
CMS defines and governs the delivery of individual projects and allows the
management of a mega project/program (a group of interrelated smaller scope
packages/BIs) and the portfolio of projects.
Figure 1 shows the CMS and its efficiency enablers namely:

 Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP)
 Project Sponsor and Integrated Project Team (IPT)
 Front End Loading (FEL)
 Target Setting
 Value Assurance (VA)
Figure 1 - Overview of Capital Management System (CMS)
2 Conflicts and Deviations
Any conflict between this document and other applicable Mandatory Saudi Aramco
Engineering Requirements (MSAERs) shall be addressed in writing to the EK&RD
Coordinator.
Any deviation from the requirements herein shall follow internal company procedure
SAEP-302, Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement.

3 References
The requirements contained in the following documents apply to the extent specified in
this procedure.
 Saudi Aramco Documents
Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-12 Project Execution Plan
SAEP-13 Project Environmental Impact Assessments
SAEP-14 Project Proposal
SAEP-25 Estimate Preparation Guidelines
SAEP-26 Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines
SAEP-302 Waiver of a Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement
SAEP-367 Value Improving Practices Requirements
SAEP-1350 Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation and Revision
Procedure
 Saudi Aramco Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers (CMSEEs),

Documentation (for the latest version of the below manuals, contact Project
Management Office Department)
SAEP-71 Portfolio Execution Planning
SAEP-17 Project Stage and Gate Governance
Project Sponsor Guides
Target Setting (TS) Process Guidelines
Book of Deliverables
RAPID Matrix
Gate Engagement Guideline
4 Terminology
4.1 Acronymns
BLC: Business Line Committee
CAPEX: Capital Expenditure
CMSEE: Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers
DSP: Decision Support Package
DBSP: Design Basis Scoping Paper

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

FEL: Front End Loading
HAZOP: Hazard and Operability
IPT: Integrated Project Team
PXP: Portfolio Execution Planning
PHA: Preliminary Hazard Analysis
PS: Project Sponsor
RAPID: (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide)
TS: Target Setting
ToR: Terms of Reference
VIP: Value Improving Practices
4.2 Definitions
Construction Agency: The organization assigned to execute the project. This could be
the Saudi Aramco Project Management (PM) that is the default Construction Agency
for A, B, and C-Type projects or the Proponent for C1-Type projects.
Decision Maker: For A and B-Type Projects is the Management Committee (MC) and
for C and C1-Type projects, the Decision Maker is the Business Line Committee (BLC)
or its formally appointed delegate by the proponent Business Line Head.
Decision Support Package (DSP): A set of mandatory project Gate Submittals to be
produced before accessing a Gate and provide the Decision Maker with complete,
current and relevant information, sufficient to decide whether or not a project may
proceed into the next Phase.
Front End Loading (FEL): Organizes project planning, definition and development
through disciplined processes, deliverables and decision gates to maximize value and
minimize risk allowing early engagement with the decision makers. It divides the
project lifecycle into Phases, Stages, and Gates, each with defined activities and specific
objectives. The achievement of these objectives is checked at the Gate to confirm the
readiness of the project to proceed to the next Phase/Stage.
Functional Control Activities: Are performed during the project development
(e.g., Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Technology Selection, Schedule/Cost
Estimates, Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), Hazard and Operability (HAZOP)
Study, Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) and Project Proposal Reviews and
approval, Value Improving Practices (VIPs), etc.) in order to ensure projects
deliverables are developed in compliance with the Company’s defined guidelines and
the specific requirements of the involved functional organizations as defined in the FEL
Book of Deliverables and governed by the RAPID matrix.

Gate: Represents the point between different FEL Phases, where a key management
decision must be made before a project proceeds to the next Phase.
Gate Engagement Guideline: Describes the Gatekeeper role for determining if a
project should go for a Gate and documenting the results of the Gate meeting afterward,
in coherence with the Gate agenda. For A and B-Type projects, this guideline is named
as “MC Gatekeeper Presentation Submittal and Outcome Report Guideline”.
Gatekeeper: Responsible for checking the completeness of the Decision Support
Package (DSP), scheduling presentation on Decision Maker calendar and recording
minutes and actions in coherence with the Gate agenda.
Integrated Project Team (IPT): A temporary framework composed of members from
various functions identified to support the progressive project development and
completion, under a unified leadership (Project Sponsor and Project Leader), with a
focus to promote alignment towards meeting project objectives, targets, and goals
efficiently and effectively.
Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP): One of the five Capital Efficiency Enablers
introduced by the CMS. The intent of the PXP process is to take a forward-looking
view of the company’s planned capital program to identify the key risks and constraints
that may impact the efficient execution of the portfolio. Key risks and constraints could
include for example, commodities, engineered goods, labor pool accessibility, financial
constraints, etc.
Project Leader: Leads the Integrated Project Team (IPT) for project activities.
The appointment of the Project Leader is by Facilities Planning Department (FPD) up to
Gate 2 and by the Construction Agency afterwards.
Project Sponsor (PS): A single point of accountability and authority across all Stages of
the project life cycle ensuring the project results are delivered effectively and efficiently.
Project Types - A, B, C, and C1: Are assigned by FPD as a result of project
characterization based on size (Capital Expenditure, CAPEX) and complexity/risks.
C1-Type project assignment is coordinated with Project Management Office
Department, Project Management, and Proponent Organizations.
RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide): A matrix that defines roles and
responsibilities in the work process related to the CMS and development of FEL
deliverables in each Stage.
Target Setting (TS): The outcome of the Target Setting Workshop that involves
challenging the IPT creativity towards continuous improvement in setting competitive
targets and goals, early in the project development, that exceed historical performance
and are relatively in line with or better than industry.

Terms of Reference (ToR): Describes the VA Team formation, activities, timeline,

methodology and the focus areas for the pre-Gate Review.
VA Master Plan: A consolidation of the VA Plans on a portfolio basis with expected
resources needed from various Saudi Aramco functions over a rolling period of 12
months. It allows PMOD to:
 Secure and allocate required resources for VA Reviews
 Identify constraints in the availability of internal resources and define actions to
overcome constraints (e.g., involvement of external VA experts)
 Plan for other logistics (meeting space, tools, etc.)
VA Team: An independent and multidisciplinary group of experts appointed on a
temporary basis (just for the time needed for performing the VA Review) which cover
all the areas of expertise required to perform a project VA Review.
5 Value Assurance (VA) Process
The VA Process, one of the efficiency enablers of the CMS, ensures the project to
maintain or improve its overall created value within its defined objectives through all
stages of its development. The VA Process is implemented through structured and
rigorous analysis, the Value Assurance (VA) Review, performed by an independent
multidisciplinary team before each Gate and/or Key Decision(s) to examine all aspects
of a project from a diverse, holistic and cross discipline perspective to:
 Identify gaps, risks and opportunities
 Provide necessary recommendation to the IPT and the Project Sponsor
 Provide an independent assessment which highlights risks, opportunities, gaps, etc.,
to support the Decision Maker for the Gate decisions
There are five (5) main steps of the VA Process including:
1. Project VA Plan Preparation
2. VA Team Formation and the VA Terms of Reference (ToR) Development
3. VA Review Execution
4. Engagement with the Project Sponsor
5. Pre-Gate Interaction with the Gatekeeper

Figure 2 shows a schematic view of the VA Process including the VA resources (manpower,
tools and services) allocation and master planning at portfolio level.
Figure 2 - VA Process
The overall VA Process workflow is provided as Appendix A.
The Project Leader should engage the VA Leader at the start of the Project and/or the
FEL Phase during the development of the overall VA Plan to:
 Map FEL Phases, Stages, Gates, and respective timelines based on decision
interfaces and interdependencies among individual scope packages/BIs.
 Agree upon the development, governance and execution approach of the
project/program and its constituent scope packages/BIs.
 Identify and agree on any specific project deliverables in addition to what are
already defined by the FEL Book of Deliverables (see RAPID).
 Determine and agree upon the number and timeline of the reviews.
The number of the required VA Reviews is typically as follows (Refer to Figure 3):
 Four VA Reviews for A and B-Type projects,
 Three VA Reviews for C and C1-Type projects*1, 2, 3
 The VA Review(s) for following specific cases, when required:
o A mega A or B-Type project or a program planned to be broken down into
smaller scope packages managed under individual Budget Items (BIs)
o An advanced or progressive VA Review focusing on a particular aspect of the
project prior to making key decisions (e.g., Contracting Strategy approval by the
Services Review Committee (SRC), Prior Approval Expenditure Requests

(PAERs), Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) with third party entities and

Utilities Supply Implementation Agreements, Technology Selection, etc.)
These advanced/progressive VA Reviews:
 Provide timely VA input to the IPT and/or the Project Sponsor prior to
making key decision on a particular aspect of the project.
 Provide interim status update for previous VA and Gate recommendations.
 Should be carried out on the completed work (study, assessment and/or
deliverable) pertaining to a particular aspect of the project.
*Notes:
*1 For C and C1-Type projects, due to their lower complexity and risks, the analysis
required is less, resulting in a lower number of required VA Reviews, smaller VA
Teams and overall shorter duration for the VA Review(s).
*2 PMOD evaluates the need to conduct a formal VA review for C1-Type projects based
on internal criteria for VA review applicability. As a result, some C1-Type projects
may not require a formal VA Review by PMOD. These projects still need to be
developed following the CMS requirements with PMOD guidance.
*3 For C and C1-Type projects, the Project Sponsor, based on project nature, conditions
and VA recommendations, determines whether to engage with the Business Line
Committee (BLC) at Gate of Alternative Selection (GAS) or G2 limiting the total
number of Gate engagements with the BLC to two (2) throughout the FEL.
Figure 3 - VA Reviews by Project Type
The VA Reviews are different from other functional control activities (refer to Table 1
for details).

Table 1 - Difference between Functional Control Activities, Peer Reviews, and VA Reviews
BEFORE GATES
DURING FEL PHASES and/or
KEY DECISIONS
Functional Control Activities Peer Reviews VA Reviews
Ensure that the projects are Intermediate status Structured, independent multi-
developed according to the validation, advice of disciplinary analysis to examine
What
Company’s defined guidelines experts on specific all the aspects of a project before
and in compliance with the technical issues accessing a Gate or/and making
specific functional organization a key decision by the Decision
requirements (see RAPID) Maker
Functional Control Activities are Peer Reviews can VA Reviews are held before each
carried out throughout the project be requested on Gate
lifecycle (e.g., EIA, Technology demand by Project
When
Selection, Schedule/Cost Leader and/or

Estimates, PHAs, HAZOPs, Project Sponsor or
DBSP, and Project Proposal can be defined by
Reviews and approval, etc.) specific functions
By
FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS VA TEAM
6 VA Focus Areas by Gate
The distinct objective of each Gate establishes the scope of each Phase and the required
VA Review focus areas. The project readiness at each Gate is determined by examining
all key aspects (Technical, Economic, Commercial, Organizational, External, and
Transversal). The following sections highlight the objective and the focus areas of the
VA Review for each Gate.
Figure 4 - Gate Objectives

6.1 FEL1 (Gate 1)
The intent of this phase is considered complete and therefore formal VAR review and
gate engagement is not mandatory if the project met the following conditions:
• The project has been reviewed by Corporate Staff Review (CSR)
• Part of an approved Business Plan
• No significant changes of project’s scope, cost and/or schedule baselines from
approved Business Plan.
It is incumbent on the IPT and Project Sponsor to provide the supportive
documentations of meeting the aforementioned conditions.
Table 2 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for Gate 1
Typical VA Analysis for G1
Assess the project scope objective, particularly verifying that business objectives are clearly
Prerequisite
understood, project plans are realistic and documented in the Project Charter
Verify a comprehensive complete range of viable options/alternatives are identified at this stage
in order to pursue their further studies in the next FEL2/Study Phase
Review the economic model underlying assumptions (i.e., main cause for the project economic
viability) to assess if all economic data and required analyses are complete for supporting the
business case
Economic
Verify if cost estimation was developed for initial and life cycle cost ensuring the accuracy of
±50%
Verify financial data (CAPEX, Operating Expenditure - OPEX, revenues, others) and analysis
support project’s affordability
Other economic aspects assessed by the VA Team
Verify if schedule estimation was developed (Level I) and is realistic
Assess adequacy of scope definition for the base case (the main option/alternative under
consideration for the project)
Verify consistency, completeness and accuracy of the project basic data requirements
Technical
Verify that the a complete list of viable project sites are identified and the criteria (in terms of
accessibility, restrictions, land use permit, others) are defined and approved to analyze and guide
selection of the optimal site during next FEL phase
Verify that key HSSE (Health, Safety, Security and Environment) issues and their management
aspects have been identified and necessary plans developed to further validate and access the
associated risks
Verify whether relevant Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been identified and planned
Other technical aspects assessed by the VA Team

Check that project commercial characteristics (contractors, vendors, utilities, partners, JVs, etc.)
Commercial
have been well taken into account as part of the decision based FEL process
Verify required market studies are foreseen to identify all variable contracting and procurement
strategies for the project
Other commercial aspects assessed by the VA Team
Verify that Target Setting has been conducted to establish competitive Target and goals based
on internal/external benchmarks to improve historical performance and align/ perform better than
Transversal
the industry
Verify that a Risk Management plan including holistic project overall risk has been implemented,
that major risks have been identified and associated with a mitigation plan
Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been collected and implemented
Other transversal aspects assessed by the VA Team
Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA 2, regulations, social,
etc.) have been well taken into account
External
Verify that the Stakeholder Management plan has been adequately updated with complete
identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, gathering
and prioritizing their requirements and needs with clear engagement actions and the evidence
of their continuous and proper involvement
Other external factors assessed by the VA Team
Check that Project Team organization is consistently resourced along with clear identification of
roles and responsibilities
Organization
Check that internal organizations have been properly activated for the required activities and that
their comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration
Verify an Integrated Project Team (IPT) has been formed and fully implemented including clear
roles, responsibilities, organization, communication, etc.
Assess the IPT internal dynamic risk profile (see Appendix C for details)
Other organizational aspects assessed by the VA Team
2
In Kingdom Total Value Add

6.2 FEL2/Study (GAS)
FEL2/Study Phase is complete when all studies required to thoroughly analyze all
options/alternatives are conducted and finalized along with effective management of
identified project risks through proper mitigations to guide the selection of the most
optimal option/alternative.
Table 3 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for GAS
Typical VA Analysis for GAS
Verify that recommendations of previous Gate Review have been addressed

Prerequisite
Review the project scope and objectives and related project plans to verify that they are updated
and realistic
Check if there were any significant changes to the previously defined project scope which may
cause increase in costs, schedule or have other significant impacts on the whole project
Assess if economic evaluation is thorough and covers all alternatives
Test the assumptions used for performing the project economics evaluation for the different
Economic
alternatives and the basis to select the most optimal option/alternative

Verify that specific analysis on the asset lifecycle cost has been taken into consideration
Verify if cost estimation was developed with an accuracy of ±40%
Other economics aspects assessed by the VA Team
Verify project schedule estimation was developed and is realistic considering interdependencies
with other projects
Check scope definition for all alternatives is developed and sufficient to compare them
technically, economically and commercially
Verify that alternative concepts have been fully evaluated to select the proposed development
option which is aligned with project objectives and maximizes the opportunity value
Verify that all viable alternative solutions have been taken into consideration
Verify that selection criteria are well established and understood for selecting an alternative
Technical
Verify consistency, completeness and accuracy of the project basic data requirements
Assess if the technology selection is based on thorough studies of recommended technologies
Ensure that the final site selected is consistent with the analysis performed in previous FEL
phase(s) and thus is confirmed to be the optimal site in terms of accessibility, restrictions, land
use permit and other approved site selection criteria
Verify that key HSSE issues and their management aspects identified during earlier phase have
been updated, validated, assessed and necessary steps have been taken to mitigate the
associated risks
Verify whether planned Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been implemented and their
results taken into account

Typical VA Analysis for GAS

Check that project commercial characteristics (contractors, vendors, utilities, partners, JVs, etc.)
Commercial
have been taken into account as part of the decision based FEL process
Verify that the proposed preliminary Contracting Strategy is consistent with the market study
outcome and suitable for the alternative selected
Verify that Project is performing within endorsed Target and Goals
Verify that the Risk Management Plan has been updated adequately (by updating the risk
Transversal
register as an outcome of scheduled risk workshop, team meetings focused on risks, mitigation
actions status updates, identification of additional major risks and associated mitigation plans)
and the project overall risk exposure has improved compared to the previous Gate
Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA, regulations, etc.)
have been taken into account
External
identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, gathering
and prioritizing their requirements and needs with clear engagement actions and the evidence
of their continuous and proper involvement
Check that the IPT organization is adequately resourced to support the following Phase along
with clear identification of roles and responsibilities
Organization

6.3 FEL 2 (Gate 2)
FEL 2 is complete when the most optimal option/alternative is selected and adequately
defined in an approved Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) by all stakeholders (to
freeze the scope) including implementing competitive Target and goals to achieve
Capital Efficiency for the project and effective management of identified project risks
through proper mitigations.
Verify that recommendations of previous Gate Reviews have been addressed

Pre-requisites
Review the project scope and objectives and related project plans to verify that they are updated
and realistic
Check if there are any significant changes to the previously defined project scope that may cause
cost increase, schedule changes or have other significant impacts on the project
Assess the economic data for supporting the business case and check, where applicable, if the
changes in the scope and future potential business environment need to be taken into
consideration
Economic
Test the assumptions used for performing the project economic evaluation
Verify if the updated economic evaluation is coherent and reasonable
Verify if cost estimate was developed with an accuracy of ±30% and is coherent with the budget
defined
Other economics aspects assessed by the VA Team
Verify if schedule estimation was carried out and is realistic
Verify the consistency of the updated design data requirements (related to scope, feedstocks,
products, utilities, process options, simulation and calculations results, HSSE, operability and
reliability, and referenced codes, standards, procedures and materials specifications) and confirm
that required changes from previous phase are captured and approved
Evaluate that the concept selected incorporates operations and maintenance requirements
Technical
Verify that the final site selected is appropriate in terms of facilities, physical interfaces among
facilities, required technologies/capabilities
Verify that the most cost-effective plot plan/layout (overall) for the proposed facility/equipment is
identified and selected without compromising safety, environment, and security, and in compliance
with process, maintenance, operation, and construction requirements
Verify that that the selected scope has properly considered the constructability related issues
Check if dedicated activities for ensuring operational readiness have been outlined
Test if the scope is ready to be frozen and optimal while considering coherence with the defined
Business Objective

Verify that key HSSE issues and their management aspects identified during earlier FEL phase(s)
have been updated, validated, assessed and necessary steps have been taken to mitigate the
associated risks
Verify whether planned Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been implemented and their results
taken into account
Check that project commercial characteristics (commercial, permits, approvals) have been taken
into account
Commercial
Review the proposed Contracting Strategy to establish if the proposed strategy maximizes value
to the Company based on the nature of the project and its risk profile
Review the Procurement Strategy and verify that it is adequate to support project execution
Verify that the Risk Management Plan has been updated adequately (by updating the risk register
Transversal
as an outcome of scheduled risk workshop, team meetings focused on risks, mitigation actions
status updates, identification of additional major risks and associated mitigation plans) and the
project overall risk exposure has improved compared to the previous Gate
Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA, regulations, etc.) have
been well taken into account
External
identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, gathering and
prioritizing their requirements and needs with clear engagement actions and the evidence of their
continuous and proper involvement
Check that Project Team organization is consistently resourced to support the following Phase
along with clear identification of roles and responsibilities
Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been taken into consideration by the Project
Organization
Team

6.4 FEL3 (Gate 3)
FEL3 is complete when the Project Proposal (PP) is approved by all stakeholders
including the execution strategy, readiness to authorize the funds based on final
business case, endorsed Target and goals and effective management of identified project
risks through proper mitigations.
Verify that recommendations of previous VA Reviews have been implemented

Prerequisites
Verify the project plans are updated, realistic and aligned with the project scope and objectives
Check if the project execution plan is consistent with the project defined objectives (business case
need, Target Setting)
Check for any significant changes to the project scope previously defined in FEL 2/DBSP which
may cause cost increase, schedule changes or have other significant impacts on the project
Assess that the economic data used for supporting the final business case are up-to-date and
based on actual data (actual cost and PCS, updated demand supply forecast, updated Corporate
Energy Values, sensitivities related to project life cycle); Check where applicable, if the changes
in the scope and future potential business environment need to be taken into consideration
Economic
Test the validity of assumptions used for performing the project economics evaluation
Verify if the updated economic evaluation is coherent and reasonable considering overall project
risk at project and enterprise levels
Verify if cost estimate was developed with an accuracy of ±10% and is consistent with the budget
defined based on realistic cost estimate basis
Other economic aspects assessed by the VA Team
Verify if schedule estimation at level III was developed with realistic basis/assumptions
(incorporating resource loading, critical interfaces as external commercial milestones, coherent
logic, clearly defined critical path, Saudi Aramco procurement cycle for long lead items and
alignment with defined and agreed shutdown periods where applicable etc.), ready to be used as
Project Control Schedule (PCS 0) and aligned with the bid package milestones
Verify the consistency of the updated design data requirements (related to scope, feedstocks,
products, utilities, process options, simulation and calculations results, HSSE, operability and
Technical
reliability, and referenced codes, standards, procedures and materials specifications) and confirm
that any required changes from previous phase are captured and approved
Verify that the most cost-effective plot plan/layout (unit) for the proposed facility/equipment is
selected without compromising safety, environment, and security, and in compliance with process,
maintenance, operation, and construction requirements
Check if preliminary engineering design (i.e., project proposal / engineering package to be released
to the market) has been properly developed by ensuring stakeholders’ inputs are incorporated
(project proposal design reviews closure, approved Value Engineering recommendations closure,
relevant collected Lessons Learned implementation, etc.)

Verify operations and maintenance requirements have been fully considered in the bid package
(i.e. requirements from Pre-Commissioning and Mechanical Completion Plan, Operational
Readiness Plan, other VIPs)
Check the existence and robustness of pre-commissioning, mechanical completion,
commissioning and hand-over strategies and associated plans
Check if there is a clear identification of roles and responsibilities among Company, Contractor (s)
and 3rd parties/other BIs for Construction, Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Startup
Verify if the Project Execution Plan is adequate (provide enough details around project
construction, pre-commissioning, commissioning and start-up strategies and sequences),
complete (in terms of plans for quality, resource, HSSE, project control etc.), project specific and
all associated contractor requirements are reflected in Proforma contract
Test if the defined Key Performance Indices (KPIs) for the Execution Phase are coherent with the
project objectives, Target and Goals
Verify that all the required studies within the HSSE perspective have been developed properly and
covering all the compliance requirements
Verify whether planned Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been implemented and their results
taken into account
Check that project commercial characteristics (commercial, permits, approvals) possible changes
have been considered
Verify that Contracting Plan and Procurement Strategy have been completed and their commercial
Commercial
and legal frameworks are adequate

Check if the schedule for procuring the EPC contracting is technically and commercially reasonable
Check if the Bidders’ Questions and Company’s Responses highlight any significant deficiency in
scope definition or/and bidders understanding and hence expose the Company to potential risks
of future cost and/or schedule impacts and related change orders
Transversal
Verify that the Risk Management Plan has been updated adequately and the project overall risk
exposure has improved compared to the previous Gate (Check what risks are still
shared/transferred to next stage)
Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA, regulations, etc.) have
External
been well taken into account

identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, clear
engagement actions and the evidence of their continuous and proper involvement

Check if there is plan in place for close monitoring of interfaces and interdependencies of the
project with other related projects
Check that Project Team organization is consistently resourced to support the following Phase
along with clear identification of roles and responsibilities
Organization
7 VA Procedure
This procedure governs the Value Assurance (VA) Process of the Capital Management
System (CMS). It details the implementation of the VA Process during all phases of
Front End Loading (FEL) to support project governance and decision-making at the
Gate. The five main steps of the VA Process are detailed in the following sections:
7.1 Project VA Plan Preparation
The Project VA Plan formalizes the number and the schedule of the VA Reviews and
identifies the project deliverables specific to the upcoming Decision Gate. It is updated
at the beginning of each FEL Phase and describes the activities to be performed by both
the IPT and the VA Team for the completion and the finalization of the Phase in
preparation for a Decision Gate.
The Value Assurance Review process begins with the development of “Project FEL
Assurance Review Plan” deliverable. The Project Value Assurance Plan deliverable is
a document prepared by the IPT Leader that provides a plan to interact with Value
Assurance before each Gate in order to ensure proper submittal of all deliverables, and
subsequently, completion of the Assurance Review Report by Value Assurance. This
step is initiated after the approval of the Project Charter. The Project VA Plan is later
updated and approved at the beginning of each new Phase or whenever it is deemed
necessary due to a significant change in the project schedule and/or activities impacting
planned Gates and consequent VA Reviews.
Input
o Project Charter (clearly identifying the planned key decisions milestones and Gate
engagement dates for various Stages) and Project Planning Brief
o FEL Phase Execution Schedule (clearly identifying the current FEL phase activities,
their interdependencies and key decisions with timeline leading to the upcoming
Gate)

o FEL Book of Deliverables and the RAPID

Activity
o The PMOD assigns the VA Leader and the core VA Team Members
o VA Leader, based on information in Project Charter, Planning Brief, Project
Milestones Schedule and FEL Phase Execution Schedule, prepares a draft Project
VA Plan (or updates the plan from the previous Phase) including:
 Number of required VA Reviews for the project and the Phase (in case if
multiple VA Reviews are being planned within the Phase)
 VA Reviews start and completion dates
 List of applicable project deliverables required for the upcoming Gate
Decision(s)
 IPT Leader and VA Leader shall agree on the applicable versus inapplicable
deliverables; when there is disagreement IPT Leader shall obtain concurrence
from responsible Functional Organizations with roles D and/or A as per RAPID
Matrix.
 List of project deliverables required for next Phase Gate(s)
 Preliminary list of competencies required for the VA Review at organizational
level (see Appendix B for details)
o VA Leader shares the draft Project VA Plan with the Project Leader
o Project Leader identifies Non-Applicable project deliverables (which are deemed
unnecessary or inapplicable to the proposed project or if the information desired
from these deliverables can be located/obtained from other project
documents/sources without additional work) and lists approval for any deviation
from the FEL Book of Deliverables and RAPID by the deliverable owner
(Functional Organization) along with the its inapplicability rationale and mitigations
in the draft Project VA Plan.
o VA Leader along with the Project Leader identifies additional required deliverables
(information and documents) specific for the Project
o VA Leader updates the Project VA Plan
o Project Leader secures Project Sponsor final approval on the Project VA Plan by no
later than six (6) weeks from current Project FEL phase commencement
o VA Leader releases final Project VA Plan
Output
o Project VA Plan (see Template 1)
Project VA Plan
R-Recommend A-Agree D-Decide
VA Leader IPT Leader Project Sponsor

- Project VA Resources Allocation and Master Planning (Internal to PMOD)
The objective of this activity is to plan VA Teams composition requirements in

advance, share them with relevant Saudi Aramco Organizations to secure resources
for the relevant VA Team(s), identify constraints in resources allocation and define
mitigation actions in order to address any potential shortfall. This is done through
consolidation of the resource requirements for the VA Reviews of the portfolio of
projects undergoing CMS. This master plan has a rolling 12 months look ahead
time horizon.
All required documentation (i.e., Project VA Plans, ToRs and Project VA Reports)
is controlled centrally in a secured repository for all completed project VA activities
to support master planning and future reference.
In addition, continuous process improvement recommendations are frequently

collected from the VA Teams for further consideration and implementation.
Input
o Project VA Plans for the portfolio of projects implementing CMS
Activity
o PMOD consolidates Project VA Plans into the VA Master Plan to identify:
 Need for VA Leaders and required VA Reviews
 Need for resources from different professional areas and timing
o PMOD periodically shares the VA Master Plan with various functional
organizations or their representatives
o Functional organizations highlight any constraints in providing the resources
required
o PMOD develops mitigation plans (e.g., engage external experienced
professionals and experts, which will be assigned to the VA Teams, engage with
Project Leaders to anticipate/delay VA Reviews timing)
Output
o VA Master Plan including:
 Assignment of required VA Leaders
 Required VA resources from different disciplines
 Actions to ensure availability of VA resources
7.2 VA Team Formation and ToR Development
PMOD leverages functional expertise from other Saudi Aramco organizations to

assemble necessary subject matter experts, in the key areas of project development
pertaining to the Phase, on a temporary basis, to be part of the VA Team.

PMOD may engage on an as required basis, external VA consultants to provide

assistance to the VA Team for specific VA Reviews.
Once the VA Team is formed, the VA ToR, is prepared and distributed among the VA
Team members, which describes the team formation, activities, timeline, and the focus
areas for the upcoming Gate Review.
This step is to be done, at least one month before the start of the VA Review Execution
to allow for proper preparation time.
Input
o Project VA Plan
Activity
o PMOD secures internal subject matter expertise from relevant organizations to form
the VA Team
o In specific cases, PMOD secures external subject matter expertise to support the VA
Team on an as required basis.
o PMOD plans and delivers an awareness session to VA Team Members, if necessary
o The VA Leader prepares and releases the VA ToR to the VA Team Members,
which includes:
 Project Background (as explained in Project Charter and Planning Brief)
 The VA Team Members
 The VA Review focus areas and expectations related to the Gate (see Section 6
for details)
 Assignment of review areas/disciplines based on the specialty of the VA Team
Members
 The VA Review Agenda (see Template 2)
 The VA Review logistics including location and timing for the VA Review
meetings
 Information on when pre-read and/or Desktop Review documentation will be
accessible
Output
o VA Team formation and members confirmation
o VA ToR (see Template 2)
VA ToR
R-Recommend A-Agree P-Perform I-Input D-Decide
VA Leader PMOD

7.3 VA Review Execution
The execution of the VA Review is carried out in two steps; the Desktop Review of the
project deliverables by the VA Team and the VA Review Meeting(s).
The Desktop Review is initiated by a Kick-off Meeting with the VA Team Members as
soon as the IPT provides access to the signed off and completed project deliverables3,
as agreed in the approved Project VA Plan.
It is the responsibility of IPT Leader and Project Sponsor to secure signed off and
completed project deliverables and endorsed by all stakeholders prior to the start of the
VA review process.
Kick-off and Desktop Review typically takes 3−5 days (part time).
During the Desktop Review, the VA Team members examine all key aspects of a
project (see Section 6 for details) and provide their review outcome to the VA Leader
prior to the VA Review Meeting.
During the VA Review Meeting, the VA Team collectively reviews and analyzes the
team findings, interact with the IPT to seek further clarifications as needed and issues a
draft VA Report to the Project Leader with specific and actionable recommendations for
the IPT feedback and the response action plan.
The VA Review Meeting(s) typically takes 3−5 days.
Once the response action plan is provided, the Project VA Report is finalized and
issued. Finalization of the Project VA Report typically takes 2−5 days (part time).
Input:
o VA ToR
o (Access to) Completed Project Deliverables (as agreed in the VA Plan, any missing
or incomplete deliverables from the approved VA plan should be documented in the
Project VA Report).
Activity:
Desktop Review
o VA Leader conducts the VA Review Kick-off with the VA Team Members.
3
The signature on the deliverables are acceptable either through a hardcopy or electronic acknowledgement of the
review and concurrence from the responsible organization in accordance with the RAPID matrix. The approval of
multiple deliverables with the same responsible organizations/individuals such as “Project Sponsor” and “Project
Leader” can be obtained through single sign-off.

VA Leader may request Project Leader to present the objectives, scope,

characteristics, and readiness of the Project for the Gate to the VA Team and
respond to any queries from the VA Team.
o The VA Team Members review project deliverables (Desktop Review) for their
assigned review areas/disciplines as earlier shared in VA ToR and identify issues,
risks, observations and preliminary findings with associated recommendations (see
Template 3). The review is based on the following:
 Gaps and opportunities in the deliverables requiring further
investigation/analysis
 Analysis of implications of decisions made and/or recommended across
different deliverables
o Each VA Team member verifies and submits the outcome (findings, observations,
queries, issues/risks) of his/her Desktop Review to the VA Leader prior to the VA
Review Meeting.
VA Review Meeting
o VA Team holds VA Review Meeting(s) to consolidate, prioritize, and collectively
analyze the team findings, observations, and issues/risks.
o VA Team develops the IPT engagement agenda along with the prioritized list of
queries and items to be requested from the IPT for further clarification and
validation.
o Project Leader presents4 readiness of the Project for the Gate to the VA Team and
responds to clarification requests and queries from the VA Team.
o Project Leader facilitates any further in depth analysis of a particular aspect of the
Project with the required IPT member (s) for further clarification and validation.
o VA Team finalizes the findings and develop associated recommendations that are
specific and actionable by the IPT.
o VA Team assesses impact and urgency of each of the VA findings on the Project
readiness for the Gate (see Appendix D for details)
o VA Team documents findings, observations and recommendations in the draft
Project VA Report (see Template 4)
o VA Leader sends draft Project VA Report to the Project Leader for response and
action plan.
o Project Leader develops, in consultation with the IPT and the Project Sponsor, the
response and action plan addressing the VA recommendations.
o Project Leader shares with the VA Leader the response and action plan including:
 Action description
4
The presentation may cover the objective, scope and characteristics of the project if not already been presented to
the VA Team during VA Review Kick-off.

 Owner of the action

 Completion date
o VA Team Members review the response and the action plan (further interaction with
the Project Leader and/or the IPT may be required) to finalize VA Report (see
Template 4) which includes:
 Executive Summary (summarizing VA key findings and recommendations along
with project overall readiness status)
 Heat Map Matrix and Ranking of the VA Recommendations
 Detailed Listing of Findings and Recommendations
 IPT Response Action Plan and Action Status
 The overall project readiness for the Gate
 VA Team Queries /IPT Responses
o Project VA Report is released to the Project Sponsor and the Project Leader
o It is the responsibility of the IPT Leader and the Project Sponsor to maintain, track
and document all open VA findings, including the ones presented to the Decision
Maker and ensure proper closure, throughout the project development phases.
Output
o Project VA Report (see Template 4)
Project VA Report
R-Recommend A-Agree P-Perform I-Input D-Decide
VA Leader VA Team, IPT PMOD Manager
7.4 Engagement with Project Sponsor
This step takes place immediately after the VA Review execution and prior to the Gate
engagement to support the Project Sponsor deciding next course of action based on the
VA findings, recommendations, and the IPT Response Action plan.
Input
o Project VA Report (see Template 4)
o Draft IPT Response Action Plan and Status
Activity
o VA Leader engages with the Project Sponsor to share the VA Review outcome
o Project Leader shares the draft project Gate presentation including a section on VA
recommendations and corresponding IPT Response Action Plan

o In the event that, the Project Sponsor decides to bring the Project to the Gate, the
Project Leader in coordination with the VA Leader prepares the Project Gate
Submittal (Decision Support Package, DSP) consisting of:
 Project Gate Presentation including VA Review outcome
 Project Gate Pre-read/brief and VA Executive Summary
o In the event that, the Project Sponsor finds the Project not ready for progressing to
the next phase and for the Gate engagement, the Project Leader in coordination with
the VA Leader revise the VA Plan accordingly
o In the event that, the Project Sponsor decides not to engage with the Decision
Maker at the Gate and proceed to the next stage, PMOD may route a CMS deviation
and VA Review Outcome to the Decision Maker (Refer to “Gate Engagement
Guideline” for more details)
Output
o Finalized IPT Response Action Plan and Status (endorsed by the Project Sponsor)
o Draft Project Gate Submittal (Decision Support Package, DSP including Gate
Presentation, Pre-read/brief, and VA Executive Summary)
IPT Response Action Plan

R-
A-Agree P-Perform I-Input D-Decide
Recommend
VA Leader Project Leader IPT Project Sponsor
7.5 Pre-Gate Interaction with Gatekeeper
Subsequent to the request from the Project Sponsor to schedule the Gate engagement, the
Gatekeeper ensures the following in the Gate Submittal (Decision Support Package, DSP)
(refer to “Gate Engagement Guideline” for details):
o Project pre-read document and presentation are aligned with the set criteria for the
Gate
o Project VA Review has been conducted and its outcome is included in form of the
VA Executive Summary in the Gate Submittal and Presentation (Decision Support
Package, DSP)
The Gatekeeper may request additional clarification from the Project Sponsor and/or the
VA Leader to prepare for the Gate. The information provided should be sufficient,
current and relevant to the Gate objective in order to assist the Decision Maker in
determining project readiness to finalize the current Phase prior to proceeding to the
next one.

Appendices
Appendix A VA Process Workflow
Appendix B Project VA Resources Allocation and Master Planning
Appendix C IPT Risk Profile Analysis
Appendix D Prioritization of VA Recommendations
Appendix E Templates
Template 1 Project VA Plan Template
Template 2 VA Terms of Reference Template
Template 3 VA Findings and Recommendations Template
Template 4 Project VA Report Template

Appendix A - VA Process Workflow

Appendix B - VA Team Composition
VA Teams are composed of a mix of:

 Dedicated VA experts to lead the VA Teams (VA Leaders) appointed by PMOD
 Other experts from PMOD assigned (Core Team) as required
 Temporarily assigned experts (specialist level) from functional organizations who have
not been involved in the project development
The VA Leader is responsible to define and tailor the VA Team composition based upon the
specific FEL Phase at which the review has to be performed, and also upon the following
characteristics:
 Project class (A, B, C or C1-Type)
 Specific project aspects already identified as main objective of the review
 Typology / technology involved in the project
As a general guideline, the VA Team should be staffed in a way that every relevant project area
of expertise involved in the FEL Stage should directly be covered by a dedicated expert.
The size of the VA Team is directly correlated with the number of areas of expertise required to
effectively perform the VA Review.
Figure 5 provides a general guideline for setting up the VA Team through the different FEL
Stages as determined needed by VA leader.
Figure 5 - VA Review Team Composition in the different FEL Stages

Appendix C - IPT Risk Profile Analysis
The objective of IPT Risk profile analysis is to assess the IPT internal dynamics and
performances, identifying their major strengths and weaknesses in order to highlight major
risks and areas for improvement.
In particular, five major IPT categories are assessed:

 Team Composition and Urgency
 Authority and Leadership
 Interface and Empowerment
 Process
 Membership and Cohesion
Input is collected using an IPT assessment survey. The IPT members are asked to fill this
survey during the VA Review and results of this survey are used in the VA Reviews as one of
the inputs to assess the IPT internal dynamics.
Typical survey categories with exemplary survey statements are shown in Table 6. For more
details on the survey procedure, refer to PMOD’s internal procedure for IPT Risk Profile
Analysis.
Table 6 - Typical Statements for the IPT Risk Profile Survey
Categories Statements
• The IPT received the appropriate resources needed to be successful?

Team Composition • The IPT received the dedicated resources as planned?
and Urgency • The timelines and goals set for the IPT were achievable given the resources
and members assigned?
• The Project Sponsor ensured his support and commitment to the project and to
its Team? (time, attention, participation, etc.)
• The Project Leader had the professional and personal characteristics needed
Authority
to effectively lead the team?
and Leadership
• The Target and goals of the IPT were communicated clearly to all involved
external stakeholders?
• All the involved stakeholders were aligned on project objectives?
• The IPT Members appointed to the Team had the necessary technical skills,
experience, and knowledge?
Interface
• The IPT Members appointed to the Team had the right interpersonal skills?
and Empowerment
• The IPT Members appointed to the Team were able to proactively act within the
defined set of authority received?

Categories Statements
• The IPT Members appointed to the Team were able to ensure to bring to the
Team their own function methodologies, best practices and defined set of
standards?
• The goals and objectives of the IPT were clearly communicated to all Team
Members and external stakeholders?
• There was adequate time allowed for the establishment of the IPT?
• The IPT used processes for regularly reviewing how the Team worked together
and how it handled conflicts?
• The IPT Leader regularly scheduled team meetings and effectively managed
Process
them?
• The decision-making process used was clear, effective, and appropriate?
• The IPT created an IPT charter, properly describing project needs, outcomes,
skills, decision process, governance, and other significant basic requirements?
• The IPT Members assigned roles/responsibilities were effectively respected?

• The IPT Members were able to directly manage the achievement of team sub
goals/tasks that allowed the team overall success?
• The IPT Members were able to perform their assigned activities with the
Membership and expected level of autonomy?
Cohesion • The IPT Members were able to bring a collaborative approach to the Team?
• The IPT Members believe that the established team Target and goals more
important than the goals of the individual members?
• The IPT Members had the right set of capabilities/experience and skills for
succeeding in all their tasks?

Appendix D - Prioritization of VA Recommendations
The recommendations developed by the VA Team represent the core content of the VA Review.
At the end of review activities, the VA Team should evaluate them in terms of two variables:
 Impact– the potential impact of issues/risks on overall project value
 Urgency – how rapidly they need to be resolved
Both of these variables have to be evaluated on a three-point scale. The table below presents
possible values of those variables.
IMPACT
Potential to significantly impact achieving project objectives and/or major
High (H) impact on project value (if can be directly linked to economic values, > 20%
of project NPV5)
Potential for significant value erosion through schedule, costs, reserves or
Medium (M) revenue, with significant impact on project value (between 5% and 20% of
project NPV)
Low (L) Potential for value erosion, but limited (<5% of project NPV)
URGENCY
High (H) To be closed before the Gate or in the early Phase of next Stage
Medium (M) To be closed during next Phase before the next VA Review, if applicable
To be closed during project execution phase and status update provided part
Low (L)
of project assurance reports
5
It should be noted that not all recommendations raised by the VA Team can be directly translated into economic
values. Therefore, the NPV is intended just as a proxy used when applicable.

The list of VA recommendations identified are divided according to the area of interest and
rated in terms of the urgency and impact. The following Figure 6 outlines an example of the
list of recommendations:
Figure 6 - Impact-Urgency Matrix
In the example matrix shown above, the VA Review produced a total of 19 recommendations,
out of these:
 1 represents potential Project Stoppers;
 8 require a high priority Intervention;
 10 require a low priority intervention;
Each of these category has different consequences and requires different actions from the
Project as outlined in the following table.
Table 7 - Actions Required by Category
Category Consequences Action Required
Potential project Project readiness to proceed is  Actions or specific assignment should be done
stopper threatened before the project can proceed
 Further actions or specific assignment should

High priority Major impacts on Project
be done before the project can proceed or in the
intervention objectives or value
early Phase of next Stage
Low priority  Further action or work required during next

Impact on Project value
intervention Phases of Project

Document Summary
26 April 2020 Editorial revision. Changed contact person, moved up down References as
Section 3, moved down Terminology as Section 4, created sub-sections 4.1
(Acronyms) and 4.2 (Definitions), changed Capital Program Efficiency to Project
Management Office Department, and changed CPED to PMOD.
17 October 2019 Major revision. Add more clarity to the Value Assurance Team roles and
responsibility.
25 August 2016 Major revision. VA Process enhancement for effective implementation.
The revision incorporates the lessons learned and the feedback, on process
enhancement and its effective implementation, collected from various end users
(VA Teams, Integrated Project Teams, Project Leaders, and Project Sponsors)
since the first issue.
7 September 2014 New Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure.

Saep 40

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 40

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-40 26 April 2020

Previous Issue: 17 October 2019 Next Revision: 17 October 2024

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Summary of Changes (rev. 17 October 2019)

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 2 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Paragraph Change Type

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 3 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

The VA Process is applicable to all projects (depending upon project characterization1)

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 4 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

1.4 Capital Management System (CMS)

Figure 1 shows the CMS and its efficiency enablers namely:

Figure 1 - Overview of Capital Management System (CMS)

2 Conflicts and Deviations

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 5 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

 Saudi Aramco Documents

Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

 Saudi Aramco Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers (CMSEEs),

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 6 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 7 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 8 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Terms of Reference (ToR): Describes the VA Team formation, activities, timeline,

5 Value Assurance (VA) Process

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 9 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

The overall VA Process workflow is provided as Appendix A.

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 10 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

(PAERs), Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) with third party entities and

Figure 3 - VA Reviews by Project Type

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 11 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Selection, Schedule/Cost Leader and/or

FUNCTIONS FUNCTIONS VA TEAM

6 VA Focus Areas by Gate

Figure 4 - Gate Objectives

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 12 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

6.1 FEL1 (Gate 1)

Table 2 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for Gate 1

Typical VA Analysis for G1

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 13 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Typical VA Analysis for G1

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 14 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

6.2 FEL2/Study (GAS)

Table 3 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for GAS

Typical VA Analysis for GAS

Verify that recommendations of previous Gate Review have been addressed

alternatives and the basis to select the most optimal option/alternative

©Saudi Aramco 2020. All rights reserved. Page 15 of 36

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use

Typical VA Analysis for GAS

Other technical aspects assessed by the VA Team