CP 117

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.
Document Title: Project Engineering Code of Practice
Document ID CP-117
Document Type Code of Practice
Security Unrestricted
Discipline Project Engineering
Owner Project Engineering CFDH
Issue Date July 2020
Revision 7.0
This document is the property of Petroleum Development Oman, LLC. Neither the whole nor any part of this
document may be disclosed to others or reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by
any means (electronic, mechanical, reprographic recording or otherwise) without prior written consent of the
owner.
Revision: 7.0
Petroleum Development Oman LLC Effective: July 2020
This page was intentionally left blank
Page 2 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink®. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 7.0
i Document Authorisation
Authorised For Issue – July 2020
Document Authorisation
Document Owner Document Custodian Document Author

(CFDH)
Jahdhami, Husam UED Cox, Ali UEA Jahdamy, Abdullah UEAA
Date : 17-09-2020 12:00 AM Date : 17-09-2020 12:00 AM Date : 17-09-2020 12:00 AM

Revision: 7.0
ii Revision History
Revision No. Date Author(s) Scope/Remarks
7.0 July 2020 Jahdamy, Refresh for Eng. Re-org and
Abdullah UEAA recommendations from reviews and audits.
6.0 Oct 2017 Patrick Liesker Refresh, incl. alignment with CP-223
UEP5
5.0 June 2012 Paul Sanders Update to reflect changes in processes and
UEP/5 standards, and to make the document more
accessible.
4.0 January Anton Brouwer/ Update/roll-out
2011 Mike Turberville
4.0 May 2010 Anton Brouwer/ Major Update to reflect improvements in
Mike Turberville processes and standards in Project Delivery
implemented since the last revision
3.0 June 2004 Austin Isaac Alignment with Opportunity Realisation
UEJ1 Process, Minimum Standards and Global
Processes.
2.0 April 1999 Ohi Aikhoje, Incorporates comments from engineers,
OTE4 CFDH’s and recommendations from
external reviews and audits.
1.0 August Paul Hagemeijer, Initial issue.
1998 OME1
Note: Originally conceived as an ERD and then
Jyoti Kumar Das, converted to a Code of Practice under the new
OT1/32 PDO Policy Cascade
Graham Bolam,
UEII
Various Project
Engineers
iii Related Corporate Management System (CMS) Documents

The related CMS Documents can be retrieved from the Corporate Business Control Documentation
Register.

Revision: 7.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i Document Authorisation ................................................................................................................... 3
ii Revision History ................................................................................................................................ 4
iii Related Corporate Management System (CMS) Documents .......................................................... 4
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Target audience ............................................................................................................. 8
1.3 When and how should CP-117 be applied? .................................................................. 8
1.4 Related Documents: ...................................................................................................... 9
2 Project delivery organisations within PDO .....................................................................................10
2.1 Project Delivery Accountability .................................................................................... 10
2.1.1 Asset Directorates .................................................................................................... 10
2.1.2 Central Concept Engineering Team ......................................................................... 10
2.1.3 FEED Office ............................................................................................................. 10
2.1.4 Project Delivery ........................................................................................................ 10
2.1.5 Functional Directorate .............................................................................................. 11
2.2 Functional governance & coordination ........................................................................ 12
2.2.1 Facilities Engineering Leadership Team (FELT)...................................................... 12
2.2.2 Enigneering Leardership Integration Team (ELIT) .................................................. 12
2.2.3 Corporate Functional Discipline Heads (CFDH) Forum ........................................... 12
3 Governance and assurance ...........................................................................................................13
3.1 Project Governance ..................................................................................................... 13
3.1.1 Project Controls and Assurance Plan ...................................................................... 13
3.1.2 Assurance activities post-DG4 ................................................................................. 13
3.1.3 Registration and Tracking ........................................................................................ 13
3.1.4 Mandatory Process Safety Design & Engineering Requirements ........................... 13
3.1.5 LFI (Learning From Incidents) Compliance .............................................................. 14
3.2 Front-end loading (FEL) .............................................................................................. 14
3.2.1 Select Phase handover ............................................................................................ 14
3.2.2 Combined FEED & DD ............................................................................................. 14
3.2.3 Front-End Engineering design (FEED) .................................................................... 15
3.3 Project execution planning .......................................................................................... 16
3.4 Risk and opportunity management (GU-717) ............................................................. 16
3.5 Operations readiness .................................................................................................. 17
3.6 Management of change ............................................................................................... 17
4 Project execution activities .............................................................................................................18
4.1 Detailed Design ........................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Construction................................................................................................................. 18

Revision: 7.0
4.2.1 Construction definition .............................................................................................. 18

4.2.2 Construction planning............................................................................................... 19
4.2.3 Mechanical completion ............................................................................................. 20
4.2.4 Pre-commissioning ................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Commissioning and start-up ........................................................................................ 21
4.3.1 Commissioning ......................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2 Pre-Start-up Audit ..................................................................................................... 21
4.3.3 Ready for Start-up (RFSU) ....................................................................................... 22
4.4 Project Close-out ......................................................................................................... 22
4.4.1 FAC Closeout Extension Approval ........................................................................... 22
5 Contracting and Procurement.........................................................................................................23
6 Project Services ..............................................................................................................................24
6.1 Planning and Scheduling ............................................................................................. 24
6.2 Cost estimating ............................................................................................................ 24
6.2.1 Capex estimates ....................................................................................................... 24
6.2.2 Project cost estimates build ..................................................................................... 25
6.2.3 Base estimate ........................................................................................................... 26
6.2.4 Contingency - Cost risk assessment ........................................................................ 26
6.2.5 Future market & EPC premium ................................................................................ 27
6.2.6 Cost analogues and benchmarking.......................................................................... 27
6.2.7 Estimate data collection ........................................................................................... 27
6.3 Project controls ............................................................................................................ 27
6.3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 27
6.3.2 Management of cost ................................................................................................. 28
6.3.3 Management of progress ......................................................................................... 28
6.3.4 Management of change ........................................................................................... 29
6.3.5 Management of risk .................................................................................................. 29
6.3.6 Reporting .................................................................................................................. 29
6.3.7 Project close-out reporting ....................................................................................... 29
6.4 Project assurance ........................................................................................................ 29
6.4.1 Estimate and Schedule Assurance Reviews ........................................................... 29
6.4.2 Programme Build ...................................................................................................... 30
7 Quality assurance ...........................................................................................................................31
7.1 Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework (DCAF) ............................................. 33
8 HSE in Projects...............................................................................................................................35
9 Information management ................................................................................................................36
10 Finance in projects..........................................................................................................................37
10.1 Role of finance in project governance ......................................................................... 37
10.2 The role of finance within the project ........................................................................... 37
Revision: 7.0
11 Project resourcing and allocation ...................................................................................................39

12 Value Improvement Practices.........................................................................................................40
12.1 Opportunity Framing .................................................................................................... 40
12.2 Lessons Learned ......................................................................................................... 40
12.3 Competitive Scoping .................................................................................................... 41
12.4 Competitiveness review (CR) ...................................................................................... 41
12.5 Technical Standards Challenge .................................................................................. 41
12.6 Constructability Review ............................................................................................... 43
Appendix 1 – Opportunity Classification Tool ........................................................................................44
Appendix 2 – Templates ........................................................................................................................45
Appendix 3 – Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................46
Appendix 4 – FELT & ELIT Charters .....................................................................................................48

Revision: 7.0
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose
This code of practice (CoP) is intended to be an instruction manual or “recipe book” for how to manage
projects in PDO.
Compliance with the requirements stated in this CoP Shall be MANDATORY for all project development
and execution activities post DG3. Project teams pre-DG3 shall use this code of practice to ensure
smooth post-DG3 project maturation & execution.
Application of this CoP is intended to:
- Ensure a common way of managing projects within PDO.
- Facilitate internal and external (shareholder) project approvals.
- Enhance project delivery to achieve world-class performance.
This CoP supports the PDO vision:
“To be renowned and respected for the excellence of our people and the value we create for Oman and
all our stakeholders.”
1.2 Target audience

The target audience for this CoP is all staff involved in the development and execution of Projects, for
example:
- Project Managers (PM) and Front End Development Managers (FEDM)
- Project Engineers
- Project Services Engineers
- Contracting and Procurement staff
- QA/QC staff
- Technical Authorities (TA)
- Decision Executives (DE)
- Business Opportunity Managers (BOM)
- Members of Decision Review Boards (DRB)
1.3 When and how should CP-117 be applied?

This CoP shall be applied to all PDO capital projects regardless of size and scope.
Recognising that a one-size fits all approach is not possible, the CoP requirements should be scaled to
match the size and complexity of the various projects. The primary input when assessing the scalability
shall be the Opportunity Classification process as described in CP223 which defines Large, Medium
and Small projects with their Premium, Focussed and Self assurance, respectively. The opportunity
classification tool (Appendix 1) should be used to assist in this task.
Additionally, for projects with headline CAPEX <$10mln (including well hook-ups & FCPs) the Project
Manager is empowered to further scale the requirements in this CoP to be fit for purpose while still
honouring the intent of the clauses herein. In such cases the Project Engineering TA2 shall provide
assurance of the scaled requirements.
Throughout the document a distinction is made between mandatory and non-mandatory requirements
through the use of the words “shall” (mandatory) and “should” (non-mandatory). Non-mandatory
activities are indicated for good practice and guidance.
For avoidance of doubt, the Project Manager shall remain accountable for meeting CP117 requirements
in line with the DE-endorsed opportunity classification. Deviations from the mandatory requirements

Revision: 7.0
shall require formal approval from the CFDH for Project Management (in accordance with SP-2061 –
Technical Authority System).
1.4 Related Documents:

The high-level business control documents, namely Management System, Policy and Code of Practice
documents, which specifically relate to this guideline in the standards hierarchy, are listed below:
Document type Number Title
Code of Practice CP-117 Project Engineering
Code of Practice CP-125 Petroleum Engineering Management
Code of Practice CP-122 HSE Code of Practice
Code of Practice CP-156 Integrated Activity Planning
Code of Practice CP-190 Quality code of practice
Code of Practice CP-223 Opportunity Realisation
Procedure PR-1150 Project Closeout
Procedure PR-1159 Commissioning and Start-Up
Procedure PR-1247 Project Management of Change
Procedure PR-1358 Concept Engineering in Select Phase
(DG3) procedure
Procedure PR-1721 Shutdown Management
Procedure PR-2392 Engineering Process Safety
Fundamentals
Specification SP-2195 Project Initiation and Closeout
Specification
Guideline GU-717 Project Risk Management
Guideline GU-788 Application of Schedule Slippage
Provision for Capital Project Contracts
Guideline GU-914 Guide to Milestone Payment
Mechanisms

Revision: 7.0
2 Project delivery organisations within PDO

2.1 Project Delivery Accountability
PDO’s projects are delivered through a matrix organisation with the central principle that the asset
directorates remain accountable for the project business case whereas execution can be managed
either within the asset, or by other departments eg. FEED office & PD.
2.1.1 Asset Directorates

The overall accountability for the initiation, development, business planning and execution of all
projects, ranging from FCPs and minor brown field modifications to major green and brown field
developments, rests with the four respective Asset Directorates: Gas, Oil North, Oil South, and
Infrastructure.
Additionally, the oil and gas asset directorates maintain an in-house concept engineering capability, as
well as project delivery capability for well hookup and FCPs which remain the responsibility of the asset
teams. By exception, the asset can request support from PD to execute well hookup and / or FCP
scopes with decisions being made on a case-by-case basis. Any resulting interface issues should be
highlighted through the ELIT forum.
2.1.2 Central Concept Engineering Team

The concept engineering (up to DG3b) of all major projects (with an estimated Capex above $50mln,
or with particular risks / strategic importance) is normally carried out in the Central Concept Engineering
Team (CCET), co-located in the Field Development Centre (FDC).
The decision regarding where the concept selection should take place (i.e. in the asset or in the CCET)
lies with the DE, supported by the DRB.
Asset Concept teams are responsible to executing CSR and BFD <50mln$.
2.1.3 FEED Office

The Front End Engineering Design (FEED) of projects with an estimated Capex above $50mln shall,
by default, be executed by the in-house FEED Office. Deviation from this default requires UED approval.
Projects of smaller size, but of strategic value (e.g. sour projects) can also be carried out by the FEED
Office, subject to mutual agreement between Function, Asset and PD and subject to FEED Office
capacity.
Moreover to maximise utilisation, the FEED Office should be considered as first priority for delivery of
BFD, combined FEED+DD, specialist studies, etc, prior to outsourcing.
2.1.4 Project Delivery

PDO’s core project delivery organisation is the Project Delivery (PD) department. PD is designed to:
• enhance standardization, repeatability and dissemination of lessons learned/best
practices
• manage projects according to the latest process and procedures, with particular
emphasis on risk and change management.
Projects move to PD at DG3b. The PD team is then responsible for delivering these projects on behalf
of the assets. As the centre of excellence, PD will also run certain portfolios of projects on a thematic
basis (e.g. high sour, thermal EOR, chemical EOR, etc.).
Pre-DG3 projects shall be identified and agreed between PD and the asset directors during the Program
Build, and will be assigned project engineering support accordingly. Asset team shall coordinate with
Revision: 7.0
the Project Delivery team through Project/Asset interface engineer to support projects from Project
Initiation Note (PIN) until DG-3 at which point a Project manager/Project engineer will be take over
responsibility for delivery. Where possible PD should nominate the Project Manager / Project Egineeer
in the Select phase to ensure their input to ther CSR / BFD and to the PES.
PDA is responsible to execute projects from < $50 mln. PDB is responsible to execute project >$50mln.
Other PD departments are structured in order to support the delivery of these projects.
PD executes a wide range of projects on behalf of the assets and it resourced to be self-sufficient with
a full complement of project engineering delivery staff as necessary to deliver the complete range of
projects.
The PDC department is the primary home for Engineering contracts both in support of project delivery
but also for other contracts including those for CFDHs.
The PDLT organisation chart is shown below:
2.1.5 Functional Directorate

The Engineering Functional Directorate (UED) support the Assets and PD in the delivery of projects by;
• setting and maintaining the technical and operational standards, procedures and guidelines;
• verifying compliance against these standards and providing effective independent technical
assurance;
• providing and improving the necessary technical capability (resources, tools and systems);
• ensuring PDO’s resources are deployed in the best interest of the company and the
development of individual staff concerned;
• providing an effective knowledge sharing framework and delivering timely technical expertise
where necessary;
• providing cost estimating, scheduling, planning and digital expertise for all PDO projects

Revision: 7.0
2.2 Functional governance & coordination

The matrix delivery approach described above is reliant on a strong relationship and good collaboration
between the Asset, the Function and PD. This requires clear roles and responsibilities, interfaces and
communication lines. Three formal forums are defined, the FELT, ELIT and the CFDH Forum:
2.2.1 Facilities Engineering Leadership Team (FELT)

The FELT is made up of UED, PDM, PDB, UEA, PDC, UEQ, UET, UEF and FPM. Others are called to
attend as required. The FELT is chaired by UED and should meet as a minimum on a quarterly basis
to share learnings and discuss project delivery and engineering issues which are long-term and
strategic in nature & that require to be addressed through a common, unified approach.
The FELT charter is included in appendix 4
2.2.2 Enigneering Leardership Integration Team (ELIT)
ELIT has been established as a more hands-on forum which enables FELT to be strategic in nature.
The role of ELIT it to ensure an aligned view and implement actions plan across PDO engineering
department heads (Asset, PD, Function) of the key issues which impact and enable achieving business
performance goals. ELIT should meet as a minimum on a monthly basis and is chaired by UEA who
ensures that issues are escalated to FELT where required.
The ELIT charter is included in appendix 4
2.2.3 Corporate Functional Discipline Heads (CFDH) Forum

The CFDH Forum is chaired by UED and made up of all Engineering CFDHs and the CFDHs
for Operations/Commissioning and Start-up (UOP) and Maintenance (UOM).
The CFDH Forum meets on a meet bi-monthly (every alternative month) to share learnings and
discuss engineering issues that require to be addressed through a common, unified approach.
In particular it develops and reviews progress against the Functional Engineering Capability
Improvement plan and the annual Functional Engineering Business Plan.
The CFDHs provide the technical assurance to projects which forms the back-bone of the
Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework (DCAF). They also assess the competency
levels of the various disciplines, particularly the Technical Authority Level 2 (TA2).

Revision: 7.0
3 Governance and assurance

3.1 Project Governance
3.1.1 Project Controls and Assurance Plan

Support: UEA
For all projects with Capex in excess of $10mln, the project team shall prepare and implement a specific
Project Controls & Assurance Plan (PCAP) covering all future ORP phases. The PCAP contains the
DCAF-based deliverable QA/QC process with responsible TAs for each deliverable. The PCAP shall
be assured by a Project Engineering TA2.
Projects with Capex excess of $50mln the PCAP shall be approved by the DE and updated at the start
of each new ORP phase. At the end of the Select and Define and Execute phases, the FEDM (Select)
or PM (Define) shall confirm to the DE that the PCAP deliverables have been actioned and signed off
across the applicable disciplines.
For projects with Capex less than $10mln, a suitably scaled version of the PCAP shall be generated by
the PM at DG3 and assured by a Project Enigneering TA2.
3.1.2 Assurance activities post-DG4

Support: UEAA
The Project Execution Review (PER) process is owned by UEA, and coordinated via UEAA. The PER
provides independent assurance to the DE that the project is under control and is being delivered in
line with DG4 promises.
PERs shall be held on an annual basis for projects with classified as requiring Premium assurance.
Projects with ‘Focussed’ and ‘Self’ Assurance classifications should consider pro-actively seeking a
PER to give assurance meeting FID promises. UEA should from time to time implement PERs in order
to spot-check project delivery performance.
The Pre-Start-Up Audit (PSUA) process is owned by the Functional Operations Director (UOD) and is
coordinated via the CFDH Surface Production (UOP). A PSUA shall be held for all projects to confirm
to the DE that the project is ready to proceed to the Operate phase.
A VAR5 shall be held on premium assurance projects normally 1-2 years after the on-stream date when
a full TECOP look-back picture has emerged and the performance and profitability of the project can
be assessed.
3.1.3 Registration and Tracking

Support UEAA and UOI4
All project opportunities shall be registered and assigned project ID in online ePAD (RAMZ) System
from ORP Assess Phase. The RAMZ ID assigned shall be used for all references and tracking related
to project.
FCP projects shall follow PR-1001a for review, and once approved for execution, it shall be delivered
to XXE team for registration in the ePAD (RAMZ) System for tracking, execution and closeout in
AutoPCC.
Accountability for the integrity of data provided in ePAD System resides with the Project Manager
(Engineer).
Project shall follow SP-2195: Project Initiation and Closoeut specifications, and PR-1150: Project
Closoeut Procedure.
3.1.4 Mandatory Process Safety Design & Engineering Requirements

Compliance with DEM2 Process Safety Basic Requirements shall be mandatory in all cases.

Revision: 7.0
A PDO Specification or PDO-adopted DEP shall be designated as DEM1 if it contains a minimum of

one statement relating to prevention of, or managing risk associated with, a Process Safety related
incident significantly contributing to a preventative control or mitigating measure for “Severity Five or
High Risk” hazards to People, Environment, Assets or Reputation. The “shall” statements that refer to
“Severity Five or High Risk” hazards are shown as “SHALL [PS]” and these are mandated requirements.
“SHALL [PS]” statements are mandatory unless a deviation is approved by the discipline engineering
TA-1 or chief engineer (delegated TA-0). Deviations shall require supporting ALARP assessments that:
Demonstrate at least an equal standard of control as the SHALL [PS] requirement (e.g. if the SHALL
[PS] required an engineered control, then the derogation should also rely on an engineered control
rather than a procedural control or PPE). See the Hierarchy of Control in CP-122
 Be supported by a suitable and sufficient risk assessment; and
 Demonstrate that the risk to people, assets, environment and reputation is no greater than
would have been achieved through adoption of the SHALL [PS] requirement.
3.1.5 LFI (Learning From Incidents) Compliance
ALL Projects in PDO shall ensure that a cross-check has been completed to ensure relevant
LFIs have been identified and implemented. LFIs are stored and accessed through the PDO
Learning Knowledge Base (LKB) system.
3.2 Front-end loading (FEL)
3.2.1 Select Phase handover

The transition from the select phase at DG3 is a key moment in the project lifecycle and as such care
is required to ensure appropriate levels of FEL have been achieved at this point.
Large Projects with Premium assurance shall undertake independent external FEL benchmarking in
time for DG3b. A constructability review shall be mandatory for these projects
Medium Project with focussed assurance should consider external FEL benchmarking and state this in
the Opportunity Assurance Plan (OAP) for endorsement by the DE.
For projects with Focussed assurance not undergoing external FEL benchmarking, for those classified
as Small with Self assurance, and for all projects above 5 mln$ a FEL self-assessment shall be
performed in time for DG3b. The template is available in Appendix 2.
For brownfield projects, consideration should be given to conducting a preliminary constructability
workshop and brownfield health check pre-DG3 in order to catch and potential shostoppers / late
changes and to optimise the project concept. This is particularly important on projects where FEED &
DD is combined.
3.2.2 Combined FEED & DD

Projects which are categorised as Small (Self assurance) or Medium (Focussed assurance) may
consider combining FEED & DD with agreement of the DE in the Opportunity Assurance Plan (OAP).
In these cases, DG3b becomes and effective FID. Careful consideration should be given to project
interfaces eg. sub-surface appraisal activities & new data from phased developments in selecting such
an approach. In such cases, the FEL assessment shall be conducted ahead of DG3b and compared to
the recommended definition levels at DG4 in order to highlight the main gaps to the DE such that they
can assess the acceptability in view of the specific nature of the project.

Revision: 7.0
3.2.3 Front-End Engineering design (FEED)

The FEED develops the requirements of BFD into design deliverables leading to a Project Specification
(or FEED package).
The FEED shall not start until the DE mandates it, usually when the BFD and other key Select
deliverables have been approved by the relevant TA2s as defined in the PCAP. The BFD should not
contain extensive “holds” on information, or outstanding concept selection choices. The status of such
‘open switches’ at DG3b shall be clearly included in the FEL assessment. The FEED duration should
take into account any key recommendations from the VAR3/DG3.
The FEED shall:
 provide a sound technical basis for the Execute phase (detailed design, procurement, and
construction) with minimal uncertainties;
 provide a basis for a cost estimate with +15% / -10% accuracy (i.e. Type 3);
 provide a Level 3 schedule for the Execute phase;
 Identify all the risks/opportunities and ensure these are reflected in the costand schedule
estiamtes, and managed appropriately
During the FEED, assurance reviews to ensure technical integrity should be completed, such as:
HAZID, design review, HAZOP, QRA, FEA, PDMS model reviews (3 stages), SAFOP and IPF.
3D model reviews or 2D general arrangement reviews shall consider, as a minimum, process issues,
safety issues (QRA, SIMOPS, etc.), maintenance and operational accessibility (including manual
handling), constructability (equipment handling requirements and access for construction), and escape
routes (on ground and from elevated platforms).
An update of the risk and opportunity management plan shall be made shortly after kick-off of the Define
phase and a risk register maintained to track the risk mitigations. Those risks/opportunities that cannot
be closed out before execution phase should be mitigated and transferred to the execution contractor
for management.
It is important to have PDO-approved facilitators/leaders for HAZID, Design Review, HAZOP, and IPF.
The PM shall ensure timely close-out of all action items resulting from various reviews and maintain the
records for the same.
The FEED shall deliver a Project Specification (or FEED package). During this stage, extensive vendor
communication needs to be established so that the process design takes into consideration the most
probable scheme in any vendor package. A ‘black box’ approach, where minimum information on
vendor packages are provided, should be avoided. All interfaces with vendor packages shall be finalised
to avoid major changes during detailed design. The FEED shall also ensure that all environmental and
sustainable development requirements are met.
During FEED a Constructability Review shall be carried-out with participation from experienced
construction personnel – ideally also from the construction contractor. For green-field projects this may
be done in a 3D PDMS model review. In brown-field projects, a site review in addition to a 3D model
review should be undertaken.
The objective of FEED engineering maturity shall be a Hold-free FEED package. A ‘Holds’ list shall be
maintained and any residual Hold shall be transferred to the project team for management through the
execution phase. Any transfer of Hold beyond FEED shall be clearly highlighted in a DG4 FEL
assessment and endorsed by the PM and DE.
In FEED stage, specifications for all major equipment and long-lead items shall be developed.
Depending on the procurement strategy these shall be used for procurement by PDO or the contractor.
All changes to the recommendations of the BFD shall be subjected to rigorous Management of Change
to track possible cost and schedule impacts in line with GU-926.

Revision: 7.0
3.3 Project execution planning

Planning a project properly and taking it methodically through the various ORP phases from Identify
and Assess all the way through to the Operate phase is key to the successful outcome of any project
in terms of value, cost, schedule and quality.
CP-223 sets out a rigorous approach to planning and managing the opportunities and projects
throughout the different phases. This approach shall be documented in a Project Execution Strategy
(PES) at DG3 and shall be developed into a Project Execution Plan (PEP) prior to DG4. The PEP is a
live document which shall be updated during the Execute phase as necessary, particularly after award
of implementation contracts where applicable.
The PES / PEP shall describe in sufficient detail how the scope described in the BFD / FEED package
will be executed. It shall cover all key project activities, resources and third-party contractors involved
directly or indirectly in the delivery process. In particular, it sets out what internal project controls and
external assurance steps will be put in place to ensure the desired outcome as promised at the point of
financial commitment (FID). The PES/PEP should include a realistic P50 ( i.e. 50% probability of
finishing before scheduled completion date) and P90 (i.e. 90% probability of finishing before scheduled
completion date) project schedule at sufficient level of detail (minimum level 2 for PES and level 3 for
PEP) to show the inter-dependencies and logical sequence of the various project activities, interfaces
and milestones.
The PES/PEP shall also describe the proposed/approved procurement and contracting strategy, and
specific plans with respect to project reporting, project resourcing, risk management, HSE and quality
management, information management, interface management, subcontract management, operations
readiness and assurance, commissioning and start-up, project hand-over and close-out, etc.; all of
which are needed to ensure delivery against the FID promise.
To develop the contracting and procurement strategies the project team shall conduct a supply chain
management workshop and contracting strategy and tactics workshops with appropriate input from all
relevant Functions and stakeholders.
It is recommended that the project risk assessment is used to guide the preparation of the PES/PEP
such that the document can be made concise and focussed on the key issues. Particular consideration
should be given to brownfield project delivery risks including asset interface.
The template provided in Appendix 2 shall be used for projects with Self or Focussed assurance. For
projects with Premuim assurance, seek guidance from UEA.
Self-assured projects with a headline CAPEX less than 10mln$ executed by EMC/ODC frame
agreements can be executed using a generic pan-cluster PEP so long as project specific risks are
identified and managed.
The PM is responsible for the preparation of the PES and PEP.
3.4 Risk and opportunity management (GU-717)

Risk and opportunity management concerns the identification and subsequent management of both
threats and opportunities that might apply to a project (or portfolio of small projects), and ensures that
the risk levels are kept as-low-as-reasonably- practicable (ALARP) and that the opportunities are
exploited to the fullest.
Risks or threats are uncertain events which, if they occur, would have a negative impact on achieving
the project objectives (e.g. cost, schedule, etc.). Opportunities are similar except the consequences for
the project are positive.
All projects shall have a risk and opportunity register. For projects above $50mln the risk register shall
be maintained in EasyRisk. All risks and opportunities shall be recorded, assessed, assigned an owner,
and possible mitigation steps and timing. The risk register shall be regularly reviewed and updated,
particularly at the start of each project phase.
The specifics of how the risk management process will be conducted by an individual project (or portfolio
of smaller, similar projects) are documented in the risk management plan and/or the PES/PEP,
specifically:

Revision: 7.0
 The ongoing process of identification, review and (re)assessment of risks relative to

project objectives
 roles and responsibilities that enable risk management
 how risks will be managed
 how and when risks will be reviewed, reported and communicated.
As part of assurance, the project team must also be able to demonstrate that:
 The risk register is being regularly reviewed and updated, and the risk environment and
the effectiveness of actions taken to manage identified risks are being evaluated on an
ongoing basis and
 The risks in the risk register are reflected appropriately in the project cost estimates
and schedules, including mitigation and opportunity cost and schedule impacts.
Development of the risk register, risk management plan and RAM is the responsibility of the PM. These
deliverables are owned by the BOM and endorsed by the DE. Please refer to GU-717, Capital Project
Risk Management guideline for further details
3.5 Operations readiness

Operations Readiness (OR) is a focused, proactive and systematic approach to successful
commissioning, start-up and normal operation of a new facility. It is delivered from within the project,
through the Operations Readiness delivery team.The Operations Readiness process is detailed in PR-
1612 - Operations Readiness
The purpose of OR is to assist Operations and project teams to collaborate and ensure that Operations
requirements in engineering projects are made sufficiently clear, are of a high quality and are met in a
timely manner. It is expected that following the prescribed methodology will ensure that:
 OR aspects and concepts are integrated into all phase of a capital project. Support the PM to
deliver the project to the Asset owner in compliance with the minimum Operations Excellence
standards. “Ensure future Asset owner is fully prepared to receive, operate and maintain the
facilities.”
 “Right first time” commissioning and start-up is achieved
 Reduction in changes / modification to design in the latter stages of projects
 Specified operational performance over the lifecycle of the Asset can be realized.
The Front-End phase of the OR process includes important processes that must be delivered
through the OR effort, but are governed by their own Process Guides:
 Commissioning and Start-Up (CSU) (PR-1159 - Commissioning and Start-up)
 Total Reliability and Technical Integrity (CP-114 - Maintenance & Integrity
Management Code of Practice)
3.6 Management of change

Management of change is an important factor in ensuring that projects are completed on time and within
budget. Changing the project scope, other than developing and defining the scope through the Define
phase and carrying out the detailed engineering during the Execute phase, should be discouraged in
principle and by definition.
Strict scope management should be applied in order to safeguard the schedule, the cost and the quality
of the project. Any change of scope, or the transfer of scope from one project to another is subject to
formal change control.
Proposals for changing the project baseline documents, scope, quality, schedule and cost, should be
strictly controlled at any point in time in the project once the Select phase has been completed.
All projects shall comply with PR-1247.
Revision: 7.0
4 Project execution activities

The Execute phase commences from FID and usually starts with detailed design and procurement
before moving into construction, pre-commissioning, commissioning/start-up and initial operations.
Note that each of these activities may overlap:
FID
Detailed Design
LL Procurement
Procurement
Construction
Pre-commissioning
Commissioning
Start-up
As-built / Close-out
Hand-over
The PEP, risk and opportunity management, and management of change continue to be applied and
updated during the Execute phase, while Operations Readiness becomes increasingly important.
4.1 Detailed Design

In the detailed design phase the Project Specification developed during FEED shall be further detailed
to the level which is needed for procurement, fabrication/construction, testing, commissioning and
handover.
Key assurance and design reviews are carried out during the detailed design phase, after incorporating
any changes to the FEED design basis and actual vendor design data. It is important that the vendors
participate in these reviews so that any assumptions made in the design are corroborated by them and
all controls and safeguarding issues in vendor packages are addressed to PDO’s satisfaction.
It is important that minimum changes are made to basic schemes, philosophies, material, strategies,
etc. in detailed design. Any such changes shall be subject to rigorous change control.
During the design the contractor will be expected to set up a materials management system including
tracking, receipt, handling, storage and preservation and installation. The use of Radio Frequency ID
(RFID) tagging is recommended.
It is important to set up a commissioning team at the early stages of detailed design and involve them
in the review of process schemes and participate in reviews such as HAZOP to ensure the requirements
of commissioning are incorporated in design to enable flawless start-up. For large and medium sized
projects early commissioning planning input should be included in the Define phase of the project, as
the commissioning by systems may determine the ‘packaging’ of the facilities scope in FEED and
subsequent execution phases.
The detailed design scope shall also include development of commissioning and start-up procedures,
operating and maintenance manuals, setup of the Construction Completion Management System
(CCMS/Zenator), SAP plant maintenance system, HSE case, safety critical elements, etc. Close-out of
the detailed design phase includes handover of these deliverables to the operator in the correct data
format.
4.2 Construction
4.2.1 Construction definition

In PDO, construction activities are usually contracted out to third-party companies. The size of
construction scopes/projects varies from the very small plant modifications to multi-million dollar
construction projects, involving a large workforce and construction periods of three or more years.
Revision: 7.0
Contracting mechanisms vary depending on size and complexity of the work ranging from agreed day
rates to lump sum prices.
Key construction activities include but are not limited to the following:
 To construct the facility in a manner that minimises risk to the construction workforce
during construction and ensures a safe and orderly start up on completion Input in
design and confirmation of work scope.
 Site establishment including offices, lay down, specialist storage, welfare facilities, local
fabrication areas, workforce accommodation (e.g. onshore camp) supply base and
staging points.
 Set up and maintenance of material management system including tracking, receipt,
handling, storage and preservation and installation.
 Identification and recruitment of competent contractors and resources and where
applicable the development of local content strategies and plans.
 Construction sequencing and planning and resource loading, including levels and
competencies of personnel.
 Job hazard analysis and development of construction methodologies e.g. ‘stick build’
versus modularisation strategies.
 Development of work packs and inspection and testing plans.
 Fabrication of structures, piping and installation of major items of equipment e.g.
vessels, compressors.
 Specification and procurement of specialised installation/construction equipment e.g.
heavy lift equipment.
 Logistics associated with the mobilisation of personnel, equipment and materials.
 Mechanical completion leading on to pre-commissioning of all utility and process
systems. Following pre-commissioning, handover to the CSU team for live
commissioning, start-up and operations.
4.2.2 Construction planning

For reliable project execution planning a level 4 detailed construction schedule shall be prepared soon
after the start of the detailed design. This level 4 is typically prepared by the main construction
contractor, shall cover all subcontractor construction activities, shall be fully aligned and integrated with
the design and procurement schedule and be fully resourced with man-hours and materials from which
a progress ‘S’ curve can be constructed. Estimated construction durations shall be based on proven
local productivity levels and realistic resourcing levels. In all cases, a level 4 schedule shall be produced
before work starts on site and that the plan is adequately reviewed by all the disciplines to ensure it is
a realistic and robust plan.
The absence of a detailed level 4 plan is an indication of poor project planning and control and delays
and re-work can be anticipated.
The level 4 schedule is used by the contractor in planning, executing and controlling his work. A level 4
schedule can also be used in planning work to be implemented during a plant shutdown. These detailed
schedules typically consist of thousands of activities and are updated at least weekly and in some
cases daily.
The contractor on medium to large projects should report the following Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) on a monthly basis (more often if required by the PM)
 Progress % actual versus planned (this is physical progress NOT cost progress).
 Construction milestones achieved versus planned.
 Direct man-hours achieved versus planned.

Revision: 7.0
 Indirect man-hours to direct man-hours ratio.

 Cost – Latest Estimate versus planned and commitment.
Project teams should ensure ‘workface planning’ techniques are empoyled to increase
execution efficiency and should quantify this by conducting anaylsis of Hands on Tools Time
(HOTT).
For complex multidiscipline construction scope, particularly in brown-field projects it is good
practice to plan the entire construction scope at “job card” or “job pack” level. A job card or job
pack should contain the following information:
 AFC drawings/engineering requirements
 Safety statement/risk assessment (toolbox talks)
 PTW requirements (including isolation requirements)
 Material requirements
 Scaffolding/rigging support
 Construction/execution check sheets (QC requirements)
 System construction handover requirements/punch lists
The PM is accountable to ensure the construction contractor(s) have the capability in terms of
experienced personnel, systems, labour and equipment to undertake the scope of work being
requested.
4.2.3 Mechanical completion

Mechanical Completion (MC) is a milestone achieved when all specified construction work is
complete and acceptance inspection and physical testing is satisfactorily performed and
documented.
Typically, inspection and testing activities performed to achieve MC will be carried out on a
single discipline basis, by construction work packs, building to systems / subsystems. Such
activities will not require equipment or systems to be energised, but may include bench
calibration of instruments, electrical insulation tests, electrical continuity tests, hydro testing of
pipes and integrity testing of valves.
MC will be documented on check sheets known as ‘A’ check sheets, which will be generated
and managed through CCMS/Zenator to ensure that asset integrity can be verified and
demonstrated. On achievement of MC, responsibility for the facility will transfer from those
responsible for construction to those responsible for pre-commissioning and commissioning.
4.2.4 Pre-commissioning
Pre-commissioning activities undertaken after mechanical completion, but prior to
commissioning, are to prove and validate the functioning of equipment. Such activities could
involve the introduction of fluids into systems, but not hydrocarbons.
Typically, pre-commissioning activities will verify that documentation to support mechanical
completion is in place, and not repeat work carried out to achieve mechanical completion. Such
activities are carried out on a single discipline basis, by system / subsystem, and require
equipment or systems to be energised, but do not require the introduction of process fluids.
Activities include instrument loop checks, panel function tests, energising electrical equipment
and running motors without loads. They are documented on ‘B’ check sheets, which will be
generated and managed through CCMS/Zenator to ensure that asset integrity can be verified
and demonstrated.
At the start of pre-commissioning, CCMS needs to be ready, operational and maintained up to
date and the commissioning PTW system activated.

Revision: 7.0
Normal dump flushing is typically a construction activity but specialist flushing and cleaning,
e.g. chemical and hydraulic cleaning, drying, oxygen freeing etc, falls within the integrated
commissioning team’s responsibility - see SP-2051 - Specification for Flushing, Pressure
Testing, Pickling and Sensitive Leak Testing of Mechanical Equipment and Piping.
4.3 Commissioning and start-up

The key principles for CSU are outlined in SP-2113. The management, technical preparation
and subsequent execution of facility pre-commissioning and commissioning activities, up to the
point where the facility is ready for start-up is described in PR-1159, which also covers start-up
and testing of the facility to achieve steady-state operations and handover to the future asset
owner’s organisation.
It addresses preparation and execution of commissioning and related activities for all types of
developments, i.e. oil, gas or power generation projects, green-field or brown-field, etc., along
with execution considerations related to the execution strategies adopted.
4.3.1 Commissioning
These activities are those undertaken after pre-commissioning to dynamically verify
functionality of equipment and to ensure that systems, or facilities forming part of a system, are
in accordance with specified requirements to bring that system into operation.
Typically, commissioning activities undertaken after pre-commissioning will be carried out on a
system basis by a multidiscipline team of engineers and operations staff under simulated
conditions. Commissioning responsibility may necessitate nitrogen and helium testing, which
should normally be executed by specialist contractors and supported by the commissioning
personnel.
The CSU team will start up and operate the non-hydrocarbon systems during commissioning
activities until these systems are fully proven and provisional handover to Operations can be
carried out. For hydrocarbon systems, provisional handover will take place after all pre-
commissioning and commissioning activities have been completed up to the point of
hydrocarbon introduction. The Operations group takes responsibility for the introduction of
hydrocarbons, the start-up activities and operation of hydrocarbon process systems. Co-
ordination between the Operations and CSU teams is essential and particularly so on brown-
field sites. In this instance, a commissioning leader may report to an Asset owner for the
duration of CSU activities.
The CSU sequence shall be developed for the integrated production system during FEED and
detailed design; with clear distinction between non-hydrocarbon systems (e.g. firewater, utility
air, sewage etc) and hydrocarbon systems (e.g. process system, fuel gas, drains/vents etc.).
At some point commissioning requires the introduction of fluids (process or non-process) and
operation of the system. This will be documented using a procedure which shall be compiled
specifically for the project and provide for signature on completion of each step. The procedure
shall form part of the Commissioning Management System to ensure that asset integrity can
be verified and demonstrated.
4.3.2 Pre-Start-up Audit

PSUAs shall be carried out for projects, prior to introduction of hydrocarbons in line with PR-
2160.

Revision: 7.0
4.3.3 Ready for Start-up (RFSU)

RFSU is considered as the point when all activities necessary to support the introduction of
hydrocarbons, including all utility and process utility, safeguarding and shutdown systems have
been pre-commissioned, commissioned and integrity verified.
The verification of readiness for the introduction of hydrocarbons shall require the contractor /
project and the asset owner to agree that all systems, facilities, processes, skills and
procedures required to control, safeguard and support the introduction of well fluids /
hydrocarbons for live process systems testing, and subsequent production operations, are
available, proven and commissioned (function-checked and/or dynamically tested).
Refer SP2195 for project deliverables status at RFSU. Any stepout action agreed shall be
progressed and completed before Final Acceptance Certificate (FAC) is signed
4.4 Project Close-out

Project close-out is the formal process of recording technical and commercial completion of a
project. All projects shall be closed-out through the online ePAD (AutoPCC) application,
including Infrastructure, Well Hook-ups, Pipelines, Flowlines and FCPs.
Follow SP-2195: Project Initiation and Closoeut specifications, and PR-1150: Project Closoeut
Procedure to be followed regardless of project badget.
4.4.1 FAC Closeout Extension Approval
Project Types Extension Approval (> 6 months)
Major Projects (> 500mln CAPEX) Technical Director (TD)
PD-B Technical Director (TD)
PD-A Technical Director (TD)
Asset Executed FCP Asset Directors: GD, OSD & OND
Asset Executed Well Hook-up Asset Directors: GD, OSD & OND
Infrastructure (UIPT, UIE & UIB) Asset Director: UID

Revision: 7.0
5 Contracting and Procurement

Support: FPD
All contracting of third-party services and procurement of materials shall comply with the
requirements stipulated in CP-129, PR-1233, GU-425,GU-622, and GU-687

Revision: 7.0
6 Project Services
Support: UEAP
Project Services will provide resources, processes, systems and tools to enable the PM to deliver:
 Robust estimates that allow for the uncertainties of our complex reservoirs and novel
development options in a volatile market.
 Realistic achievable plans that still provide challenge to project teams.
 Effective controls that manage the work and show where we are and future possibilities.
 Valid up to date project management information that allow informed management decisions.
 Useful close-out processes that capture the lessons and data for future improvement.
 Benchmarking against our peers to demonstrate top quartile performance.
 Active project wide risk management and analysis.
 Baselined cost and schedule that enables active change management; impact of changes to
be communicated and understood.
 Application and consistent use of standards and adherence to PDO business processes.
The CFDH (and TA1) for Project Services is responsible for the setting and maintenance of the
associated standards and processes. Once their competence is proven, the CFDH appoints TA2s who
sign off documents specified as such in DCAF.
6.1 Planning and Scheduling

Support: UEAP1
The objective of work planning is to develop a schedule for the project that is:
o realistic, yet challenging;
o transparent with regard to understanding the critical path and the possible impact of project
risks;
o at the appropriate level of detail to enable effective monitoring and control;
o owned by the project team and approved by the DE; and
o based on historical performance norms, yet taking into account as best as possible the impact
of current market, location factors and any other resourcing constraints.
The project shall develop a schedule which fulfils this intent and with reference to GU 484
6.2 Cost estimating
6.2.1 Capex estimates
The quality of an estimate is largely determined by the following:
 the project scope definition or development scenario being considered should be as
complete and as accurate as possible.
 a well-considered and sufficiently detailed execution strategy as appropriate for the
development phase, should be available even in preliminary format for early estimates;
 the associated risks and opportunities of the project should be recognised and reflected
in the estimate;
 complete and correct local cost data, at an appropriate level of detail, should be
available covering:
o equipment;

Revision: 7.0
o bulk materials;
o labour and engineering services;
o drilling rigs and services;
o other relevant data should also be sought such as:
 import restrictions;
 duties and taxes applicable;
 local content targets etc.; and
o adequate contingency levels, based on the risk profile of the project and
historical performance data, are being used.
All estimates should correspond to the requirements for the ORP stage and the defined accuracy levels,
which are highlighted in the below table.
ORP Stage Indentify Identify Select Select Define Execute

& & DG3a DG3b DG4
Assess Assess
DG1 DG2
Estimate Type 0 Type 1 Type 2 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4
(Prelim.) (Updated)
Type
Accurancy +40%/-25% +25%/-20% +20%/-15% +20%/-15% +15%/- +10%/-5%
10%
Purpose of Identify Compare Select Costs Budget Changes
opportunity opportunity option aligned with proposal or
estimate
BfD – go TB
forward to Contract
FEED Award
Estimating CCET+In- CCET+In- CCET+In- CCET+In- CCET+In- Contract data
house house house house house
Tool
database database database database database+
Contractor
quotes
Cost TECOP TECOP TECOP TECOP, TECOP, TECOP
Probabilistic Probabilisti Probabilisticf
Contingency
for >$50mm c for or >$50mm
>$50mm
Estimated by Concept/ Concept/ Project/ Project/ Project/ Project Cost
Process Process Function Function Function Engineer
Eng Eng Estimator Estimator Estimator
Assurance NA NA ESAR Peer ESAR3 ESAR4 Project
>$ 200mln >$50mln estimator
DCAF NA Function Project/ Function Function Project/
TA2 Asset TA2 TA2 TA2 Asset TA2
endorsement
Table: Estimate overview – preparation & assurance
Project teams should schedule their assurance reviews at least three months in advance with
the UEAP Function.
6.2.2 Project cost estimates build
A capital cost estimate is built up from the following components (see diagram): and use various
type of money, for example: Estimate Date of Money (EDM), Money of the Day (MOD) or Real
Terms (RT).

Revision: 7.0
90:10
Management
Reserve is not
used in PDO.
Equal Chance of cost
50:50 Inflation exceeding or being lower
EPC Premium
10:90 Contingency 90% chance that cost
Base (Market Market Factors will be exceeded
adjusted) Allowances Base
Identified Scope
(incl. Owners
Costs)
Build-up of project estimates
The 50/50 estimate contains the following cost categories:

 Base estimate (incl. allowances, provisional sums, and owner’s costs)
 Future market (market factor by indices also referred as escalation)
 Contingency
 EPC premium (if applicable)
 Inflation
6.2.3 Base estimate

The Base Estimate is first calculated in “Estimate Date Money” (EDM), which is NOT the date
an estimate is compiled, but the date when the estimation database was last re-baselined. EDM
is then converted to the Money of the Day (MOD) by application of inflation indices referenced
to the Estimate Date of Money (EDM).
The Base Estimate also includes allowances, usually expressed as percentages, to allow for
the ‘known unknowns’ for example design growth that could occur in future phases.
The Base Estimate is recorded in US $ and MOD. Within a Base Estimate some equipment
quotes may be in another currency, these should be converted to US $ using the prescribed
exchange rates. To establish MOD costs the phased estimate is converted with specified
inflation factors. Both exchange rates and inflation factors are confirmed each year by UEAP3
in the Programme Build guidelines.
6.2.3.1 Base Estimate – EMC/ODC work

Cost estimates for EMC/ODC/EPCC activities are produced by the contractors. Company cost
estimators are tasked with the verification and endorsement of these cost estimates, to support
the Project Engineer’s approval. The contractor will produce all estimates for work >$50k in the
web based application CCES, maintained by the Function.
6.2.4 Contingency - Cost risk assessment
To achieve a 50:50 cost estimate in a project & pro-forma estimates Contingency is added to
the Base Estimate.
Contingency is to cover for scope omission errors that may emerge in the next project stage
and any as yet unidentified risks. Contingency should in general decrease in the later project
stages as the scope definition and execution strategies become more mature.

Revision: 7.0
All estimates including “Updated type 2” shall be subject to a deterministic cost risk assessment
covering the TECOP risks. This exercise is mandatory and is supported by the Function. The
risks and opportunities identified through the TECOP exercise are input to the deterministic
accuracy and contingency tool maintained by the Function.
For updated type ‘2’, ‘3’ & ‘4’ estimates with cost larger than $50mln a Monte Carlo simulation
shall be carried out by the Function, in order to predict the cost probability distribution. A
deterministic TECOP assessment shall also be run in parallel as a check on these probabilistic
results.
6.2.5 Future market & EPC premium
As the Base Estimate is for a specific scope and for a specified duration the costs for
commodities over time may fluctuate because of market movement. To compensate for
fluctuations of volatile markets a future market allowance is introduced to the estimate. Future
market indices are applied to the phased Base Estimate.
The Function monitors published market trends and determines the future market indices to be
used on company estimates. Lastly, an EPC contracting premium is added (if contracting
strategy for the project is EPC lumpsum or risks associated with the project is transferred to
contractor ) that is determined by the Function and FPB. These factors, future market and EPC
premium, are published in the Programme Build guidance note.
6.2.6 Cost analogues and benchmarking
Estimators often use various analogues to establish the costs of estimated items with reference
to a suitable metric (for example weight). Analogue metrics are often referenced to quantities
and unit-of-measurement used for progress management of the plan and schedule.
Benchmarking shall be conducted on the main project scope elements to ascertain the
competitiveness of the project. Wherever possible, benchmarking should be external i.e. in
comparison to other companies (and other industries where relevant).
6.2.7 Estimate data collection
It is key that the company estimating systems are kept live with feedback from ongoing and
completed projects. Many projects are completed by lump sum contractors who are reluctant
to share costs information, therefore the provision of detailed feedback of costs data shall be
included in the tender instructions. The WBS, CTR and C5 contract price breakdown structure
(incl. procurement details) for any project or contract shall be developed in such a way that at
various milestones through the project life actual cost are fed back to the Function to update
their estimate databases for future projects/contracts. This requirement is valid for any EPC,
EP+C, EC, and E or C Contracts, and single purchase orders.
Additionally, ‘quantities tables’ used for the management of progress shall be maintained and
fed back at various quantity updates/milestones to the Function.
6.3 Project controls

6.3.1 Introduction
The key focus areas of project controls are
 Management of costs;
 Management of progress;
 Management of risk & opportunities;
 Management of change;
 Project reporting;
 Project close-out;

Revision: 7.0
 Management of resources.
Each is covered in a separate section below.
Project controls provide a series of processes, based on these six focus areas, which assist in executing
a project in the most efficient and economical way. Secondly, but not less importantly, project controls
provide the mechanism to inform management at any point in time during the project about the actual
status of the project, both in cost and time, so that, if required, corrective actions can pro-actively be
prepared and ultimately exercised in a timely fashion.
The Project Controls Plan (PCP) documents the minimum standards of project controls systems and
processes required to manage the project and provide a clear and concise explanation of how project
controls shall be implemented on a project including all key references to applicable project procedures,
standards and guidelines.
6.3.2 Management of cost
Cost control during any phase of a project comprises the setting up of the cost procedures and systems
and the monitoring and the reporting of the actual project expenditure and commitments against the
approved project budget. The early identification and registration of deviations together with the
following of trends enables project management to control the project.
All project activities should be broken down into controllable items. For cost control purposes it is
important that cost estimates shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Cost Breakdown
Structure (CBS).This will ensure that the data can be retrieved for cost control purposes in a systematic
manner.
Regular reporting of the Value of Work Done (VOWD), commitments and assessment of the cost of
work remaining should detect any potential over or under expenditure in good time for proper
management action. Project progress is continuously monitored, in physical and financial terms. In
addition to these primary objectives of cost control throughout the various phases of a project, it should
provide data for:
 Capital expenditure phasing reflecting the anticipated progress of the VOWD
 Cash flow forecasts, based on the expenditure phasing taking due account of the payment
conditions
 A breakdown of the value of the final fixed assets
 Future estimating and planning purposes.
Contingency management is a key part of cost control. As change occurs, contingency should be run
down and trended to ensure the correct amount of contingency is maintained. At six-monthly intervals
the remaining project contingency must be re-assessed to ensure there are sufficient project funds
available to pay for the probable outstanding risks.
The cost progress will be measured based on the planned and actual VOWD. The Forecast – Estimate
At Completion (EAC) shall be the Base Cost Forecast plus Contingency Forecast.
PDO uses SAP to hold the financial data of all its projects, including budget, VOWD and forecasts. It is
important that SAP is maintained by the project team to accurately reflect the latest cost status of all
projects, even if the detailed cost control is managed in other systems.
6.3.3 Management of progress

Schedule control is essential to project success, enabling measurement and report progress relative to
the promises made. An effective control system will also provide timely warning of variances to inform
stakeholders and allow remediation.
Schedule control requires scope and execution control. Signs that the schedule is deviating from plan
is usually evidence that the scope and execution are not under control and/or that external
circumstances have not been fully understood and accounted for.

Revision: 7.0
The basic requirements on schedule (or cost) control are:

• establish milestones and targets;
• measure actual performance, typically monthly;
• analyse performance and trends;
• update the forecast;
• compare forecast to target;
• analyse and communicate variances or trends to allow corrective actions; and
• repeat the cycle, checking for effectiveness of earlier actions.
Although schedule control is most prominent after FID, it is also required in earlier phases when
significant time is consumed and promises (e.g. on the FID date) are already made.
6.3.4 Management of change
See section 4.5.
6.3.5 Management of risk

See section 4.3.
6.3.6 Reporting
Project reporting shall provide a true and honest reflection of the status of the project at the cut off date
by reporting of all cost and scheduling elements plus the main project highlights and areas of concern
(without unnecessary details) and including forecasts and remedies.
For Medium (>$50mln) and Large (>$200mln) projects, the project team shall issue a progress report
on a monthly basis, including a Project One Pager through the online Project Reporting System (PRS)
tool. The One-Page report shall be specific to the current phase of the project and time & cost actuals
and forecasts shall be based on the P50 dates & budget.
For specific ‘Flagship’ Shell projects, each quarter the Shell Business One templates shall be
completed and loaded into the Shell system.
6.3.7 Project close-out reporting

It is important for continuous upgrading the quality of PDO’s projects in general on estimating, planning
and controls in particular that all learning’s are collected and shared at the end of each distinct phase
of the project to the Function Project Services. Feedback of this data is the responsibility of the project
team.
Project lessons learned shall be logged in the learning knowledge base (LKB)
6.4 Project assurance

6.4.1 Estimate and Schedule Assurance Reviews
A formal Estimate and Schedule Assurance Review (ESAR) shall be done alongside VAR2, VAR3 and
VAR4 for large projects with Premium Assurance.
Medium projects with Focussed Assurance shall perform an ESAR alongside VAR3 and prior to FID (or
only at DG3 in the case of combined FEED/DD execution plan).
For Self Assurance projects a schedule and cost estimate peer review should be considered.
The ESAR review format will follow the Shell ESAR guideline. Project teams are responsible for
informing the ESAR coordinator in the Function, at least three months prior to when an ESAR review is

Revision: 7.0
required. The Function is responsible for appointing a team of suitably experienced personnel and to
prepare a draft ToR. The ESAR leader shall be a certified Project Services TA2.
6.4.2 Programme Build

All projects provide input to the Programme Build each year. Project teams must ensure their schedule,
costs and resources are realistic and achievable and that their updates are in line with the Programme
Build cost assumptions (escalation, exchange rates and market factors). For Large projects with
premium assurance the update must include a probabilistic (Monte-Carlo) re-assessment of the
schedule and cost contingency that is linked to the latest project risks and opportunities. To tie in with
Programme Build functional assurance, the project update exercise must be completed by end March
each year.
The Project Services Functional team is responsible to assure the project schedules and cost estimates
created for each year’s Programme Build by the asset and project teams:
 Have been developed in line with PDO procedures & guidelines
 Are benchmarked and competitve
 Are achievable both individually and collectively (including that company manpower is sufficient)
 Have taken into account the contractors’ capability and experience.

Revision: 7.0
7 Quality assurance
Support: UEQ
PDO’s requirements for quality management have been defined within:
CP-190 - Quality Management System for Project Delivery: Ensures that quality is applied and
consistently implemented in PDO projects by supporting the ORP to provide a standardised
Governance, Assurance and Delivery process and give direction to Project Management).
GU-711 – Model Project Quality Plan: Details overall Quality Requirements, Project Quality
Management System Structure and Organisation to be applied for a specific Project. Provides minimum
requirements for preparation and implementation of Project Quality Plan (PQP) for all projects.
SP-1171 - Specification for Quality Assurance Requirements for Product and Service: Provides
instructions which combined with the PQP specify the Company’s minimum requirements for Quality
Assurance in all contracts and purchase orders and provides guidelines on the contents and
development of a Contract Quality Plan and Quality Control Plan.
SP-2061 – Technical Authority System: Provides information on Technical Authorities (TA) system
operates by PDO.
However, the existence of a good management system does not in itself guarantee a quality product;
this has to be accomplished via a combination of technical competence and, most importantly,
adherence by all contributors to the system.
The commitment and active involvement of the functional leadership team(s) in developing and
maintaining the project Quality Management System (QMS) is therefore essential for the system to be
effective.
The PM/PE has overall responsibility for quality and its implementation at every stage of the project.
The PM/PE should ensure that the project QMS is reviewed at regular intervals ensuring its continuing
suitability, adequacy and effectiveness.
Where repetitive projects (portfolio of projects) are covered within a single contract scope, a single
QMS/PQP may be developed, underpinned by level 3, 4 documents / deliverables.
 Suitability is judged by its ability to sustain current performance.
 Adequacy is judged by its ability to deliver the project that satisfies requirements, standards
and regulations.
The review output should include decisions and actions related to the improvement of the effectiveness
of the project QMS, its processes and related resource needs.
Further responsibility and authority include;
 Ensuring that project quality requirements are addressed and included within the PES/PEP.
 Establishing, implementing and maintaining the project QMS including quality strategy and
PQP.
 Establishing the budget, resource estimate for quality and ensuring that appropriate quality
resources are available within their respective project team and contractors organisations in
order to achieve PDO’s Quality Policy & Objectives: Identifying the objectives and providing the
infrastructure and quality resources, clearly defining Roles & Responsibilities and motivating
personnel to improve the processes and product.
 Ensuring that project quality requirements are included within contract documents and that
contractors, subcontractors and vendors comply with project QMS requirements.
 Team development to ensure all project personnel are aware of quality responsibilities.
 Promoting a consistency of approach & sharing learning across projects and for promoting
continuous improvement within their project organisation. Planning for future preventative
actions (identify, collect, store, update, retrieve and review information).

Revision: 7.0
 Taking the appropriate action necessary to address quality issues impacting project delivery
including document reviews, and corrective and preventive actions are completed in a timely
manner (Delivering the project by complying to standards and developing, implementing fit for
purpose processes).
 Making use of available quality related information to evaluate options and make decisions.
 Identifying and implementing quality KPI’s and applying rewards/penalties as applicable under
established contracts.
Written procedures shall be developed in order to adequately control the quality of the work and to
ensure compliance with all aspects of the work and applicable codes, standards and legislative
requirements. Procedures required to complete the works shall be made available at the point of use
prior to commencement of the relative section of the work.

Revision: 7.0
7.1 Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework (DCAF)

Compliance with DCAF is mandatory for all projects >$10mln CAPEX
Projects below $10mln CAPEX and classified as Self Assurance shall demonstrate compliance with the
intent of DCAF but can scale the requirements. The scaled requirements should be agreed at DG2 and
shall be assured by a Project Engineering TA2.
The intention of the DCAF process is to detail and standardise the way PDO executes quality control
(QC) and quality assurance (QA) across all PDO technical disciplines through each ORP phase. It is a
simple and structured approach, scaled at the project (PCAP) level focusing on business-critical
deliverables (control points) and assurance: controls are routine, risk-based, 'internal' steps to confirm
the effectiveness of a prescribed process. Assurance is an objective and independent review to ensure
objectives are met, and policies, procedures and processes are adhered to.
The four key components of DCAF are:
 Discipline standards: Defining the controls and tools of a discipline, these have been defined
by the Functions. CFDH is responsible for the discipline standards, local rules and appointment
of Technical Authorities.
 Discipline Authority Manual (DAM): A list which records who holds technical authority.
Reference SP-2061.
 Project Controls and Assurance Plan (PCAP) template: A plan listing, of what needs to be
quality assured and controlled.
Each discipline has standards that specify the decisions and deliverables that the discipline head
contributes to in each ORP phase, plus the required authority level for sign-off for the discipline
decisions and deliverables in a precise and auditable manner.

Revision: 7.0
There is no pre-ordained scaling in DCAF. Controls and tools for each discipline have been base-lined
by the Functions, but scaling/applicability is left to the project, as ultimate accountability for controls and
assurance resides with the line of sight of that project.
The BOM/FEDM or PM, dependent on phase/gate, is responsible for the full day-to-day management
of the opportunity/project and is responsible (supported by disciplines) for the PCAP framing and
maintenance. The BOM/FEDM/PM or delegate uses the standard PDO template to draw up the PCAP
(mandatory assurance events and specific controls, including deviations). This shall be a team effort
with all the required disciplines attending.
DCAF works by assigning accountability for an overall decision or deliverable to a single discipline whilst
recognizing that the contribution from other disciplines may be a control in their own right.
In signing off on a business-critical element and/or deliverable the individual is:
ATA – Signing as being ultimately accountable for the control: control point owner, accountable for
exercising the right controls are properly identified/ implemented by qualified individuals. May not claim
full competence in all aspects, but he or she is considered to be responsible enough to pull in necessary
counsel to take on the accountability – approves the end control deliverable.
RTA - Signing as being responsible for their respective discipline input into the control point on behalf
of their discipline: shares in the accountability, personally accountable for their input/action, the role of
an RTA is to QC and endorse the input of his/her discipline into the control point (deliverable/decision),
he/she must fully understand the requirements (CoP/SP/PR/DEP) and deliverables to be produced and
ensure the discipline standards are properly implemented.
PCAP adherence shall be submitted to the DRB at each DG in order to proceed to the next gate. Where
controls have not been achieved, the FEDM/PM will require to demonstrate (endorsed by CFDH as
applicable) that the control has been mitigated and will not impact the project progression, delivery and
asset integrity.

Revision: 7.0
8 HSE in Projects
Safety remains PDO’s first priority.
Overall Project HSE performance is the accountability of the Project Manager however responsibility is
shared by all project team members.
The project shall develop and manage risk registers to identify and manage both personal and process
safety risks. PDO project team members shall take personal accountability for ensuring HSE
performance and a Goal Zero focus.
Each project shall have an HSE Focal Point assigned. The HSE Focal Point shall ensure that the project
complies with the requirements of CP-122 and PR2392.
In addition to the more extensive guidance documents, Project Managers are accountable to ensure
their their project teams and the scope they are delivering are managed according to the 2 simplified &
mandatory sets of rules ie:
 Life Saving Rules (LSR)
 Engineering Process Safety Fundementals (EPSF)

Revision: 7.0
9 Information management
The Project Manager shall ensure that an IM Focal Point is assigned at the beginning of Define Phase
of each project. The IM Focal Point shall ensure that the project complies with SP-2122, including
preparation of IM Plans and the use of latest IM specifications in all contracts.
The IM Focal point shall ensure timely delivery of information deliverables (EDW, SAP-PM, As-Built,
Vendor MRB, POM, etc), ensuring that Tags are related to drawings and Functional Locations in SAP.
He/she shall undertake a handover assurance review before start-up, to verify availability,
completeness and format of information deliverables for SAP-PM, EDW and As-Built, and report
outcome using the template provided in SP-2122.

Revision: 7.0
10 Finance in projects
In PDO, the Finance contribution to projects is delivered through:
 Establishing and implementing a risk based controlled project environment, aimed at achieving
business objectives, providing honest, timely, objective and transparent management and financial
information and promoting effective risk management;
 Providing guidance on finance/accounting implications in accordance with established internal and
external accounting policies and procedures;
 Ensure compliance with PDO’s internal controls including compliance with CMS, work practices,
procedures and guidelines as defined by corporate Finance and international accounting standards.
 To ensure that all Investment Decision Manual requirements are followed, support all investment
proposals and assure that proper due diligence and independent review have been performed.
Thorough understanding and disclosure of economic assumptions, contingencies, risks and
accounting, contractual, insurance, tax and treasury implications.
 Independent challenge as custodian of the Business Controls and Assurance framework.
10.1 Role of finance in project governance

The relevant Finance Manager has access to key assurance processes (such as cost and schedule
reviews, VARs, and peer reviews) and decision-making bodies such as the DRB. Within PDO the
Business Finance Manager sits on all DRB1 panels, and the Directorate Finance Manager performs
the same role for respective DRB2 scope projects.
Finance is the custodian of the investment decision (capital budgeting) process. In line with this, each
investment proposal (“EBP”) shall have the support of the Finance line. In the crucial phase around FID
(including at DG3b for FEED/DD project), Finance has a specific accountability for sign-off on control,
accounting, treasury and tax aspects of the proposal, and co-ordinates the overall capital budget and
requests for revision / approval of the capital budget by shareholders.
10.2 The role of finance within the project

Within a project, Finance is accountable:
 For rolling out and implementing a risk based financial and project control framework;
 To ensure management information systems are fit for purpose and produce the relevant
project cost/progress information required for the project, managers and functional directors to
manage their business effectively in order to comply with budget, forecast, bottom line, cash
flow and expenditure requirements and also complying the requirements of Central Finance.
 To provide accurate, timely and quality project management information on actual performance,
VOWD, budgets, Latest Estimates and contingency draw downs both within the project team
as to other stakeholders. Monitor performance against set target KPI’s and the promise in the
investment proposal and ensure potential overruns are highlighted and addressed.
 To promote effective risk-based decision taking.
For Large, stand-alone Premium assurance projects, the Project Finance Manager (PFM) is part of the
project management team and will have a functional reporting line to the Business Finance Manager.
For smaller projects the Finance Manager for the respective Directorate assumes this role across
multiple projects (and usually delegates a senior management accountant as focal point).
An integrated approach to cost management, work planning, finance, and contracting and procurement
will strongly contribute to a well controlled project environment. In reality, these activities are often split
between the Project Services organisation and the Finance organisation.
In addition, the Project Finance will provide project teams with a robust set of global standard processes,
controls and tools supporting effective project execution:

Revision: 7.0
 Procedures defining the global project execution process and control requirements.
 Tools and instructions supporting the process & control requirements
o Budget management
o Management of invoices
o Project cost allocation
o Exchange rate application
o Manual of Authorities

Revision: 7.0
11 Project resourcing and allocation

The Function (UED), through the skillpool manager UES (Engineering), is responsible for the timely
resourcing of the Assets and major project teams with competent engineering staff, for the control of
engineering staff positions and job group levels (baskets), for coordination of the job group evaluation
by the Job Evaluation team, and for managing the competence and personal development of its staff.
The size and structure of the project organisation and each position within (and any subsequent
changes to the organisation, including staff moves and changes in reference indicator) requires prior
functional (UED) approval and shall be recorded by the skillpool manager. As the project matures and
new resource requirements are becoming clearer, the PM shall submit for functional review/approval a
proposed project organigram with additional position request, including a ramp up/ down plan and
indication of core and non-core positions, as per the Guidelines for use of Manpower Services, held by
the skillpool manager. It is vital that this is planned sufficiently in advance to take account the length of
time required to recruit suitable staff for key positions.
For projects with Premuim Assurance, and with a facilities CAPEX in excess of $500mln, a ring-fenced
project team should be carved-out from the PD organisation and dedicated to the delivery of the project.
Job description templates are prepared by the relevant CFDH and held by the skillpool manager. The
PM shall use these templates to form a job description appropriate to project needs.
The skillpool managers are responsible for resourcing the projects teams, (including the coordination
of external recruitment through MOR or by the PD Directorate or by using the Manpower Service
Contracts.
Final staff selection is the responsibility of the relevant CFDH or nominated deputy.
An internal matching panel, comprising members of the FELT is arranged and chaired by UED on a
regular basis. This panel reviews the matching proposals made by the skillpool manager and the
CFDHs from both a pan-PDO business perspective as well as an individual staff development point of
view. UED (or as delegated to his skillpool manager) can force a decision in case of non-alignment
between matching panel members. All staff and position moves shall require functional endorsement
(UED, skillpool manager and CFDH).

Revision: 7.0
12 Value Improvement Practices

What distinguishes VIPs from other Best Practices is that each VIP has a measurable and statistically
demonstrated effect on cost, schedule, and/or reliability of the constructed facility.
VIPs are also different from other practices, such as team building or partnering, in the following ways:
 Each VIP must follow a distinct and defined work process.
 The results of VIPs exercises must be documented so that the project team is accountable for
incorporating those results into the project.
The manner in which these VIP’s will be used on any project is dependent on scale, but all projects
should discuss the following list with the Value Project Manager and VIP focal point, who will advise
which VIP’s should be undertaken by the project. The main VIPs in use in PDO are as follows:
 Opportunity Framing
 Lessons Learned
 Competitive Scoping
 Competitiveness Review
 Technical Standards Challenge
 Constructability
The Value Improvement focal point can also provide guidance on other VIPs available (e.g. First
Contact Meeting), and give guidance on who in PDO can provide the VIP support.
12.1 Opportunity Framing

Opportunity Framing (OF) is a process to align the project team, and their Decision Executive (DE) and
Decision Review Board (DRB) on the purpose, perspective, and scope of the Opportunity.
All projects >$50mln shall carry out Opportunity Framing or (re)Framing prior to each Decision Gate to
ensure alignment for the next phase.
OF achieves such alignment by having a structured dialogue between relevant stakeholders and
disciplines, resulting in a standard set of deliverables that form the basis of the project plan, which can
be seen as the contract between team and their governors (DE/DRB).
12.2 Lessons Learned

The aim of the Lessons Learned process is to ensure that projects repeat successful behaviour from
the past whilst avoiding making the same mistakes.
Lessons Learned should be captured at key moments in the project life cycle, for example:
 VAR3 / DG3
 VAR4 / DG4
 End of Detailed Design (with contractor)
 VAR5
The Lessons Learned are captured in a number of ways, the most important of which being updates to
procedures and standards (where required). Other methods of capture include the Lessons Learned
database LKB, project close-out documentation, knowledge networks, etc.
This VIP enables learnings from previous and current projects to be applied in order to increase value,
and provides assurance that projects have taken on board the opportunities for improvement and best
practices.

Revision: 7.0
12.3 Competitive Scoping

Competitive Scoping is a scalable framework that guides Opportunity & Business teams to
 Set affordable and competitive targets
 Integrate discipline contributions such as surface, sub-surface, wells, project
execution/services, supply chain, operations
In order to create a competitive and affordable concept to be matured executed along a competitive
schedule.
The focus on functional requirements from the outset, breaks conventional thinking and avoids rapid
anchoring on pre-conceived paradigms and concepts.
Competitive scoping shall be applied to all Opportunities pre-DG3 with Total Capex >$50mln and should
be applied to project below this size wherever possible. Evaluation of the outcome will not only be
judged on the lowest UDC/UTC but also to other business drivers such as cash flow, NPV8 and UR.
12.4 Competitiveness review (CR)
The Competitveness Review is a structured process that is used to add value to a project by comparing
a specific project to projects of similar characteristics executed by the industry.
The process begins with benchmarking of Project Performance to compare PDO projects against other
projects, using both qualitative and quantitative aspects, in order to learn, improve and implement best
practices. On a project level, benchmarking of project performance assesses:
 Project practices, compared to the standard defined in the CoP, and
 Project metrics (cost, schedule and first year production, UTC,UDC), compared to metrics from
projects (internal and external to PDO) of similar size and complexity.
In addition, by continuous benchmarking of PDO projects, we can improve the effectiveness of our
practices defined in this CoP in order to achieve top quartile performance in project delivery.
Benchmarking should be conducted ideally as early as DG2 and shall be conducted duing Select phase
for all projects. The Competitiveness review shall form part of the Terms of Reference for the VAR3.
For projects where no VAR is taking place, the project team should implement a CR prior to DG3a.
12.5 Technical Standards Challenge

A Technical Standards Challenge shall be performed on all projects > $50mln CAPEX. For smaller
projects consideration should also be given to performing a Technical Standards Challenge on project
‘clusters’ (a group of similar scope projects).
The Technical Standards Challenge involves an evaluation of the specific needs of a facility before it is
designed. Engineering standards and specifications can affect manufacturing efficiency, product
quality, operating costs, and employee safety. However, the application of codes, standards, and
specifications sometimes exceeds the business needs of a facility and unnecessarily increases cost.
The objective of the Technical Standards Challenge is to meet the facility’s needs by employing the
minimum required standards.
Project teams should ensure an appropriate balance between the value of the standards and
specifications being used for the project and the facility requirements for health, safety, environment,
operations, and maintenance. When procuring equipment a unique process design during early
development of a technology often demands equipment that is built according to a specific design
specification. However, procurement of equipment meeting a specific design specification is
undoubtedly more expensive and time-consuming than buying similar equipment off-the-shelf.
Therefore, project teams should review all pertinent design standards before deciding what standards
to use on a project. This involves developing a set of minimum required standards and specifications
that combine elements of existing and customised standards to meet the needs of the facility.
Revision: 7.0
PDO baseline standards are detailed on CMS

Any proposed deviations to PDO baseline standards shall be subject to PR-1247 - Project Change
Control & Standards Variance.
The Technical Standards Challenge shall consist of a preliminary review during the Select phase,
followed by a comprehensive structured review during early FEED (Define) phase. Where an
outsrouced project delivery model such as DBOOM is used, the technical stndards challenge shall be
undertaken and included in the functional specification for the facility.
Key actions/tasks shall include the following:
 Conduct a structured, multidisciplinary review.
 Involve or solicit comments from key service contractors, vendors, and suppliers.
 Eliminate standards, specifications, and procedures not applicable to the project.
 Agree on precedence of company and industry standards and specifications with a focus on
maximising the use of industry standards
 Where feasible, replace general specifications with preferred alliance vendor model numbers.
 Simplify applicable standards, specifications, and procedures:
- Use standardized datasheets.
- Eliminate duplication from international and national standards.
 Challenge remaining standards and specifications for which there is no clear value-justified
basis and evaluate the costs and benefits of company standards on a life cycle basis.
The structured Technical Standards review should involve interactive meetings attended by
representatives from the engineering disciplines, operations, maintenance, and construction.
Consideration should be given to inviting key contractors and vendors. The review should eliminate the
standards and specifications that are not applicable to the project, and the team should achieve
consensus on the precedence of company and industry standards and codes.

Revision: 7.0
Understand what
we are getting Focus in and evaluate
into – look wide – best and do-able
options culminating in Prepare to lock into Implement the
What’s feasible an investment opportunity Deliver the value
options? Concept Selection
Divergent Thinking Convergent Thinking
IDENTIFY
SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
@ ASSESS
Preliminary Structured Multi- • Define primary scope

• Form review team
TS review discipline review • Review / rank applicable standards
• Determine minimum standards and
specifications
• Produce matrix of Scope v’s Specifications
CONTRACTORS • FUNCTIONALITY v’s

VALUE
• OPERATING COSTS
VENDORS • AI-PSM & HSE ISSUES
• CLIMATIC ISSUES
• QUALITY OF
PRODUCT
SUPPLIERS
Technical Standards Challenge
12.6 Constructability Review

The Constructability VIP is intended to ensure optimum use of construction knowledge and experience
in planning, design, procurement and field operations to achieve the overall project objectives.
This VIP ensures that construction considerations are identified and properly incorporated throughout
the full course of a project, in line with the project success criteria.
Project teams should conduct a preliminary constructability review in Select phase with a detailed
review in Define and / or execute phase. Attendance of the construction contractor is recommended in
all cases.

Revision: 7.0
Appendix 1 – Opportunity Classification Tool

Opportunity Classification Tool

Revision: 7.0
Appendix 2 – Templates
Project Execution Strategy
Project Execution Plan
FEL Self-assessment

Revision: 7.0
Appendix 3 – Abbreviations
AFC Approved For Construction
AIPS Asset Integrity and Process Safety
ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable
BFD Basis For Design
BOM Business Opportunity Manager
BVD Baseline Value Drivers
Capex Capital Expenditure
CCES Contract Cost Estimating System
CCET Central Concept Engineering Team
CCMS Construction Completion Management System
CFDH Corporate Functional Discipline Head
CMS Corporate Management System
CoP Code of Practice
PD Project Delivery
CSU Commissioning and Start-Up
CTR Cost, Time, Resources
DCAF Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework
DE Decision Executive
DEM Design Engineering Manual
DG Decision Gate
DRB Decision Review Board
EMC/ODC Engineering Management Contract/Offplot Development Contract
EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction
EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery
ESAR Estimate and Schedule Assurance Review
FCP Facility Change Proposal
FDC Field Development Centre
FEA Fire and Explosion Analysis
FEDM Front-End Engineering and Design
FEED Front-End Development Manager
FELT Facilities Engineering Leadership Team
FID Final Investment Decision
FPD Flawless Project Delivery
Hazid Hazard Identification
Hazop Hazards and Operability
HSE Health, Safety and Environment
IPF Instrumented Protective Function

Revision: 7.0
KPI Key Performance Indicator

MC Mechanical Completion
MOC Management Of Change
OR Operations Readiness
ORA Operations Readiness and Assurance
ORM Opportunity Realisation manual
ORP Opportunity Realisation Process
PCAP Project Controls and Assurance Plan
PDAB Project Delivery Assurance Board
PEP Project Execution Plan
PER Project Execution Review
PG Project Guide
PM Project Manager
PS Project Standard
PSUA Pre-Start-Up Audit
PTW Permit To Work
QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control
QMS Quality Management System
QRA Quantified Risk Assessment
RAM Risk Assessment Matrix
RFID Radio-Frequency Identification
RFSU Ready For Start-Up
SAFOP Safety and Operability
SIMOPS Simultaneous Operations
TA Technical Authority
TDG Technical Director’s Group
TECOP Technical, Economical, Commercial, Organisational, Political
TI Technical Integrity
TR Total Reliability
VAR Value Assurance Review
VIP Value Improvement PracticesWork Breakdown Structure
WBS

Revision: 7.0
Appendix 4 – FELT & ELIT Charters
Facilities Engineering Leadership Team (FELT) Charter

FELT role
The Facilities Engineering Leadership Team (FELT) is the cross-business direction-setting body
for Facilities Engineering in PDO. It makes decisions within its areas of accountability, sets
strategy and policies, and represents the views of PDO’s Engineering community. The FELT’s
guiding principle is to take a ‘One-PDO’ view, performing its work in the best interests of the
Company as a whole.
FELT members
The FELT is chaired by the Engineering Functional Director (UED) and is made up of Manager
Project Delivery (PDM), C&P Manager (FPM), the Project Engineering and Assurance Manager
(UEA), the Head of Quality Management (UEQ), Technical Excellence Manager (UET), FEED
Office Manager (UEF), Projects Manager Portfolio B (PDB), Contracts Excellence Manager (PDC).
The FELT will be working closely with the newly formed sub-committee, Engineering Leadership
Integration Team (ELIT) which will be represented from Project Delivery leadership Asset
Engineering leadership, FEED Office and Skillpool. A separate charter is developed for ELIT.
FELT meetings
FELT meetings will be held every quarter. Additional “adhoc” meetings may be called if required
especially if the need arise from the sub-committee, ELIT. A number of regular topics will be
featured in the agenda which will be sent at least a week in advance together with any pre-read.
Requests for discussion at FELT should be made to the FELT Secretary (UEB). .
FELT Scope and Mandate
The following are the principal areas of FELT scope:
Staff / Resourcing:
Owns the long-term capability, capacity and staff development plans for Engineering.
Approves CEP proposals upto SG2/1 for the Engineering population; and proposes LC/SE to
the MDC for their approvals.
Owns the Talent Management plans for Engineering, including short assignments and cross-
posting proposals.
Reviews and decides the optimum resource balance for Engineering across PDO.
Reviews and decides staff movements up to and including MDC-2.
Makes proposals to MDC for movements into MDC-1.
Identifies critical positions (via the skillpool) and agrees/supports succession plans (including
the implementation) for those positions.
Owns replacement plans for all other staff. .
Acts as the customer for job evaluation; intervenes as appropriate.
Acts as progression panel members for proposed progressions at SG3 and above, for
progressions from SG04 and below, ELIT will form the panel and propose, approval /sign off will
be by UED.
Contracting:
Sets the strategic direction for Engineering contracting in PDO.
Endorse pan PDO strategies for service type engineering contracts and or frame
agreements..
Revision: 7.0
Project Delivery:
Owns PDO’s Project Delivery processes, maintains an overview of process performance, and
drives Continuous Improvement.
Maintains an overview of project portfolio performance and takes balancing / mitigating
action as appropriate.
Engineering Standards:
Owns Policies, Standards and Specifications. Drives and supports their deployment.
Provide challenges and works with CFDHs on standards, ensuring alignment with PDO
priorities.
Organisation Design:
Owns project organisation templates and resourcing methodology. Any
variations/adjustment to be challenged and approved by FELT.
Technology and Digitalisation:
Makes decisions on the adoption of Engineering-related technology and drives deployment.
Promotes the adoption of digitalization in engineering and ensure the roadmap is
implemented accordingly
FELT behaviours and ways of working

In order for the FELT to be effective, there are a number of behaviours expected from members
and other stakeholders:
Members shall commit the necessary time to FELT work and prioritise their personal
attendance to FELT meetings
A quorum is comprised of at least 4 permanent FELT members (no stand-ins).
Decisions are made by majority vote. The Chairman has the final vote in case FELT members
could not come to consensus.
Disagreements on matters within the FELT’s scope will be resolved as early as possible,
either prior to, or during FELT meetings.
Once decisions are made, full cabinet responsibility is exercised. All decisions shall be
actively supported by all members.
FELT members shall act to reinforce the credibility and authority of the FELT.
Issues effecting the entire engineering portfolio/community must first be discussed at at
FELT before discussion at TDG,MDC.
Meetings discipline will be observed, with advance notice of topics, pre-reading, formal
records etc.

Revision: 7.0


CP 117

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

CP 117

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petroleum Development Oman L.L.C.

Document Title: Project Engineering Code of Practice

Document Type Code of Practice

Discipline Project Engineering

Owner Project Engineering CFDH

Issue Date July 2020

This page was intentionally left blank

Page 2 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

Document Owner Document Custodian Document Author

Page 3 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

iii Related Corporate Management System (CMS) Documents

Page 4 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

Page 5 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

4.2.1 Construction definition .............................................................................................. 18

11 Project resourcing and allocation ...................................................................................................39

Page 7 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

1.2 Target audience

1.3 When and how should CP-117 be applied?

Page 8 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

1.4 Related Documents:

Page 9 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

2 Project delivery organisations within PDO

2.1.1 Asset Directorates

2.1.2 Central Concept Engineering Team

2.1.3 FEED Office

2.1.4 Project Delivery

2.1.5 Functional Directorate

Page 11 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

2.2 Functional governance & coordination

2.2.1 Facilities Engineering Leadership Team (FELT)

2.2.2 Enigneering Leardership Integration Team (ELIT)

2.2.3 Corporate Functional Discipline Heads (CFDH) Forum

Page 12 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

3 Governance and assurance

3.1.1 Project Controls and Assurance Plan

3.1.2 Assurance activities post-DG4

3.1.3 Registration and Tracking

3.1.4 Mandatory Process Safety Design & Engineering Requirements

Page 13 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

A PDO Specification or PDO-adopted DEP shall be designated as DEM1 if it contains a minimum of

3.1.5 LFI (Learning From Incidents) Compliance

3.2 Front-end loading (FEL)

3.2.1 Select Phase handover

3.2.2 Combined FEED & DD

Page 14 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

3.2.3 Front-End Engineering design (FEED)

Page 15 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

3.3 Project execution planning

3.4 Risk and opportunity management (GU-717)

Page 16 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

 The ongoing process of identification, review and (re)assessment of risks relative to

3.5 Operations readiness

3.6 Management of change

4 Project execution activities

4.1 Detailed Design

4.2.1 Construction definition

4.2.2 Construction planning

Page 19 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

 Indirect man-hours to direct man-hours ratio.

4.2.3 Mechanical completion

Page 20 CP-117 – Project Engineering Code of Practice

4.3 Commissioning and start-up

4.3.2 Pre-Start-up Audit