Saep 1350

Engineering Procedure
SAEP-1350 9 February 2017

Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP)
Preparation and Revision Procedure
Document Responsibility: Facilities Planning Standards Committee
Note: This version of SAEP-1350 is applicable for all projects using the new Capital Management
System (CMS). All other projects will use the previous version of the procedure dated
15 November 2011.
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................. 2
2 Applicability ............................................................. 6
3 Applicable Documents ............................................ 7
4 Key Terms............................................................... 9
5 FEL 2 DBSP Development and Implementation ..... 12
6 Aligning of SAEP-1350 with CMS ......................... 13
7 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Contents ....................... 15
8 FEL 2 DBSP Review Procedures .......................... 32
9 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Approval ........................ 35
10 Distribution of Approved FEL 2 DBSP Document ... 36
11 FEL 2 DBSP Revisions ......................................... 37
Revision Summary ....................................................... 38
Appendix I - Database Change Request Form ............. 39

Appendix II - FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Requirements
for Software Application Projects ....................... 41
Appendix III - Technical Evaluation Tool/Criteria
for Non-Metallic Products Deployment .............. 48
Previous Issue: 4 January 2016 Next Planned Update: 9 February 2020

Revised paragraphs are indicated in the left margin Page 1 of 51
Contact: Morcos, Anthony George (morcosag) on +966-13-8800843
©Saudi Aramco 2017. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Facilities Planning Standards Committee SAEP-1350
Issue Date: 9 February 2017 Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP)
Next Planned Update: 9 February 2020 Preparation and Revision Procedure
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
Since 1982, Saudi Aramco Corporate Management has endorsed the concept
that project proposals for individually engineered Budget Items (BIs) will be
supported by Design Basis Scoping Papers (DBSPs). Facilities Planning
Department (FPD) was sanctioned to lead, prepare and develop the DBSPs and
all related deliverables. Consistent with this direction, the procedures for
preparing, approving, and revising the DBSPs contained in this document are
mandatory for all organizations involved in developing capital projects,
including FPD, the proponent and the Construction Agency (CA).
The contents of the DBSP have changed over the years to allow for improved
level of details, more stringent requirements and tighter scoping of the required
facilities. In an effort to control the scope changes (scope creeps) during the
project proposal, which ultimately lead to increasing capital investments (cost),
the DBSP development cycle has been extended under the new Capital
Management System (CMS) to include a number of critical design impacting
studies and deliverables. Under CMS, the DBSP becomes just one deliverable
of the many required to pass the DBSP phase of the project lifecycle.
All deliverables, including the DBSP, collectively achieve a higher engineering
design level that allows for a ±30% accurate cost estimate.
1.2 Capital Management System
The Capital Management System (CMS) is the framework adopted by Saudi

Aramco for managing and controlling activities and decisions related to Capital
Projects. The CMS covers the entire project development process from business
planning, through project definition and execution to operations.
The CMS introduces five Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers

(CMSEEs), namely:
 Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP)
 Front End Loading (FEL)
 Project Sponsor (PS) and Integrated Project Team (IPT)
 Value Assurance (VA)
 Target Setting (TS)
Saudi Aramco: Confidential

Page 2 of 51
The CMS and each of the CMSEEs are described in detail in the FEL Manual
located on the Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards ShareK site.
This document does not attempt to explain the CMS and the five CMSEEs listed
above. It provides a brief introduction to the concepts as they apply to
successfully plan capital projects.
Under PXP, the Facilities Planning Department (FPD) leads the portfolio
characterization of all projects in the 10-year IP based on project size and
complexity as shown in Figure 1.1 below, “CMS Project Characterization”.
Figure 1.1 - CMS Project Characterization (MM denotes $1,000,000)
The FEL process organizes the project lifecycle into different stages, phases,
decision gates and checkpoints, each with specific objectives, defined activities,
deliverables and decisions. There are four stages in the FEL process and six
phases. The four stages are FEL 0, FEL 1, FEL 2 and FEL 3. The six phases
are: Initiation, Business Case, Study, Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP),
Project Proposal and Finalize FEL. Based on the project characterization types,
the number of FEL gates and checkpoints to effectively plan a given project are
determined. The six phases are mapped into the four stages as shown in
Figure 1.2, “CMS FEL Process for all Capital Projects”.

Page 3 of 51
Figure 1.2 - CMS FEL Process for all Capital Projects
As stated above, each of the project phases accomplishes specific work towards
achieving the project objectives and decisions, and produces a set of
deliverables. The deliverables are listed and detailed in the CPED ShareK site.
For the purposes of this document, those will not be listed herein again.
The end of each FEL phase is sanctioned by a checkpoint or gate at which the
decision maker, i.e., Management Committee or Business Line Committee,
decides if a project is ready to continue to the next phase of execution.
The achievement of the objectives is checked by the Value Assurance team at
the checkpoint or gate in a documented and systemized way. When the
objectives of each project phase are achieved, the checkpoint or gate is passed
and the project moves to the next phase. At each of the gates, the project’s
Business Case is defined and formulated or reconfirmed, risks are mitigated,
project planning and execution strategies are assessed, and management
approvals and direction are obtained.
CMS also introduces the Project Sponsor (PS) and the Integrated Project Team
(IPT). The PS is an executive for A- & B-type projects and a member of
management for C- & C1-type projects. The PS is appointed by the proponent
organization and is accountable for meeting the project objectives. The PS
steers the IPT toward maximizing investment value. Being part of the
proponent organization, the PS provides a single point of accountability
throughout the lifecycle of a project and drives trade-offs between cost,
schedule, and operability.

Page 4 of 51
The IPT is a temporary project team, formed from the needed functional
departments under a unified leadership (Project Leader) and sharing the same
objectives as and is steered by the PS. During the FEL 2 phase of the project,
the project leader will be an accountable representative from FPD. During the
FEL 3 phase of the project, the project leader changes to a representative from
the Construction Agency until funding.
Note: FPD leads the project during the FEL 1 and FEL 2 phases. The Execution
Agency leads the project during the FEL 3 and throughout the Execution and
Handover phases.
1.3 Purpose of FEL 2 DBSP
The purpose of the FEL 2 DBSP phase is to define the selected alternative
to “freeze” the project scope and generate a budgetary cost estimate (±30%).
To achieve this, the IPT continues active participation in the development of key
studies and visits the project site (as required) to refine the engineering level of
the project scope during scope development.
The FEL 2 DBSP deliverable is prepared by the IPT as one of the deliverables
required for the FEL 2 DBSP phase of the CMS. The FEL 2 DBSP deliverable
clearly and definitively describes “what” facility capabilities are required to
most economically achieve the proposed project’s stated business objective.
It defines the facilities to be built and reflects the background, sizing parameters,
design conditions and other special operational requirements. The FEL 2 DBSP,
and the other required FEL 2 DBSP deliverables, together with the Saudi
Aramco Engineering Standards and the existing as-built drawings (for brown
field projects), define the main elements of the project scope of work.
A clear distinction between the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable and the Project Scope
Definition (PSD) document should be highlighted at this point. The PSD
provides the preliminary engineering scope of work to allow potential General
Engineering Services (GES+) contractors to develop the FEL 2 DBSP phase
deliverables, including the FEL 2 DBSP document, and to allow PMOD to
prepare a study grade cost estimate for the project (refer to Section 6 of this
document for details on GES+ contractor prepared vs. IPT in-house prepared
deliverables). The PSD is not intended to define the final facilities to be built,
or to “freeze” the scope of the project, but simply to highlight the general
intended scope of the project.
1.4 Purpose of Guidelines
The FEL 2 DBSP deliverable is a strategic FPD deliverable within the FEL 2
DBSP phase of the CMS process that details the complete scope of a given
capital project. It is prepared by the IPT in order to economically achieve the
stated business objective(s) in an anticipated operating environment.
Page 5 of 51
The primary objectives of these guidelines are to:

 Describe the purpose of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable, relate it to the CMS
process, and provide an outline for the development of the FEL 2 DBSP
deliverable.
 Ensure that the project design basis requirements detailed in the FEL 2
DBSP deliverable are well founded and, together with the other FEL 2
DBSP deliverables, would achieve the project's stated business objective(s)
in an economical (i.e., cost effective) manner.
 Improve the quality and consistency of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable.
2 Applicability
The SAEP-1350 guidelines require that a project specific FEL 2 DBSP deliverable be
prepared for all fixed scope engineered BIs that are included in the 3-year Business
Plan, except for:
 BI-19s (Capital items valued at $4.0 MM or below).
 Third-party projects (Projects that are undertaken by New Business Development
per GI-0030.001, Transaction Development Guidelines).
Note: For third-party projects, at the end of the FEL 2 Study phase, the Decision Maker
decides whether a project shall be implemented as a non-third-party or a third-party
project. If the project is committed as a third-party project, the IPT ceases work and
New Business Development undertakes the remaining actions for its
implementation, as per GI-0030.001.
 Exploration projects (BI-33).

 Unconventional gas development projects (BI-34). Note that this is only
applicable during the pilot phase.
 Development drilling projects (BI-60).
 Non-engineered projects.
 Projects that are Monetary Appropriations only.
 Projects for which the proponent controls all scope development and planning,
such as all Master Appropriation BIs.
 BIs for repetitive standard design facilities, if a project-specific FEL 2 DBSP is
deemed unwarranted by the IPT. Examples of repetitive projects include
warehouses, roads, security fences, and home ownership developments.

Page 6 of 51
3 Applicable Documents
The latest edition of the applicable reference documents shall be applied:
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

SAEP-12 Project Execution Plan
SAEP-13 Project Environmental Impact Assessments
SAEP-14 Project Proposal
SAEP-25 Estimate Preparation Guidelines
SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process
SAEP-60 Master Plan Development Procedure
SAEP-71 Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP)
SAEP-81 Project Process Design Development
SAEP-148 Mandatory Engineering Standards and Codes for
Non-Industrial, Public, and Government
Facilities
SAEP-303 Engineering Reviews of Project Proposal and
Detailed Design Documentation
SAEP-329 Project Closeout Reports
SAEP-334 Retrieval, Certification, and Submittal of Saudi
Aramco Engineering and Vendor Drawings
SAEP-339 Marine Trenching, Dredging, and Landfilling
Approval, and Permitting
SAEP-360 Project Planning Guidelines
SAEP-367 Value Improving Practices Requirements
SAEP-503 Assets’ Sparing Requirements and Guidelines
SAEP-1020 Capital Program Planning
 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

SAES-A-030 Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM)
Study Execution
SAES-A-202 Saudi Aramco Engineering Drawing Preparation
 Saudi Aramco Best Practices

SABP-A-041 Project Synergy Planning Guidelines

Page 7 of 51
SABP-A-042 Business Case Development Guidelines

SABP-A-043 Master Plan Development Guidelines
 Saudi Aramco General Instructions

GI-0002.716 Land Use Permits Procedures
GI-0030.001 Transaction Development Guidelines
GI-0202.451 Engineering Work Order Authorization for
Preliminary Engineering Preparation
 Saudi Aramco Form and Datasheet

SA-7214 Performance Acceptance Certificate
 Saudi Aramco CMSEEs documentation at:

https://Sharek.aramco.com.sa/Orgs/30026862
Portfolio Execution Planning Manual
Project Sponsor (PS) Manual (A & B-Type Projects)
Project Sponsor (PS) Manual (C & C1-Type Projects)
Integrated Project Team (IPT) Manual
Front End Loading (FEL) Manual
Target Setting (TS) Manual
RAPID Matrix FEL 1-3
Book of Deliverables
These guidelines provide the procedures to properly develop a DBSP document

deliverable required as part of the FEL 2 DBSP phase of the CMS. Figure 3.1,
“Mapping of Key Saudi Aramco Standards to CMS FEL Process”, shows pictorially
some of the applicable Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures, Saudi Aramco Best
Practices and General Instructions to the different FEL phases. The figure also
highlights in green color the phase in which SAEP-1350 applies.

Page 8 of 51
Figure 3.1 - Mapping of Saudi Aramco Standards to CMS FEL Process
4 Key Terms
Definitions of the key terms used throughout this document are presented below.
Brown Field Project: Projects that affect facilities where there is infrastructure already
constructed. Brown field project modifies or expands such facilities.
Budget Item (BI): A discrete project that has been defined and evaluated to the extent
required for Management to include it in the Business Plan and commit additional
resources to further develop the information required by Management. Based on the
information developed, if deemed appropriate, the Board of Directors will make
reasonable business decisions regarding the continued development of the project.
Budgetary Project Scope Definition: A preliminary description of the facilities that

might actually be built, defined in sufficient detail to develop a Capital Budget Cost
Estimate, when combined with the information provided in the FEL 2 DBSP deliverables.
Business Case: The information required to make reasonable business decisions

regarding a proposed capital project, including its scope, cost, benefits, and risks
throughout its development.
Page 9 of 51
Business Line: Saudi Aramco's basic organization structure. A business line forms
part of the organizational matrix with a responsibility over a specific part of the
company business.
Business Objective: The purpose of the proposed project.
Capital Program Efficiency Department (CPED): Is the organization that manages
and governs the implementation of the Capital Management System (CMS) “Efficiency
Enablers” to maximize capital efficiency and improve the predictability and successful
implementation of capital projects by applying the five enablers.
Capital Program Management (CPM): The Construction Agency for C1-type projects.
This is the team that is assigned to the project during project planning and execution.
Construction Agency: The organization assigned to execute the project. This could be
the Saudi Aramco Project Management administrative area that is the default
Construction Agency for A-, B- and C-type projects, or the proponent’s Capital
Program Management (CPM) team for C1-type projects.
Cost Estimate: Is estimate of the capital investment value, prepared by the Project
Management Office Department (PMOD) as per SAEP-25, and is deemed to have
various accuracies depending on the phase of the project. Those include: the FEL 2
Study Cost Estimate generated with an accuracy of ±40%, the FEL 2 DBSP Cost
Estimate generated with an accuracy of ±30%, and the FEL 3 Expenditure Request (ER)
Cost Estimate generated with a definitive accuracy of ±10%.
Decision Maker: Is represented by the Management Committee for A- and B-type

projects, by the Business Line Committee for Upstream and Downstream C- and
C1-type projects, and by the Executive Advisory Committee for all other C- and
C1-type projects.
Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP): A document prepared by the IPT during the
FEL 2 DBSP phase of the CMS (led by FPD) that details the complete scope of a given
capital project in order to economically achieve the stated business objective(s) in an
anticipated operating environment.
Expenditure Request Approval (ERA): The date the expenditure request is approved
to allow the project to proceed to the execution phase. The ERA is the date project
funding becomes available upon approval by the Executive Committee or the Board.
Expenditure Request Completion (ERC): The date the expenditure request is closed
and project is handed over to the operating organization (proponent). The ERC is the
date on which the Performance Acceptance Certificate (SA-7214) is signed off, for the
project. It is close to, but need not match, the “beneficial use” or “on-stream” dates for
the facilities, which are the dates on which the proponent begins to use the facilities.

Page 10 of 51
FEL 2 Study Cost Estimate: An estimate of the initial capital investment and is
deemed to have an accuracy of ±40%.
FEL 2 DBSP Cost Estimate: An estimate of the capital investment after major elements
of the project scope has been frozen and is deemed to have an accuracy of ±30%.
FEL 3 Expenditure Request (ER) Cost Estimate: A definitive ±10% estimate

prepared in support of the funding request document. PMOD is responsible to ensure
that the FEL 3 ER Cost Estimate satisfies all Company standards for format and quality.
If the FEL 3 ER Cost Estimate is prepared by the Construction Agency, it must be
reviewed and endorsed by PMOD.
Front End Loading (FEL): Front End loading (FEL) is a ‘Stage and Gate’ process to
facilitate project planning definition and decision-making that defines:
 The activities to be performed during each Stage/Phase.
 The decisions to be made at each Gate.
For more details, refer to the Front End Loading Manual.
Integrated Project Team (IPT): A team composed of appointed members from

different organizations who work in an integrated manner and have clear roles and
accountabilities toward project planning and execution.
PMOD: The Project Management Office Department.
Project A-, B-, C- & C1-Types: Assigned to the projects by FPD based on size
(CAPEX) and complexity.
Project Leader: A representative from FPD who leads the IPT during FEL1 and FEL
2 stages, or a representative from the Construction Agency who leads the IPT during
FEL 3 stage and thereafter up to the project completion.
Project Proposal: A document prepared by the IPT during FEL 3 (led by the
Construction Agency) which defines the actual facilities to be built, in sufficient detail
to obtain an ER Cost Estimate from PMOD. Refer to SAEP-14 for details of the Project
Proposal guidelines.
Project Scope Definition (PSD): A document that describes the key technical
requirements and features of a design project. The PSD serves as the high level
Page 11 of 51
technical design basis for the project to allow the potential GES+ contractors to bid on
developing the FEL 2 DBSP.
Project Sponsor (PS): An Executive or a member of Management, appointed by the

proponent organization, who is accountable for meeting project objectives and steering
the IPT towards maximizing investment value.
Proponent: The Saudi Aramco organization that owns, operates, and maintains the
completed facility. The proponent is responsible for signing the Mechanical
Completion Certificate as owner of the facility.
RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide): A methodology that clarifies

roles and responsibilities in the work process related to the development of a deliverable.
Saudi Aramco Project Management Team (SAPMT): The Construction Agency

team that is assigned to the project during project planning and execution.
Value Assurance (VA) Process: The VA Process, one of the efficiency enablers of
CMS, ensures the project to maintain or improve its overall created value within its
defined objectives through all stages of its development. The VA Process is
implemented through structured and rigorous analysis, the Value Assurance (VA)
Review, performed by an independent multidisciplinary team before each Gate and/or
Key Decision(s) to examine all aspects of a project from a diverse, holistic and cross
discipline perspective to: Identify gaps, risks and opportunities and provide necessary
recommendation to the IPT and the Project Sponsor provides an independent
assessment of project readiness to support the Decision Maker for the Gate decisions.
Value Improving Practices (VIPs): Are practices used to improve project performance,
and they are primarily used during the FEL of a project. Within Saudi Aramco, the term
VIP encompasses Value Engineering, a group of other value management techniques
called Best Practices, Project Risk Management, and Interface Management. It should be
noted that the CMS full set of deliverables (see FEL Manual) includes VIPs that
encompass other practices. For additional details, see SAEP-367.
5 FEL 2 DBSP Development and Implementation
All capital cost estimates shall be prepared by PMOD as per SAEP-25. Those estimates
include the initial capital investments and the quantifiable net benefits of a given capital
project to develop the project economics. Typically, the quantifiable net benefits shall
utilize values reflecting the Kingdom’s perspective.
The most recent version of FPD’s economic evaluation model shall be used to calculate
financial benefits. FPD shall develop all economic evaluations for the project and
confirm with the Portfolio Analysis & Decision Support Department, as required, the
economic evaluation basis.
Page 12 of 51
All analysis shall be formally archived prior to approval of the gate (a properly labeled
file in FPD’s electronic library). The archived estimate must be generated by PMOD.
6 Aligning of SAEP-1350 with CMS
As stated above, each of the FEL phases is sanctioned by a Checkpoint or Gate at which
the project moves to the next phase. In order for a project to proceed to the FEL 2
DBSP phase, the Decision Maker decides on the project’s readiness to pass the
preceding Gate. Once the preceding Gate is passed, the IPT begins the work on the
FEL 2 DBSP phase set of deliverables.
The IPT develops the Project Scope Definition (PSD) document to describe the critical
requirements and features of the project based on the selected alternative. The PSD
serves as the high level technical design basis for the project to allow the potential
GES+ contractors to bid on developing the FEL 2 DBSP. For more details, refer to the
FPD PSD Guidelines.
Depending on the project type (A-, B-, C- or C1-), a different number of deliverables
are required to pass the FEL 2 Gate (refer to the CPED ShareK site, Book of
Deliverables for a complete listing of the required deliverables for each type of CMS
project). The FEL 2 DBSP deliverable is just one of several required deliverables, but it
is the core deliverable of the FEL 2 DBSP phase. It is the single most important
document that details the final project scope.
These guidelines are not intended to replace the FEL Manual or the Book of
Deliverables prepared by CPED; however, it is important to explain that although the
FEL 2 DBSP deliverable is the core deliverable to pass the FEL 2 DBSP Gate, it cannot
be accurately completed in isolation of the other required deliverables for the Gate.
Many of those deliverables, which used to be developed by FPD as part of the FEL 2
DBSP deliverable, are now independent deliverables produced by the IPT to derive the
complete FEL 2 DBSP scope and pass the FEL 2 DBSP Gate. For example, the
(approved) Land Use Permit and Environmental Impact Assessment Study, which used
to be sections or sub-sections within the overall FEL 2 DBSP deliverable, are now all
separate and required deliverables. Furthermore, many deliverables that used to be
produced by the Execution Agency during the project proposal phase are now an
integral part of the FEL 2 DBSP phase. Those include Procurement Strategy &
Materials Procurement Plan, Contracting Strategy, and Operational Readiness Plan
(ORP), to name a few.
Figure 6.1, “The FEL 2 DBSP Phase Deliverables”, is important to understand the
relationship of all FEL 2 DBSP deliverables and how they contribute to completing the
FEL 2 DBSP phase. Prior to starting the development of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable,
a number of initial deliverables must be updated or completed. In parallel, a number of
supporting deliverables are also prepared.

Page 13 of 51
Figure 6.1 – The FEL 2 DBSP Phase Deliverables
It is critical to note at this point that the IPT Leader must refer to the FEL Manual,
RAPID Matrix FEL 1-3, and the Book of Deliverables to understand the relationships
and full requirements of the FEL 2 DBSP phase prior to starting the work on the FEL 2
DBSP deliverable. Again, those documents are found on the CPED ShareK site or the
Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards ShareK site.
Note: Should a GES+ contractor be selected to prepare the FEL 2 DBSP phase deliverables,
a number of deliverables cannot be contracted out and must be done in-house by the
IPT. Those are not all the responsibility of the FPD engineer, and need to be delegated
accordingly. The list of deliverables that must be done in-house by the IPT includes:
- Project Charter
- Business Case Assessment
- Proposed Integrated Staffing Assignment
- Target Setting
- Procurement Strategy & Material Procurement (GES+ contractor may issue draft)
- Contracting Strategy (GES+ contractor may issue draft)
- Stakeholder Management Plan
- Operational Readiness Plan Level I (GES+ contractor’s input is required if there is
a need for specialized training or licensed technology)
- DBSP Cost Estimate (±30%)

Page 14 of 51
- DBSP Brief and Presentation
7 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Contents
The paragraphs below detail the required contents for each of the FEL 2 DBSP
deliverable sections.
7.1 Cover Page
The cover page shall identify the BI number, project title, deliverable name,
deliverable number, and FEL phase(s). The GES+ contract number may also be
included on the cover page, but this is not required, only optional.
7.2 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Contributors
The contributors to the content of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable and scope of the
project shall be listed here. This is typically a full listing of the IPT members
who are on the project team, along with key members from the GES+ contractor
staff. By virtue of the contributors being part of the IPT, their endorsement to
the content of the FEL 2 DBSP is implied. However, at the start of the FEL 2
DBSP deliverable, the IPT decides on the key members of the IPT that are
required to explicitly sign-off on the FEL 2 DBSP document. Signatures of
those key IPT members is then mandatory and must be obtained prior to release
of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable. Should any signature not be obtained, the IPT
leader shall exert all effort to gain resolution on the reason that the IPT
member’s signature is not provided. All concerns and potential disputes shall be
highlighted to the PS in order to be addressed at the earliest. The FEL 2 DBSP is
not considered complete, and cannot be approved or released, unless all IPT
members’ signatures are secured.
7.3 Table of Contents
7.4 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Sections
7.4.1 Section 1 – Purpose of Facilities
This section provides a concise statement of the purpose of the proposed

facilities. This includes a clear statement of the Business Objective(s)
and what is to be achieved in terms of Saudi Aramco's Strategic
Direction and Business Plan objectives.
7.4.2 Section 2 – Present Situation
This section explains the business reason for developing the proposed
project. It highlights the broad business reason(s) for the proposed

Page 15 of 51
project and describes the anticipated operating environment in which the

stated business objective would have to be achieved.
7.4.3 Section 3 – Location Analysis
This section provides an overview of the physical location of the

proposed facilities, to the extent required to effectively orient the IPT
and the project proposal engineering contractor.
For grass-roots projects, information specifically applicable to the

proposed facilities is generally provided, as follows:
 General region.
 Nearest village, town, or city.
 Nearby/adjacent physical facilities, such as roads, pipelines, process
or manufacturing plants, schools, hospitals, and environmentally
sensitive areas.
 Availability of temporary construction facilities (laydown and
fabrication yards, camps, offices, and utilities).
 Characteristics of construction utilities (e.g., water – available
quantity and quality by water type, electricity – available quantity by
voltage).
 Topography of the proposed site, soil conditions and ground water
table levels.
 Site or area security requirements.
 Site zoning (industrial, residential, commercial or agricultural).
 Site weather conditions.
 GPS coordinates.
 Bottom sea survey for offshore projects (pipelines, platforms, etc.).
 Anchoring options (marine).
Note: For all grass-roots projects, the Site Selection Assessment (SSA)
deliverable of the FEL 2 Study phase is critical to completing this
section of the FEL 2 DBSP. Reference to the SSA is beneficial in
this section.
For projects located within an existing facility, the following information

is generally provided:

Page 16 of 51
 Location of the proposed facilities in relationship to other facilities,

particularly the physical interfaces between the proposed facilities,
the existing facilities, and the planned facilities.
 Availability of temporary construction facilities (e.g., laydown and
fabrication yards, camps, offices, utilities) within or in the vicinity of
the existing facility.
 Characteristics of construction utilities (e.g., water – available quantity
and quality by water type, electricity – available quantity by voltage).
 Topography of the proposed site, soil conditions and ground water
table levels.
 Site or area security requirements.
 Site weather conditions.
 GPS coordinates.
 Process flow schemes.
 Layout considerations.
 Impact on existing infrastructure.
 Control and instrument philosophy.
 Availability/reliability analysis – sparing philosophy.
Related Supporting Deliverables:
Additional particulars (e.g., a map to show the location of the proposed

project; a schematic and/or plot plan to show the location of the proposed
facilities relative to the existing facilities; geotechnical soil surveys; site
weather conditions) are detailed in two separate FEL 2 deliverables:
 The Plot Plans (PP) deliverable provides a drawing describing the
location of the proposed/existing facilities, as well as the interfaces
among them.
 The Land Use Permit (LUP) deliverable ensures that the site selected
for the project will be available for use, and all permits (internal and
external) have been identified and approved. GI-0002.716, Land
Use Permits Procedures, provides additional details on preparing
LUPs.

Page 17 of 51
7.4.4 Section 4 – Design Objectives
This section provides a clear and definitive description of the broad

design objectives (functions) of each major project scope element.
It describes how the design objectives of the proposed facilities fit into
the overall Master Plan for the respective system/area.
A comprehensive review of all Saudi Aramco and International

standards and procedures to determine those that apply to the
development of the project scope shall also be conducted and agreed
upon. The specific international standards and procedures that supersede
the Saudi Aramco standards and procedures that shall be used for
development of the FEL 2 DBSP project scope shall be explicitly listed
in this section. For all non-industrial public and government facilities,
the IPT shall follow SAEP-148, Mandatory Engineering Standards and
Codes for Non-Industrial, Public and Government Facilities.
Additionally, the section describes the operating and control

philosophies for the proposed facilities, particularly those related to
safety, if applicable, in sufficient details to effectively guide the project
scope development.
The main project assumptions, constraints, and overall risk assessment

shall be included in this section.
Note: The Design Objectives are different from the Purpose of Facilities, in
that they describe the functions performed by the proposed facilities,
while the Purpose of the Facilities section describes the Business
Objective of the proposed facilities (i.e., what is to be achieved in terms
of Saudi Aramco's Strategic Direction and Business Plan objectives).

 The Design Data Requirements (DDR) deliverable ensures that the
design basis for the project is firmly established. The DDR
summarizes the data required to develop the process design of the
project.
Note: The DDR is mandated as a pre-requisite to the completion and
approval of the FEL 2 DBSP. The IPT shall ensure that the DDR,
and ultimately the design basis, is reviewed and signed by the
proponent operations management. This validates the reliability of
the data, ensures accountability to the proponent organization, and
reduces the opportunity for scope creep after the scope has been
“frozen”.
Any changes to the DDR, and ultimately the design basis, after it
has been approved by the proponent operations management,

Page 18 of 51
must be addressed with a letter to the Project Sponsor and

copying the FPD manager prior to being considered or evaluated.
7.4.5 Section 5 – General Project Design Basis
This section describes the general design bases, which apply to the entire
project, as opposed to any specific project scope element.
Examples of these common design bases are as follows:

 For process facilities, the characterization of hydrocarbon streams
and utilities entering and exiting the battery limits (i.e., the physical
interfaces) of the proposed project, to the extent required by the
project proposal engineering contractor to define the project scope
required to obtain an ER Cost Estimate.
 For infrastructure facilities:
- The characterization of the people to be served by the proposed
project (e.g., numbers, functions).
- The characterization of anticipated traffic patterns.
- Characterization of equipment (e.g., vehicles - numbers, sizes and
weights) to be accommodated by the proposed project.
- General land-use guidelines (e.g., setbacks, landscaping, and
parking guidelines).
- Environment safety considerations.
 For all non-industrial public and government facilities, the IPT shall
follow SAEP-148, Mandatory Engineering Standards and Codes for
Non-Industrial, Public and Government Facilities.
Design bases specific to individual elements of the proposed project's

scope are provided in the following section, “Description of Proposed
Facilities,” along with the description of related facilities.
The units of measure for the proposed project shall also be stipulated in
this section.
7.4.6 Section 6 – Interfaces
This section provides a description of each of the following project

interfaces in separate subsections:

Page 19 of 51
7.4.6.1 Related Budget Items
Describes other BIs which may impact the engineering design

and/or construction of the proposed facilities. Each description
summarizes how and the extent to which the related BI will
impact the engineering design and/or construction.
Generally, BIs that will be completed prior to the proposed
project's FEL 3 Project Proposal development should not be
included or described, as the related facilities will already exist
by the time the proposed project is executed.
7.4.6.2 Project Physical Interfaces
Describes the physical interfaces between the proposed

facilities and the existing facilities (e.g., process, utility,
electrical, process automation, and communications tie-ins), as
definitively as reasonably possible. Generally, the physical
interfaces should also be shown schematically and
geographically in an Appendix (e.g., Proposed Facilities).
For projects which would replace and/or upgrade existing

facilities, the existing facilities is described, to the extent
required to effectively guide the IPT and the project proposal
engineering contractor during project proposal development,
in an Appendix (e.g., Existing Facilities), referenced in this
section. A complete description of physical interfaces is
particularly important, as a means of defining the “battery
limits” of the proposed project. This section also considers
interfaces with external organizations (commercial and
government) and their impacts on cost and schedule.
7.4.6.3 Project Operating Interfaces
Describes operational requirements, restrictions, and

constraints which may impact the engineering design,
construction, and/or start-up of the proposed facilities
(e.g., shutdown requirements, special maintenance
considerations, temporary facilities requirements, special
security requirements, etc.). This section also considers
interfaces with external organizations (commercial and
government) and their impacts on cost and schedule.

Page 20 of 51
7.4.6.4 Demolition Activities
Describes significant demolition activities that are included in

the proposed project scope (e.g., demolition of existing facilities
prior to and after construction of the proposed facilities).
The interfaces among the existing and new facilities, and among
contractors, shall be further detailed in a separate inter-related FEL 2
deliverable, the Project Interface Management Plan (PIP) deliverable.
The PIP ensures that interfaces within the project have been properly
identified, the scope of work appropriately divided and those interfaces
are properly communicated to the respective contractors.
7.4.7 Section 7 – Description of Proposed Facilities
This section describes in details the project scope as it relates for each
element of the proposed facilities. It also consolidates project specific
design information, such as equipment sizing, sparing requirements,
major design parameters, process descriptions, and specific details to
accurately describe the project scope. This includes:
7.4.7.1 The type of facility to be provided.
7.4.7.2 The corresponding technical design bases (i.e., the required

capabilities and/or performance acceptance criteria).
7.4.7.3 Site and equipment footprints, including building sizes,

descriptions, and specifications.
7.4.7.4 Specific facility attributes determined during FEL 2 DBSP

development.
7.4.7.5 Major design parameters and process description, including

block diagrams displaying major equipment and process flow
diagrams.
7.4.7.6 Major equipment list (equipment types, quantities, size,

specifications, sparing philosophy, etc.).
7.4.7.7 Dependency on other organizations (commercial, private, and

government).
7.4.7.8 If required, more detailed supporting information which should

be provided in an Appendix (e.g., Proposed Facilities).

Page 21 of 51
7.4.7.9 Written Agreement with the Service Provider shall be provided

as part of the DBSP deliverables.
Note: This section of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable aims to drive the cost estimate
accuracy towards ±30%. Details that would facilitate “freezing” the project
scope and achieving the required estimate accuracy shall be included in
this section, including technology, equipment list, sparing, catalysts and
chemicals, energy efficiency, utility consumption, operational philosophy,
control systems, field instrumentation (including analyzers, valves, and
transmitters), communications, safety, security requirements, process
hazards, site preparation, buildings, environmental, flare types and rates,
plot plans, etc.
Mandatory Paragraphs:
For all FEL 2 DBSPs, regardless of the scope, the opening paragraph of
this section shall be the following mandatory paragraph:
“The project scope definition presented in this section is fixed and shall
be the basis to define the scope requirements during the FEL 3 Project
Proposal phase to achieve the project’s stated business objectives in a
cost effective (economical) manner. This restriction, notwithstanding,
the project proposal engineering contractor shall further define and
refine the actual facilities to be built (i.e., “how” the required
capabilities are to be achieved), consistent with the project's stated
purpose and the anticipated operating environment.”
For all projects that include communications scope, the following

sections shall be included:
- The following mandatory statement related to information protection
shall be inserted:
“Information protection shall be guaranteed by the existing
firewalls or, wherever necessary, by updating/adding new
firewalls. The final design of the permanent and temporary
communications shall consider the most current Saudi Aramco
information protection standards.”
- For grass-roots plant facilities, a paragraph shall include GSM (Global
System for Mobile) provisioning as follows:
o Provision of 20 x 20 meters land for the construction of GSM site.
o Provision of the required power feed to service provider shelter.
o Fiber connectivity to be provided to the nearest Saudi Aramco site
if there is no point of presence for the service provider.

Page 22 of 51
o The tower should be constructed by one of the service providers

who will maintain the ownership of the site and should be shared
with other service providers.
o The service providers should be responsible for fencing the site to
secure their assets.
o The service providers should provide the required enhancers/boosters
to ensure adequate signal strength inside buildings.
- The scope to update Network Engineer database application shall be
included in the Proposed Facilities Appendix of the FEL 2 DBSP
deliverable, Appendix 13.2 (refer to Section 7.4.13, Section 13 –
Appendices, below).
7.4.8 Section 8 – Scope Evaluations to Date
This section provides a summary of the evaluations performed prior to

and during FEL 2 DBSP development to define the project scope, as it
appears in the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable, including the evaluation bases
(e.g., economic evaluation bases). These evaluations are described in
sufficient detail to effectively guide the IPT in its efforts to plan and
execute the project proposal development, and the project proposal
engineering contractor in their effort to further develop a more detailed
project scope.
This section identifies the project scope which is not subject to additional
front-end evaluation during project proposal development, and thereby
reduce scope changes and project proposal development cost.
Study reports, minutes of meetings, letters, and other supporting

documentation shall be clearly referenced and, if practical, included in an
Appendix (e.g., Proposed Facilities). It is particularly important to
document instances in which the FEL 2 DBSP scope differs from the
scope recommended by studies or other scope evaluations, due to
proponent preferences or other considerations.
A number of specific assessments and/or studies are required to be

conducted as part of the requirement to pass the FEL 2 DBSP phase.
A summary of the findings of each assessment, especially as those affect
the project scope, shall be included in this section of the FEL 2 DBSP
deliverable. Any project scope impacts as a result of the findings of each
assessment shall also be added to Section 7, Description of Proposed
Facilities, as scope items to clearly and definitively describe the
proposed facilities.

Page 23 of 51
Note: Although they are listed herein, the assessments and/or studies may
not be applicable or required for all projects. Those that are required
for a particular project must be agreed to with the PS, IPT, PMOD,
organizations that oversee the implementation of these assessments
(i.e., Loss Prevention Department, Environmental Protection
Department, etc., and Value Assurance representatives during the
planning of the FEL 2 DBSP phase. Refer to SAEP-40, Value
Assurance Process for additional details.
The following are FPD mandated studies and assessments that are
required as part of the FEL 2 DBSP document:
- Modular Design Assessment (MDA)
The MDA is a study that shall assess modular design feasibility for
the project as well as opportunities to standardize major components.
It will quantify the number and size of required standardized
modules. A qualitative analysis detailing the advantages and
disadvantages of modular design against conventional design shall be
part of the assessment. The study shall recommend the optimal
choice (modular or conventional design) based on qualitative
analysis and FPD’s modularization decision tree and selection
criteria. If modular design is recommended, an additional section on
Schedule impacts shall be included.
Note: All multi-story steel structures to be constructed under this budget
item should adopt modular–type steel frame structures having a
rigid ConXtech connection system, unless proven not feasible.
- Non-Metallic Material (NMM) Study

The NMM study shall assess the potential to utilize cost effective
non-metallic materials for all new projects. The study shall evaluate
the feasibility, based on the use of the Selection Criteria Tool -
see Appendix III, the use of non-metallic material, to be further
developed by the IPT. The final material selection shall be subject to
evaluation by Consulting Services Department based on technical
experience and relevant Saudi Aramco and International Standards.
- Constructability Assessment for Brown-Field Projects
For all brown-field projects, a Constructability Assessment shall be
conducted and shall consider the following requirements:
 Obtain from plant operations, and confirm, the as-built drawings,
data, and specifications, including the underground piping, for
all areas of the facilities that are affected by the project.

Page 24 of 51
 Confirm with proponent operations the capacity and

expandability of existing systems (process, electrical,
automation, instrumentation, safety, structural and mechanical)
in order to accommodate the new facilities and scope
requirements.
 Identify the interfaces, tie-ins, and compatibility with the
existing systems, including the impacts on upstream and
downstream facilities.
 Review of physical and logistical constraints to achieve design
and construction simplicity.
 Identify and minimize requirement for partial/full production
shutdowns through design.
Note: Constructability principles involve employing of construction
knowledge and experience during all phases of the project delivery
process. Constructability principles are applicable for grass-root
and brown-field projects. Specific constructability details for brown-
field projects as outlined above shall also be included in the
following deliverables:
- Site Selection Assessment

- Land Use Permit
- Design Data Requirements
- Project Execution Plan
- VIP – Constructability Review Report (CRR), detailed in the
“Value Improvement Practices (VIP) Outcome Implementation
Report” described in the Related Supporting Deliverables
section below.
A number of the essential studies and assessments are also required to

complete and pass the FEL 2 DBSP phase. Those are considered as
stand-alone deliverables to pass the Gate. Those deliverables can be
waived, by concurrence between their Functional Department owner
(refer to the RAPID matrix for the subject deliverable), in agreement
with the PS, the IPT and Value Assurance team, as required. A summary
of the findings of each assessment or study, as they affect the project
scope, shall be included in this section of the DBSP document.
The following is a list of those essential FEL 2 DBSP phase deliverables

and studies/assessments that are required:
 The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) deliverable outlines the
existing environmental conditions and describes the expected
Page 25 of 51
environmental impacts that significantly affect environmental and

social aspects during construction and plant operations. Refer to
SAEP-13 for additional details.
 The Energy Optimization Report (EOR) report examines the power
and heating requirements of a particular process and attempts to
maximize the total return based on selecting the most economical
methods of heat and power recovery.
 The Customizing Standards and Specifications (CSS) deliverable
provides an evaluation of the specific needs of the facility such that
the facility can be designed with the minimum required set of
industry and Company standards.
 The Reliability, Availability and Maintainability (RAM) study
deliverable ensures that competing technologies, designs and
licenses, sparing capacity including oversized design and capital
spares requirements are evaluated and optimized in order to secure
Capital and Operational Efficiency through the life Net Present
Value (NPV) of the projects. The RAM study shall be performed as
per SAES-A-030. Recommendations of the RAM study shall be
incorporated into the FEL 2 DBSP, FEL 3 Project Proposal and
detailed design of all projects for implementation.
 The Design for Maintainability Report (DMR) deliverable provides
an evaluation of design for maintainability practice and attempts to
improve the ease of maintenance in a facility.
 The Preliminary Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) deliverable details
the hazards identified as a result of process design changes,
evaluates them based on severity and provides recommendations to
mitigate them, if any, early in the design cycle.
 The Building Risk Assessment (BRA) study covers the potential
hazards that might affect the project’s facilities and cause
unacceptable risks. Several types of hazards shall be analyzed
including explosions, fire damage, and toxic events to name a few.
 The Facility Security Assessment Report (FSAR) identifies the
security needs and requirements related to facilities, and proposes
the necessary security items to be implemented.
 The Facility Security Assessment for IT (FSA) is a document that
describes the assessment of the existing facility IT systems in order
to identify risks and vulnerabilities to ensure full security to data and
systems.
Page 26 of 51
 The Operational Readiness Plan (ORP) is a document that describes

how the project will transition into an operating facility and what
operational type steps must be taken during the project planning and
execution stages to ensure flawless start-up and operations.
ORP ensures that facilities are ready for safe, reliable, and cost
effective production at the time of handover of ownership from the
IPT to the Operations team.
 A Value Improvement Practices (VIP) Outcome Implementation
Report must also be included in this section of the FEL 2 DBSP
document. The FEL 2 DBSP phase required VIPs are detailed in
SAEP-367. The required VIPs are performed prior and during the
development of the FEL 2 DBSP document to define project scope.
Note: The list of VIPs applicable to each of the A-, B-, C- and C1-type
projects may not be the same, and those required for the particular
project must be agreed to with the Project Sponsor, PMOD and the
Value Assurance representatives.
7.4.9 Section 9 – Additional Studies Required during Project Proposal
This section shall describe only those additional studies and/or

evaluations, which are to be completed during the FEL 3 Project
Proposal phase that help refine the proposed project scope.
More conclusive project scope definition studies, such as hydrologic
surveys, pipeline route surveys, pipeline surge analyses, shall be
included in this section. The additional studies and/or evaluations shall
not change the project scope; however, only enhance it. The description
of each study and/or assessment shall include the objective of the study,
the scope of the study, and all required evaluation parameters.
Note: The project scope at the end of FEL 2 DBSP phase shall be considered
“frozen” and cannot be changed. Any study and/or assessment
defined in this section cannot affect the project scope.
7.4.10 Section 10 – As-Built Drawing Assessment
This section shall provide a preliminary assessment of the extent to

which existing drawings must be updated to reflect as-built facilities and
the extent to which existing drawings are available in an appropriate
format (i.e., an electronic drawing format supported by Saudi Aramco at
the time of FEL 2 DBSP development). The time required to modify
existing drawings shall be reflected in the project completion schedule.
For brown-field projects, as part of the Constructability Assessment

required for all brown-field projects, see Section 7.4.8 above, the IPT
shall obtain from plant operations, and confirm, the as-built drawings,
Page 27 of 51
data and specifications, including the underground piping, for all areas
of the facilities that are affected by the project. The IPT, using the
GES+ contractor, shall update all affected drawings to reflect the
as-built facilities and ensure that design considerations are accurately
captured in the applicable sections of the FEL 2 DBSP document and
“freeze” the project scope.
Note: For additional details on the as-built drawings process and guidelines,
refer to SAES-A-202, “Saudi Aramco Engineering Drawing
Preparation”, and SAEP-334, “Retrieval, Certification, and Submittal of
Saudi Aramco Engineering and Vendor Drawings”.
7.4.11 Section 11 – Surplus and Excess Material
This section shall provide the results of any preliminary assessments for
the use of surplus and excess materials completed during FEL 2 DBSP
development.
The potential strategies for the different procurement options are detailed
in the Procurement Strategy and Material Procurement Plan (EMS)
deliverable. The EMS identifies the main strategies for procurement of
equipment and materials, including long lead items, required for the
project, and identifying all alternatives to use existing Company
inventory of surplus and excess materials.
7.4.12 Section 12 – Project Schedule
This section shall provide the PMOD agreed project milestone (Level II)
schedule. The milestone dates include, but are not necessarily limited to,
the following:
 FEL 2 DBSP issue date
 FEL 2 Gate approval
 Project Proposal start
 Project Proposal completion
 FEL 3 Gate approval
 ERA
 ERC.
For reference, see Cost & Scheduling Manual available on the

PMOD/PEMD website. Contact Scheduling Unit in PMOD for more
detailed information on Project Milestone Schedule and assistance, if
required.
Page 28 of 51
A related FEL 2 deliverable, the Schedule (SCH) deliverable, covers the

project development and execution scheduling (activities, milestones,
duration, critical path, etc.). The FEL 2 DBSP phase requires that the
IPT develops a Schedule Level II in order to verify that the main
milestones are properly identified and scheduled, and that the critical
path is defined to achieve the project’s scope of work.
7.4.13 Section 13 – Appendices
This section shall provide additional information, as required to

effectively guide the IPT in its efforts to plan and execute project
proposal, and the project proposal engineering contractor in its
development of project scope.
Suggested Appendices and the information (i.e., attachments) which may

be included in each Appendix are:
Appendix 13.1 – Existing Facilities
Description of the existing facilities, including aerial and locations maps,

to the extent required to effectively guide the IPT and engineering
contractor during the project proposal development.
Appendix 13.2 – Proposed Facilities

a) Correspondence applicable to establishment of the design basis
and/or preliminary scope (e.g., Letters of Permission from
Government Ministries or Authorities).
b) Master plans design guidelines.
c) More definitive information on the location of the proposed project
(e.g., a map to show the location of the proposed grass-roots project;
a schematic and/or plot plan to show the location of the proposed
facilities relative to the existing facilities; geotechnical soil surveys;
site weather conditions).
d) More definitive information on the physical interfaces between the
existing and proposed facilities (e.g., schematics and/or plot plans
showing the physical interfaces).
e) More definitive design basis information, including:
- Block flow diagram(s).
- Process flow diagram(s).

Page 29 of 51
- Heat and material balances.

- Facility plot plan(s) – process, utilities, electrical, process control
and instrumentation, etc.
- General arrangement drawing(s).
- Power distribution plan(s), electrical equipment layout
drawing(s), one-line diagram(s) and SEC memo of understanding
(if applicable).
- Instrument block diagram(s).
- Process automation system architecture drawing(s).
- Instrument panel drawing(s).
- Instrument location drawing(s).
- Instrument index.
- Floor layout drawing(s) of all applicable buildings (including
Central Control Room, Process Interface Buildings, Substation
Buildings, etc.).
- Input/output listings (as applicable – for process control systems).
- Detailed installation drawing(s) – specifically for electrical and
instrumentation equipment.
f) Licensors requirements, including:
- Commercial evaluation.
- Technical evaluation.
- Rank and recommendations.
g) Major equipment list:
- Description of project’s specifications.
- Definition of new equipment to meet specifications.
- Justification for new equipment use.
- Existing equipment (including type, specification, design
parameters, and capacity).
- New equipment (including type, sparing philosophy, upgrade
strategies/roadmaps, technical specifications, etc.).
h) Network Engineer Database Application (applicable for all projects
with communications scope):

Page 30 of 51
- Information Technology (IT) physical infrastructure shall be

fully documented in the Geographic Information System (GIS)
based IT Network Engineer (NE) database application.
This includes:
 Reservation of IT physical infrastructure: IT physical
infrastructure that is planned to be used as part of the project
must be reserved in NE application. These reservations shall
be renewed by the project every six (6) months. IT physical
infrastructures that are required to be reserved in NE including:
i. Power.
ii. Space (floor, rack, and wall space) in any IT building or
IT controlled space (such as telecommunication rooms,
etc.).
iii. Connections to any existing IT equipment.
iv. Connections to any existing InSide Plant (ISP) cables
and/or floor outlets.
v. Connections to any existing IT communications
grounding system.
vi. Use of existing OutSide Plant (OSP) ducts or sub-ducts.
vii. Use of existing OSP cable pairs/strands.
viii. Placement of antennas on existing towers.
 FEL 3 Project Proposal package: IT physical infrastructure
(ISP and OSP) engineering design shall be entered into NE
upon the completion of the FEL 3 Project Proposal phase.
 Issued for Construction (IFC) package: IT physical
infrastructure (ISP and OSP) engineering design shall be
entered into NE application upon the completion of the IFC
engineering design package.
 As-Built Drawings: the actual “redline/as-built” updates of IT
physical infrastructure shall be updated in NE application
upon the completion of the project as part of the As-Built
package.
 It shall be noted that the IT NE Access Policy only allows
user accounts for regular Saudi Aramco employees or
contractor employees working under the direct supervision
of the IT/Engineering Tools and Documentation Group.
Also, the application can only be accessed via the Saudi
Page 31 of 51
Aramco corporate network. Requirement does NOT change

or supersede any existing e-review or iPlant drawings project
submittal requirements.
Note: For additional details on the as-built drawings process and
guidelines, refer to SAES-A-202, “Saudi Aramco Engineering
Drawing Preparation”, and SAEP-334, “Retrieval, Certification and
Submittal of Saudi Aramco Engineering and Vendor Drawings”.
Appendix 13.3 – Budgetary Project Scope Definition
The Budgetary Project Scope Definition is a summary of all the material

and services to be provided to complete the project, and forms the basis
for estimating the project budget at the end of FEL 2 DBSP within
±30%. This deliverable shall define and quantify all material and
services required to complete the project including the required
temporary material and facilities that support project execution.
The material take offs developed during the FEL 2 DBSP shall be
included in the budgetary scope definition.
Appendix 13.4 – FEL 2 DBSP Review Meeting and Comments Log
A listing of all FEL 2 DBSP deliverable review comments and response

log to close raised issues and open items shall be included.
Appendix 13.5 – Scope Evaluations and Study Reports
All applicable scope evaluations and study reports shall be inserted here
(all assessments, studies and VIPs completed as detailed in Section 8).
Appendix 13.6 List of Acronyms
A complete list of all acronyms and abbreviations used shall be included.
8 FEL 2 DBSP Review Procedures
Regardless of the project type, FPD remains the functional owner of the FEL 2 DBSP
deliverable. As the IPT leader during the FEL 2 DBSP phase, the FPD engineer is
required to lead the IPT and adhere to the mandatory procedures outlined in these
guidelines. Throughout, the IPT leader (FPD engineer) must demonstrate that the
FEL 2 DBSP deliverable and related FEL 2 deliverables are produced in alignment with
the project’s stated business objectives and economic value. The sequence of reviews
during FEL 2 DBSP development is summarized below:

Page 32 of 51
8.1 FEL 2 DBSP Execution Plan
The FEL 2 DBSP execution plan will be developed by the IPT leader and
reviewed with the rest of the IPT and PS. Once agreed, the FEL 2 DBSP
Execution Plan serves as the project execution plan for the FEL 2 DBSP phase.
8.2 FEL 2 DBSP FPD Management Checkpoint
The guidelines define the requirement for an interim FPD Checkpoint to be

conducted when the IPT completes and is ready to present the FEL 2 DBSP
conceptual design milestone and deliverables. This Checkpoint is conducted by,
and for, the FPD management and is not associated with the FEL Checkpoints
and Gates chartered by CMS. However, the IPT leader (FPD engineer) must
demonstrate that the FEL 2 DBSP conceptual design and related FEL 2
deliverables are produced in alignment with the project’s stated business
objectives and economic value.
Although the FEL 2 DBSP conceptual design completion point is subjective,

the FPD engineer must align this Checkpoint with critical milestones to allow
for the ability to change or correct a course of action as needed. The milestone
shall include completing the following FEL 2 deliverables and activities, at the
very least:
 Business case assessment.
 Land Use Permit.
 Plot Plans.
 Preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment.
 Preliminary simulation and modeling.
 Preliminary process equipment sizing.
 Site visit, survey of existing facilities.
 Conceptual layout.
 Major interfaces and utilities requirements.
 Major equipment list.
The FPD Checkpoint is scheduled by the IPT leader (FPD Engineer) with FPD
management at an appropriate time when the conceptual design and process
modeling are completed. A presentation is conducted by the IPT leader
encompassing:
 Review of the project’s business case. Clarify as required the proposed
business objective(s) in terms of Saudi Aramco’s strategic direction and
business plan objectives.

Page 33 of 51
 Clarify the description of the operating environment in which the business

objectives would have to be achieved.
 Provide an overview of the FEL 2 DBSP scope, detail the complexity of the
analysis conducted thus far, decisions made to date and a high level
description of the required capabilities at the impacted facilities.
 Review critical achievements towards and potential roadblocks hindering the
ability of the IPT to reach the FEL 2 DBSP goals.
 Identify ongoing and additional studies required to further develop the
FEL 2 DBSP scope and provide status on those.
 Discuss any potential constructability and execution challenges.
8.3 Draft FEL 2 DBSP Document
Once the Draft FEL 2 DBSP is prepared and reviewed by the IPT, the IPT leader
will submit the Draft FEL 2 DBSP to the FPD DBSP Quality Assessment
(DQA) Committee for quality review and scoring. The IPT leader is encouraged
to implement changes to improve the quality of the FEL 2 DBSP document
based on the comments received from the DQA committee. The DQA review
process is shown in Figure 8.1 below.
Figure 8.1 – DBSP Quality Assessment (DQA) Process

Page 34 of 51
8.4 Completed FEL 2 DBSP Document
The completed FEL 2 DBSP will be routed for approval as detailed in Section 9,
FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Approval, below.
During the entire FEL 2 cycle, the IPT is engaged and partakes in the
development of the FEL 2 DBSP. If the IPT determines that other organizations
are required to review and comment on the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable, it is the IPT
leader’s responsibility to coordinate and solicit input from those organizations.
9 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Approval
Prior to submitting the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable for approval, the IPT leader must
obtain approval signatures from all IPT members on the “FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable
Contributors” page (see Section 7.2 above). By virtue of the contributors being part of
the IPT, their endorsement to the content of the DBSP is implied. However, at the start
of the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable, the IPT decides on the key members of the IPT that are
required to explicitly sign-off on the FEL 2 DBSP document. Signatures of those key
IPT members is then mandatory and must be obtained prior to release of the FEL 2
DBSP deliverable. Should any signature not be obtained, the IPT leader shall exert all
effort to gain resolution on the reason that the IPT member’s signature is not provided.
All concerns and potential disputes shall be highlighted to the PS in order to be
addressed at the earliest. The FEL 2 DBSP is not considered complete, and cannot be
approved or released, unless all IPT members’ signatures are secured.
It is important to note herein that CMS limits the functional department signatures on
the FEL 2 DBSP document to only FPD as the functional owner of the deliverable.
CMS places added empowerment in the hands of the IPT team members. It is
incumbent on the department’s nominated IPT members to ensure that the developed
FEL 2 DBSP document is aligned with and meets the department’s corporate
accountability as it becomes finalized for approval. Any disputed items the functional
organizations have in the final FEL DBSP document shall be raised to the attention of
the Project Sponsor to address any such risks as the accountable entity for the success of
the project. Unresolved issues with the Project Sponsor shall be further highlighted to
CPED at the Value Assurance Review to be further evaluated and addressed as
necessary at gate engagement with the Decision Maker(s).
The “DBSP e-Approval System“ shall be used to gain approval of the FEL 2 DBSP
deliverable from all stakeholders. This SAP-based workflow will provide approval that
is faster, confidential, streamlined, and convenient. The IPT leader from FPD shall
coordinate with the division’s Single Point of Contact (SPC) to upload the FEL 2 DBSP
and any associated documents onto the “FEL 2 DBSP e-Approval System“, assign
proper approval organizations, and finally initiate approval process. The approvers and
reviewers will receive the approval workflow in their SAP inbox that is based on the
Approval Authority Engine (AAE). The approving departments may assign additional
Page 35 of 51
reviewers internally through a delegation function provided with the system. Once the
approval is complete, the FPD IPT leader can print and insert the approval sheet, which
is generated by the system, into the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable.
Approval of the DBSP shall be in line with the CMS process. Therefore, the approval of
the FEL 2 DBSP deliverable is initially “Recommended” for approval by the IPT
leader, and is thereafter “Agreed” to by only two entities: FPD (as the functional owner
of the document representing the entire IPT membership), to the Execution Agency (as
the entity that will deliver the project), and finally “Decided” by the Project Sponsor (as
the accountable entity for the success of the project). A “Document Verification –
RAPID RECORD” defines the approval authorities as designated below:
Recommended: IPT Leader – FPD Prime.
Agreed: Manager, Facilities Planning Department, AND
Manager or General Manager, PMT or Business Line CPM.
Decided: Project Sponsor for project A- & B-types,
OR
Project Sponsor and Administrative Area Head for project C- &
C1-types.
Contact the FEL 2 DBSP Admin Group for additional details on the “ FEL 2 DBSP e-
Approval System“.
10 Distribution of Approved FEL 2 DBSP Document
The IPT shall include the approved FEL 2 DBSP deliverable as part of the overall
FEL 2 DBSP phase deliverables and review all the deliverables with the Project
Sponsor. Once all the deliverables are signed and approved by the respective functional
departments and the PS, the deliverables package is sent to CPED to begin the Value
Assurance Review cycle.
Notes: CPED may request that all the FEL 2 DSBP phase deliverables be uploaded in soft
copy to a project-specific link. The CPED Value Assurance leader assigned to the
project shall coordinate the details for document submission.
Value Assurance may request that the approved FEL 2 DBSP be reworked based on
the Value Assurance Review findings. The IPT leader and the IPT shall define an
action plan to address the findings in the Assurance Review Report. The PS then
decides whether to bring the project to the FEL 2 Gate.
Once the VA review is complete, the IPT leader works closely with the PS and Value
Assurance team to develop the gate decision support package. The PS then presents to
the Decision Maker the detailed proposed project scope (“frozen” scope), in accordance
to MC/BLC engagement guidelines. The Decision Maker decided whether to pass the

Page 36 of 51
FEL 2 DBSP Gate, Gate 2, and whether to take the project to the next phase and
commit the required resources or not.
The overall FEL 2 DBSP phase deliverables package, including the approved FEL 2
DBSP deliverable, is then handed over to the Construction Agency as the basis for
project proposal preparation. The original of the signed Approval Sheet will be retained
in FPD's Budget Item (BI) file on the FPD e-Cabinet page.
11 FEL 2 DBSP Revisions
At the conclusion of the FEL 2 DBSP phase, the project scope is considered “frozen” on
the date of FEL 2 DBSP approval. Scope changes after the FEL 2 DBSP approval
should be avoided.
Any scope change to an approved FEL 2 DBSP, including changes in project design
basis, during the FEL 3 Project Proposal phase are managed using the mandatory Scope
Change from Approved DBSP – Request (SCDR) form. The SCDR process and a copy
of the SCDR form can also be found in SAEP-14. The SCDR form must be approved
by the FPD management, and concurred to by the PS and the Construction Agency’s
management, prior to any commitment to the scope change.
11.1 IPT Evaluation and Recommendation
The IPT must evaluate each proposed scope modification and shall include:
 An assessment of the extent to which the proposed project scope
modification is consistent with the stated Business Objective, and Saudi
Aramco's Strategic Direction and Business Plan objectives.
 An incremental economic evaluation of the proposed scope modification,
using the previous scope as a basis.
The IPT, led by the PMT IPT leader, shall provide a description of the proposed
scope modification in sufficient detail to thoroughly define the scope changes,
obtain a capital budget cost estimate from PMOD and an assessment of the
impact of the proposed modification on the project schedule. The IPT shall
include all supporting documents, related assessments, and pertinent
justifications to substantiate the proposed scope changes as attachments to the
SCDR prior to submitting for approval.
Based on the results of the evaluation, FPD IPT Leader shall formally
recommend to FPD management, the PS and the Construction Agency
management that the proposed scope modification be adopted, rejected, or
studied further.

Page 37 of 51
11.2 Management Approval
FPD management, along with the PS and the Construction Agency’s

management, must approve all SCDR forms to effect revisions to an approved
FEL 2 DBSP. The SCDR becomes binding once approved and the scope
changes then can be implemented.
Note: Should the proposed changes to the DBSP cause any milestone changes to
the overall project schedule, the FPD engineer shall submit a Database
Change Request (DCR) form (Appendix I) to affect those. Changes to the
archived project milestones must be concurred to by the Project Sponsor and
the Execution Agency/PMT Management. The DCR form will be reviewed and
signed by FPD management. Proof of the concurrence by the Construction
Agency and the Proponent department must accompany the completed DCR
form. Changes to the project milestones can only occur once the DCR is
completed and signed by FPD management.
Revision Summary
4 January 2016 Major revision to align with the new Capital Management System applicable to all Capital
Projects within the Business Plan.
9 February 2017 Major revision to align with ES and CE directives and inclusions, including Modular Design
Assessments, Non-Metallic Material studies and stringent constructability studies. It also
incorporates enhanced FPD processes for project planning governance and ensures tighter
coupling with revised CMS procedures.

Page 38 of 51
Appendix I - Database Change Request Form

Page 39 of 51
Database Change Request

Page 40 of 51
Appendix II - FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Requirements

for Software Application Projects

Page 41 of 51
FEL 2 DBSP deliverable Sections for Software Application Projects
1 PROJECT PURPOSE
This section provides a clear and concise statement of the business objective of the
proposed project.
For example: “The purpose of this project is to improve and optimize the pipes and
materials movements throughout the supply chain, by implementing Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) technology that will streamline processes, enhance materials
traceability and enable inventory visibility”.
2 PRESENT SITUATION
This section describes the current situation of the project; describe elements on how the
processes are currently being carried out and provides details of the legacy systems.
It also addresses the problems/issues that trigger the need for the project.
More detailed supporting information should generally be provided in Appendix I,

Existing Situation.
3 STAKEHOLDERS
This section lists all entities that are affected by the project. It should address clearly the
process owner (proponent) and the key process users. This can include Saudi Aramco
departments or partners such as joint ventures, customers, vendors, and suppliers.
4 LOCATION
This section provides an overview of the physical locations and facilities that will be
affected by the project to the extent required to effectively orient the Construction
Agency and the project proposal/blueprint engineering contractor, including data center
location for the hardware.
5 INTERFACES
This section provides a description of the following project interfaces in separate

subsections.
5.1 Related Budget Items

Describe other Budget Items which may impact the engineering design and/or
construction of the proposed scope.
Page 42 of 51
5.2 Project Physical Interfaces

Describe the physical interfaces between the proposed scope and the existing
systems/processes.
5.3 Project Operating Interfaces

Describe operational and logical interfaces with the existing systems/processes.
List requirements/constraints which may impact the design, construction, and/or
production of the proposed project. Describe all systems that will be interfaced
with the proposed system and specify the high level inputs and outputs.
6 BUSINESS OBJECTIVES
This section provides a description of the design objectives. These constitute a

specification of simply what the business needs. This is usually expressed in terms of
broad outcomes the business requires, rather than specific functions the system may
perform.
For example:
“The proposed solution will be designed to achieve the following objectives:
 Provide a fair way of facilitating bids and conducting negotiations.
 Provide a full integration between materials and services procurement where it

shall be possible to add materials and services individually or together into
contracts.”
7 GENERAL PROJECT DESIGN BASIS
This section describes the general design bases, which apply to the entire project, as
opposed to specific project scope element. These common design bases include non-
functional requirements such as User Interface/Usability, Configurability, Performance,
and Scalability.
For example:
“The proposed solution shall offer a set of integrated and web-enabled applications that
will interface with the existing SAP system. The proposed application shall also offer
scalability and expandability to support future expansion. The application shall be
based on standardized software packages.”

Page 43 of 51
8 PROPOSED SCOPE
This section describes what the system, process, or product/service must do in order to
fulfill the business requirements. This includes description of each element of the
project scope and the required capabilities.
In addition, it addresses the scope requirements in the following subsections:
8.1 Software and Licenses

Describe the major software components and associated licenses requirements.
Also, specify the number of users of the system.
8.2 Hardware
Describe the required hardware components and specify the required data center
capacity and the need for expansion, if any. This section should address also
supporting facilities, if any.
8.3 Data Migration Plan

Address data to be migrated from legacy systems either as a part of the project
or to be done through Net Direct Expenditures (NDE).
For example:
“Required data shall be migrated into the new solutions to enable tracking and
built-in intelligence as part of the transactional systems. Legacy data is
important to be considered as part of bidder lists decisions and performance
monitoring.”
8.4 Handover Plan

Describe the key items to be addressed by the Construction Agency as part of
handing over the application/system to the proponent to ensure smooth phase-
in/phase-out and avoid negative business impact. This also includes assessing
phased approach versus big bang.
For example: “The old system shall be running temporarily along with the new
system (in parallel) to clear all pending POs and TOs after the go-live date.”
8.5 Training and Change Management

Explain the Training and change management to be planned part of the project.

Page 44 of 51
For example:
“The project should coordinate training on the new solution by developing the
required training modules for end users.”
“For change management, the project should follow this strategy:

 Use the established Organization Change Management (OCM) Charter
and Plan.
 Use the established Change Management issues resolution and escalation
procedures.”
8.6 Information Protection

Identify information security risks and vulnerabilities that could compromise
Saudi Aramco IT infrastructure, for either internal/external Saudi Aramco users
or external for non-Saudi Aramco users.
8.7 Out of Project’s Scope

This subsection ensures clear scope boundaries by addressing the out-of-scope
work.
More detailed supporting information should generally be provided in Appendix II,

Proposed Scope.
9 SCOPE EVALUATIONS TO DATE
This section provides a summary of the evaluations performed prior to and during scope
development to define the project scope. This includes, but not limited to, feasibility
study, software evaluation and proof of concept. Also, it should address the type of
process whether it is automation or reengineering.
10 ADDITIONAL STUDIES
This section describes specific evaluations/studies, to be completed during Detailed

Design/Blueprint phase.
11 LESSONS LEARNED
This section surveys project management database for applicable lessons learned.
It also captures lessons from similar software applications projects.

Page 45 of 51
12 BENCHMARKING
This section provides overview of local and international benchmark for solution
deployment, unit cost reference and best practices. This demands approaching vendors
and software industry leaders.
13 RISK ASSESSMENT
The section addresses outcome of risk assessment exercise. This involves identification
of potential project risks, evaluation criteria and establishment of appropriate mitigation
plans. Coordination should be done with Value Practices Unit (under PMOD) to
facilitate project risk management session.
14 VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY
This section summarizes the proposals of value engineering workshop.

Value engineering is required for projects valued at $50 MM or above.
15 PROJECT SCHEDULE
This section states project milestone schedule as follows:
Milestone Date
FEL 2 DBSP Start Month/Year
FEL 2 DBSP Approval Month/Year
Detailed Design start Month/Year
30% Detailed Design Approval Month/Year
ERA Month/Year
100% Detailed Design Approval Month/Year
System Development Start Month/Year
System Development Completion Month/Year
Functional Test Start Month/Year
Functional Test Completion Month/Year
User Acceptance Test Start Month/Year
User Acceptance Test Completion Month/Year
End User Training Start Month/Year
End User Training Completion Month/Year
Beneficial Date / Go live Date Month/Year
Production Support Month/Year
ERC Month/Year
Page 46 of 51
16 APPENDICES
This section provides additional information, as required to effectively guide the

Construction Agency in its efforts to plan and execute detailed design/blueprint.
16.1 Existing Situation
Address more detailed supporting information of current system/process.
16.2 Proposed Scope
Address more detailed supporting information of proposed scope. It also

describe the high level FRICE requirements (Forms, Reports, Interfaces
(inbound and outbound), Conversions, and Enhancements, and workflows).
16.3 Budgetary Project Scope Definition
Cover quantification of proposed scope to allow for high quality budget

estimate. This includes quantification of hardware, software, licenses, and
manpower resources for functional consultants as well as application developers.
16.4 Acronyms

Page 47 of 51
Appendix III - Technical Evaluation Tool/Criteria for

Non-Metallic Products Deployment

Page 48 of 51
Page 49 of 51

Page 50 of 51

Page 51 of 51

Saep 1350

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saep 1350

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saep 1350

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Procedure

SAEP-1350 9 February 2017

Appendix I - Database Change Request Form ............. 39

Previous Issue: 4 January 2016 Next Planned Update: 9 February 2020

©Saudi Aramco 2017. All rights reserved.

1.2 Capital Management System

The Capital Management System (CMS) is the framework adopted by Saudi

The CMS introduces five Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

Figure 1.1 - CMS Project Characterization (MM denotes $1,000,000)

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

Figure 1.2 - CMS FEL Process for all Capital Projects

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

1.3 Purpose of FEL 2 DBSP

1.4 Purpose of Guidelines

The primary objectives of these guidelines are to:

 Exploration projects (BI-33).

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

The latest edition of the applicable reference documents shall be applied:

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures

 Saudi Aramco Engineering Standards

 Saudi Aramco Best Practices

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

SABP-A-042 Business Case Development Guidelines

 Saudi Aramco General Instructions

 Saudi Aramco Form and Datasheet

 Saudi Aramco CMSEEs documentation at:

These guidelines provide the procedures to properly develop a DBSP document

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

Figure 3.1 - Mapping of Saudi Aramco Standards to CMS FEL Process

Budgetary Project Scope Definition: A preliminary description of the facilities that

Business Case: The information required to make reasonable business decisions

Decision Maker: Is represented by the Management Committee for A- and B-type

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

FEL 3 Expenditure Request (ER) Cost Estimate: A definitive ±10% estimate

For more details, refer to the Front End Loading Manual.

Integrated Project Team (IPT): A team composed of appointed members from

Project Sponsor (PS): An Executive or a member of Management, appointed by the

RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide): A methodology that clarifies

Saudi Aramco Project Management Team (SAPMT): The Construction Agency

5 FEL 2 DBSP Development and Implementation

6 Aligning of SAEP-1350 with CMS

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

Figure 6.1 – The FEL 2 DBSP Phase Deliverables

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

- DBSP Brief and Presentation

7 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Contents

7.1 Cover Page

7.2 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Contributors

7.3 Table of Contents

7.4 FEL 2 DBSP Deliverable Sections

7.4.1 Section 1 – Purpose of Facilities

This section provides a concise statement of the purpose of the proposed

7.4.2 Section 2 – Present Situation

Saudi Aramco: Confidential

project and describes the anticipated operating environment in which the

7.4.3 Section 3 – Location Analysis