Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Document ID
Document Type
Security
Discipline
Owner
Issue Date
Revision
Page 1
CP-117
Code of Practice
Unrestricted
Project Engineering
June 2012
5.0
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
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.
Page 2
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Document Authorisation
Page 3
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
ii Revision History
Revision No.
Date
Author(s)
Scope/Remarks
5.0
June 2012
Paul Sanders
UEP/5
4.0
January
2011
Anton Brouwer/
Mike Turberville
Update/roll-out
4.0
May 2010
Anton Brouwer/
Mike Turberville
3.0
June 2004
Austin Isaac
UEJ1
2.0
April 1999
Ohi Aikhoje,
OTE4
1.0
August
1998
Page 4
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
Document Authorisation........................................................................................................ 3
ii
Revision History.................................................................................................................... 4
iii
Introduction........................................................................................................................... 9
1.1
Purpose........................................................................................................................ 9
1.2
Target Audience............................................................................................................ 9
1.3
1.4
1.5
Reference documents................................................................................................ 10
1.6
Document Owner....................................................................................................... 10
1.7
Document Hierarchy.................................................................................................. 10
3.2
3.2.1
3.2.2
FEED Office............................................................................................................ 15
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
Project Governance................................................................................................... 18
4.2
Project Assurance...................................................................................................... 19
4.2.1
Pre-DG4 Assurance................................................................................................19
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
5.1.1
Concept Engineering...............................................................................................23
5.1.2
5.1.3
5.2
5.3
5.4
Operations Readiness................................................................................................ 28
5.5
Management of Change............................................................................................. 28
Page 5
Detailed Design.......................................................................................................... 30
Printed 27/06/12
CP-117 Project Engineering Code of Practice
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Procurement............................................................................................................... 31
6.3
Construction............................................................................................................... 31
6.3.1
Construction Definition............................................................................................ 31
6.3.2
Construction Objectives.......................................................................................... 32
6.3.3
Construction Planning............................................................................................. 32
6.3.4
Mechanical Completion.......................................................................................... 33
6.3.5
Pre-Commissioning................................................................................................. 34
6.4
Commissioning....................................................................................................... 34
6.4.2
Pre-Start-up Audit................................................................................................... 35
6.4.3
Contracting................................................................................................................. 37
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.1.3
7.1.4
7.1.5
7.2
6.4.1
6.5
7
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
7.2.1
Procurement........................................................................................................... 44
7.2.2
7.2.3
Inventory Management........................................................................................... 45
7.2.4
Logistics Services................................................................................................... 45
Project Services.................................................................................................................. 47
8.1
8.1.1
Definitions............................................................................................................... 48
8.1.2
Schedule Development........................................................................................... 49
8.1.3
8.2
Cost Estimating.......................................................................................................... 52
8.2.1
Capex Estimates..................................................................................................... 52
8.2.2
8.2.3
8.2.4
Base Estimate......................................................................................................... 54
8.2.5
8.2.6
8.2.7
8.2.8
8.3
8.3.1
Page 6
Project Controls.......................................................................................................... 56
Introduction............................................................................................................. 56
CP-117 Project Engineering Code of Practice
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Management of Cost............................................................................................... 56
8.3.3
Management of Progress........................................................................................ 57
8.3.4
Management of Change......................................................................................... 57
8.3.5
Management of Risk...............................................................................................58
8.3.6
Reporting................................................................................................................ 58
8.3.7
8.4
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project Assurance...................................................................................................... 59
8.4.1
8.4.2
Programme Build.................................................................................................... 59
Quality Assurance............................................................................................................... 60
9.1
10
10.1
Introduction................................................................................................................ 64
10.2
Application.................................................................................................................. 66
11.1
12
12.1
12.2
13
13.1
Opportunity Framing.................................................................................................. 76
13.2
Lessons Learned........................................................................................................ 77
13.3
Value Engineering...................................................................................................... 77
13.4
13.6
13.7
Constructability........................................................................................................... 81
13.8
PEP-PER................................................................................................................... 81
13.9
LIRA........................................................................................................................... 81
14
15
Technical Standards...................................................................................................... 83
Page 7
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
15.1
15.2
DEM1......................................................................................................................... 83
Page 8
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
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 is MANDATORY for all project
development and execution activities.
Application of this CoP is intended to:
-
1.2
Target Audience
The target audience for this CoP is all staff involved in the development and execution
of Projects, for example:
1.3
Project Engineers
QA/QC staff
Page 9
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
1.4
1.5
Reference documents
Appendix 2 contains links to the Corporate Management Framework portal (for PDO
Governing documents) and Shell iPMS (for Reference documents). Via these two links
the most up to date versions of the documents are available. Appendix 2 also lists the
PDO Governing Documents, Reference Information and Tools which are relevant to
each Section of this Code of Practice.
1.6
Document Owner
This document is owned by the Corporate Functional Discipline Head (CFDH) and
Technical Authority level 1 (TA-1) for Project Engineering, UEP, who is responsible for
its regular update to reflect relevant internal and external learnings and the best
practices in project delivery.
UEP holds Functional responsibility for Project Delivery.
For any questions or clarifications relating to CP-117, please contact UEP or UEP/5.
For questions on specific sections of CP-117, support contacts are indicated at the end
of each section.
1.7
Document Hierarchy
CP-117 forms part of the PDO Corporate Management Framework (CMF).
This CoP is designed to implement PDO Policies and to specify the usage of other
PDO Codes of Practice, Specifications, Procedures and Guidelines as applicable to
Engineering Projects.
This CoP is also intended to embed the principles and processes of Opportunity
Realisation as provided in the Shell Opportunity Realisation Manual (ORM). It further
reflects the intent of all Shell Project Standards (PS), and specifies the usage of certain
Shell Project Guides (PG) and Procedures, where these are consistent with PDO
strategic objectives.
PDOs strategic objectives are indicated in the Diagram below:
Page 10
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 11
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Setting up the Project for success with realistic and achievable goals from the
outset.
Taking good quality decisions and involving the right people in a clear
governance structure.
Clear roles, responsibilities and competences for the people who lead and staff the
opportunities.
A project only moves as fast as the decisions are taken, and it is important to take
Quality Decisions.
The ORP splits the Project into six phases:
At the end of each phase, up to and including the Define phase, there will be a decision
point called the Decision Gate (DG) where the Decision Executive (DE) will decide
whether the project is ready to proceed to the next phase. The readiness-to-proceed
depends on satisfactory closure of the preceding phase and sufficient business drive,
budget and resources to complete the following phase.
Each Decision Gate has 3 potential outcomes:
1. Project is given Permission to Proceed.
2. Project is told to Stop. (Project is dropped because it is not economic, is not
aligned to PDOs strategic objectives, or does not have sufficient resources).
3. Project is told to Go-back. (Project has to do more work in the current phase to
achieve further definition and/or see if there is a Techno-Economic Solution
Space).
The project team should only go to the decision gate if they have sufficient information
for the DRB to decide on one of the outcomes. If the project team has the information
early (e.g. the project should Stop) then they should hold the decision gate early.
Page 12
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Gate
Objective
Identify
DG1
Assess
DG2
Select
DG3
Define
DG4
Once the Project has been operating for some time, there is a look-back (DG5) where
lessons learned are captured to be fed-back into future Projects.
The table below illustrates the ORP at a high level with key activities for each of the
ORP phases. The key deliverables for each phase are discussed elsewhere in this
document.
Identify
Assess
Initiate
Project:
Generate
ideas. Verify
alignment with
business
strategy,
establish
potential value
and decide
whether to fund
and staff.
Select
Define
Demonstrate
feasibility of
the Project:
Select the
best concept
solution:
Define the
selected
concept:
Assess a
complete range
of alternative
concepts against
a complete range
of possible
outcomes, in the
context of all
attendant risks:
Technical,
Economic,
Commercial,
Organizational,
Political.
Assess the
best concept
for delivering
value from the
Project and
indicate why
other choices
are not
preferred.
Define technical
scope, cost and
schedule for
Final
Investment
Decision.
Execute
Deliver the
promise:
Deliver an
asset
consistent with
the forecast
scope, cost and
schedule.
Leads to handover decision to
user for
Operate phase.
Operate
Start-up,
operate and
evaluate:
Ensure
performance
specifications
are met.
Maximize return
to shareholders.
Protect License
to Operate.
For further details, refer to the Opportunity Realisation Manual (ORM) and Opportunity
Realisation Guide (ORG).
The ORP specifies a number of mandatory actions and deliverables:
Page 13
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
3.1
Asset Directorates,
Directorate
Central
Project
Delivery
and
Functional
ensuring PDOs resources are deployed in the best interest of the Company
and the development of individual staff concerned;
3.2
Page 14
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
FEED Office
The Front End Engineering Design (FEED) of projects with an estimated CAPEX above
$100mln shall, by default, be executed by the in-house FEED office. Deviation from
this default requires UEOD 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 and Asset and subject to FEED office capacity.
Major Projects (generally >$200 mln) move to the Central Project Delivery group at
DG3 and the CPD team is then responsible for delivering these Projects on behalf of
the Assets. As the centre of excellence, CPD will also run certain portfolios of projects
which fit segmentation themes (e.g. high sour, high pressure, thermal EOR, chemical
EOR, etc.). In addition, projects which are particularly complex, contain prototypes or
new technology, or have high strategic or reputational importance may also be
executed under CPD.
Pre-DG3 projects which are likely to be in the CPD portfolio should be identified and
agreed between CPD and the Asset Directors during the Program Build, and will be
assigned Project Engineering support accordingly. The final allocation decision will be
made by the DE (in consultation with the DRB) at DG3, and endorsed by the relevant
Asset Director and Technical Director (TD).
3.3
Page 15
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The FELT meets on a monthly basis to share learnings and discuss project delivery
and engineering issues (either ad hoc or long term strategic in nature) that require to be
addressed through a common, unified approach. In particular it develops, agrees and
reviews the progress against the Project Delivery Improvement plans.
The FELT has five main roles and responsibilities:
1. The FELT is responsible for influencing Policies and generating Strategies:
Given the FELT overview of the entire project delivery within PDO, the FELT is
uniquely placed to provide key steer to the organization in the form of Policy and
Strategy recommendations, and translating these into Codes of Practice.
2. The FELT has accountability for Project Delivery:
All projects in PDO report via the FELT members. The FELT is jointly responsible for
project delivery within PDO. This responsibility includes accountability for annual
spend, and project schedules. The FELT is responsible for setting realistic project
targets (budget and schedule). One important aspect of this accountability is to jointly
agree staff moves to make the best use of scarce engineering resources across the
various assets and projects.
Another important aspect of this accountability is the FELT ownership of the corporate
risks relating to project delivery.
3. The FELT is responsible for disseminating information and driving initiatives:
The FELT forum is one of the most effective for disseminating information and
knowledge within the organization given the mixture of Assets, major Projects,
Function and Line in the FELT membership. The FELT has a responsibility to drive the
cross-fertilization of lessons learned and best practices. When new initiatives are
rolled-out, the FELT members have responsibility to drive the implementation
throughout PDO.
4. The FELT is a sounding board:
The FELT provides an accessible sounding board to listen to new ideas, challenges,
suggested changes, etc. coming from the rest of the organization (e.g. CFDH forum).
5. The FELT is an early warning system for the Managing Director and TDG:
The FELT informs the MD and TDG of issues that are surfacing within the organization,
and provides advice as to how best to deal with these issues. The FELT is the
conscience of the organization.
Page 16
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project Governance
Support: UEP
Project Governance is defined as steer, supervision, support and assurance:
Steer: giving direction to the Project Team; encouraging the Project Team to
put the right emphasis on the right decisions, deliverables and activities.
Supervision: the body providing the governance supervises the quality and
robustness of the Teams output.
Support: the DE/DRB can provide assistance to the Project Team through
expert knowledge and/or providing funds and/or resources.
Governance is the responsibility of the DRB, chaired by the DE, up to and including
Final Investment Decision (FID, usually the end of Define). After FID, the DRB
members may change for continued Governance throughout Execution and Start-up,
up to and including the Post Investment Review.
The DRB, together with the Business Opportunity Manager (BOM), is responsible for
ensuring that Quality Decisions are made throughout the ORP stages.
For Major Projects in CPD the governance Line of Sight runs from the Project
Manager via the BOM and CPDM to the DRB. The PDO Technical Director (TD) acts
as the Decision Executive (DE).
For all other projects, the governance Line of Sight runs from the accountable Project
engineer / leader via a Head of Projects and/or the Asset Engineering Manager to the
relevant Asset Director (GD, OND, OSD, UID), who is also the DE.
Page 17
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project Assurance
Support: UEP
Project Assurance is defined as the management of a range of activities that
collectively inspire confidence in the emerging decisions to be taken by the DE. It also
provides an independent view to the DE and the Shareholders on the status of the
project and the suggested actions to be taken by the Project team.
All Shareholders are invited to participate in key reviews as part of the annual
assurance review planning.
Pre-DG4 Assurance
Up to DG4 the Assurance of all Projects with a total estimated Capex above $100mln is
vested in a Decision Review Board (DRB), chaired by the Decision Executive (DE) with
representation from UEOD, and other Asset Directorates and Functional Directorates.
The DRB endorses the Project Control and Assurance Plan (PCAP) and the DecisionBased Roadmap, and advises the DE on key decisions; especially the decision to
proceed with a project to the next phase. The DE holds single point accountability.
In addition, the DRB:
Assigns Resources
Reviews key project documents and activities (e.g. Risk Management Plan)
Ensures all stakeholders remain fully aware of key issues and project progress.
Provides a forum for the BOM and Project Manager to seek help in resolving
issues.
DRB1, chaired by the TD for all projects with a total estimated CAPEX above
$200mln (i.e. all projects in CPD). UCI is the secretary of DRB1 pre-DG4.
DRB2, chaired by the Asset Director, for projects with a total CAPEX above
$100mln and less than $200mln. The DRB composition and frequency of DRB
meetings is defined by the DE. Minutes are taken by a nominated secretary
from the Asset.
The pre-DG4 assurance process for smaller projects shall take place within the existing
Asset Management structure. Projects with CAPEX less than $100mln can also be
covered by a DRB2 if justified by the risk profile or strategic nature of the project.
Page 18
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Verifies compliance with and approves deviations from the Project Control and
Assurance Plan (PCAP).
Monitors progress on audit and review actions follow-up and closure, including
those from VAR4 and Project Execution Reviews.
Ensures all stakeholders remain fully aware of key issues and project progress.
Provides a forum for the Project Manager to seek help in resolving issues.
While the DE has single point accountability, other DRB members retain shared
ownership for the quality of the decisions.
The DRB structure in PDO recognises two levels:
DRB1, for projects with total CAPEX of more than $200mln (i.e. all projects in
CPD) with TD as DE. Other DRB1 members include the Asset Director (deputy
DE), UEOD, and other Asset and Functional Directorate representatives. UEP
is the secretary of DRB1 post DG4.
DRB2, for projects with total CAPEX of more than $100mln, but less than
$200mln with the Asset Director as DE. Other DRB2 members include
members of the Directorate Leadership Team, a UEP representative and an
Engineering Manager from a different Directorate. The latter to ensure cross
asset exchange of learnings and challenge. Minutes are taken by a nominated
secretary from the Asset.
Page 19
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The Value Assurance Review (VAR) process is owned by the Petroleum Engineering
Directorate (UPD) and coordinated via Value Assurance Advisor (UPV). VARs provide
key Project Assurance prior to decision gates.
VARs shall be held for all projects in excess of $100mln towards the end of each ORP
phase. The VAR provides independent assurance to the DE that the opportunity is
ready to proceed to the next phase.
The Estimate and Schedule Assurance Review (ESAR) process is owned by the
Functional Head of Project Services (UEP3). ESARs provide independent assurance
that the project cost estimate and schedule accurately represent the project scope and
risks to project delivery are compliant with ORP requirements.
ESARs are held prior to VARs and are mandatory for the following projects:
Page 20
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
5.1
The early phases (until the end of Define) of the project are the opportunity for Value Creation.
This is where the Value Improvement Practices (VIPs) should be applied and attention given to
producing quality deliverables. The Execute phase focuses on Safeguarding the Value.
Page 21
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Concept Engineering
Support: UEP2
Concept Engineering is the pre-DG3 engineering activity in support of Project
Development and is closely integrated with the subsurface Field Development Planning
for Oil & Gas developments. Key deliverables are as per the Discipline Control and
Assurance Framework (DCAF, see section 9.1), and the Project Specific Control and
Assurance Plans (PCAPs). The main deliverables are summarized below per ORP
phase:
Identify
Assess
Select
Decision-Based Roadmap
Level 1 CES
Stakeholder Engagement
Plan
Stakeholder Engagement
Plan
Ranked Decision Criteria/
Value Drivers
ALARP Demonstration
Execution and Contracting
Strategy
Preliminary PEP/PES
Level 2 Cost Estimate and
Schedule
Basis for Design
(*Except for infrastructure projects)
Concept Engineering will take place in the Asset and Infrastructure Directorate Concept
teams for small and conventional projects, whilst unconventional (EOR and Sour) and
major projects with an estimated Capex in excess of $200mln will take place in the
Central Concept Team.
PDO concept engineers can receive technical support from a Concept Engineering
Services Contractor (CESC) as appropriate. This provides a means to get Third Party
Support for niche applications where the capability and / or capacity are not available
within PDO or the CESC contractor. Management of the CESC contract takes place
within the Central Concept Team with UEP2T as Contractor Holder and CFDH Concept
as Contract Owner.
The Field Development Plan (FDP) and Basis for Design (BFD) are key deliverables of
the Select phase. Since the FDP will usually be completed before the Concept Select
Report (CSR) is finalised, it is recommended that the Subsurface Team engage with
Page 22
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
the DRB at completion of FDP to obtain approval for the FDP, prior to the stage gate
approval that is DG3(a), to allow completion of the CSR and commencement of the
BFD.
Page 23
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
provide a sound technical basis for the Execution Phase (Detailed Design,
Procurement and Construction) with minimal uncertainties;
provide a basis for a Cost Estimate with +15% / -10% accuracy (Level 3);
During the FEED all assurance reviews to meet technical integrity shall 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 at
platforms).
An update of the Risk and Opportunity Management Plan shall be made shortly after
kick-off of the FEED phase and a risk register maintained during the Define phase 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 (see section 5.3).
It is important to have PDO approved facilitators/leaders for HAZID, Design Review,
HAZOP, IPF and Value Engineering. It is the responsibility of the Project Engineer to
ensure close out of all action items resulting from various reviews and maintain the
records for the same.
The FEED shall deliver a Project Specification which will require only addition of
vendor specific information and construction related details. For a detailed list of
deliverables and activities to be covered in FEED reference is made to the list of
deliverables in DCAF. 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, shall be avoided. All interfaces with vendor packages
shall be finalised to avoid major changes during Detailed Design. The FEED shall also
ensure that all PDO Environmental and Sustainable Development requirements are
met.
A HOLDS list shall be maintained and any residual holds shall be transferred to the
Project Team for management through the execution phase.
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.
Page 24
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
5.2
Page 25
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
All other projects shall have their own specific Project Execution Plan. Note that the
PEP is scalable depending on the size and complexity of the Project.
5.3
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.
The development of the Risk Register, Risk Management Plan and RAM is the
responsibility of the Project Manager. These deliverables are owned by the Business
Opportunity Manager, and endorsed by the Decision Executive.
Page 26
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Operations Readiness
Support: UOP4
Operations Readiness (OR) is a focused, proactive and systematic approach to
successful commissioning, start up and normal operation of a new facility.
The Operations Readiness process in PDO is detailed in PR-1612 - Operations
Readiness
The purpose of OR is to assist Operations and Engineering 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 Project Manager 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.
5.5
Flawless Project Delivery (FPD), which is mandatory for all projects >$100mln.
Total Reliability (TR) and Technical Integrity (TI) (CP-114 - Maintenance &
Integrity Management Code of Practice)
Management of Change
Support: UEP3
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 throughout the Select and Define phases 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 contractor to another (or 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 adopt the Management of Change (MOC) procedure PR1247. The
procedure:
Page 27
Describes the process for controlling and managing technical change during the
concept definition and execute phases of PDO projects.
Sets out a series of key Baseline Value Drivers (BVD) for the projects which
shall be developed during conceptual Select phase and approved by the DRB at
Decision Gate 3 (DG3). If a change occurs through DEFINE an updated set of
BVDs are approved at DG4. These Value drivers are normally captured in the
CP-117 Project Engineering Code of Practice
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Field Development Plan, the Concept Select Report, the Basis for Design and
the Project Specification
Sets up the Change Review Panel consisting of senior project personnel that
meets regularly and acts as the Stage Gate screening and approval body for
change impact. The Panel will review every Level 3/2/1 change proposal and
ensure that all implications of the change are considered before being accepted
or rejected. Periodically, the Panel reviews the list of Level 4 change proposals.
The Project Change Coordinator (usually appointed from Project Services) maintains
the Project Management of Change process.
Page 28
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The PEP, Risk and Opportunity Management and Management of Change (as described in
Section 5) continue to be applied and updated during the Execute phase, while the Operations
Readiness becomes increasingly important.
6.1
Detailed Design
Support: UEP
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. For deliverables to be produced in this phase
refer to SP-1134 - General Specification for Detailed Design and Engineering of Oil and
Gas Facilities.
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 PDOs satisfaction.
It is important that minimum changes are made to basic schemes, philosophies,
material, strategies etc in the Detailed Design. Any such changes shall be subject to
rigorous Change Control.
When the Detailed Design deliverables are developed to a reasonable level of detail, a
Constructability Review shall be done with participation from experienced construction
personnel. 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 will be required. For
major or complex projects, the benefits of 4D modelling should be evaluated.
During the Design the contractor will be expected to set up a Material 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 complex projects early commissioning planning
input is required in the Front End phase of the project, as the commissioning by
systems may determine the packaging of the facilities scope in FEED and subsequent
execution phases.
Page 29
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
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), 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.
6.2
Procurement
Support: FPO
The Procurement phase may begin before Detailed Design, particularly for Long Lead
materials and equipment. However, the other procurement will commence during the
Detailed Design phase and continue into Construction.
Procurement is discussed in more detail in Section 7 and the Quality Assurance and
Control aspects are discussed in Section 9.
6.3
Construction
Construction Definition
Support: UEP
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. 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:
Page 30
specialised
installation/construction
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Commissioning and Start-up (CSU) Team for live commissioning , start up and
operations.
Construction Objectives
Support: UEP
Safety: To design and 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.
Cost: To execute the project within budget and to continuously look for the
most cost effective implementation options.
Local Content: To meet the Project local content requirements and support
the development of local capability.
Construction Planning
Support: UEP3
For reliable project execution planning a Level IV Detailed Construction Schedule shall
be prepared soon after the start of the detailed design. This level IV 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. It is vital that a Level IV
Schedule is 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 IV plan is an indication of poor project planning and
control and delays and re-work can be anticipated.
The Level IV Schedule is used by the Contractor in planning, executing and controlling
his work. A Level IV 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 be reporting against the following
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) weekly but certainly monthly:
Page 31
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
For the more complex projects the Contractor should also produce a Level V Schedule
which gets down to job card level (see below) and includes all the man-hours,
materials, tools and equipment needed to do a particular task.
For complex multidiscipline construction scope, particularly in large Brownfield type
projects it is good practice to plan the entire construction scope at Job Card or Job
Pack level. A Job Card or Job Pack would contain the following information:
Material requirements.
Scaffolding/Rigging support.
It is important when pre-qualifying construction contractors to make sure they have the
capability in terms of experienced personnel, systems, labour and equipment to
undertake the scope of work being requested.
As a tool to help manage construction safety risks, Shell has introduced a set of
Wisdom packs. These wisdom packs are intended to be used as a job hazard
checklist, specific for the upcoming work phase (e.g. trenching, pipe installation, cable
terminations).
Each sheet has links to applicable Control Framework manual sections, Life Saving
Rules guidance, typical do and dont examples, training material applicable to the
activity, typical risks/hazards associated with the activity and cross-business
information related to the activity.
Sheets are developed for activities in both the construction and fabrication sites and
will be updated on an ongoing basis as deemed necessary.
Mechanical Completion
Support: UEP
Mechanical completion 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 mechanical completion
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.
Mechanical completion will be documented on check sheets known as A check sheets,
which will be generated and managed by the Completions and Certification
Management System (CCMS) to ensure that asset integrity can be verified and
demonstrated. On achievement of mechanical completion, responsibility for the facility
will transfer from those responsible for construction to those responsible for precommissioning and commissioning.
Page 32
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Pre-Commissioning
Support: UEP
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 by
CCMS 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 Permit to Work (PTW) System activated.
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 Teams responsibility - see SP-2051 - Specification for
Flushing, Pressure Testing, Pickling and Sensitive Leak Testing of Mechanical
Equipment and Piping.
6.4
Commissioning
Support: UEP, UOP4
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 shall normally be executed by specialist contractors and
supported by the commissioning personnel.
The Commissioning Start-up (CSU) Team will start up and operate the nonhydrocarbon 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
Page 33
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Pre-Start-up Audit
Support: UEP, UEQ, UOP4
For all projects, a pre-Start-up Audit (PSUA) shall be carried out prior to introduction of
hydrocarbons. The PSUA shall be carried out by an independent Function-led review
team, including representation from Operations, Engineering and HSE. UOP is the
process owner for PSUA and co-ordinates all PSUAs in PDO. The audit shall verify key
items such as:
Asset Integrity Process Safety (AI-PS) requirements have been met and a
Statement of Fitness has been signed;
HSE-MS is in place.
The Pre-Start-up Audit will be used to demonstrate the operational readiness of the
facilities and systems.
Page 34
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
6.5
Fixed Assets Created, Fixed Assets Made Redundant & Fixed Assets Data
Acceptance.
WBS Level 4 and 5 Close Out (including Design project close out).
Complete project file with all project data in the correct data format.
In addition, for all projects >$20mln, the Project Engineer shall produce a formal
Project Close-out Report, detailing the above aspects and any relevant lessons
learned.
Page 35
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Contracting
Minor Tender Board limit for Goods Procurement above $130k and for Services
above USD 50k to maximum of $2.5mln except for Government Gas
requirements the maximum limit is $650k.
Major Tender Board for all proposals above $2.5mln except for Government Gas
requirements above $650k.
It is important that Ethics is maintained throughout the entire Contracts process and in
accordance with GU-529 Statement of General Business Principles..
The Project team mandate is to ensure that all essential internal as well as external
project specific approvals are obtained in time to meet the planned project delivery
schedule.
Following is a summary table of MTBC approval requirements. For full procedural
details please refer to PR1233 Contract & Procurement Procedure..
Contrac
t Stage
Pre Tender
Contract Strategies
Tender
Period
Referral Requirement
Technical Disqualification
Tender Lists
Company Estimate
Page 36
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Commercial Clarifications
Contract Award
Contrac
t Stage
Referral Requirement
Failed Tender and CallIn the Tender Bond
Negotiation results
Contract Awards
Contract
Execution
Variations to Contract
Changes
Page 37
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Activitie
s
Identif
y
Assess
Select
** General
Market
Analysis up
to date /
revised.
** Identify major
factors that influence
the project Execution
strategy.
** Identify
standardization and
repeatability
opportunities across
the project portfolio
including category
options.
** Identify ICV
opportunities
Define
Execute
** Assign Project CP
support personnel.
** Award Contract(s).
** Develop Project
Contracting Strategy aligned
with project drivers including
standardization and
repeatability opportunities.
** Advice on resolution of
contractual issues/ claims.
** Proactive contractor
management managed at all
levels.
** Claims management
Page 38
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Operates
** Implement CP
Transition Plan.
** Provide input into
Project close-out report
and Lessons Learned.
** Maintain all project
warranties.
Delivera
bles
Page 39
Assess
** CP Objectives
and CP
Assessment of
feasible concept
under
consideration.
Select
** Pre-Award Contracting
Activities clearly defined
and dates allocated.
** Project resourced.
** Governance in place.
** Project
Category
Assessment (to be
finalized after
Contracting
Strategy
Workshop).
Define
** Project Contracting &
Procurement Strategy.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Execute
** Execute Contract(s).
** Contract Management
Documentation and Close out
Plan for major contracts.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Operates
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Contract Owner:
o
Should at all times be aware of HSE and Quality issues in each contract.
Contract Engineer.
o
It is mandatory for all Contract Holders & Contract Owners to attend the
Contract Holdership Course and to get assessed and certified for competency.
The Contract Holder shall nominate the Company Representative and the
Company Site Representative if required. The responsibilities delegated to
them shall be well defined in writing and the Contractor shall be informed of the
same.
Page 40
The Contract Holder shall prepare the pre & post contract plan & schedule.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The top five solution attributes or objectives that the project will strive
to achieve referred to as the Value Drivers (and derived from the
Project Drivers).
Selection of Tenderers
o
The Contract Holder shall seek Tender Board endorsement of the selected
Tenderers.
The Tender & Contract documents are prepared by the Contract Holder
and Contract Engineer.
Tender Period
o
Page 41
all
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
The Contract Holder has to ensure that all Technical queries from
Tenderers are clarified.
The Contract Holder has to prepare the Technical Evaluation Model and
the Contract Engineer has to prepare the Commercial Evaluation Model.
Tender Evaluation
o
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The Contract Holder carries out the Technical Evaluation and the Contract
Engineer carries out the Commercial Evaluation. Results of evaluation with
award recommendation are to be presented to Tender Board for
endorsement.
Mobilisation
o
Contract Holder has to ensure that the Kick-off meetings (Internal &
External) are held.
Execution
o
The Contract Holder has to manage the progress of the work, the
performance of the Contractor and has to be competent in identifying &
managing contract risks and claims.
The Contract Holder has to monitor spend against approved contract value
(ACV) and timely address MTBC in case of foreseeable overspend.
The Contract Holder has to minimise the changes in contract and claims.
For contract above $10M the Contract Holder has to ensure that Annual
Reviews are prepared and presented to Tender Board.
Page 42
On completion of the contract, the Contract Holder has to ensure that the
Completion certificates, the Site Restoration Certificates and the Final
Account are issued, As-Built drawings & data are received from the
contractor and the Contract Holder has to prepare the final performance
report of the contractor.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
7.2
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Procurement
Support: FPO
Procurement of both materials and services are covered in PR-1233 - Contracting and
Procurement Procedure.
There are four Procurement Options that a project may decide to adopt as part of its
procurement strategy, namely:
1. EPC Projects: Contractor is fully responsible for all aspects of projects
procurement requirements. In this case, PDO involvement is limited to
providing technical support and other relevant clarifications on the materials
requirements.
However, PDO may decide (depending on the approved contracting strategy)
to place the Purchase Orders (POs) of the long lead items then novate the
POs to the EPC Contractor at the award time.
In addition, PDO may opt to Tender the long lead items during the pre-award
phase then handover, at post award, the Tender to the EPC Contractor who
places and manages the PO. In all cases management fees for placing the PO
are included in the EPC Lump-Sum Price.
2. EpC (small p) Projects: This is similar to option 1 but PDO is responsible for
procurement of the critical items. For this type of work, PDO shall arrange
procurement of such materials and free issue to the contractor for installation
as appropriate.
3. EMC/ODC Projects: Contractor performs procurement on behalf of PDO. For
this type of jobs, the respective contractor is expected to use PDO SAP/IX2
systems to perform both the Sourcing (Tender) and Procurement of materials.
PDO will pay the material supplier (not the contractor) directly after the
successful processing of goods receipting in SAP. Good receipting and
transportation of materials to contractors storage sites or work locations will be
done via PDOs nominated LSP (Logistics Service Provider).
4. Stock and Project specific items: PDO C&P Organisation performs the
procurement. This is mainly for standard or project specific items that need to
be stored at PDO logistics warehouses, prior to being (free) issued to
contractors. For stock items, the project pays for the material at the time of
goods issue to the project, while ordering of materials as project items
requires upfront payment by project at time of goods receipting.
Page 43
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Inventory Management
Support: FPC3
CP-193 - Inventory Management provides a mandatory set of guidelines pertaining to
stock levels determinations to ensure that PDO inventory levels are maintained at an
appropriate level consistent with both Company and accounting policies and required
customer service levels.
DEP 70.10.90.11 Gen Spare Parts provides guidelines for the management of
spares. In PDO, all commissioning & insurance spares shall be treated as Property,
Plant & Equipment and orders placed by project under CAPEX. Initial and normal
operation spares shall be ordered under stock account as OPEX and users will be
charged on consumption basis.
Logistics Services
Support: UWL
Logistics services comprise the following:
water
haulage,
With the exception of materials storage & handling (warehousing) and some coastal
driving activities, all logistics services are contracted out. Logistics employees in UWL
are responsible for managing and monitoring these contracts. The contractors are
responsible for executing the logistics services in accordance with PDOs contract
terms and conditions. Materials storage and handling is managed directly by Logistics,
although warehouse/yard labour resources are contracted out.
More details on Logistics can be found in CP-132 - Logistics Services - CoP.
Page 44
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
All cargo haulage and related activities, such as Rig moves and all EMC-ODC
materials transportation are channelled into the 4PL by default. For all those services
not covered within 4PL scope, customers have to obtain a waiver by filling in a waiver
form available on the Logistics website and get it signed by the Logistics CFDH unless
otherwise stated in any other project strategy development.
Page 45
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
8 Project Services
Support: UEP3
Project Services will provide resources, processes, systems and tools 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 our project teams.
Effective controls that manage the work and show where we are and future
possibilities.
Useful close-out processes that capture the lessons and data for future
improvement.
Baselined cost and schedule that enables active change management; impact
of changes to be communicated and understood.
The CFDH for Project Services is the TA1 for the above areas and is responsible for
the setting and maintenance of the associated standards and processes. Once their
competence is proven, the TA1 appoints TA2s who sign off all their Project Services
documents specified as such in DCAF.
Project teams are required to have the above subject areas covered as appropriate to
the current project phase, with suitably competent staff, either directly or as part of a
matrix, as agreed with the CFDH.
Depending on the organisational make up of the project team, responsibility for
Information Management may also reside with Project Services on a day to day basis,
while under the overall management of the Engineering and Operations Information
Management office (UEPI), as described in section 11.
8.1
transparent with regard to understanding the critical path and the possible
impact of project risks;
owned by the Project Team and approved by their Decision Review Board
(DRB); and
Projects should develop an integrated schedule during the Assess phase, which will be
refined as the project progresses through Select and Define. It should be based on
Page 46
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
appropriate lower level schedules and used as the basis for all progress measurement
plans and reports. It should reflect all project activities needed to realise the project
objectives at the appropriate level of detail.
It is essential that the basis on which any schedule is made is clearly defined and
recorded, so that any consideration of the schedule is in the context of these
qualifications. In particular, decision makers should be made fully aware of any
limitations or risks inherent in such plans.
Definitions
Planning: Laying out the course of action, including all interfaces, studies, surveys,
reviews, decisions, approvals etc, to achieve the desired objective.
Scheduling: Incorporating time and resources into the plan to form a schedule network
from which control mechanisms can be derived.
Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): A deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition
of the work to be executed by the project team to accomplish the project objectives and
create the required deliverables.
identify the activity types that need to be done on each of the assets (concept
definition, design, procure etc);
map the activities and assets to identify unique activities that need to be
managed;
define work packages for these individual activities (e.g. design compressors)
or groupings of them (e.g. design topsides); and
The design of the WBS should be a collaborative effort between the Project Engineers,
Project Services, Supply Chain and Finance as these parties have a vested interest in
ensuring that the WBS is adequate to meet their needs for planning, monitoring and
control.
Other factors that may influence the design of the WBS are the:
o
granularity of cost data required for asset definition in the financial system.
PDO will develop local standard WBS templates that are suited to the type of projects
executed. Use of standard WBS templates, where possible, facilitates the comparison
and benchmarking.
Page 47
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Schedule Development
Previous similar project plans and templates may be used to help develop a new
project schedule. The normal steps in developing a schedule are:
Planning Levels
Schedules for controlling and monitoring large projects are produced to different levels
of detail.
Level 1 Summary Schedule (also called Project Management Schedule)
Includes the main functional activities (e.g. design, procurement, fabrication,
construction, commission) for the total duration of the project for the main hardware
items (onshore plant, pipelines) as well as significant business activities (e.g.
approvals, strategy formation, marketing etc) and any key milestones (e.g. FID, first
production).
This level of schedule usually fits on a single page and is often used in project status
reports as a simple tool for conveying overall schedule status. This level of schedule is
not detailed enough to show the true critical path but often a high-level, simplified
depiction of the critical path will be shown on this schedule to help communicate which
elements of the project the critical path runs through.
Level 2 Integrated Master Schedule
This is a network-driven schedule, which breaks the project down by phase and
elements and identifies the contractor interfaces. The critical path should be made
visible and major milestones should be identified. This schedule sets the framework for
detailed schedules and resource scheduling.
Level 3 Detailed Integrated Schedules for Major Project Phases
Separate Level 3 schedules are typically prepared for the major phases of a project,
such as engineering and procurement, construction and system testing, and
commissioning, start-up and performance testing.
This level of schedule provides a more detailed representation of the activities,
interfaces and milestones involved within these phases of the project and is better
suited for monitoring progress versus plan. Often this level of schedule is maintained
by the owner, as the owner is in the best position to fully appreciate the interfaces of
the various owner and contractor resources, and the involvement of the owner and
partner organisations in such things as approvals and operations support and
handover.
Levels 4 and 5 Work Lists and Detailed Schedules
These levels of detailed planning and scheduling usually lie within the contractors
domain and are used for planning, executing and controlling the contractors work.
They are used for detailed planning, such as the scheduling of work to be implemented
during a plant shutdown or the scheduling of work in a fabrication yard. These detailed
Page 48
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
schedules may consist of thousands of activities and are typically updated at least
weekly and in some cases daily.
Optimisation
The project management software also provides the functionality to evaluate options
for accelerating the schedule, using techniques such as crashing and fast tracking.
The impact of resource constraints can also be evaluated using techniques such as
resource levelling. The project team should be closely involved in any such schedule
optimisation exercise to ensure that the schedule stays grounded in reality.
Risk Analysis
Schedule risk analysis is used to evaluate and communicate the possible range of
schedule outcomes taking into account the impact of project opportunities and risks.
The basic premise of schedule risk analysis is that the project team estimates not only
the most likely activity durations, but also the likely range of activity durations based on
the identified project opportunities and risks. These likely ranges of activity durations
are then modelled using the scheduled risk analysis software. The software uses Monte
Carlo simulation techniques to predict the expected (~P50) activity durations, as well
as the P10 and P90 durations (see 8.3.5).
This allows the project team to consider and communicate a range of possible project
schedule outcomes instead of just a single schedule outcome. This analysis also helps
the team evaluate what risk mitigation and avoidance strategies and tactics can be
used to improve the chances of a desirable schedule outcome.
Any schedule risk analysis should be carried out before cost risk analysis. This is
because schedule drives cost and not vice versa. The standard software that PDO has
selected for schedule risk analysis is Primavera Risk (previously Pertmaster).
Schedule risk analysis shall be carried out for all projects >$100mln.
Page 49
the project objectives are clearly stated and understood by those preparing the
schedule (e.g. project policies, strategies, philosophies, objectives and
constraints);
there is an appropriate WBS for the project and it has been used as the basis
for organising the schedule. The WBS is logical and it avoids overlapping
activities;
CP-117 Project Engineering Code of Practice
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
the project scope and the basis for the schedule development are well defined
and documented;
the overall project duration and key activity durations are benchmarked against
Company (and, if required, external) experience;
key resource constraints (e.g. drilling rigs/ shutdowns) have been considered in
the schedule development, including shutdown timings;
the resulting critical path is logical and correct. The activities just off the critical
path (e.g. activities with less than 1 month of float) have been evaluated to
determine how small changes in their durations or logic could impact the
critical path;
several key interim milestones have been identified so that they can be used
during the life of the project to aid in progress measurement;
a schedule risk analysis has been performed and is closely linked to the key
risks in the project risk register;
representatives from all segments of the project team are involved in the
schedule development;
A formal Estimate and Schedule Assurance Review (ESAR) shall be completed prior
(3-4 weeks) to VAR 3 for all projects with a total Capex greater than $200mln (including
drilling), and at least prior to VAR 4 for projects with a Capex larger than $100mln.
Page 50
integrate the new project activities with the other approved activities to be
executed on the asset, taking account of resource constraints; and
CP-117 Project Engineering Code of Practice
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Primavera P6 allows all the activities on an Asset to be integrated into one plan.
8.2
Cost Estimating
Support: UEP32
Capex Estimates
The quality of an estimate is largely determined by the following:
the associated risks and opportunities of the project should be recognised and
reflected in the estimate;
complete and correct local cost data, at an appropriate level of detail, should
be available covering:
o
equipment;
bulk materials;
import restrictions;
All estimates should correspond to the requirements for the ORP stage and the defined
accuracy levels, which are highlighted in the below table.
ORP
Stage
Type
Accuracy
Engineering prepared
(target)
DG1
DG2
0
1
+40%/-25%
+25%/-20%
DG3
Preliminary 2
Final 2
+20%/-15%
+20%/-15%
3
4
+15%/-10%
+10%/-5%
DG4
Page 51
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Any estimate that is classified as Type 3 should for at least 70% of the build-up be
supported by costs coming from Frame Agreements, Bids, Quotes, etc. to secure the
robustness at DG4. Only a Type 3 estimate endorsed by the Technical Authority (TA) is
suitable for a Budget proposal, request or award.
Indentify
& Assess
DG1
Identify
& Assess
DG2
Select
DG3a
Select
DG3b
Define
DG4
Execute
Estimate
Type
Purpose of
estimate
Type 0
Type 1
Type 2
(initial)
Type 2 (final)
Type 3
Type 4
Identify
opportunity
Compare
opportunity
Select option
Budget
proposal or
TB Contract
Award
Changes
Estimating
Tool
Cost
Contingency
CES +
cookbooks
CES +
cookbooks
Capco$t
Costs
aligned with
BfD go
forward to
FEED
Capco$t
Contractor
quotes
Contract
data
TECOP
TECOP
TECOP
Concept/
Process Eng
Concept/
Process Eng
Project/
Function
Estimator
ESAR Peer
TECOP,
Proby
>$100
Project/
Function
Estimator
ESAR4
>$50mln
Function
TA2
TECOP
Estimated by
TECOP,
Proby
>$100
Project/
Function
Estimator
ESAR3
>$ 200mln
Function
AT2
Assurance
NA
NA
Project/
DCAF
Asset TA2
endorsement
Table: Estimate overview preparation & assurance
Project
Estimator
Project
estimator
Project/
Asset TA2
Please note project teams must schedule their assurance reviews at least 3 months in
advance with the UEP/3 Function.
Page 52
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Contingency
EPC Premium
Inflator (Escalation)
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 Cost Reference Date (CRD).
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 UEP/32 in the Programme Build guidelines.
Page 53
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
later project stages as the scope definition and execution strategies become more
mature.
All estimates including type Updated 2 shall be subject to a deterministic cost risk
assessment covering the Technical, Economics, Commercial, Organisation and
Political (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 type 3 & 4 estimates with cost larger than $100mln 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.
Page 54
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project Controls
Introduction
The key focus areas of Project Controls are
Management of Costs;
Management of Progress;
Management of Change;
Project Reporting;
Project Closeout;
Management of Resources.
Management of Cost
Support: UEP32
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, 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:
Page 55
Cash flow forecasts, based on the expenditure phasing taking due account of
the payment conditions.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Management of Progress
Support: UEP31
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.
The basic requirements on schedule (or cost) control are:
Although schedule control is most prominent after Final Investment Decision (FID), it is
also required in earlier phases when significant time is consumed and promises (e.g.
on the FID date) are already made.
Management of Change
Support: UEP3
Management of Change is a key activity in Project Controls and is described in Section
5.5.
All projects >$US50 million will adopt the Management of Change (MOC) procedure
PR1247.
The procedure:
Page 56
Describes the process for controlling and managing technical change during
the concept definition and execute phases of PDO projects.
Sets out a series of key Baseline Value Drivers (BVD) for the projects which
shall be developed during conceptual Select phase and approved by the DRB
at Decision Gate 3 (DG3). If a change occurs through DEFINE an updated set
of BVDs are approved at DG4. These Value drivers are normally captured in
the Field Development Plan, the Concept Select Report, the Basis for Design
and the Project Specification
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Sets up the Change Review Panel consisting of senior project personnel that
meets regularly and acts as the Stage Gate screening and approval body for
change impact. The Panel will review every Level 3/2/1 change proposal and
ensure that all implications of the change are considered before being
accepted or rejected. Periodically, the Panel reviews the list of Level 4 change
proposals.
Support: UEP31
Risk and Opportunity Management is a key activity in Project Controls and is described
in Section 5.3.
Risk Management involves the identification of the risks and opportunities on the
project and ensures that the risk levels are kept as low as practicable (ALARP) and that
the opportunities are exploited to the fullest.
The process includes:
o
A risk work shop at a predefined stage of the project to identify the risks and
opportunities,
Assessing the severity of risks against the Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM a
two dimensional grid of scaled probability and impact for the various
consequences)
Reviewing the risks for mitigation actions and the possibility of utilising
opportunities,
Periodically reassessing the risk register and communicating the status to the
stakeholders
The risk management plan or the Project Execution Plan should explain in detail how
Risk Management will be conducted by the specific project.
The information held in the Risk Register will be used as the inputs to the quantitative
(probabilistic) cost/ schedule risk analysis and to ensure more realistic targets are set.
The development and maintaining of the Risk Management Plan, Risk Register and the
RAM are the responsibility of the Project Manager.
Reporting
Support: UEP31, UEP32
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 Large (>$50mln) and Major (>$200mln) projects, the project team shall issue a
progress report on a monthly basis, including a Project One Pager that shall be stored
on Project Livelink. All reports must be approved by the project manager before issue.
For specific Flagship Shell projects, each quarter the Shell Business One templates
shall be completed and loaded into the Shell system.
Page 57
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
8.4
Project Assurance
Programme Build
Support: UEP3
All projects provide input to the Programme Build each year. Project teams must
ensure their schedule, costs and resources are realistic and achievable and that their
updates are in line with the Programme Build cost assumptions (Escalation, Exchange
rates and Market factors). For major projects >$US200M 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 years Programme Build by the Asset and Project
teams:
Page 58
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
9 Quality Assurance
Support: UEQ
PDOs requirements for Quality
Management Policy PL-15 and;
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).
SP-1122 - Project Quality Assurance Plans: Details the 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 Companys 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 BOM/PM/PE has overall responsibility for quality and its implementation at every
stage of the project. The BOM/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 (see CP-190, sections 2.4, 2.6, 2.7),
underpinned by level 3, 4 documents / deliverables.
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;
Page 59
Ensuring that project quality requirements are addressed and included within
the PEP; CP-190 Appendix 1, 2 and 4. SP-1122.
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 PDOs 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. CP-190 section 2.3, 2.6 and
2.8.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
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.
Page 60
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
9.1
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Discipline Standards (DS): Defining the controls and Tools of a discipline, these
have been defined by the Functions (CFDH). CFDH is responsible for the
discipline standards, local rules and appointment of Technical authorities.
Discipline Authority Manual (DAM): A list which records who can sign what.
Reference SP-2061 - Technical Authority System.
Project / Asset Controls and Assurance Plan (PCAP / ACAP) template: A plan
listing, of what needs to be quality assured and controlled.
Each Discipline has a Standard (DS), which lists the decisions and deliverables that the
Discipline head contributes to in each phase of the Opportunity Realisation Process
(ORP), plus the required authority-level for sign off for the Discipline decisions and
deliverables in a precise and auditable manner.
Page 61
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
There is no pre-ordained scaling in DCAF. Controls and tools for each discipline have been
base-lined by the Functions (CFDH), but scaling / applicability is left to the Project or Asset, as
ultimate accountability for Controls and Assurance resides with the line of site of that project or
Asset.
The Business Opportunity Manager (BOM), Project Manager (PM) or Asset Manager (AM),
dependent on phase/gate, is responsible for the full day-to-day management of the Opportunity
(Project) or Asset and is responsible (supported by disciplines) for the PCAP/ACAL framing and
maintenance. The BOM/PM/AM or delegate uses the standard PDO template to draw up the
PCAP/ACAL (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 (ATA) for an overall decision or deliverable to a single
discipline (Competence based Technical Authority SP2061) whilst recognizing that the
contribution from other disciplines (responsibilities, RTA) may be a control in their own right,
finally DCAF acknowledges that other disciplines may have an impact and therefore may need
to be consulted and/or informed (C/I).
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 Signs off 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 sign-off 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 Standard is
properly implemented.
C/I - Most Decisions and Deliverables are multi-disciplinary, signing as being consulted and/or
informed states that you have read the document and any known discrepancies, impacts have
been highlighted and discussed with the RTA/ATA.
PCAP/ACAL adherence will be required to be submitted to the DRB at each DG in order to
proceed to the next gate. Where controls have not been achieved, the BOM, PM, AM 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.
Page 62
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
10 HSE in Projects
10.1 Introduction
Support: MSE4
Getting HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) right in projects means identifying the
risks, managing them, and being able to demonstrate that they are under control. To
do so, the right organisation, plans and resources need to be in place.
The business expectation for effective management of HSE risks and opportunities is
set out in the PDO HSE Policy (PL-04) and supporting HSE Management System
(CP-122). In practice this involves working to deliver benefits and reduce impacts
through our operations. Meeting this commitment requires a particular mindset: one
where we balance short and long term interests; integrate economic, environmental
and social considerations into business decisions; and regularly engage with our many
stakeholders.
An HSE Technical Authority must be appointed by the Project Manager. He or she
shall establish, maintain and execute the appropriate HSE studies and/or activities in
order to adequately identify, assess, and document the HSE risks of the project, in line
with the HSE Management System (CP-122).
It is important to recognise that the HSE Function and Technical Safety Engineering
Discipline do not operate in isolation from the Project Team, the existing Asset team or
the wider community in which the Project is operating. Integration of the HSE
Technical Authority into the Project Team is essential to ensure that risks and
opportunities are identified and managed early.
The activities and deliverables required to ensure that HSE risks and opportunities are
appropriately managed will vary depending on the Project. The following table lists the
mandatory HSE activities for every project.
Page 63
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Identify
Assess
Select
Define
Execute
Identify
an
HSE
Technical Authority
Confirm/identify HSE
Technical Authority
Confirm/identify HSE
Technical Authority
Confirm/identify HSE
Technical Authority
Confirm/identify HSE
Technical Authority
Include
HSE
contracting
procurement
in
&
Page 64
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
10.2 Application
Support: MSE4
The application of the full suite of HSE activities presented in DCAF is designed for
major capital projects. Some of the activities will not be applicable to smaller projects.
The HSE activities and deliverables shall be documented in the HSE Plan,
which shall ensure that the Project complies with the requirements of the HSE
Management System (CP-122) and with DCAF where appropriate.
All risks shall be identified as early as possible in the project. A Hazards and
Effects Register (refer to SP-2062) shall aid the active management of these
risks. throughout the design phases, such that they are reduced to tolerable
and ALARP levels at handover to the operators. HSE shall be integrated into
project decisions and associated project deliverables.
The FEED and Detailed Design shall be subject to a HAZOP (refer to PR1696) to formally and systematically assess the process hazards and a
subsequent IPF Classification (refer to DEP 32.80.10.10-Gen) to determine
the SIL of any identified instrumented protective functions.
Applicability
It is essential that at the beginning of each project phase, the Business Opportunity
Manager/Project Manager reviews the HSE activities with an HSE Technical Authority
to determine and agree on the studies and deliverables that are required, their timing
and scope as applicable to that Project. Not all the studies in DCAF will be applicable,
depending on the nature of the Project. The following may apply to some Projects:
Page 65
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project size/cost is not the major indicator of HSE scope; rather the key driver is the
exposure to specific HSE risks. For example, a small project within an existing plant
that cannot impact outside the existing fence-line may not require an Impact
Assessment.
This is not however always the case. Brownfield projects and a few plant modifications
may be small projects but they can often have complex HSE issues associated with
simultaneous operations (SIMOPS) layout, noise, additional effluent streams, etc.
Accelerated projects may combine project phases that will affect the timing and scope
of the HSE activities. For such cases, reduction of HSE scope should be regarded with
caution, as the company assurance requirements will remain.
Type C (judgement based) decisions are those involving hazards that may
create Societal Concerns.
Page 66
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 67
Identifying and documenting Severity Five and High Risk process hazards for
new and existing assets.
Verifying that Contract Holders monitor the HSE (Process Safety) requirements
of the contract that are relevant to the competence and fitness to work of
contractor staff.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Performing Pre-Start Up Audits (PSUA) for new assets and for modifications to
existing assets.
Statement of Fitness
The purpose of the Statement of Fitness is to uniformly and consistently ensure that
key Asset Integrity Process Safety activities and deliverables have been completed
and verified by competent persons ensuring that hydrocarbons can be introduced
safely with an acceptable level of risk (ALARP).
The Statement of Fitness is an asset level business record required by the PDO HSE
Management System (CP-122) and further defined in the PDO HSE Case specification
(SP-2062). For the majority of projects, it is included in the Operations HSE Case and
signed by the Asset Director, but may in some cases be a stand alone document as
shown in Table below.
The key elements identified for the Statement of Fitness are:
Process Safety Risks have been identified and documented and are managed
to ALARP;
The design and construction of new assets and modifications to existing assets
meet design and engineering requirements (DEM1);
Type
of
Statement
of
Fitness (SoF)
Business Control
Signatory
Frequency
New asset
Asset Director
Prior to introduction
hydrocarbons
of
Restart following
modifications
Asset Director
Prior to introduction
hydrocarbons
of
Operations Manager
behalf of Asset Director
Prior to introduction
hydrocarbons
of
on
Page 68
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 69
Permit To Work (PTW): The PDO Permit To Work system (refer to PR-1172)
shall be applied.
Avoid Tank Overfill Followed by Vapour Cloud Release: Identify all storage
tanks containing fluids that have the potential to overfill resulting in a vapour
cloud explosion and design safeguarding in accordance with DEP 34.51.01.31Gen. and DEP 32.80.10.10-Gen. Examples of such fluids are natural gas
liquids (condensates) and crude oils with a Reid Vapour Pressure RVP > 2.5
psi.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
In principal only companies in Green and Amber band shall be allowed to tender for
Medium and High risk contracts. In the case of Amber banded contractors, the
Contract Holder (CH) shall develop a strategy and plan for mitigating the shortfalls.
This shall identify extra costs to be incurred in mitigating the shortfalls, e.g. additional
PDO personnel, the possible decrease in HSE performance and the CH shall quantify
the increased exposure to PDO by taking on the contractor.
During the strategy phase, the contract mode shall be assessed. The contract mode
shall be set at mode 1, 2 or 3 in accordance with the following definitions:
Page 70
Mode 1 means the contractor operates within the PDOs HSE Management
System (HSE MS). The contractor provides people and tools for the execution
of the work under the supervision, instructions and PDO HSE MS. The
contractor has a Management System to provide assurance that the personnel
for whom they are responsible are qualified and healthy for the job and that the
tools and machinery they are providing are properly maintained and suitable
for the job.
Mode 2 means the contractor operates within its own HSE MS that interfaces
with the PDOs HSE MS and is required to report HSE performance data
including incidents to PDO. The contractor executes all aspects of the job
under its own HSE Management System, provides the necessary instructions
and supervision and verifies the proper functioning of its HSE MS. PDO is
responsible for verifying the overall effectiveness of the HSE management
controls put in place by the contractor, and assuring that both the PDOs and
the contractors HSE MS are appropriately compatible.
Mode 3 means the contractor operates within its own HSE MS that has no
interfaces with the PDOs HSE MS and is not required to report HSE
performance data including incidents to PDO. However, this does not exclude
the possibility that PDO may wish to guide and influence HSE performance
under the contract.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
11 Information Management
Support: UEPI
Designing and managing a project is a business activity that delivers two main assets,
the physical asset and the Information Asset
This Information Asset exists in 2 forms:
Data: to be manipulated by tools e.g. Spare Parts, Tag Register & Maintenance
Routines.
Proper implementation of Project IM achieves two main objectives and serves two
masters:
The Project Team: Support for the engineering processes that deliver the
physical asset (i.e. design, review, approval, and handover between phases)
The Information Asset is created in the same way as the Physical Asset and must be
designed, specified, implemented, controlled and handed over with the same attention
to detail and quality as the Physical Asset it represents. It will support commissioning,
start-up, maintenance, Operations, and future engineering activity, and is the
responsibility of the project team to deliver.
The recently (Q42010) established central Engineering and Operations Information
Management office (UEPI) sets the standards and processes to be used by projects,
and provides the resources, support and assurance to carry out these processes on
behalf of the project. Some of those resources will reside in a back office while
others will be co-located with the project team.
PDO engineering function has adopted an Information Management (IM) strategy that
delivers a common framework for IM practice in PDO based on Shell DEP 82.00.10.30Gen Engineering Information Specification (EIS)
This strategy, and the Document and Drawing Management requirements for Projects
are defined in the specifications SP-2065 - Document Management for Projects and
SP-2047 - Preparation & Content of Engineering Drawings.
The various tools used in Information management (which are a requirement for all
new projects) are:
Page 71
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 72
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
12 Finance in Projects
In PDO, the Finance contribution to projects is delivered through:
Page 73
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.
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
For Major stand alone 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 executed in the Line, 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:
Page 74
Budget Management
Management of Invoices
Manual Of Authorities
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The VIP is not merely a detailed review of some portion or aspect of a project.
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 VIPs will be used on any project is dependent on scale, but
all projects should discuss the following list with the Value Improvement Co-ordinator
(currently UEP2), who will advise which VIPs should be undertaken by the project, and
thus included in the Project Controls and Assurance Plan (PCAP). The main VIPs in
use in PDO are as follows:
Opportunity Framing
Lessons Learned
Value Engineering
Constructability
PEP-PER
The Value Improvement Coordinator 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.
Page 75
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
VAR3 / DG3
VAR4 / DG4
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, video story capture, 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.
Page 76
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project metrics (cost, schedule and first year production), compared to metrics
from projects (internal and external to PDO) of similar size and complexity.
Project Metrics
Project benchmarking assesses project metrics related to EP business priorities:
Effective Project Delivery - setting realistic schedule targets and meeting them.
The key metrics here are schedule duration and schedule slip (%).
Different projects should focus on different metrics: repeat projects should focus on
beating the performance of the competition, whilst first-off projects should focus on
delivering as per promise.
PDO faces the following special challenges with respect to benchmarking:
The unconventional and novel nature of its major projects, i.e. sour and steam
projects in a desert environment, without many regional or worldwide
analogues.
There are 3 different types of external benchmarking conducted at DG3, FID, and after
start-up.
Pacesetter
Prospective
Close Out
Pacesetter (DG3) benchmarking helps the team set define phase targets by providing
project definition status in the form of front end loading factors (reservoir, facilities, and
wells) and provides recommendations to close the gaps before FID. It also provides
performance information in cost & schedule.
Page 77
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 78
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Understand what
we are getting
into look wide
Whats feasible
options?
Divergent Thinking
IDENTIFY
@ ASSESS
Convergent Thinking
SELECT
Preliminary
TSreview
Implement the
opportunity
DEFINE
EXECUTE
OPERATE
CONTRACTORS
VENDORS
SUPPLIERS
FUNCTIONALITY vs
VALUE
OPERATING COSTS
AI-PSM & HSE ISSUES
CLIMATIC ISSUES
QUALITY OF
PRODUCT
Page 79
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
The Availability Assurance / Reliability VIP is tied to the project delivery schedule and is
the main control mechanism of the Project Team on the future availability performance
and Life Cycle Value of the facilities.
The Availability model is the red thread of the process which is carried through all
project phases to enable the assessment of the impact of proposed design changes
and to evaluate the impact of new information produced during the project
development. The Availability Assurance process is initiated during the Identify &
Assess or Select phase of a new project and continues in the subsequent phases.
13.7 Constructability
Support: UEP2
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.
13.8 PEP-PER
Support: UEP2
The Project Execution Planning using Project Execution Risk (PEP-PER) tool is a VIP
for evaluating and managing execution-specific risk in major projects from early in
Select with further follow-up in the Define phase. The VIP focuses on prevention of
major execution risks as well as mitigation of risk events that may occur.
13.9 LIRA
Support: UWL
The Logistics, Infrastructure and Resource Assessment tool is a VIP for evaluating and
managing logistics and infrastructure risks for capital projects. Further guidance can be
found in PG-19 Capital Project Logistics.
Page 80
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 81
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
15 Technical Standards
15.1 Technical Standards Framework
Support: UEP1
The PDO Engineering & Technical Standards hierarchy consists of the following
elements:
PL (Policy) - Statement of PDO's attitude in response to a business need provides the course of action stating intentions and principles Mandatory
DEP (Shell Design & Engineering Practice) - Sets the recommended standard
for good design and engineering practice and thereby achieves maximum
technical and economic benefit from standardisation. DEM1 denotes that the
DEP contains AI-PSM elements Mandatory when DEP is specified.
PDO baseline standards are detailed on wall chart GU-611 - PDO Guide to Engineering
Standards and Procedures. This wall chart represents the starting point for the
challenge process.
Any proposed deviations to PDO baseline standards shall be subject to PR-1247 Project Change Control & Standards Variance Procedures.
For Value Improvement Practice (VIP) Technical Standards Challenge see section
16.6.
15.2 DEM1
Support: UEP1, MSE4
DEM1 is mandatory for all projects and guidelines can be found in GU648 Guideline
for Applying Process Safety in Projects.
DEM1 is discussed in more detail in Section 10.3.2.
Page 82
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Page 83
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
5.1.1
Concept Engineering
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
PR-1358 - Procedure for Concept Selection and Preparing Basis For Design
Reference Information
Concept Selection Handbook
5.1.2
BFD
FEED
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Management of Change
6.1
Detailed Design
PDO Governing Documents
PR-1134, Specification for Detailed Design of Oil & Gas Facilities
Tools
PDMS
6.3
Construction
Reference Information
PG 17a Constructability
PG 17b Construction Management
Shell Wisdom Packs
6.4
Page 86
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Contracting
Project Services
8.1
Cost Estimating
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Project Controls
Management of Cost
Reference Information
Shell Project Cost Reporting Procedure PSM-I-U-001182-FA-6180-0020
Shell Cost Contingency Procedure PSM-I-U-001182-FA-6180-0021
Shell Value of Work Done Procedure PSM-I-U-001182-FA-6180-0022
Shell Earned Value Management Procedure PSM-I-U-001182-FA-6180-0025
Shell Cost Management Procedure PSM-I-U-001182-FA-6180-0028
Shell Management of Invoices Procedure PSM-I-U-001182-FA-6180-0044
Tools
SAP, Dassian
8.3.3
Management of Progress
Management of Change
Management of Risk
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Reference Information
PG 20 Capital Project Risk Management
Shell Project Process Project Cost & Planning Risk Procedure : Cost & Schedule Risk
Analysis
Tools
Easyrisk
8.3.6
Reporting
Reference Information
PG 06 Capital Project Controls & Management of Change
Cost and Planning Toolbox
Shell Business One project reporting
Tools
PDO Project One Pager
Shell Major Projects Business One
8.3.7
Project Assurance
Estimate and Schedule Assurance Reviews
Reference Information
Shell PG 02c Capital Project Estimate Schedule & Assurance Review (ESAR)
9
Quality Assurance
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
HSE in Projects
Information Management
Finance in Projects
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Reference Information
Opportunity Framing Resources
Value Engineering Resources
PG 16 TQ for Capital Projects, including Benchmarking
PG 19 Capital Project Logistics
14
Technical Standards
Page 91
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.
Revision: 5.0
Effective: June 2012
Appendix 3 Abbreviations
BOM
CFDH
DE
Decision Executives
EMC
ODC
CAPEX
Capital Expenditure
PS
Project Standard
PG
Project Guide
TECOP
ORP
ORM
ORG
DG
Decision Gate
FCP
CCET
DSC
FEED
FELT
PCAP
VAR
PEP
FID
VIP
DCAF
BfD
mln
million
Page 92
Printed 27/06/12
The controlled version of this CMF Document resides online in Livelink. Printed copies are UNCONTROLLED.