5 TIPS FOR FEED

SUCCESS
Proper front-end engineering and design lay the groundwork for well -engineered,
on-time and on-budget projects

They say the devil is in the details, and that is especially true in major capital building projects.

Poor upfront planning in the form of unanswered questions, a lack of detailed requirements and ambiguous
support from management can lead to significant changes during a project’s execution and can easily result
in the project going over budget and past schedule.

In fact, a 2012 PwC global survey of project management leaders identified that the top four factors that
contribute to poor project performance are:

1. Poor estimates/missed deadlines

2. Lack of executive sponsorship
3. Poorly defined goals/objectives
4. Change(s) in scope mid-project

These factors reinforce why a front-end engineering and design approach (FEED) is so vital to preparing a
capital building project for success. FEED is the basic engineering that follows a conceptual design or
feasibility study and is used as the basis for the detailed engineering phase.

A properly executed FEED is essential for helping determine a project’s investment cost including the total
cost of ownership. However, it is also crucial for detailing a project’s technical requirements – such as the
control system architecture, equipment lists, process flow diagrams, and motor and electrical
specifications. Chemical producers that want to avoid common mistakes and make the most of their FEED
should keep these five tips for success in mind:

FEED is more than a cost estimate

Too often, FEED is conducted for one purpose: a cost estimate. However, a FEED analysis is about much
more than that. Specifically, it provides the groundwork and technical detail from which a project is built.
The basic engineering decisions made during the FEED have a significant impact on every project phase
that follows.

Some organizations minimize their up-front engineering investments, either because they don’t see the
value in FEED or because of time or cost restraints. Skipping or minimizing this step, though, can limit
their ability to accurately define project scopes, result in decisions that are based on assumptions and lead
to price estimates that are made in haste – all of which can actually increase costs in the long run. Then
these organizations must also face having difficult conversations with senior leadership about why
additional time and funding are needed to complete a project. In short, those involved in capital building
projects should remember that FEED is project design that leads to a project cost – not the other way
around.
Partner expertise is key
Chemical producers have long relied on engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) firms to conduct
FEEDs. Those EPCs – much like their end-user customers – are facing a skills gap as their engineers retire.
At the same time, industrial automation is increasingly connected and complex. This is why chemical
producers should choose FEED partners with relevant automation expertise.

A control system may represent a fraction of the total project cost, but it is integral to the overall operation
and respective goals. For instance, a chemical site will not receive the right recoveries or achieve the
payback expected on paper if the system is not controlling operations at an optimal rate.

Because of this, automation solution providers are playing a growing role in carrying out FEED studies in
tandem with EPC firms. In addition, using a single solution provider instead of multiple vendors can be
more cost effective and efficient while reducing risk and engineering costs.

Certainly the automation provider should have a successful track record of conducting and managing
FEEDs and have a strong understanding of what constitutes a good one. The provider should also have the
right industry experience and knowledge.

Some questions to ask when evaluating a vendor include:

 Do they speak the language and technical jargon that workers speak?
 Do they understand the applications and environments?
 Are they familiar with the equipment, safety regulations and technology trends?

Considering if the automation partner can help a chemical producer understand the risks and rewards of
implementing such a technology in its facility is important, especially as operations become more
connected. Can it, for example, help address cybersecurity needs? Or ensure the right data is being
collected and delivered to the right people, in a context that is relevant to their jobs?

Early stakeholder involvement is important

Good FEED requires support and involvement from a cross-functional team within an organization. This
should include the engineering, finance, operations, regulatory and facility-management teams.

Early stakeholder buy-in, including securing stakeholders’ commitments to the process and confirming
their requirements, aids in ensuring project agreement up front. This helps eliminate surprises down the
line. Otherwise, project changes made after the FEED stage or discrepancies that were not addressed early
on can significantly impact a project’s cost and schedule.

After a stakeholder team is established, a lead FEED contact should be designated to bring focus to the
process. This person can help maintain stakeholders’ involved throughout, such as with collecting their
input and ultimately confirming that the FEED plan meets their specific requirements. As changes are
made during the FEED process, the lead contact can immediately relay changes to all stakeholders to help
avoid confusion or surprises.

Deliverables will vary

While FEEDs are equally important for both greenfield (new build) and brownfield (rebuild, upgrade or
extension) projects, the deliverables will differ slightly between them.

Greenfield projects essentially provide a blank canvas for the FEED. This means that most of the
deliverables will be generated from scratch and that the FEED can directly lead into engineering the
solution.
Brownfield projects, on the other hand, require more effort at the onset to document what is currently
installed and to confirm the information that will be used as the basis from which the project can start. As a
result, obsolescence, age of spare parts and probability of irreparable failure reports are needed, as are site
surveys. Brownfield projects also require clear commissioning and qualification strategies for any new
processes being introduced to the existing facility, particularly for highly regulated industries.

Looking ahead today can save costs tomorrow

A chemical producer may be tempted to implement the most cost-effective production system that solely
satisfies its immediate needs. However, operations evolve. Chemical producers should consider the time
and financial costs involved in reinvesting to replace their system in a few years.

The more practical approach is to invest the time and resources up front, during the basic-engineering
phase, to examine how a system will need to evolve as a facility evolves. The FEED analysis can help
identify a facility’s requirements today, but it also should include research into what will happen in the
years ahead.

Building a good outcome

A chemical production site’s value is defined and built during the FEED stage, long before production
begins. A good FEED can help determine a project’s usability; performance; cost effectiveness; and long-
term operability, safety and environmental compatibilities. However, a good FEED plan can only happen
with the right partners, the right approach, and full buy-in and support from a diverse group of
stakeholders.