Saep-40

Engineering Procedure SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

16 August 2016

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee

Contents 1

Introduction...................................................... 2

2

Key Terms....................................................... 3

3

Applicable Documents..................................... 5

4

Value Assurance (VA) Process....................... 6

5

VA Focus Areas by Gate............................... 10

6

VA Procedure................................................ 19

7

Appendices.................................................... 28

Revision Summary............................................... 28 Appendix A - VA Process Workflow..................... 29 Appendix B - VA Team Composition....................30 Appendix C - IPT Risk Profile Analysis................ 31 Appendix D - Prioritization of VA Recommendations................................. 33

Previous Issue:

7 September 2014

Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019 Page 1 of 34

Contact: Al-Zawahemah, Falah Hasan (zawahmfh) on +966-13-8800091 ©Saudi Aramco 2016. All rights reserved.

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

1

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Introduction 1.1

Objective This procedure governs the Value Assurance (VA) Process of the Capital Management System (CMS). It details the implementation of the VA Process during all phases of the Stage Gate Front End Loading (FEL) to support project governance and decision-making at the Gate.

1.2

Applicability The VA Process is applicable to all projects (depending upon project characterization1) that follow the CMS, except for: 

BI-19s (Capital items valued at $4.0 MM or below).



Exploration projects (BI-33).



Unconventional gas development projects (BI-34). Please note that this is only applicable during the pilot phase.



Development drilling projects (BI-60).



Projects that are Monetary Appropriations only such as: o o o o o o o o o

1.3

Enterprise Computing Systems Communications Networks Upkeep Innovation and Technology Deployment Research and Development Center Community Utility Equipment Transportation Equipment Medical Equipment EXPEC Computer Center Advanced Research Center Equipment

Validity Roles and Responsibilities defined in this document are based on the Saudi Aramco organizational structure valid as of issuance date of this procedure. Any organizational changes impacting the organizational entities represented in this document will require review, and update as required, of the Roles and Responsibilities for the set of the activities described.

1

A and B Type projects are characterized by higher complexity, risk and CAPEX vs. C and C1 Type projects. For details on project characterization, refer to SAEP-71

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 2 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

1.4

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

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

Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP) Project Sponsor and Integrated Project Team (IPT) Front End Loading (FEL) Target Setting Value Assurance (VA)

Figure 1 - Overview of Capital Management System (CMS)

2

Key Terms Construction Agency: The organization assigned to execute the project. This could be the Saudi Aramco Project Management (PM) that is the default Construction Agency for A, B and C-Type projects or the Proponent for C1-Type projects. Decision Maker: For A and B-Type Projects is the Management Committee (MC) and for C and C1-Type projects, the Decision Maker is the Business Line Committee (BLC) Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 3 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

or its formally appointed delegate by the proponent Business Line Head. Decision Support Package (DSP): A set of mandatory project Gate Submittals to be produced before accessing a Gate and provide the Decision Maker with complete, current and relevant information, sufficient to decide whether or not a project may proceed into the next Phase. Front End Loading (FEL) : Organizes project planning, definition and development through disciplined processes, deliverables and decision gates to maximize value and minimize risk allowing early engagement with the decision makers. It divides the project lifecycle into Phases, Stages and Gates, each with defined activities and specific objectives. The achievement of these objectives is checked at the Gate to confirm the readiness of the project to proceed to the next Phase/Stage. Functional Control Activities: Are performed during the project development (e.g., Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Technology Selection, Schedule/Cost Estimates, Preliminary Hazard Analysis (PHA), Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) Study, Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) and Project Proposal Reviews and approval, Value Improving Practices (VIPs), etc.) in order to ensure projects deliverables are developed in compliance with the Company’s defined guidelines and the specific requirements of the involved functional organizations as defined in the FEL Book of Deliverables and governed by the RAPID matrix. Gate: Represents the point between different FEL Phases, where a key management decision must be made before a project proceeds to the next Phase. Gate Engagement Guideline: Describes the Gatekeeper role for determining if a project should go for a Gate and documenting the results of the Gate meeting afterward, in coherence with the Gate agenda. For A and B-Type projects, this guideline is named as “MC Gatekeeper Presentation Submittal and Outcome Report Guideline”. Gatekeeper: Responsible for checking the completeness of the Decision Support Package (DSP), scheduling presentation on Decision Maker calendar and recording minutes and actions in coherence with the Gate agenda. Integrated Project Team (IPT): A temporary framework composed of members from various functions identified to support the progressive project development and completion, under a unified leadership (Project Sponsor and Project Leader), with a focus to promote alignment towards meeting project objectives, targets and goals efficiently and effectively. Portfolio Execution Planning (PXP): One of the five Capital Efficiency Enablers introduced by the CMS. The intent of the PXP process is to take a forward-looking view of the company’s planned capital program to identify the key risks and constraints that may impact the efficient execution of the portfolio. Key risks and constraints could Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 4 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

include for example, commodities, engineered goods, labor pool accessibility, financial constraints, etc. Project Leader: Leads the Integrated Project Team (IPT) for project activities. The appointment of the Project Leader is by Facilities Planning Department (FPD) up to Gate 2 and by the Construction Agency afterwards. Project Sponsor (PS): A single point of accountability and authority across all Stages of the project life cycle ensuring the project results are delivered effectively and efficiently. Project Types - A, B, C and C1: Are assigned by FPD as a result of project characterization based on size (Capital Expenditure, CAPEX) and complexity/risks. C1-Type project assignment is coordinated with Capital Program Efficiency Department (CPED), Project Management, and Proponent Organizations. RAPID (Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, Decide): A matrix that defines roles and responsibilities in the work process related to the CMS and development of FEL deliverables in each Stage.

Target Setting (TS): The outcome of the Target Setting Workshop that involves challenging the IPT creativity towards continuous improvement in setting competitive targets and goals, early in the project development, that exceed historical performance and are relatively in line with or better than industry. Terms of Reference (ToR): Describes the VA Team formation, activities, timeline, methodology and the focus areas for the pre-Gate Review. VA Master Plan: A consolidation of the VA Plans on a portfolio basis with expected resources needed from various Saudi Aramco functions over a rolling period of 12 months. It allows CPED to: 

Secure and allocate required resources for VA Reviews



Identify constraints in the availability of internal resources and define actions to overcome constraints (e.g., involvement of external VA experts)



Plan for other logistics (meeting space, tools, etc.)

VA Team: An independent and multidisciplinary group of experts appointed on a temporary basis (just for the time needed for performing the VA Review) which cover all the areas of expertise required to perform a project VA Review. 3

Applicable Documents The requirements contained in the following documents apply to the extent specified in this procedure. Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 5 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

3.1

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Saudi Aramco References Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedures SAEP-12

Project Execution Plan

SAEP-13

Project Environmental Impact Assessments

SAEP-14

Project Proposal

SAEP-25

Estimate Preparation Guidelines

SAEP-26

Capital Project Benchmarking Guidelines

SAEP-302

Instructions for Obtaining a Waiver of a Mandatory Saudi Aramco Engineering Requirement

SAEP-367

Value Improving Practices Requirements

SAEP-1350

Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) Preparation and Revision Procedure

Saudi Aramco Capital Management System Efficiency Enablers (CMSEEs), Documentation (for the latest version of the below Manuals, contact Capital Program Efficiency Department) SAEP-71

Portfolio Execution Planning

Front End Loading (FEL) Manual Integrated Project Team (IPT) Manual Project Sponsor Guides Target Setting (TS) Manual Book of Deliverables RAPID Matrix Gate Engagement Guideline 4

Value Assurance (VA) Process The VA Process, one of the efficiency enablers of the CMS, ensures the project to maintain or improve its overall created value within its defined objectives through all stages of its development. The VA Process is implemented through structured and rigorous analysis, the Value Assurance (VA) Review, performed by an independent multidisciplinary team before each Gate and/or Key Decision(s) to examine all aspects of a project from a diverse, holistic and cross discipline perspective to: 

Identify gaps, risks and opportunities



Provide necessary recommendation to the IPT and the Project Sponsor Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 6 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019



SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Provide an independent assessment of project readiness to support the Decision Maker for the Gate decisions

There are five (5) main steps of the VA Process including: 1. Project VA Plan Preparation 2. VA Team Formation and the VA Terms of Reference (ToR) Development 3. VA Review Execution 4. Engagement with the Project Sponsor 5. Pre-Gate Interaction with the Gatekeeper Figure 2 shows a schematic view of the VA Process including the VA resources (manpower, tools and services) allocation and master planning at portfolio level.

Figure 2 - VA Process

The overall VA Process workflow is provided as Appendix A. The Project Leader should engage the VA Leader at the start of the Project and/or the FEL Phase during the development of the overall VA Plan to: 

Map FEL Phases, Stages, Gates, and respective timelines based on decision interfaces and interdependencies among individual scope packages/BIs.



Agree upon the development, governance and execution approach of the project/program and its constituent scope packages/BIs.



Identify and agree on any specific project deliverables in addition to what are already defined by the FEL Book of Deliverables (see RAPID). Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 7 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019



SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Determine and agree upon the number and timeline of the reviews.

The number of the required VA Reviews is typically as follows (Refer to Figure 3): 

Four VA Reviews for A and B-Type projects,



Three VA Reviews for C and C1-Type projects*1, 2, 3



The VA Review(s) for following specific cases, when required: o A mega A or B-Type project or a program planned to be broken down into smaller scope packages managed under individual Budget Items (BIs) o An advanced or progressive VA Review focusing on a particular aspect of the project prior to making key decisions (e.g., Contracting Strategy approval by the Services Review Committee (SRC), Prior Approval Expenditure Requests (PAERs), Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) with third party entities and Utilities Supply Implementation Agreements, Technology Selection, etc.) These advanced/progressive VA Reviews: 

Provide timely VA input to the IPT and/or the Project Sponsor prior to making key decision on a particular aspect of the project.



Provide interim status update for previous VA and Gate recommendations.



Should be carried out on the completed work (study, assessment and/or deliverable) pertaining to a particular aspect of the project.

*Notes: *1 For C and C1-Type projects, due to their lower complexity and risks, the analysis required is less, resulting in a lower number of required VA Reviews, smaller VA Teams and overall shorter duration for the VA Review(s). *2 CPED evaluates the need to conduct a formal VA review for C1-Type projects based on internal criteria for VA review applicability. As a result, some C1-Type projects may not require a formal VA Review by CPED. These projects still need to be developed following the CMS requirements with CPED guidance. *3

For C and C1-Type projects, the Project Sponsor, based on project nature, conditions and VA recommendations, determines whether to engage with the Business Line Committee (BLC) at Gate of Alternative Selection (GAS) or G2 limiting the total number of Gate engagements with the BLC to two (2) throughout the FEL.

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 8 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Figure 3 - VA Reviews by Project Type

The VA Reviews are different from other functional control activities (refer to Table 1 for details). Table 1 - Difference between Functional Control Activities, Peer Reviews, and VA Reviews BEFORE GATES and/or KEY DECISIONS

DURING FEL PHASES

What

VA Reviews

Ensure that the projects are developed according to the Company’s defined guidelines and in compliance with the specific functional organization requirements (see RAPID)

Intermediate status validation, advice of experts on specific technical issues

Structured, independent multidisciplinary analysis to examine all the aspects of a project before accessing a Gate or/and making a key decision by the Decision Maker

When

Peer Reviews

Functional Control Activities are carried out throughout the project lifecycle (e.g., EIA, Technology Selection, Schedule/Cost Estimates, PHAs, HAZOPs, DBSP, and Project Proposal Reviews and approval, etc.)

Peer Reviews can be requested on demand by Project Leader and/or Project Sponsor or can be defined by specific functions

VA Reviews are held before each Gate and once the project passes into the Execution Phase, periodic status engagements are held at intermediate project milestones

By

Functional Control Activities

FUNCTIONS

FUNCTIONS

VA TEAM

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 9 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

5

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

VA Focus Areas by Gate The distinct objective of each Gate establishes the scope of each Phase and the required VA Review focus areas. The project readiness at each Gate is determined by examining all key aspects (Technical, Economic, Commercial, Organizational, External and Transversal). The following sections highlight the objective and the focus areas of the VA Review for each Gate.

Figure 4 - Gate Objectives

5.1

FEL1 (Gate 1) FEL-1 is complete when the project’s business case is justified, through the demonstration of its economic, technical, and commercial feasibility along with effective management of identified project risks through proper mitigations and a comprehensive range of viable options/alternatives are identified to be studied further in the next FEL2/Study Phase. Table 2 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for Gate 1

Prerequisite

Typical VA Analysis for G1 Assess the project scope objective, particularly verifying that business objectives are clearly understood, project plans are realistic and documented in the Project Charter Verify a comprehensive complete range of viable options/alternatives are identified at this stage in order to pursue their further studies in the next FEL2/Study Phase

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 10 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Economic

Typical VA Analysis for G1 Review the economic model underlying assumptions (i.e., main cause for the project economic viability) to assess if all economic data and required analyses are complete for supporting the business case Verify if cost estimation was developed for initial and life cycle cost ensuring the accuracy of +/-50% Verify financial data (CAPEX, Operating Expenditure - OPEX, revenues, others) and analysis support project’s affordability Other economic aspects assessed by the VA Team Verify if schedule estimation was developed (Level I) and is realistic Assess adequacy of scope definition for the base case (the main option/alternative under consideration for the project)

Technical

Verify consistency, completeness and accuracy of the project basic data requirements Verify that the a complete list of viable project sites are identified and the criteria (in terms of accessibility, restrictions, land use permit, others) are defined and approved to analyze and guide selection of the optimal site during next FEL phase Verify that key HSSE (Health, Safety, Security and Environment) issues and their management aspects have been identified and necessary plans developed to further validate and access the associated risks Verify whether relevant Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been identified and planned

Transversal

Commercial

Other technical aspects assessed by the VA Team Check that project commercial characteristics (contractors, vendors, utilities, partners, JVs, etc.) have been well taken into account as part of the decision based FEL process Verify required market studies are foreseen to identify all variable contracting and procurement strategies for the project Other commercial aspects assessed by the VA Team Verify that Target Setting has been conducted to establish competitive Target and goals based on internal/external benchmarks to improve historical performance and align/ perform better than the industry Verify that a Risk Management plan including holistic project overall risk has been implemented, that major risks have been identified and associated with a mitigation plan Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been collected and implemented Other transversal aspects assessed by the VA Team

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 11 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Typical VA Analysis for G1

External

Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA 2, regulations, social, etc.) have been well taken into account Verify that the Stakeholder Management plan has been adequately updated with complete identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, gathering and prioritizing their requirements and needs with clear engagement actions and the evidence of their continuous and proper involvement Other external factors assessed by the VA Team

Organization

Check that Project Team organization is consistently resourced along with clear identification of roles and responsibilities Check that internal organizations have been properly activated for the required activities and that their comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration Verify an Integrated Project Team (IPT) has been formed and fully implemented including clear roles, responsibilities, organization, communication, etc. Assess the IPT internal dynamic risk profile (see Appendix C for details) Other organizational aspects assessed by the VA Team

5.2

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

Prerequisite

Verify that recommendations of previous Gate Review have been addressed

2

Review the project scope and objectives and related project plans to verify that they are updated and realistic Check if there were any significant changes to the previously defined project scope which may cause increase in costs, schedule or have other significant impacts on the whole project

In Kingdom Total Value Add

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 12 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Typical VA Analysis for GAS

Economic

Assess if economic evaluation is thorough and covers all alternatives Test the assumptions used for performing the project economics evaluation for the different alternatives and the basis to select the most optimal option/alternative Verify that specific analysis on the asset lifecycle cost has been taken into consideration Verify if cost estimation was developed with an accuracy of +/-40% Other economics aspects assessed by the VA Team Verify project schedule estimation was developed and is realistic considering interdependencies with other projects Check scope definition for all alternatives is developed and sufficient to compare them technically, economically and commercially Verify that alternative concepts have been fully evaluated to select the proposed development option which is aligned with project objectives and maximizes the opportunity value

Technical

Verify that all viable alternative solutions have been taken into consideration Verify that selection criteria are well established and understood for selecting an alternative Verify consistency, completeness and accuracy of the project basic data requirements Assess if the technology selection is based on thorough studies of recommended technologies Ensure that the final site selected is consistent with the analysis performed in previous FEL phase(s) and thus is confirmed to be the optimal site in terms of accessibility, restrictions, land use permit and other approved site selection criteria Verify that key HSSE issues and their management aspects identified during earlier phase have been updated, validated, assessed and necessary steps have been taken to mitigate the associated risks Verify whether planned Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been implemented and their results taken into account

Commercial

Other technical aspects assessed by the VA Team Check that project commercial characteristics (contractors, vendors, utilities, partners, JVs, etc.) have been taken into account as part of the decision based FEL process Verify that the proposed preliminary Contracting Strategy is consistent with the market study outcome and suitable for the alternative selected Other commercial aspects assessed by the VA Team

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 13 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Typical VA Analysis for GAS

Transversal

Verify that Project is performing within endorsed Target and Goals Verify that the Risk Management Plan has been updated adequately (by updating the risk register as an outcome of scheduled risk workshop, team meetings focused on risks, mitigation actions status updates, identification of additional major risks and associated mitigation plans) and the project overall risk exposure has improved compared to the previous Gate Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been collected and implemented Other transversal aspects assessed by the VA Team

External

Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA, regulations, etc.) have been taken into account Verify that the Stakeholder Management plan has been adequately updated with complete identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, gathering and prioritizing their requirements and needs with clear engagement actions and the evidence of their continuous and proper involvement

Organization

Other external factors assessed by the VA Team Check that the IPT organization is adequately resourced to support the following Phase along with clear identification of roles and responsibilities Check that internal organizations have been properly activated for the required activities and that their comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration Assess the IPT internal dynamic risk profile (see Appendix C for details) Other organizational aspects assessed by the VA Team

5.3

FEL2 (Gate 2) FEL2 is complete when the most optimal option/alternative is selected and adequately defined in an approved Design Basis Scoping Paper (DBSP) by all stakeholders (to freeze the scope) including implementing competitive Target and goals to achieve Capital Efficiency for the project and effective management of identified project risks through proper mitigations.

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 14 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Table 4 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for Gate 2

Pre-requisites

Typical VA Analysis for G2 Verify that recommendations of previous Gate Reviews have been addressed Review the project scope and objectives and related project plans to verify that they are updated and realistic Check if there are any significant changes to the previously defined project scope that may cause cost increase, schedule changes or have other significant impacts on the project

Economic

Assess the economic data for supporting the business case and check, where applicable, if the changes in the scope and future potential business environment need to be taken into consideration Test the assumptions used for performing the project economic evaluation Verify if the updated economic evaluation is coherent and reasonable Verify if cost estimate was developed with an accuracy of +/-30% and is coherent with the budget defined Other economics aspects assessed by the VA Team Verify if schedule estimation was carried out and is realistic Verify the consistency of the updated design data requirements (related to scope, feedstocks, products, utilities, process options, simulation and calculations results, HSSE, operability and reliability, and referenced codes, standards, procedures and materials specifications) and confirm that required changes from previous phase are captured and approved Evaluate that the concept selected incorporates operations and maintenance requirements

Technical

Verify that the final site selected is appropriate in terms of facilities, physical interfaces among facilities, required technologies/capabilities Verify that the most cost-effective plot plan/layout (overall) for the proposed facility/equipment is identified and selected without compromising safety, environment, and security, and in compliance with process, maintenance, operation, and construction requirements Verify that that the selected scope has properly considered the constructability related issues Check if dedicated activities for ensuring operational readiness have been outlined Test if the scope is ready to be frozen and optimal while considering coherence with the defined Business Objective Verify that key HSSE issues and their management aspects identified during earlier FEL phase(s) have been updated, validated, assessed and necessary steps have been taken to mitigate the associated risks Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 15 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Typical VA Analysis for G2 Verify whether planned Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been implemented and their results taken into account

Commercial

Other technical aspects assessed by the VA Team Check that project commercial characteristics (commercial, permits, approvals) have been taken into account Review the proposed Contracting Strategy to establish if the proposed strategy maximizes value to the Company based on the nature of the project and its risk profile Review the Procurement Strategy and verify that it is adequate to support project execution Other commercial aspects assessed by the VA Team

Transversal

Verify that Project is performing within endorsed Target and Goals Verify that the Risk Management Plan has been updated adequately (by updating the risk register as an outcome of scheduled risk workshop, team meetings focused on risks, mitigation actions status updates, identification of additional major risks and associated mitigation plans) and the project overall risk exposure has improved compared to the previous Gate Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been collected and implemented Other transversal aspects assessed by the VA Team

External

Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA, regulations, etc.) have been well taken into account Verify that the Stakeholder Management plan has been adequately updated with complete identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, gathering and prioritizing their requirements and needs with clear engagement actions and the evidence of their continuous and proper involvement Other external factors assessed by the VA Team

Organization

Check that Project Team organization is consistently resourced to support the following Phase along with clear identification of roles and responsibilities Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been taken into consideration by the Project Team Check that internal organizations have been properly activated for the required activities and that their comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration Assess the IPT internal dynamic risk profile (see Appendix C for details) Other organizational aspects assessed by the VA Team

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 16 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

5.4

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

FEL3 (Gate 3) FEL3 is complete when the Project Proposal (PP) is approved by all stakeholders including the execution strategy, readiness to authorize the funds based on final business case, endorsed Target and goals and effective management of identified project risks through proper mitigations. Table 5 - Typical VA Review Focus Areas for Gate 3

Typical VA Analysis for G3

Economic

Prerequisites

Verify that recommendations of previous VA Reviews have been implemented Verify the project plans are updated, realistic and aligned with the project scope and objectives Check if the project execution plan is consistent with the project defined objectives (business case need, Target Setting) Check for any significant changes to the project scope previously defined in FEL2/DBSP which may cause cost increase, schedule changes or have other significant impacts on the project Assess that the economic data used for supporting the final business case are up-to-date and based on actual data (actual cost and PCS, updated demand supply forecast, updated Corporate Energy Values, sensitivities related to project life cycle); Check where applicable, if the changes in the scope and future potential business environment need to be taken into consideration Test the validity of assumptions used for performing the project economics evaluation Verify if the updated economic evaluation is coherent and reasonable considering overall project risk at project and enterprise levels Verify if cost estimate was developed with an accuracy of +/-10% and is consistent with the budget defined based on realistic cost estimate basis

Technical

Other economic aspects assessed by the VA Team Verify if schedule estimation at level III was developed with realistic basis/assumptions (incorporating resource loading, critical interfaces as external commercial milestones, coherent logic, clearly defined critical path, Saudi Aramco procurement cycle for long lead items and alignment with defined and agreed shutdown periods where applicable etc.), ready to be used as Project Control Schedule (PCS 0) and aligned with the bid package milestones Verify the consistency of the updated design data requirements (related to scope, feedstocks, products, utilities, process options, simulation and calculations results, HSSE, operability and reliability, and referenced codes, standards, procedures and materials specifications) and confirm that any required changes from previous phase are captured and approved Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 17 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Typical VA Analysis for G3 Verify that the most cost-effective plot plan/layout (unit) for the proposed facility/equipment is selected without compromising safety, environment, and security, and in compliance with process, maintenance, operation, and construction requirements Check if preliminary engineering design (i.e. project proposal / engineering package to be released to the market) has been properly developed by ensuring stakeholders’ inputs are incorporated (project proposal design reviews closure, approved Value Engineering recommendations closure, relevant collected Lessons Learned implementation, etc.) Verify operations and maintenance requirements have been fully considered in the bid package (i.e. requirements from Pre-Commissioning and Mechanical Completion Plan, Operational Readiness Plan, other VIPs) Check the existence and robustness of pre-commissioning, mechanical completion, commissioning and hand-over strategies and associated plans Check if there is a clear identification of roles and responsibilities among Company, Contractor (s) and 3rd parties/other BIs for Construction, Pre-commissioning, Commissioning and Startup Verify if the Project Execution Plan is adequate (provide enough details around project construction, pre-commissioning, commissioning and start-up strategies and sequences), complete (in terms of plans for quality, resource, HSSE, project control etc.), project specific and all associated contractor requirements are reflected in Proforma contract Test if the defined Key Performance Indices (KPIs) for the Execution Phase are coherent with the project objectives, Target and Goals Verify that all the required studies within the HSSE perspective have been developed properly and covering all the compliance requirements Verify whether planned Value Improving Practices (VIPs) have been implemented and their results taken into account Other technical aspects assessed by the VA Team

Commercial

Check that project commercial characteristics (commercial, permits, approvals) possible changes have been considered Verify that Contracting Plan and Procurement Strategy have been completed and their commercial and legal frameworks are adequate Check if the schedule for procuring the EPC contracting is technically and commercially reasonable Check if the Bidders’ Questions and Company’s Responses highlight any significant deficiency in scope definition or/and bidders understanding and hence expose the Company to potential risks of future cost and/or schedule impacts and related change orders Other commercial aspects assessed by the VA Team Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 18 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Typical VA Analysis for G3

Transversal

Verify that Project is performing within endorsed Target and Goals Verify that the Risk Management Plan has been updated adequately and the project overall risk exposure has improved compared to the previous Gate (Check what risks are still shared/transferred to next stage) Verify that lessons learned from previous projects have been collected and implemented Other transversal aspects assessed by the VA Team

External

Check that other project characteristics (legal, logistics, Saudization, IKTVA, regulations, etc.) have been well taken into account Verify that the Stakeholder Management plan has been adequately updated with complete identification of stakeholders along with their respective areas of influence/interest, clear engagement actions and the evidence of their continuous and proper involvement Check if there is plan in place for close monitoring of interfaces and interdependencies of the project with other related projects

Organization

Other external factors assessed by the VA Team Check that Project Team organization is consistently resourced to support the following Phase along with clear identification of roles and responsibilities Check that internal organizations have been properly activated for the required activities and that their comments and suggestions have been taken into consideration Assess the IPT internal dynamic risk profile (see Appendix C for details) Other organizational aspects assessed by the VA Team

6

VA Procedure This procedure governs the Value Assurance (VA) Process of the Capital Management System (CMS). It details the implementation of the VA Process during all phases of Front End Loading (FEL) to support project governance and decision-making at the Gate. The five main steps of the VA Process are detailed in the following sections: 6.1

Project VA Plan Preparation The Project VA Plan formalizes the number and the schedule of the VA Reviews and identifies the project deliverables specific to the upcoming Decision Gate. It is updated at the beginning of each FEL Phase and describes the activities to be performed by both the IPT and the VA Team for the completion and the finalization of the Phase in preparation for a Decision Gate.

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 19 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

This step is initiated after the approval of the Project Charter. The Project VA Plan is later updated and approved at the beginning of each new Phase or whenever it is deemed necessary due to a significant change in the project schedule and/or activities impacting planned Gates and consequent VA Reviews. Input o Project Charter (clearly identifying the planned key decisions milestones and Gate engagement dates for various Stages) and Project Planning Brief o FEL Phase Execution Schedule (clearly identifying the current FEL phase activities, their interdependencies and key decisions with timeline leading to the upcoming Gate) o FEL Book of Deliverables and the RAPID Activity o The CPED assigns the VA Leader and the core VA Team Members o VA Leader, based on information in Project Charter, Planning Brief, Project Milestones Schedule and FEL Phase Execution Schedule, prepares a draft Project VA Plan (or updates the plan from the previous Phase) including: 

Number of required VA Reviews for the project and the Phase (in case if multiple VA Reviews are being planned within the Phase)



VA Reviews start and completion dates



List of applicable project deliverables required for the upcoming Gate Decision(s)



List of project deliverables required for next Phase Gate (s)



Preliminary list of competencies required for the VA Review at organizational level (see Appendix B for details)

o VA Leader shares the draft Project VA Plan with the Project Leader o Project Leader identifies Non-Applicable project deliverables (which are deemed unnecessary or inapplicable to the proposed project or if the information desired from these deliverables can be located/obtained from other project documents/sources without additional work) and lists approval for any deviation from the FEL Book of Deliverables and RAPID by the deliverable owner (Functional Organization) along with the its inapplicability rationale and mitigations in the draft Project VA Plan. o VA Leader along with the Project Leader identifies additional required deliverables (information and documents) specific for the Project Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 20 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

o VA Leader updates the Project VA Plan o Project Leader secures Project Sponsor final approval on the Project VA Plan by no later than six (6) weeks from current Project FEL phase commencement o VA Leader releases final Project VA Plan Output o Project VA Plan (see Template 1) Project VA Plan

6.1.1

R-Recommend

A-Agree

P-Perform

Project Leader

VA Leader

VA Team

I-Input

D-Decide Project Sponsor

Project VA Resources Allocation and Master Planning (Internal to CPED) The objective of this activity is to plan VA Teams composition requirements in advance, share them with relevant Saudi Aramco Organizations to secure resources for the relevant VA Team(s), identify constraints in resources allocation and define mitigation actions in order to address any potential shortfall. This is done through consolidation of the resource requirements for the VA Reviews of the portfolio of projects undergoing CMS. This master plan has a rolling 12 months look ahead time horizon. All required documentation (i.e., Project VA Plans, ToRs and Project VA Reports) is controlled centrally in a secured repository for all completed project VA activities to support master planning and future reference. In addition, continuous process improvement recommendations are frequently collected from the VA Teams for further consideration and implementation. Input o Project VA Plans for the portfolio of projects implementing CMS Activity o CPED consolidates Project VA Plans into the VA Master Plan to identify: Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 21 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process



Need for VA Leaders and required VA Reviews



Need for resources from different professional areas and timing

o CPED periodically shares the VA Master Plan with various functional organizations or their representatives o Functional organizations highlight any constraints in providing the resources required o CPED develops mitigation plans (e.g., engage external experienced professionals and experts, which will be assigned to the VA Teams, engage with Project Leaders to anticipate/delay VA Reviews timing) Output o VA Master Plan including:

6.2



Assignment of required VA Leaders



Required VA resources from different disciplines



Actions to ensure availability of VA resources

VA Team Formation and ToR Development CPED leverages functional expertise from other Saudi Aramco organizations to assemble necessary subject matter experts, in the key areas of project development pertaining to the Phase, on a temporary basis, to be part of the VA Team. CPED may engage on an as required basis, external VA consultants to provide assistance to the VA Team for specific VA Reviews. Once the VA Team is formed, the VA ToR, is prepared and distributed among the VA Team members, which describes the team formation, activities, timeline, and the focus areas for the upcoming Gate Review. This step is to be done, at least one month before the start of the VA Review Execution to allow for proper preparation time. Input o Project VA Plan Activity o CPED secures internal subject matter expertise from relevant organizations to form the VA Team o In specific cases, CPED secures external subject matter expertise to support Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 22 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

the VA Team on an as required basis. o CPED plans and delivers an awareness session to VA Team Members, if necessary o The VA Leader prepares and releases the VA ToR to the VA Team Members, which includes: 

Project Background (as explained in Project Charter and Planning Brief)



The VA Team Members



The VA Review focus areas and expectations related to the Gate (see Section 5 for details)



Assignment of review areas/disciplines based on the specialty of the VA Team Members



The VA Review Agenda (see Template 2)



The VA Review logistics including location and timing for the VA Review meetings



Information on when pre-read and/or Desktop Review documentation will be accessible

Output o VA Team formation and members confirmation o VA ToR (see Template 2) VA ToR R-Recommend

A-Agree

P-Perform

VA Leader

6.3

I-Input

D-Decide

CPED

VA Review Execution The execution of the VA Review is carried out in two steps; the Desktop Review of the project deliverables by the VA Team and the VA Review Meeting(s). The Desktop Review is initiated by a Kick-Off Meeting with the VA Team Members as soon as the IPT provides access to the signed off and completed project deliverables3, as agreed in the approved Project VA Plan.

3

The signature on the deliverables are acceptable either through a hardcopy or electronic acknowledgement of the review and concurrence from the responsible organization in accordance with the RAPID matrix. The approval of

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 23 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Kick-Off and Desktop Review typically takes 3-5 days (part time). During the Desktop Review, the VA Team members examine all key aspects of a project (see Section 5 for details) and provide their review outcome to the VA Leader prior to the VA Review Meeting. During the VA Review Meeting, the VA Team collectively reviews and analyzes the team findings, interact with the IPT to seek further clarifications as needed and issues a draft VA Report to the Project Leader with specific and actionable recommendations for the IPT feedback and the response action plan. The VA Review Meeting(s) typically takes 3-5 days. Once the response action plan is provided, the Project VA Report is finalized and issued. Finalization of the Project VA Report typically takes 2-5 days (part time). Input: o VA ToR o (Access to) Completed Project Deliverables (as agreed in the VA Plan, any missing or incomplete deliverables from the approved VA plan should be documented in the Project VA Report). Activity: Desktop Review o VA Leader conducts the VA Review Kick-Off with the VA Team Members. VA Leader may request Project Leader to present the objectives, scope, characteristics, and readiness of the Project for the Gate to the VA Team and respond to any queries from the VA Team. o The VA Team Members review project deliverables (Desktop Review) for their assigned review areas/disciplines as earlier shared in VA ToR and identify issues, risks, observations and preliminary findings with associated recommendations (see Template 3). The review is based on the following: 

Gaps and opportunities in the deliverables requiring further investigation/analysis



Analysis of implications of decisions made and/or recommended across different deliverables

multiple deliverables with the same responsible organizations/individuals such as “Project Sponsor” and “Project Leader” can be obtained through single sign-off.

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 24 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

o Each VA Team member verifies and submits the outcome (findings, observations, queries, issues/risks) of his/her Desktop Review to the VA Leader prior to the VA Review Meeting. VA Review Meeting o VA Team holds VA Review Meeting(s) to consolidate, prioritize, and collectively analyze the team findings, observations, and issues/risks. o VA Team develops the IPT engagement agenda along with the prioritized list of queries and items to be requested from the IPT for further clarification and validation. o Project Leader presents4 readiness of the Project for the Gate to the VA Team and responds to clarification requests and queries from the VA Team. o Project Leader facilitates any further in depth analysis of a particular aspect of the Project with the required IPT member (s) for further clarification and validation. o VA Team finalizes the findings and develop associated recommendations that are specific and actionable by the IPT. o VA Team assesses impact and urgency of each of the VA findings on the Project readiness for the Gate (see Appendix D for details) o VA Team documents findings, observations and recommendations in the draft Project VA Report (see Template 4) o VA Leader sends draft Project VA Report to the Project Leader for response and action plan. o Project Leader develops, in consultation with the IPT and the Project Sponsor, the response and action plan addressing the VA recommendations. o Project Leader shares with the VA Leader the response and action plan including: 

Action description



Owner of the action



Completion date

o VA Team Members review the response and the action plan (further interaction with the Project Leader and/or the IPT may be required) to finalize VA Report (see Template 4) which includes: 4

The presentation may cover the objective, scope and characteristics of the project if not already been presented to the VA Team during VA Review Kick-Off

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 25 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process



Executive Summary (summarizing VA key findings and recommendations along with project overall readiness status)



Heat Map Matrix and Ranking of the VA Recommendations



Detailed Listing of Findings and Recommendations



IPT Response Action Plan and Action Status



The overall project readiness for the Gate



VA Team Queries /IPT Responses

o Project VA Report is released to the Project Sponsor and the Project Leader Output o Project VA Report (see Template 4) Project VA Report R-Recommend

A-Agree

P-Perform

VA Leader

6.4

I-Input

D-Decide

VA Team, IPT

CPED Manager

Engagement with Project Sponsor This step takes place immediately after the VA Review execution and prior to the Gate engagement to support the Project Sponsor deciding next course of action based on the VA findings, recommendations, and the IPT Response Action plan. Input o Project VA Report (see Template 4) o Draft IPT Response Action Plan and Status Activity o VA Leader engages with the Project Sponsor to share the VA Review outcome o Project Leader shares the draft project Gate presentation including a section on VA recommendations and corresponding IPT Response Action Plan o In the event that, the Project Sponsor decides to bring the Project to the Gate, the Project Leader in coordination with the VA Leader prepares the Project Gate Submittal (Decision Support Package, DSP) consisting of: Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 26 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process



Project Gate Presentation including VA Review outcome



Project Gate Pre-read/brief and VA Executive Summary

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

6.5

A-Agree

P-Perform

I-Input

D-Decide

Project Leader

IPT

Project Sponsor

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

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 27 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

7

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Appendices Appendix A

VA Process Workflow

Appendix B

Project VA Resources Allocation and Master Planning

Appendix C

IPT Risk Profile Analysis

Appendix D

Prioritization of VA Recommendations

Appendix E

Templates Template 1

Project VA Plan Template

Template 2

VA Terms of Reference Template

Template 3

VA Findings and Recommendations Template

Template 4

Project VA Report Template

Revision Summary 7 September 2014 25 August 2016

New Saudi Aramco Engineering Procedure. Major revision. VA Process enhancement for effective implementation. The revision incorporates the lessons learned and the feedback, on process enhancement and its effective implementation, collected from various end users (VA Teams, Integrated Project Teams, Project Leaders, and Project Sponsors) since the first issue.

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 28 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Appendix A - VA Process Workflow

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 29 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

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

Dedicated VA experts to lead the VA Teams (VA Leaders) appointed by CPED



Other experts from CPED assigned (Core Team) as required



Temporarily assigned experts (specialist level) from functional organizations who have not been involved in the project development

The VA Leader is responsible to define and tailor the VA Team composition based upon the specific FEL Phase at which the review has to be performed, and also upon the following characteristics: 

Project class (A, B, C or C1-Type)



Specific project aspects already identified as main objective of the review



Typology / technology involved in the project

As a general guideline, the VA Team should be staffed in a way that every relevant project area of expertise involved in the FEL Stage should directly be covered by a dedicated expert. The size of the VA Team is directly correlated with the number of areas of expertise required to effectively perform the VA Review. Figure 5 provides a general guideline for setting up the VA Team through the different FEL Stages as determined needed by VA leader.

Figure 5 - VA Review Team Composition in the different FEL Stages Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 30 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

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

Team Composition and Urgency Authority and Leadership Interface and Empowerment Process Membership and Cohesion

Input is collected using an IPT assessment survey. The IPT members are asked to fill this survey during the VA Review and results of this survey are used in the VA Reviews as one of the inputs to assess the IPT internal dynamics. Typical survey categories with exemplary survey statements are shown in Table 6. For more details on the survey procedure, refer to CPED’s internal procedure for IPT Risk Profile Analysis. Table 6 - Typical Statements for the IPT Risk Profile Survey

Categories

Statements

Team Composition and Urgency

• The IPT received the appropriate resources needed to be successful? • The IPT received the dedicated resources as planned? • The timelines and goals set for the IPT were achievable given the resources and members assigned?

Authority and Leadership

• The Project Sponsor ensured his support and commitment to the project and to its Team? (time, attention, participation, etc.) • The Project Leader had the professional and personal characteristics needed to effectively lead the team? • The Target and goals of the IPT were communicated clearly to all involved external stakeholders? • All the involved stakeholders were aligned on project objectives?

Interface and Empowerment

• The IPT Members appointed to the Team had the necessary technical skills, experience, and knowledge? • The IPT Members appointed to the Team had the right interpersonal skills? • The IPT Members appointed to the Team were able to proactively act Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 31 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

Categories

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Statements within the defined set of authority received? • The IPT Members appointed to the Team were able to ensure to bring to the Team their own function methodologies, best practices and defined set of standards? • The goals and objectives of the IPT were clearly communicated to all Team Members and external stakeholders?

Process

• There was adequate time allowed for the establishment of the IPT? • The IPT used processes for regularly reviewing how the Team worked together and how it handled conflicts? • The IPT Leader regularly scheduled team meetings and effectively managed them? • The decision-making process used was clear, effective, and appropriate? • The IPT created an IPT charter, properly describing project needs, outcomes, skills, decision process, governance, and other significant basic requirements?

Membership and Cohesion

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

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 32 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

Appendix D - Prioritization of VA Recommendations The recommendations developed by the VA Team represent the core content of the VA Review. At the end of review activities, the VA Team should evaluate them in terms of two variables: 

Impact– the potential impact of issues/risks on overall project value



Urgency – how rapidly they need to be resolved

Both of these variables have to be evaluated on a three-point scale. The table below presents possible values of those variables. IMPACT High (H)

Potential to significantly impact achieving project objectives and/or major impact on project value (if can be directly linked to economic values, > 20% of project NPV5)

Medium (M)

Potential for significant value erosion through schedule, costs, reserves or revenue, with significant impact on project value (between 5% and 20% of project NPV)

Low (L)

Potential for value erosion, but limited (<5% of project NPV)

URGENCY High (H)

To be closed before the Gate or in the early Phase of next Stage

Medium (M)

To be closed during next Phase before the next VA Review, if applicable

Low (L)

To be closed during project execution phase and status update provided part of project assurance reports

5

It should be noted that not all recommendations raised by the VA Team can be directly translated into economic values. Therefore, the NPV is intended just as a proxy used when applicable.

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 33 of 34

Document Responsibility: Capital Program Efficiency Standards Committee Issue Date: 25 August 2016 Next Planned Update: 25 August 2019

SAEP-40 Value Assurance Process

The list of VA recommendations identified are divided according to the area of interest and rated in terms of the urgency and impact. The following Figure 6 outlines an example of the list of recommendations:

Figure 6 - Impact-Urgency Matrix

In the example matrix shown above, the VA Review produced a total of 19 recommendations, out of these:   

1 represents potential Project Stoppers; 8 require a high priority Intervention; 10 require a low priority intervention;

Each of these category has different consequences and requires different actions from the Project as outlined in the following table. Table 7 - Actions Required by Category

Category

Consequences

Action Required

Potential project stopper

Project readiness to proceed  Actions or specific assignment should be done is threatened before the project can proceed

High priority intervention

Major impacts on Project objectives or value

 Further actions or specific assignment should be done before the project can proceed or in the early Phase of next Stage

Low priority intervention

Impact on Project value

 Further action or work required during next Phases of Project

Saudi Aramco: Company General Use Page 34 of 34