The CapEx Conundrum: Navigating the Inconsistent Phases of Project Engineering

The world of Capital Expenditure (CapEx) projects, whether building a new petrochemical plant, expanding a mine, or constructing a massive data center, relies on a rigid, phased approach to manage risk and investment. These projects are high, stakes endeavors, often costing billions and spanning years. Their success hinges entirely on one foundational principle: Front, End Loading (FEL).

However, the terminology used to define these crucial early phases; FEL 1, FEL 2, FEL 3, pre, FEED, FEED, Basic Engineering, and Detailed Engineering; is notoriously inconsistent. This lack of standardization is more than a semantic annoyance; it is a major source of project failure, leading to scope creep, budget overruns, and severe schedule delays.

This detailed guide will decode these phases, explain the dangerous ambiguities, and introduce the most critical rule for all project managers and owners: The Engineering Work Done Test.

 

Decoding the CapEx Project Phases and AACE Classifications

CapEx projects are fundamentally sequential; each phase acts as a funnel, reducing uncertainty and increasing cost commitment. The industry generally follows the Front, End Loading (FEL) concept, which defines the level of project definition before the major capital outlay.

To introduce structure to the financial side, we often reference the AACE International Cost Estimate Classifications. These classes directly correlate with the engineering phase, reflecting the accuracy range of the cost estimate:

1. Concept / Feasibility Phase

• Common Acronyms/Alternatives: FEL 1 (Front, End Loading 1), Define, Opportunity Identification
• AACE Estimate Class: Class 5
• Accuracy Range:
• Typical Focus/Deliverables: High, level business case, market analysis, technology screening, initial capacity. The goal is a formal Go/No, Go decision point on viability.

2. Conceptual Engineering Phase

• Common Acronyms/Alternatives: FEL 2, Pre, Project Planning, pre, FEED
• AACE Estimate Class: Class 4
• Accuracy Range:
• Typical Focus/Deliverables: Select preferred concept, preliminary PFDs (Process Flow Diagrams), site selection, major equipment list started, rough plot plan, and initial regulatory reviews.

3. Front, End Engineering Design Phase (The Critical Gate)

• Common Acronyms/Alternatives: FEL 3, FEED
• AACE Estimate Class: Class 3 () to Class 2 ()
• Accuracy Range:
• Typical Focus/Deliverables: Defines major equipment specifications, P&IDs (Piping & Instrumentation Diagrams) initiated, detailed plot plan, extensive scope definition, and formal scope freeze. This package is the basis for the Final Investment Decision (FID) and the subsequent EPC bid.

4. Basic Engineering Phase

• Common Acronyms/Alternatives: Often synonymous with FEED (particularly in Europe/Asia).
• AACE Estimate Class: Class 2
• Accuracy Range:
• Typical Focus/Deliverables: If separate from FEED, this phase further develops process details, prepares complete mechanical and electrical specifications, and is sometimes focused purely on preparing the Invitation to Bid (ITB) package for procurement of long, lead items.

5. Detailed Engineering Phase

• Common Acronyms/Alternatives: DE
• AACE Estimate Class: Class 1
• Accuracy Range:
• Typical Focus/Deliverables: Production of all necessary construction drawings (isometrics, electrical layouts, civil designs), full vendor data integration, procurement specifications finalized, and final Issued For Construction (IFC) documents. The project is ready for physical execution.

 

This is one way of defining it!

The Terminology Trap: Where Words Fail Projects

The confusion arises because project teams often use these terms interchangeably or locally redefine them, leading to misalignment between the owner, the engineering contractor (EPC), and third, party licensors.

1. FEL, vs. FEED: A Regional Split

In many North American organizations, FEL 3 is the formal name for the final gate review that precedes project sanction and the commencement of physical construction or major procurement. Critically, the deliverables required for FEL 3 are functionally identical to what the rest of the world refers to as the FEED package. Both terms signify the point where the project scope is frozen, the process design is complete, and the estimate is accurate enough for a Final Investment Decision (FID). If a company uses both terms, ensure the deliverables for each are not redundant or or, worse, incomplete.

2. The Ambiguity of Basic Engineering

Basic Engineering is arguably the most ambiguous phase. There are two primary definitions:

• Definition A (EU/Asia): Basic Engineering is the FEED. It covers the fundamental process design, heat and mass balances, PFDs, and initial P&IDs necessary to define the overall plant structure.
• Definition B (A Bridge Phase): Basic Engineering is the phase that follows the frozen FEED package, but precedes full Detailed Engineering. In this context, it takes the high, level process specifications from FEED and generates the detailed mechanical, civil, and electrical specifications needed for procurement of long, lead items, but stops short of creating every last isometric and cable schedule required for construction.

If your project is global, a contract stating "Basic Engineering" without a precise checklist of deliverables (e.g., P&IDs 90% issued for design, equipment data sheets 100% complete) is a recipe for scope disputes.

3. pre, FEED and Its Misuse

The term pre, FEED is often used to describe the work done during the FEL 2 phase. It’s essential to view pre, FEED as selection work. It takes multiple viable concepts identified in FEL 1, narrows them down through preliminary engineering calculations, and selects the single, optimal path forward. The primary danger here is skipping this phase. Moving straight from an FEL 1 concept (AACE Class 5) into a full FEED (aiming for Class 2) guarantees substantial rework and cost waste because too many fundamental choices are being made under the pressure of detailed design.

 

The "Engineering Work Done" Test: A Key Differentiator

The maxim serves as the ultimate firewall against the most common project affliction: Schedule, Driven Engineering (SDE).

A key principle of successful CapEx execution is this: The engineering work actually done determines where you are in the process, not the schedule or a wish.

The Danger of Schedule, Driven Engineering (SDE)

SDE occurs when project teams prioritize hitting an arbitrary phase completion date on the Gantt chart over completing the prerequisite deliverables. When a gate review is rushed, critical uncertainties are passed downstream. The team may claim, for instance, that FEED is complete on June 1st because the schedule dictates it, even if the following conditions are true:

• The HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) revealed 20 high, priority action items that require P&ID revisions.
• Final long, lead equipment vendor data has not been integrated into the P&IDs or equipment layout.
• The final geotechnical survey data hasn't been used to confirm the foundation design philosophy.

In this scenario, the project has not completed FEED. It has simply started Detailed Engineering (DE) under the delusion of completion. Every incomplete task passed from FEED into DE forces highly paid DE engineers to stop designing and start solving overdue process problems, escalating costs exponentially.

The True Test: Deliverable, Driven Engineering (DDE)

The only antidote to SDE is Deliverable, Driven Engineering (DDE). Project success is measured by the quality and completeness of the engineering package transferred to the next phase, not by the calendar date.

Here is an extended breakdown of what the "Engineering Work Done Test" demands at the most critical transition point: The move from FEED/FEL 3 to Detailed Engineering (DE):

1. Scope Freeze and Change Control

• Test: Is the scope (including capacities, turndown rates, and key design philosophy documents) formally frozen, signed off by all stakeholders (owner, operations, engineering), and governed by a rigorous change control procedure?
• Failure Consequence: If not, minor changes requested by Operations during DE can trigger chain reactions across P&IDs, equipment specs, and plot plans, resulting in thousands of hours of rework and budget erosion.

2. Estimate and Procurement Reconciliation

• Test: Is the Class 2 estimate based on reconciled data? Has the project team moved past factoring based on Class 3 data and instead integrated firm or budgetary quotes for all major and long, lead equipment (e.g., reactors, compressors, main columns)?
• Failure Consequence: An unreconciled estimate leads to financial surprise. The goal of FEED is to ensure the FID (Final Investment Decision) is based on reality, not optimism. If actual vendor pricing differs from the estimate, the scope may have to be cut mid, DE, leading to massive engineering waste.

3. P&ID Finalization

• Test: Are the Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) issued as "Approved for Design" (AFD) or "Issued for Construction" (IFC) with no remaining open process hold points? Has the HAZOP been completed and all necessary P&ID revisions incorporated?
• Failure Consequence: The P&IDs are the Bible of the plant. If they are in flux during DE, every piping isometric, every instrument list, and every electrical load calculation is potentially wrong. This is the single largest source of rework.

4. Interface Management and Site Readiness

• Test: Are all major interfaces (e.g., utility tie, in points, external pipelines, existing plant connections) defined, and have the adjacent owners formally accepted the interface boundaries? Is the geotechnical and topographical survey work fully complete and incorporated into the civil design basis?
• Failure Consequence: Assuming tie, in points or site conditions often results in schedule catastrophe during construction when a necessary piece of existing infrastructure is found to be incompatible or non, existent.

5. The "Readiness to Bid" Check

• Test: For projects using an EPC contractor, is the engineering package sufficiently robust to allow multiple contractors to bid on an apples, to, apples basis without having to perform their own expensive upfront engineering?
• Failure Consequence: A poor FEED package forces EPC bidders to add massive risk contingency (inflating the price) or forces them to perform hidden, unfunded engineering, which they will inevitably cut corners on once the contract is awarded.

The "Engineering Work Done Test" should be treated like a pilot's pre, flight checklist. No matter how late the flight is, you do not take off until every item is verified. A project does not proceed until every prerequisite deliverable is complete.

 

Why Robust Phase Definition is a Financial Imperative

The entire structure of phased project delivery is designed to capitalize on the Wedge of Influence. In the early phases (FEL 1 and FEL 2), the ability of the team to influence the project's cost and operational characteristics is highest, while the actual money spent is lowest. Conversely, during Detailed Engineering and Construction, the majority of the budget is spent, but the ability to make high, impact, low, cost changes is almost zero.

Poorly defined gates force decision, making into the high, cost, low, influence zone. By rigorously enforcing the DDE model and demanding clear answers to the "Engineering Work Done Test," organizations can significantly reduce budget risk and increase the predictability of their CapEx returns.

References & Resources:

• Construction Industry Institute (CII): The industry leader in defining Front, End Loading (FEL) best practices and quantifying the benefits of robust project definition.
• AACE International (Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering): Provides the definitive framework for cost estimate classification, which is essential for aligning financial accuracy with engineering progress.
• Project Management Institute (PMI): Offers foundational knowledge on phase gating and project governance.

This framework for project phasing and the critical emphasis on completed deliverables underscore the enduring truth of CapEx execution: time spent planning is rarely wasted. Defining your phases clearly and enforcing the engineering standards ensures your project moves from wish to reality with financial control and technical integrity.

 

Need Help:

TriplePoint.Engineering can help navigate these waters and define the clarity you need.

 

#CapEx #ProjectManagement #EngineeringDesign #FEED #FEL #BasicEngineering #EPC #ProjectDelivery #OilandGas #ProjectControls #triplepointengineering #dickverhoeven