18R-

97

E
COSTESTI
MATECLASSIFI
CATI
ON
PL
SYSTEM-ASAPPLIEDIN
ENGI
NEERI
NG,PROCUREMENT,
M

ANDCONSTRUCTI
ONFORTHE
SA

PROCESSI
NDUSTRIES
 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97

COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM –

E
AS APPLIED IN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND
CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES
PL
TCM Framework: 7.3 – Cost Estimating and Budgeting

Rev. March 1, 2016

Note: As AACE International Recommended Practices evolve over time, please refer to www.aacei.org for the latest
revisions.
M
SA

Contributors:
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the authors and contributors to this recommended practice
are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers, unless otherwise stated.

(March 1, 2016 Revision):

Larry R. Dysert, CCP CEP DRMP (Author) Dan Melamed, CCP EVP
Laurie S. Bowman, CCP DRMP EVP PSP Todd W. Pickett, CCP CEP
Peter R. Bredehoeft, Jr. CEP Richard C. Plumery, EVP

(November 29, 2011 Revision):

Peter Christensen, CCE (Author) Kenneth K. Humphreys, PE CCE
Larry R. Dysert, CCC CEP (Author) Donald F. McDonald, Jr. PE CCE PSP
Jennifer Bates, CCE C. Arthur Miller
Jeffery J. Borowicz, CCE CEP PSP Todd W. Pickett, CCC CEP
Peter R. Bredehoeft, Jr. CEP Bernard A. Pietlock, CCC CEP
Robert B. Brown, PE Wesley R. Querns, CCE
Dorothy J. Burton Don L. Short, II CEP
Robert C. Creese, PE CCE H. Lance Stephenson, CCC
John K. Hollmann, PE CCE CEP James D. Whiteside, II PE

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

 ®
AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97
COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM – AS
APPLIED IN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND
CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES
TCM Framework: 7.3 – Cost Estimating and Budgeting

March 1, 2016

PURPOSE

As a recommended practice of AACE International, the Cost Estimate Classification System provides guidelines for
applying the general principles of estimate classification to project cost estimates (i.e., cost estimates that are used
to evaluate, approve, and/or fund projects). The Cost Estimate Classification System maps the phases and stages of
project cost estimating together with a generic project scope definition maturity and quality matrix, which can be
applied across a wide variety of process industries.

This addendum to the generic recommended practice (17R-97) provides guidelines for applying the principles of
estimate classification specifically to project estimates for engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) work
for the process industries. This addendum supplements the generic recommended practice by providing:
 A section that further defines classification concepts as they apply to the process industries.

E
 A chart that maps the extent and maturity of estimate input information (project definition deliverables)
against the class of estimate.
PL
As with the generic recommended practice, the intent of this addendum is to improve communications among all
of the stakeholders involved with preparing, evaluating, and using project cost estimates specifically for the
process industries.

The overall purpose of this recommended practice is to provide the process industry with a project definition
deliverable maturity matrix that is not provided in 17R-97. It also provides an approximate representation of the
M
relationship of specific design input data and design deliverable maturity to the estimate accuracy and
methodology used to produce the cost estimate. The estimate accuracy range is driven by many other variables
and risks, so the maturity and quality of the scope definition available at the time of the estimate is not the sole
determinate of accuracy; risk analysis is required for that purpose.
SA

This document is intended to provide a guideline, not a standard. It is understood that each enterprise may have
its own project and estimating processes and terminology, and may classify estimates in particular ways. This
guideline provides a generic and generally acceptable classification system for process industries that can be used
as a basis to compare against. This addendum should allow each user to better assess, define, and communicate
their own processes and standards in the light of generally-accepted cost engineering practice.

INTRODUCTION

For the purposes of this addendum, the term “process industries” is assumed to include firms involved with the
manufacturing and production of chemicals, petrochemicals, and hydrocarbon processing. The common thread
among these industries (for the purpose of estimate classification) is their reliance on process flow diagrams (PFDs)
and piping and instrument diagrams (P&IDs) as primary scope defining documents. These documents are key
deliverables in determining the degree of project definition, and thus the extent and maturity of estimate input
information.

Estimates for process facilities center on mechanical and chemical process equipment, and they have significant
amounts of piping, instrumentation, and process controls involved. As such, this addendum may apply to portions
of other industries, such as pharmaceutical, utility, water treatment, metallurgical, converting, and similar
industries.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and 2 of 15
Construction for the Process Industries

March 1, 2016

This addendum specifically does not address cost estimate classification in non-process industries such as
commercial building construction, environmental remediation, transportation infrastructure, hydropower, “dry”
processes such as assembly and manufacturing, “soft asset” production such as software development, and similar
industries. It also does not specifically address estimates for the exploration, production, or transportation of
mining or hydrocarbon materials, although it may apply to some of the intermediate processing steps in these
systems.

The cost estimates covered by this addendum are for engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) work only.
It does not cover estimates for the products manufactured by the process facilities, or for research and
development work in support of the process industries. This guideline does not cover the significant building
construction that may be a part of process plants.

This guideline reflects generally-accepted cost engineering practices. This RP was based upon the practices of a
wide range of companies in the process industries from around the world, as well as published references and
standards. Company and public standards were solicited and reviewed, and the practices were found to have
significant commonalities. These classifications are also supported by empirical process industry research of

E
[8]
systemic risks and their correlation with cost growth and schedule slip .
PL
COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES

A purpose of cost estimate classification is to align the estimating process with project stage-gate scope
development and decision making processes.

Table 1 provides a summary of the characteristics of the five estimate classes. The maturity level of project
M
definition is the sole determining (i.e., primary) characteristic of class. In Table 1, the maturity is roughly indicated
by a percentage of complete definition; however, it is the maturity of the defining deliverables that is the
determinant, not the percent. The specific deliverables, and their maturity or status are provided in Table 3. The
other characteristics are secondary and are generally correlated with the maturity level of project definition
SA

[2]
deliverables, as discussed in the generic RP . The post sanction classes (Class 1 and 2) are only indirectly covered
where new funding is indicated. Again, the characteristics are typical and may vary depending on the
circumstances.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and 3 of 15
Construction for the Process Industries

March 1, 2016

Primary Characteristic Secondary Characteristic

MATURITY LEVEL OF
EXPECTED ACCURACY
ESTIMATE PROJECT DEFINITION END USAGE METHODOLOGY
Typical purpose of
RANGE
CLASS DELIVERABLES Typical estimating method Typical variation in low and high
Expressed as % of complete estimate
ranges
definition
Capacity factored,
Concept L: -20% to -50%
Class 5 0% to 2% parametric models,
screening H: +30% to +100%
judgment, or analogy
Study or Equipment factored or L: -15% to -30%
Class 4 1% to 15%
feasibility parametric models H: +20% to +50%
Budget Semi-detailed unit costs
L: -10% to -20%
Class 3 10% to 40% authorization or with assembly level line
H: +10% to +30%
control items
Control or Detailed unit cost with L: -5% to -15%
Class 2 30% to 75%

E
bid/tender forced detailed take-off H: +5% to +20%
Check estimate Detailed unit cost with L: -3% to -10%
Class 1 65% to 100%
or bid/tender
PL detailed take-off H: +3% to +15%
Table 1 – Cost Estimate Classification Matrix for Process Industries

This matrix and guideline outline an estimate classification system that is specific to the process industries. Refer
[1]
to the generic estimate classification RP for a general matrix that is non-industry specific, or to other addendums
for guidelines that will provide more detailed information for application in other specific industries. These will
M
provide additional information, particularly the project definition deliverable maturity matrix which determines
the class in those particular industries.

Table 1 illustrates typical ranges of accuracy ranges that are associated with the process industries. The +/- value
SA

represents typical percentage variation of actual costs from the cost estimate after application of contingency
(typically to achieve a 50% probability of project overrun versus underrun) for given scope. Depending on the
technical and project deliverables (and other variables) and risks associated with each estimate, the accuracy range
for any particular estimate is expected to fall into the ranges identified (although extreme risks can lead to wider
ranges).

In addition to the degree of project definition, estimate accuracy is also driven by other systemic risks such as:
 Level of non-familiar technology in the project.
 Complexity of the project.
 Quality of reference cost estimating data.
 Quality of assumptions used in preparing the estimate.
 Experience and skill level of the estimator.
 Estimating techniques employed.
 Time and level of effort budgeted to prepare the estimate.
 Unique/remote nature of project locations and the lack of reference data for these locations.
 The accuracy of the composition of the input and output process streams.

Systemic risks such as these are often the primary driver of accuracy, especially during the early stages of project
definition. As project definition progresses, project-specific risks (e.g. risk events) become more prevalent and also
[3]
drive the accuracy range . Another concern in estimates is potential pressure for a predetermined value that may

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and 4 of 15
Construction for the Process Industries

March 1, 2016

result in a biased estimate. The goal should be to always have an unbiased and objective estimate. The stated
estimate ranges are dependent on this premise and a realistic view of the project.

Failure to appropriately address systemic risks (e.g. technical complexity) during risk analysis impacts the resulting
probability distribution of the estimate costs, and therefore the interpretation of estimate accuracy.

Another way to look at the variability associated with estimate accuracy ranges is shown in Figure 1. Depending
upon the technical complexity of the project, the availability of appropriate cost reference information, the degree
of project definition, and the inclusion of appropriate contingency determination, a typical Class 5 estimate for a
process industry project may have an accuracy range as broad as -50% to +100%, or as narrow as -20% to +30%.

Figure 1 also illustrates that the estimating accuracy ranges overlap the estimate classes. There are cases where a
Class 5 estimate for a particular project may be as accurate as a Class 3 estimate for a different project. For
example, similar accuracy ranges may occur if the Class 5 estimate of one project that is based on a repeat project
with good cost history and data and, whereas the Class 3 estimate for another is for a project involving new
technology. It is for this reason that Table 1 provides ranges of accuracy range values. This allows application of the
specific circumstances inherent in a project, and an industry sector, to provide realistic estimate class accuracy

E
range percentages. While a target range may be expected of a particular estimate, the accuracy range is
determined through risk analysis of the specific project and is never pre-determined. AACE has recommended
practices that address contingency determination and risk analysis methods.
PL
If contingency has been addressed appropriately, approximately 80% of projects should fall within the ranges
shown in Figure 1. However, this does not preclude a specific actual project result from falling inside or outside of
the bands shown in Figure 1 indicating the expected accuracy ranges.
M
SA

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices

18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and 5 of 15
Construction for the Process Industries

March 1, 2016

100

90

80
Growth from Estimated Costs Including Contingency (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

E
10

-10

-20
PL
-30

-40
M
Maturity Level of Project Definition Deliverables (%)
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Class 5
Class 4 Class 2
SA

Class 3 Class 1

Figure 1 – Example of the Variability in Accuracy Ranges for a Process Industry Estimate

DETERMINATION OF THE COST ESTIMATE CLASS

The cost estimator makes the determination of the estimate class based upon the maturity level of project
definition based on the status of specific key planning and design deliverables. The percent design completion may
be correlated with the status, but the percentage should not be used as the estimate class determinant. While the
determination of the status (and hence the estimate class) is somewhat subjective, having standards for the design
input data, completeness and quality of the design deliverables will serve to make the determination more
objective.

Copyright © AACE® International AACE® International Recommended Practices