{"id":"court_ctb_890_29","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":890,"sub_number":29,"doc_type":"EXHIBIT","filed_date":"2022-09-28","title":"EXHIBIT PAX 29 AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in E","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT PAX 29**\n\nAACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries\n\n\n\nAACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97\n\nCOST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM – AS APPLIED IN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES TCM Framework: 7.3 – Cost Estimating and Budgeting\n\n**Acknowledgments:**\n\nPeter Christensen, CCE (Author) Larry R. Dysert, CCC (Author) Jennifer Bates, CCE Dorothy J. Burton Robert C. Creese, PE CCE John K. Hollmann, PE CCE\n\nKenneth K. Humphreys, PE CCE Donald F. McDonald, Jr. PE CCE C. Arthur Miller Bernard A. Pietlock, CCC Wesley R. Querns, CCE Don L. Short, II\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 3 of 11\n\nAACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97\n\nCOST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM – AS APPLIED IN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES TCM Framework: 7.3 – Cost Estimating and Budgeting\n\n\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n### **PURPOSE**\n\nAs 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 maturity and quality matrix, which can be applied across a wide variety of industries.\n\nThis addendum to the generic recommended practice 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 (17R-97) by providing:\n\n- a section that further defines classification concepts as they apply to the process industries;\n- charts that compare existing estimate classification practices in the process industry; and\n- a chart that maps the extent and maturity of estimate input information (project definition deliverables) against the class of estimate.\n\nAs with the generic standard, an 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.\n\nIt 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. It is hoped that this addendum will allow each user to better assess, define, and communicate their own processes and standards in the light of generally-accepted cost engineering practice.\n\n## **INTRODUCTION**\n\nFor 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 level of project definition, and thus the extent and maturity of estimate input information.\n\nEstimates 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, metallurgical, converting, and similar industries. Specific addendums addressing these industries may be developed over time.\n\nThis addendum specifically does not address cost estimate classification in nonprocess industries such as commercial building construction, environmental remediation, transportation infrastructure, \"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.\n\nThe 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\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 890-29 | Filed 09/28/22 | Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 | Page 4 of |\n|---------------|------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------|\n| | | 11 | | |\n| | | Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering | | 2 of 9 |\n| | | Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries | | |\n| | | | | |\n| | | | | February 2, 2005 |\n\nsignificant building construction that may be a part of process plants. Building construction will be covered in a separate addendum.\n\nThis guideline reflects generally-accepted cost engineering practices. This addendum 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 by the AACE International Cost Estimating Committee. The practices were found to have significant commonalities that are conveyed in this addendum.\n\n#### **COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES**\n\nThe five estimate classes are presented in figure 1 in relationship to the identified characteristics. Only the level of project definition determines the estimate class. The other four characteristics are secondary characteristics that are generally correlated with the level of project definition, as discussed in the generic standard. The characteristics are typical for the process industries but may vary from application to application.\n\nThis matrix and guideline provide an estimate classification system that is specific to the process industries. Refer to the generic standard 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 typically provide additional information, such as input deliverable checklists to allow meaningful categorization in those particular industries.\n\n| | Primary
Characteristic | Secondary Characteristic | | | |\n|-------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ESTIMATE
CLASS | LEVEL OF
PROJECT
DEFINITION
Expressed as % of
complete definition | END USAGE
Typical purpose of
estimate | METHODOLOGY
Typical estimating
method | EXPECTED
ACCURACY
RANGE
Typical variation in
low and high
ranges [a] | PREPARATION
EFFORT
Typical degree of
effort relative to
least cost index of
1 [b] |\n| Class 5 | 0% to 2% | Concept Screening | Capacity Factored,
Parametric Models,
Judgment, or
Analogy | L: -20% to -50%
H: +30% to +100% | 1 |\n| Class 4 | 1% to 15% | Study or Feasibility | Equipment
Factored or
Parametric Models | L: -15% to -30%
H: +20% to +50% | 2 to 4 |\n| Class 3 | 10% to 40% | Budget,
Authorization, or
Control | Semi-Detailed Unit
Costs with
Assembly Level
Line Items | L: -10% to -20%
H: +10% to +30% | 3 to 10 |\n| Class 2 | 30% to 70% | Control or Bid/
Tender | Detailed Unit Cost
with Forced
Detailed Take-Off | L: -5% to -15%
H: +5% to +20% | 4 to 20 |\n| Class 1 | 50% to 100% | Check Estimate or
Bid/Tender | Detailed Unit Cost
with Detailed Take
Off | L: -3% to -10%
H: +3% to +15% | 5 to 100 |\n\nNotes: [a] The state of process technology and availability of applicable reference cost data affect the range markedly. The +/- value represents typical percentage variation of actual costs from the cost estimate after application of contingency (typically at a 50% level of confidence) for given scope.\n\n[b] If the range index value of \"1\" represents 0.005% of project costs, then an index value of 100 represents 0.5%. Estimate preparation effort is highly dependent upon the size of the project and the quality of estimating data and tools.\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n#### **Figure 1. – Cost Estimate Classification Matrix for Process Industries CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESTIMATE CLASSES**\n\nThe following charts (figures 2a through 2e) provide detailed descriptions of the five estimate classifications as applied in the process industries. They are presented in the order of least-defined estimates to the most-defined estimates. These descriptions include brief discussions of each of the estimate characteristics that define an estimate class.\n\nFor each chart, the following information is provided:\n\n- **Description:** a short description of the class of estimate, including a brief listing of the expected estimate inputs based on the level of project definition.\n- **Level of Project Definition Required:** expressed as a percent of full definition. For the process industries, this correlates with the percent of engineering and design complete.\n- **End Usage:** a short discussion of the possible end usage of this class of estimate.\n- **Estimating Methods Used:** a listing of the possible estimating methods that may be employed to develop an estimate of this class.\n- **Expected Accuracy Range:** typical variation in low and high ranges after the application of contingency (determined at a 50% level of confidence). Typically, this results in a 90% confidence that the actual cost will fall within the bounds of the low and high ranges.\n- **Effort to Prepare:** this section provides a typical level of effort (in hours) to produce a complete estimate for a US\\$20,000,000 plant. Estimate preparation effort is highly dependent on project size, project complexity, estimator skills and knowledge, and on the availability of appropriate estimating cost data and tools.\n- **ANSI Standard Reference (1989) Name:** this is a reference to the equivalent estimate class in the existing ANSI standards.\n- **Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions, Synonyms:** this section provides other commonly used names that an estimate of this class might be known by. These alternate names are not endorsed by this Recommended Practice. The user is cautioned that an alternative name may not always be correlated with the class of estimate as identified in the chart.\n\n| CLASS 5 ESTIMATE | | |\n|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Description: | Estimating Methods Used: | |\n| Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on very | Class 5 estimates virtually always use stochastic | |\n| limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy | estimating methods such as cost/capacity curves and | |\n| ranges. As such, some companies and organizations have | factors, scale of operations factors, Lang factors, Hand | |\n| elected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies, | factors, Chilton factors, Peters-Timmerhaus factors, | |\n| such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional and | Guthrie factors, and other parametric and modeling | |\n| systemic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to the | techniques. | |\n| requirements of end use, may be prepared within a very | | |\n| limited amount of time and with little effort expended—
sometimes requiring less than an hour to prepare. Often, | Expected Accuracy Range:
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 5 estimates are - 20% to | |\n| little more than proposed plant type, location, and capacity | -50% on the low side, and +30% to +100% on the high | |\n| are known at the time of estimate preparation. | side, depending on the technological complexity of the | |\n| | project, appropriate reference information, and the | |\n| Level of Project Definition Required: | inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. | |\n| 0% to 2% of full project definition. | Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual | |\n| | circumstances. | |\n| End Usage: | | |\n| Class 5 estimates are prepared for any number of strategic | Effort to Prepare (for US\\$20MM project): | |\n| business planning purposes, such as but not limited to | As little as 1 hour or less to perhaps more than 200 hours, | |\n| market studies, assessment of initial viability, evaluation of | depending on the project and the estimating methodology | |\n| alternate schemes, project screening, project location
studies, evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, long | used. | |\n| range capital planning, etc. | ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name: | |\n| | Order of magnitude estimate (typically -30% to +50%). | |\n| | | |\n| | Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions, | |\n| | Synonyms: | |\n| | Ratio, ballpark, blue sky, seat-of-pants, ROM, idea study, | |\n| | prospect estimate, concession license estimate, | |\n| | guesstimate, rule-of-thumb. | |\n\n3 of 9\n\n#### **Figure 2a. – Class 5 Estimate**\n\n| CLASS 4 ESTIMATE | | |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Description:
Class 4 estimates are generally prepared based on limited
information and subsequently have fairly wide accuracy
ranges. They are typically used for project screening,
determination of feasibility, concept evaluation, and
preliminary budget approval. Typically, engineering is from
1% to 15% complete, and would comprise at a minimum
the following: plant capacity, block schematics, indicated | Estimating Methods Used:
Class 4 estimates virtually always use stochastic
estimating methods such as equipment factors, Lang
factors, Hand factors, Chilton factors, Peters-Timmerhaus
factors, Guthrie factors, the Miller method, gross unit
costs/ratios, and other parametric and modeling
techniques. | |\n| layout, process flow diagrams (PFDs) for main process
systems, and preliminary engineered process and utility
equipment lists. | Expected Accuracy Range:
Typical accuracy ranges for Class 4 estimates are -15% to
-30% on the low side, and +20% to +50% on the high side,
depending on the technological complexity of the project, | |\n| Level of Project Definition Required:
1% to 15% of full project definition. | appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an
appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could
exceed those shown in unusual circumstances. | |\n| End Usage:
Class 4 estimates are prepared for a number of purposes,
such as but not limited to, detailed strategic planning,
business development, project screening at more
developed stages, alternative scheme analysis,
confirmation of economic and/or technical feasibility, and | Effort to Prepare (for US\\$20MM project):
Typically, as little as 20 hours or less to perhaps more than
300 hours, depending on the project and the estimating
methodology used. | |\n| preliminary budget approval or approval to proceed to next
stage. | ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name:
Budget estimate (typically -15% to + 30%). | |\n| | Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Screening, top-down, feasibility, authorization, factored,
pre-design, pre-study. | |\n| Figure 2b. – Class 4 Estimate | | |\n\n## **CLASS 3 ESTIMATE**\n\n| Description: | Estimating Methods Used: |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|\n| Class 3 estimates are generally prepared to form the basis | Class 3 estimates usually involve more deterministic |\n| for budget authorization, appropriation, and/or funding. As | estimating methods than stochastic methods. They usually |\n| such, they typically form the initial control estimate against | involve a high degree of unit cost line items, although these |\n| which all actual costs and resources will be monitored. | may be at an assembly level of detail rather than individual |\n| Typically, engineering is from 10% to 40% complete, and | components. Factoring and other stochastic methods may |\n| would comprise at a minimum the following: process flow | be used to estimate less-significant areas of the project. |\n| diagrams, utility flow diagrams, preliminary piping and | |\n| instrument diagrams, plot plan, developed layout drawings, | Expected Accuracy Range: |\n| and essentially complete engineered process and utility | Typical accuracy ranges for Class 3 estimates are -10% to |\n| equipment lists. | -20% on the low side, and +10% to +30% on the high side, |\n| | depending on the technological complexity of the project, |\n| Level of Project Definition Required: | appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an |\n| 10% to 40% of full project definition. | appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could |\n| | exceed those shown in unusual circumstances. |\n| End Usage: | |\n| Class 3 estimates are typically prepared to support full | Effort to Prepare (for US\\$20MM project): |\n| project funding requests, and become the first of the | Typically, as little as 150 hours or less to perhaps more |\n| project phase \"control estimates\" against which all actual | than 1,500 hours, depending on the project and the |\n| costs and resources will be monitored for variations to the | estimating methodology used. |\n| budget. They are used as the project budget until replaced | |\n| by more detailed estimates. In many owner organizations, | ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name: |\n| a Class 3 estimate may be the last estimate required and | Budget estimate (typically -15% to + 30%). |\n| could well form the only basis for cost/schedule control. | |\n| | Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions, |\n| | Synonyms: |\n| | Budget, scope, sanction, semi-detailed, authorization, |\n| | preliminary control, concept study, development, basic |\n\n#### **Figure 2c. – Class 3 Estimate**\n\nengineering phase estimate, target estimate.\n\n# 4 of 9\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n# Case 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 7 of\n\nCost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering 11\n\nProcurement, and Construction for the Process Industries\n\n### February 2, 2005\n\n5 of 9\n\n| CLASS 2 ESTIMATE | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| Description: | Estimating Methods Used: | |\n| Class 2 estimates are generally prepared to form a detailed | Class 2 estimates always involve a high degree of | |\n| control baseline against which all project work is monitored | deterministic estimating methods. Class 2 estimates are | |\n| in terms of cost and progress control. For contractors, this | prepared in great detail, and often involve tens of | |\n| class of estimate is often used as the \"bid\" estimate to | thousands of unit cost line items. For those areas of the | |\n| establish contract value. Typically, engineering is from 30% | project still undefined, an assumed level of detail takeoff | |\n| to 70% complete, and would comprise at a minimum the | (forced detail) may be developed to use as line items in the | |\n| following: process flow diagrams, utility flow diagrams, | estimate instead of relying on factoring methods. | |\n| piping and instrument diagrams, heat and material | | |\n| balances, final plot plan, final layout drawings, complete | Expected Accuracy Range: | |\n| engineered process and utility equipment lists, single line | Typical accuracy ranges for Class 2 estimates are -5% to | |\n| diagrams for electrical, electrical equipment and motor | -15% on the low side, and +5% to +20% on the high side, | |\n| schedules, vendor quotations, detailed project execution
plans, resourcing and work force plans, etc. | depending on the technological complexity of the project,
appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an | |\n| | appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could | |\n| Level of Project Definition Required: | exceed those shown in unusual circumstances. | |\n| 30% to 70% of full project definition. | | |\n| | Effort to Prepare (for US\\$20MM project): | |\n| End Usage: | Typically, as little as 300 hours or less to perhaps more | |\n| Class 2 estimates are typically prepared as the detailed | than 3,000 hours, depending on the project and the | |\n| control baseline against which all actual costs and | estimating methodology used. Bid estimates typically | |\n| resources will now be monitored for variations to the | require more effort than estimates used for funding or | |\n| budget, and form a part of the change/variation control | control purposes. | |\n| program. | | |\n| | ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name: | |\n| | Definitive estimate (typically -5% to + 15%). | |\n| | Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions, | |\n| | Synonyms: | |\n| | Detailed control, forced detail, execution phase, master | |\n| | control, engineering, bid, tender, change order estimate. | |\n| Figure 2d. – Class 2 Estimate | | |\n\n#### **Figure 2d. – Class 2 Estimate**\n\n#### **CLASS 1 ESTIMATE**\n\n#### Class 1 estimates are generally prepared for discrete parts or sections of the total project rather than generating this level of detail for the entire project. The parts of the project estimated at this level of detail will typically be used by\n\n**Description:**\n\nsubcontractors for bids, or by owners for check estimates. The updated estimate is often referred to as the current control estimate and becomes the new baseline for cost/schedule control of the project. Class 1 estimates may be prepared for parts of the project to comprise a fair price estimate or bid check estimate to compare against a contractor's bid estimate, or to evaluate/dispute claims. Typically, engineering is from 50% to 100% complete, and would comprise virtually all engineering and design documentation of the project, and complete project execution and commissioning plans.\n\n**Level of Project Definition Required:** 50% to 100% of full project definition.\n\n#### **End Usage:**\n\nClass 1 estimates are typically prepared to form a current control estimate to be used as the final control baseline against which all actual costs and resources will now be monitored for variations to the budget, and form a part of the change/variation control program. They may be used to evaluate bid checking, to support vendor/contractor negotiations, or for claim evaluations and dispute resolution.\n\n#### **Estimating Methods Used:**\n\nClass 1 estimates involve the highest degree of deterministic estimating methods, and require a great amount of effort. Class 1 estimates are prepared in great detail, and thus are usually performed on only the most important or critical areas of the project. All items in the estimate are usually unit cost line items based on actual design quantities.\n\n#### **Expected Accuracy Range:**\n\nTypical accuracy ranges for Class 1 estimates are -3% to -10% on the low side, and +3% to +15% on the high side, depending on the technological complexity of the project, appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual circumstances.\n\n#### **Effort to Prepare (for US\\$20MM project):**\n\nClass 1 estimates require the most effort to create, and as such are generally developed for only selected areas of the project, or for bidding purposes. A complete Class 1 estimate may involve as little as 600 hours or less, to perhaps more than 6,000 hours, depending on the project and the estimating methodology used. Bid estimates typically require more effort than estimates used for funding or control purposes.\n\n#### **ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2 Name:** Definitive estimate (typically -5% to + 15%).\n\n**Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,**\n\n#### **Synonyms:** Full detail, release, fall-out, tender, firm price, bottoms-up,\n\nfinal, detailed control, forced detail, execution phase, master control, fair price, definitive, change order estimate.\n\n#### **Figure 2e. – Class 1 Estimate**\n\n## Case 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 8 of 11\n\nCost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries\n\n6 of 9\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n## **COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATION PRACTICES**\n\nFigures 3a through 3c provide a comparison of the estimate classification practices of various firms, organizations, and published sources against one another and against the guideline classifications. These tables permits users to benchmark their own classification practices.\n\n| | AACE Classification
Standard | ANSI Standard
Z94.0 | AACE Pre-1972 | Association of Cost
Engineers (UK)
ACostE | Norwegian Project
Management
Association (NFP) | American Society
of Professional
Estimators (ASPE) |\n|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|\n| | | Order of Magnitude
Estimate
-30/+50 | Order of Magnitude
Estimate | Order of Magnitude
Estimate
Class IV -30/+30 | Concession Estimate | Level 1 |\n| INCREASING PROJECT DEFINITION | Class 5 | | | | Exploration Estimate | |\n| | | | | | Feasibility Estimate | |\n| | | Budget Estimate
-15/+30 | Study Estimate | Study Estimate
Class III -20/+20 | Authorization
Estimate | |\n| | Class 4 | | | | | Level 2 |\n| | Class 3 | | Preliminary Estimate | | | |\n| | | | | Budget Estimate
Class II -10/+10 | Master Control
Estimate | Level 3 |\n| | Class 2 | Definitive Estimate
-5/+15 | Definitive Estimate | Definitive Estimate | Current Control
Estimate | Level 4 |\n| | Class 1 | | Detailed Estimate | Class I -5/+5 | | Level 5 |\n| | | | | | | Level 6 |\n\n**Figure 3a. – Comparison of Classification Practices**\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n7 of 9\n\n| | | AACE Classification
Standard | Major Consumer
Products Company
(Confidential) | Major Oil Company
(Confidential) | Major Oil Company
(Confidential) | Major Oil Company
(Confidential) | |\n|-------------------------------|--|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--|\n| INCREASING PROJECT DEFINITION | | Class 5 | Class S
Strategic Estimate | Class V
Order of Magnitude
Estimate | Class A
Prospect Estimate | Class V | |\n| | | | | | Class B
Evaluation Estimate | | |\n| | | Class 4 | Class 1
Conceptual Estimate | Class IV
Screening Estimate | Class C
Feasibility Estimate | Class IV | |\n| | | | | | Class D
Development | | |\n| | | Class 3 | Class 2
Semi-Detailed
Estimate | Class III | Estimate | Class III | |\n| | | | | Primary Control
Estimate | Class E
Preliminary Estimate | | |\n| | | Class 2 | Class 3 | Class II
Master Control
Estimate | Class F
Master Control
Estimate | Class II | |\n| | | Class 1 | Detailed Estimate | Class I
Current Control
Estimate | Current Control
Estimate | Class I | |\n\n**Figure 3b. – Comparison of Classification Practices**\n\n| | AACE Classification
Standard | J.R. Heizelman,
1988 AACE
Transactions [1] | K.T. Yeo,
The Cost Engineer,
1989 [2] | Stevens & Davis,
1988 AACE
Transactions [3] | P. Behrenbruck,
Journal of Petroleum
Technology, 1993 [4] |\n|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|\n| INCREASING PROJECT DEFINITION | Class 5 | Class V | Class V
Order of Magnitude | Class III* | Order of Magnitude |\n| | Class 4 | Class IV | Class IV
Factor Estimate | | Study Estimate |\n| | Class 3 | Class III | Class III
Office Estimate | Class II | |\n| | Class 2 | Class II | Class II
Definitive Estimate | | Budget Estimate |\n| | Class 1 | Class I | Class I
Final Estimate | Class I | Control Estimate |\n\n[1] John R. Heizelman, ARCO Oil & Gas Co., 1988 AACE Transactions, Paper V3.7\n\n[2] K.T. Yeo, The Cost Engineer, Vol. 27, No. 6, 1989\n\n[3] Stevens & Davis, BP International Ltd., 1988 AACE Transactions, Paper B4.1 (\\* Class III is inferred)\n\n[4] Peter Behrenbruck, BHP Petroleum Pty., Ltd., article in Petroleum Technology, August 1993\n\n## **Figure 3c. – Comparison of Classification Practices**\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 890-29 | Filed 09/28/22 | Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 | Page 10 of |\n|---------------|------------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| | | 11 | | |\n\n8 of 9\n\n| International | | |\n|---------------|--|--|\n| | | |\n| | | |\n| | | |\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n# **ESTIMATE INPUT CHECKLIST AND MATURITY MATRIX**\n\nFigure 4 maps the extent and maturity of estimate input information (deliverables) against the five estimate classification levels. This is a checklist of basic deliverables found in common practice in the process industries. The maturity level is an approximation of the degree of completion of the deliverable. The degree of completion is indicated by the following letters.\n\n- None (blank): development of the deliverable has not begun.\n- Started (S): work on the deliverable has begun. Development is typically limited to sketches, rough outlines, or similar levels of early completion.\n- Preliminary (P): work on the deliverable is advanced. Interim, cross-functional reviews have usually been conducted. Development may be near completion except for final reviews and approvals.\n- Complete (C): the deliverable has been reviewed and approved as appropriate.\n\n| | ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION | | | | |\n|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------|-------------|----------|-----------------|\n| General Project Data: | CLASS 5 | CLASS 4 | CLASS 3 | | CLASS 2 CLASS 1 |\n| Project Scope Description | General | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Plant Production/Facility Capacity | Assumed | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Plant Location | General | Approximate | Specific | Specific | Specific |\n| Soils & Hydrology | None | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Integrated Project Plan | None | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Project Master Schedule | None | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Escalation Strategy | None | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Work Breakdown Structure | None | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Project Code of Accounts | None | Preliminary | Defined | Defined | Defined |\n| Contracting Strategy | Assumed | Assumed | Preliminary | Defined | Defined |\n| Engineering Deliverables: | | | | | |\n| Block Flow Diagrams | S/P | P/C | C | C | C |\n| Plot Plans | | S | P/C | C | C |\n| Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs) | | S/P | P/C | C | C |\n| Utility Flow Diagrams (UFDs) | | S/P | P/C | C | C |\n| Piping & Instrument Diagrams (P&IDs) | | S | P/C | C | C |\n| Heat & Material Balances | | S | P/C | C | C |\n| Process Equipment List | | S/P | P/C | C | C |\n| Utility Equipment List | | S/P | P/C | C | C |\n| Electrical One-Line Drawings | | S/P | P/C | C | C |\n| Specifications & Datasheets | | S | P/C | C | C |\n| General Equipment Arrangement Drawings | | S | P/C | C | C |\n| Spare Parts Listings | | | S/P | P | C |\n| Mechanical Discipline Drawings | | | S | P | P/C |\n| Electrical Discipline Drawings | | | S | P | P/C |\n| Instrumentation/Control System Discipline Drawings | | | S | P | P/C |\n| Civil/Structural/Site Discipline Drawings | | | S | P | P/C |\n\n## **Figure 4. – Estimate Input Checklist and Maturity Matrix**\n\n#### **REFERENCES**\n\nANSI Standard Z94.2-1989. **Industrial Engineering Terminology: Cost Engineering**. AACE International Recommended Practice No.17R-97, **Cost Estimate Classification System**.\n\n#### **CONTRIBUTORS**\n\nPeter Christensen, CCE (Author) Larry R. Dysert, CCC (Author) Jennifer Bates, CCE\n\n| Case 22-50073 | Doc 890-29 | Filed 09/28/22
11 | Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 | Page 11 of |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------|---------------------------|------------|\n| Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering
Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries | | | | 9 of 9 |\n| | | | February 2, 2005 | |\n\nDorothy J. Burton Robert C. Creese, PE CCE John K. Hollmann, PE CCE Kenneth K. Humphreys, PE CCE Donald F. McDonald, Jr. PE CCE C. Arthur Miller Bernard A. Pietlock, CCC Wesley R. Querns, CCE Don L. Short, II","body_zh":"证据 PAX 29\n\nAACE International（国际成本工程促进协会）推荐实践第 18R-97 号：成本估算分类体系——适用于流程工业的工程、采购和施工\n\nAACE International（国际成本工程促进协会）推荐实践第 18R-97 号\n\n成本估算分类体系——适用于流程工业的工程、采购和施工 TCM 框架：7.3——成本估算与预算编制\n\n致谢：\n\nPeter Christensen（彼得·克里斯滕森），CCE（作者） Larry R. Dysert（拉里·R. 戴瑟特），CCC（作者） Jennifer Bates（詹妮弗·贝茨），CCE Dorothy J. Burton（多萝西·J. 伯顿） Robert C. Creese（罗伯特·C. 克里斯），PE CCE John K. Hollmann（约翰·K. 霍尔曼），PE CCE\n\nKenneth K. Humphreys（肯尼斯·K. 汉弗莱斯），PE CCE Donald F. McDonald, Jr.（小唐纳德·F. 麦克唐纳），PE CCE C. Arthur Miller（C. 阿瑟·米勒） Bernard A. Pietlock（伯纳德·A. 皮特洛克），CCC Wesley R. Querns（韦斯利·R. 奎恩斯），CCE Don L. Short, II（唐·L. 肖特二世）\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 3 of 11\n\nAACE International（国际成本工程促进协会）推荐实践第 18R-97 号\n\n成本估算分类体系——适用于流程工业的工程、采购和施工 TCM 框架：7.3——成本估算与预算编制\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n目的\n\n作为 AACE International（国际成本工程促进协会）的一项推荐实践，成本估算分类体系为将估算分类的一般原则应用于项目成本估算（即用于评估、批准和/或资助项目的成本估算）提供指南。成本估算分类体系将项目成本估算的阶段与步骤同通用的成熟度和质量矩阵相对应，该矩阵可适用于广泛的行业。\n\n本通用推荐实践的增补文件为将估算分类原则具体应用于流程工业工程、采购和施工（EPC）工作项目估算提供指南。本增补文件通过提供以下内容，对通用推荐实践（17R-97）作出补充：\n\n• 进一步界定适用于流程工业的分类概念的章节；\n• 对流程工业现有估算分类实践进行比较的图表；以及\n• 将估算输入信息（项目定义交付成果）的范围和成熟度与估算类别相对应的图表。\n\n与通用标准相同，本增补文件旨在改善所有参与流程工业项目成本估算编制、评估和使用的利益相关方之间的沟通。\n\n应当理解，每个企业可能拥有其自身的项目和估算流程及术语，并可能以特定方式对估算进行分类。本指南为流程工业提供了一套通用且普遍可接受的分类体系，可作为比较的基础。希望本增补文件将使每位使用者能够依据普遍接受的成本工程实践，更好地评估、界定和传达其自身的流程和标准。\n引言\n\n就本增补文件而言，流程工业一词被视为包括从事化学品、石油化工产品和烃类加工制造与生产的企业。这些行业的共同点（就估算分类而言）是，它们依赖工艺流程图（PFD）和管道及仪表流程图（P&ID）作为主要的范围界定文件。这些文件是确定项目定义程度以及估算输入信息范围和成熟度的关键交付成果。\n\n流程设施的估算以机械和化学工艺设备为中心，并涉及大量管道、仪表和过程控制。因此，本增补文件可能适用于其他行业的部分领域，例如制药、公用事业、冶金、加工转换及类似行业。随着时间推移，可能会制定针对这些行业的具体增补文件。\n\n本增补文件明确不涉及非流程工业中的成本估算分类，例如商业建筑施工、环境修复、交通基础设施、装配和制造等“干式”流程、软件开发等“软资产”生产以及类似行业。其亦不具体涉及采矿或烃类材料勘探、生产或运输的估算，尽管其可能适用于这些系统中的某些中间加工步骤。\n\n本增补文件所涵盖的成本估算仅适用于工程、采购和施工（EPC）工作。其不涵盖流程设施所制造产品的估算，亦不涵盖支持流程工业的研究和开发工作的估算。本指南不涵盖\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 第4页，共\n\n成本估算分类体系——适用于工程 共9页中的第2页\n采购和施工，适用于流程工业\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n可能构成流程工厂一部分的重要建筑施工。建筑施工将在单独的增补文件中予以涵盖。\n\n本指南反映普遍接受的成本工程实践。本增补文件以世界各地流程工业中众多公司的实践以及已发布的参考资料和标准为基础。AACE International（国际成本工程促进协会）成本估算委员会征集并审查了公司标准和公共标准。经发现，这些实践具有显著共性，并在本增补文件中予以体现。\n流程工业成本估算分类矩阵\n\n图1展示了五类估算与已确定特征之间的关系。只有项目定义程度决定估算类别。其他四项特征属于次要特征，通常与项目定义程度相关，如通用标准所述。这些特征对于流程工业而言具有典型性，但可能因具体应用而异。\n\n本矩阵和指南提供了一套专用于流程工业的估算分类体系。有关不针对特定行业的通用矩阵，请参阅通用标准；有关可为其他具体行业应用提供更详细信息的指南，请参阅其他增补文件。这些文件通常将提供额外信息，例如输入交付成果核对清单，以便在该等特定行业中进行有意义的分类。\n\n主要\n特征 次要特征\n\n估算\n类别 项目\n定义\n程度\n以完整定义的百分比表示 最终用途\n估算的\n典型目的 方法\n典型估算\n方法 预期\n准确性\n范围\n低值和高值范围内的\n典型变动[a] 编制\n工作量\n相对于最低成本指数\n1的典型\n工作量程度[b]\n\n第5类 0%至2% 概念筛选 产能系数法、\n参数模型、\n判断或\n类比法 低：-20%至-50%\n高：+30%至+100% 1\n\n第4类 1%至15% 研究或可行性 设备\n系数法或\n参数模型 低：-15%至-30%\n高：+20%至+50% 2至4\n\n第3类 10%至40% 预算、\n授权或\n控制 采用组装层级\n项目的半详细\n单位成本法 低：-10%至-20%\n高：+10%至+30% 3至10\n\n第2类 30%至70% 控制或投标/\n招标 采用强制\n详细工程量计算的\n详细单位成本法 低：-5%至-15%\n高：+5%至+20% 4至20\n\n第1类 50%至100% 核查估算或\n投标/招标 采用详细工程量\n计算的详细\n单位成本法 低：-3%至-10%\n高：+3%至+15% 5至100\n\n注释：[a] 工艺技术的状态和适用参考成本数据的可得性会显著影响该范围。+/- 数值表示，在针对既定范围应用预备费之后（通常在50%的置信水平下），实际成本与成本估算之间的典型百分比偏差。\n\n[b] 如范围指数值“1”代表项目成本的0.005%，则指数值100代表0.5%。估算编制工作量高度取决于项目规模以及估算数据和工具的质量。\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n图1——流程工业成本估算分类矩阵 估算类别的特征\n\n下列图表（图2a至图2e）详细说明了适用于流程工业的五类估算分类。其按照定义程度最低的估算至定义程度最高的估算的顺序列示。这些说明包括对界定某一估算类别的各项估算特征的简要讨论。\n\n每张图表提供以下信息：\n\n• 说明：对该类估算的简要说明，包括根据项目定义程度对预期估算输入的简要列示。\n• 所需项目定义程度：以完整定义的百分比表示。对于流程工业，该项与已完成工程和设计的百分比相关。\n• 最终用途：对该类估算可能的最终用途的简要讨论。\n• 所用估算方法：可用于编制该类估算的可能估算方法列表。\n• 预期准确性范围：应用预备费后低值和高值范围内的典型变动（在50%的置信水平下确定）。通常，这使实际成本落入低值和高值范围界限内的置信度达到90%。\n• 编制工作量：本节提供为一座 US$20,000,000 工厂编制完整估算所需的典型工作量（以小时计）。估算编制工作量高度取决于项目规模、项目复杂程度、估算人员的技能和知识，以及适当估算成本数据和工具的可得性。\n• ANSI 标准参考（1989）名称：这是对现有 ANSI 标准中相应估算类别的引用。\n• 替代估算名称、术语、表述、同义词：本节提供该类估算可能被称为的其他常用名称。本推荐实践并不认可这些替代名称。提醒使用者注意，替代名称未必始终与图表中确定的估算类别相关。\n\n第5类估算\n英语\n\n说明：所采用的估算方法：\n第 5 类估算通常基于非常有限的信息编制，因此准确度范围很宽。因此，一些公司和组织认为，由于其固有的不准确性，此类估算无法以常规且系统的方式分类。由于最终用途的要求，第 5 类估算可以在极短时间内并以很少的工作量完成——有时编制所需时间不足一小时。通常，在编制估算时，所知信息仅略多于拟建工厂的类型、地点和产能。\n\n第 5 类估算几乎总是采用随机估算方法，例如成本/产能曲线和系数、运营规模系数、Lang 系数、Hand 系数、Chilton 系数、Peters-Timmerhaus 系数、Guthrie 系数，以及其他参数化和建模技术。\n\n所需项目定义程度：\n完整项目定义的 0% 至 2%。\n\n预期准确度范围：\n第 5 类估算的典型准确度范围，下限为 - 20% 至 -50%，上限为 +30% 至 +100%，取决于项目的技术复杂程度、适当的参考信息，以及是否计入适当的应急费用确定。特殊情况下，范围可能超出所示范围。\n\n最终用途：\n第 5 类估算用于多种战略业务规划目的，包括但不限于市场研究、初步可行性评估、备选方案评价、项目筛选、项目选址研究、资源需求和预算评估、长期资本规划等。\n\n编制工作量（针对 US\\$20MM 项目）：\n根据项目和所采用的估算方法，可能少至 1 小时或更少，也可能超过 200 小时。\n\nANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 名称：\n数量级估算（通常为 -30% 至 +50%）。\n\n备选估算名称、术语、表述、同义词：\n比率、概略估算、蓝天估算、凭经验估算、ROM、构想研究、机会估算、特许许可证估算、猜测性估算、经验法则。\n\n图 2a. – 第 5 类估算\n\n第 4 类估算\n\n说明：\n\n第 4 类估算通常基于有限信息编制，因此准确度范围相当宽。其通常用于项目筛选、可行性确定、概念评价和初步预算批准。通常，工程工作完成度为 1% 至 15%，且至少包括以下内容：工厂产能、方块示意图、示意性布置、主要工艺系统的工艺流程图（PFDs），以及初步工程化的工艺和公用工程设备清单。\n\n所采用的估算方法：\n第 4 类估算几乎总是采用随机估算方法，例如设备系数、Lang 系数、Hand 系数、Chilton 系数、Peters-Timmerhaus 系数、Guthrie 系数、Miller 方法、总单元成本/比率，以及其他参数化和建模技术。\n\n预期准确度范围：\n第 4 类估算的典型准确度范围，下限为 -15% 至 -30%，上限为 +20% 至 +50%，取决于项目的技术复杂程度、适当的参考信息，以及是否计入适当的应急费用确定。特殊情况下，范围可能超出所示范围。\n\n所需项目定义程度：\n完整项目定义的 1% 至 15%。\n\n最终用途：\n第 4 类估算为多种目的编制，包括但不限于详细战略规划、业务发展、在较成熟阶段的项目筛选、备选方案分析、经济和/或技术可行性确认，以及初步预算批准或批准进入下一阶段。\n\n编制工作量（针对 US\\$20MM 项目）：\n根据项目和所采用的估算方法，通常少至 20 小时或更少，也可能超过 300 小时。\n\nANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 名称：\n预算估算（通常为 -15% 至 + 30%）。\n\n备选估算名称、术语、表述、同义词：\n筛选、自上而下、可行性、授权、系数法、设计前、研究前。\n\n图 2b. – 第 4 类估算\n\n第 3 类估算\n\n说明：\n\n第 3 类估算通常为预算授权、拨款和/或融资提供基础。因此，其通常构成初始控制估算，所有实际成本和资源均将据此进行监控。通常，工程工作完成度为 10% 至 40%，且至少包括以下内容：工艺流程图、公用工程流程图、初步管道和仪表图、总平面图、深化布置图，以及基本完整的工程化工艺和公用工程设备清单。\n\n所采用的估算方法：\n\n第 3 类估算通常采用比随机方法更多的确定性估算方法。其通常包括大量单位成本明细项，尽管这些明细项可能处于组合层级的详细程度，而非单个部件层级。可采用系数法和其他随机方法估算项目中较不重要的区域。\n\n预期准确度范围：\n第 3 类估算的典型准确度范围，下限为 -10% 至 -20%，上限为 +10% 至 +30%，取决于项目的技术复杂程度、适当的参考信息，以及是否计入适当的应急费用确定。特殊情况下，范围可能超出所示范围。\n\n所需项目定义程度：\n完整项目定义的 10% 至 40%。\n\n最终用途：\n第 3 类估算通常为完整项目融资申请提供支持，并成为项目阶段“控制估算”中的第一个，所有实际成本和资源将据此监控相对于预算的偏差。在被更详细的估算取代之前，其被用作项目预算。在许多业主组织中，第 3 类估算可能是所需的最后一项估算，并且很可能构成成本/进度控制的唯一基础。\n\n编制工作量（针对 US\\$20MM 项目）：\n根据项目和所采用的估算方法，通常少至 150 小时或更少，也可能超过 1,500 小时。\n\nANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 名称：\n预算估算（通常为 -15% 至 + 30%）。\n\n备选估算名称、术语、表述、同义词：\n预算、范围、批准、半详细、授权、初步控制、概念研究、开发、基础工程阶段估算、目标估算。\n\n图 2c. – 第 3 类估算\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\nCase 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 7 of\n\n适用于工程、采购和施工的成本估算分类系统 11\n\n适用于流程工业\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\n第 2 类估算\n\n说明：\n\n第 2 类估算通常用于形成详细控制基准，所有项目工作均将根据该基准进行成本和进度控制。对于承包商，此类估算通常用作确定合同价值的“投标”估算。通常，工程工作完成度为 30% 至 70%，且至少包括以下内容：工艺流程图、公用工程流程图、管道和仪表图、热量和物料平衡、最终总平面图、最终布置图、完整的工程化工艺和公用工程设备清单、电气单线图、电气设备和电动机明细表、供应商报价、详细项目执行计划、资源和劳动力计划等。\n\n所采用的估算方法：\n第 2 类估算始终采用高度确定性的估算方法。第 2 类估算编制得非常详细，通常包含数万个单位成本明细项。对于项目中尚未定义的区域，可以形成假定详细程度的工程量提取（强制详细程度），以在估算中作为明细项使用，而不是依赖系数法。\n\n预期准确度范围：\n第 2 类估算的典型准确度范围，下限为 -5% 至 -15%，上限为 +5% 至 +20%，取决于项目的技术复杂程度、适当的参考信息，以及是否计入适当的应急费用确定。特殊情况下，范围可能超出所示范围。\n\n所需项目定义程度：\n完整项目定义的 30% 至 70%。\n\n编制工作量（针对 US\\$20MM 项目）：\n根据项目和所采用的估算方法，通常少至 300 小时或更少，也可能超过 3,000 小时。投标估算通常比用于融资或控制目的的估算需要更多工作量。\n\n最终用途：\n第 2 类估算通常作为详细控制基准编制，所有实际成本和资源现将据此监控相对于预算的偏差，并构成变更/偏差控制计划的一部分。\n\nANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 名称：\n确定性估算（通常为 -5% 至 + 15%）。\n\n备选估算名称、术语、表述、同义词：\n详细控制、强制详细程度、执行阶段、主控制、工程、投标、招标、变更命令估算。\n\n图 2d. – 第 2 类估算\n\n图 2d. – 第 2 类估算\n\n第 1 类估算\n\n说明：\n\n第 1 类估算通常针对整个项目的独立部分或分段编制，而不是为整个项目形成此等详细程度。项目中按此详细程度估算的部分通常由分包商用于投标，或由业主用于核查估算。更新后的估算通常称为现行控制估算，并成为项目成本/进度控制的新基准。第 1 类估算可针对项目的部分内容编制，以构成公允价格估算或投标核查估算，用于与承包商的投标估算进行比较，或用于评估/争议索赔。通常，工程工作完成度为 50% 至 100%，且包括项目几乎全部的工程和设计文件，以及完整的项目执行和试运行计划。\n\n所需项目定义程度：完整项目定义的 50% 至 100%。\n\n最终用途：\n\n第 1 类估算通常用于形成现行控制估算，作为最终控制基准，所有实际成本和资源现将据此监控相对于预算的偏差，并构成变更/偏差控制计划的一部分。其可用于评估投标核查、支持供应商/承包商谈判，或用于索赔评估和争议解决。\n\n所采用的估算方法：\n\n第 1 类估算采用最高程度的确定性估算方法，并需要大量工作量。第 1 类估算编制得非常详细，因此通常仅针对项目中最重要或最关键的区域进行。估算中的所有项目通常均为以实际设计工程量为基础的单位成本明细项。\n\n预期准确度范围：\n\n第 1 类估算的典型准确度范围，下限为 -3% 至 -10%，上限为 +3% 至 +15%，取决于项目的技术复杂程度、适当的参考信息，以及是否计入适当的应急费用确定。特殊情况下，范围可能超出所示范围。\n\n编制工作量（针对 US\\$20MM 项目）：\n\n第 1 类估算需要最多的编制工作量，因此通常仅针对项目选定区域或为投标目的而编制。完整的第 1 类估算根据项目和所采用的估算方法，可能少至 600 小时或更少，也可能超过 6,000 小时。投标估算通常比用于融资或控制目的的估算需要更多工作量。\n\nANSI Standard Reference Z94.2 名称：确定性估算（通常为 -5% 至 + 15%）。\n\n估算的替代名称、术语、表述、\n同义词：完整细节、发布、结算、投标、固定价格、自下而上、\n\n最终、详细控制、强制细节、执行阶段、总体控制、公平价格、最终确定、变更令估算。\n图 2e. — 第 1 类估算\n案件 22-50073 文件 890-29 提交日期 09/28/22 登记日期 09/28/22 16:32:28 第 8 页，共 11 页\n\n成本估算分类系统——适用于流程工业的工程、采购和施工\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n分类实践比较\n\n图 3a 至 3c 将各公司、组织及已出版资料来源的估算分类实践相互比较，并与指南分类进行比较。这些表格使用户能够对其自身的分类实践进行基准比较。\n\nAACE（美国成本工程师协会）分类\n标准 ANSI（美国国家标准学会）标准\nZ94.0 AACE 1972 年以前 Association of Cost\nEngineers (UK)（英国成本工程师协会）\nACostE Norwegian Project\nManagement\nAssociation (NFP)（挪威项目管理协会） American Society\nof Professional\nEstimators (ASPE)（美国专业估算师协会）\n\n数量级\n估算\n-30/+50 数量级\n估算 数量级\n估算\n第 IV 类 -30/+30 让步估算 第 1 级\n不断提高的项目定义 第 5 类 勘探估算\n可行性估算\n预算估算\n-15/+30 研究估算 研究估算\n第 III 类 -20/+20 授权\n估算\n第 4 类 第 2 级\n第 3 类 初步估算\n预算估算\n第 II 类 -10/+10 总体控制\n估算 第 3 级\n第 2 类 最终确定估算\n-5/+15 最终确定估算 最终确定估算 现行控制\n估算 第 4 级\n第 1 类 详细估算 第 I 类 -5/+5 第 5 级\n第 6 级\n\n图 3a. — 分类实践比较\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\nAACE（美国成本工程师协会）分类\n标准 主要消费品\n公司\n（保密） 主要石油公司\n（保密） 主要石油公司\n（保密） 主要石油公司\n（保密）\n\n不断提高的项目定义 第 5 类 第 S 类\n战略估算 第 V 类\n数量级\n估算 第 A 类\n前景估算 第 V 类\n第 B 类\n评估估算\n第 4 类 第 1 类\n概念估算 第 IV 类\n筛选估算 第 C 类\n可行性估算 第 IV 类\n第 D 类\n开发\n第 3 类 第 2 类\n半详细\n估算 第 III 类 估算 第 III 类\n主要控制\n估算 第 E 类\n初步估算\n第 2 类 第 3 类 第 II 类\n总体控制\n估算 第 F 类\n总体控制\n估算 第 II 类\n第 1 类 详细估算 第 I 类\n现行控制\n估算 现行控制\n估算 第 I 类\n\n图 3b. — 分类实践比较\n\nAACE（美国成本工程师协会）分类\n标准 J.R. Heizelman（J.R. 海泽尔曼），\n1988 AACE\nTransactions [1] K.T. Yeo（K.T. 杨），\nThe Cost Engineer，\n1989 [2] Stevens & Davis（史蒂文斯与戴维斯），\n1988 AACE\nTransactions [3] P. Behrenbruck（P. 贝伦布鲁克），\nJournal of Petroleum\nTechnology，\n1993 [4]\n\n不断提高的项目定义 第 5 类 第 V 类 第 V 类\n数量级 第 III 类＊ 数量级\n第 4 类 第 IV 类 第 IV 类\n系数估算 研究估算\n第 3 类 第 III 类 第 III 类\n办公室估算 第 II 类\n第 2 类 第 II 类 第 II 类\n最终确定估算 预算估算\n第 1 类 第 I 类 第 I 类\n最终估算 第 I 类 控制估算\n\n[1] John R. Heizelman（约翰·R. 海泽尔曼），ARCO Oil & Gas Co.（ARCO 石油与天然气公司），1988 AACE Transactions，论文 V3.7\n\n[2] K.T. Yeo（K.T. 杨），The Cost Engineer，第 27 卷，第 6 期，1989\n\n[3] Stevens & Davis（史蒂文斯与戴维斯），BP International Ltd.（英国石油国际有限公司），1988 AACE Transactions，论文 B4.1（＊第 III 类系推定）\n\n[4] Peter Behrenbruck（彼得·贝伦布鲁克），BHP Petroleum Pty., Ltd.（BHP 石油有限公司），发表于 Petroleum Technology 的文章，August 1993\n图 3c. — 分类实践比较\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 890-29 提交日期 09/28/22 登记日期 09/28/22 16:32:28 第 10 页，共\n\n国际\n\nFebruary 2, 2005\n估算输入核对清单和成熟度矩阵\n\n图 4 将估算输入信息（交付成果）的范围和成熟度与五个估算分类级别进行对应。这是流程工业中常见实践所包含的基本交付成果核对清单。成熟度级别是对交付成果完成程度的近似表示。完成程度以下列字母表示。\n\n－ 无（空白）：尚未开始编制该交付成果。\n－ 已开始（S）：已开始进行该交付成果的工作。编制通常仅限于草图、粗略纲要或类似的早期完成程度。\n－ 初步（P）：该交付成果的工作已取得进展。通常已进行了临时的跨职能审查。除最终审查和批准外，编制可能接近完成。\n－ 完成（C）：该交付成果已按适当程序审查并获批准。\n\n估算分类\n\n一般项目数据： 第 5 类 第 4 类 第 3 类 第 2 类 第 1 类\n项目范围说明 一般 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n工厂产量/设施能力 假定 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n工厂地点 一般 约略 具体 具体 具体\n土壤和水文 无 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n综合项目计划 无 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n项目总体进度表 无 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n通胀策略 无 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n工作分解结构 无 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n项目会计科目表 无 初步 已定义 已定义 已定义\n合同策略 假定 假定 初步 已定义 已定义\n工程交付成果：\n区块流程图 S/P P/C C C C\n总平面布置图 S P/C C C\n工艺流程图（PFDs） S/P P/C C C\n公用工程流程图（UFDs） S/P P/C C C\n管道和仪表流程图（P&IDs） S P/C C C\n热量和物料平衡 S P/C C C\n工艺设备清单 S/P P/C C C\n公用工程设备清单 S/P P/C C C\n电气单线图 S/P P/C C C\n规范和数据表 S P/C C C\n通用设备布置图 S P/C C C\n备件清单 S/P P C\n机械专业图纸 S P P/C\n电气专业图纸 S P P/C\n仪表/控制系统专业图纸 S P P/C\n土建/结构/场地专业图纸 S P P/C\n图 4. — 估算输入核对清单和成熟度矩阵\n参考文献\n\nANSI 标准 Z94.2-1989。工业工程术语：成本工程。AACE International（AACE 国际）推荐做法第 17R-97 号，成本估算分类系统。\n撰稿人\n\nPeter Christensen（彼得·克里斯滕森），CCE（作者） Larry R. Dysert（拉里·R. 戴瑟特），CCC（作者） Jennifer Bates（詹妮弗·贝茨），CCE\n\n案件 22-50073 文件 890-29 提交日期 09/28/22\n11 登记日期 09/28/22 16:32:28 第 11 页，共\n\n成本估算分类系统——适用于流程工业的工程\n采购和施工 9 页，共 9 页\nFebruary 2, 2005\n\nDorothy J. Burton（多萝西·J. 伯顿） Robert C. Creese（罗伯特·C. 克里斯），PE CCE John K. Hollmann（约翰·K. 霍尔曼），PE CCE Kenneth K. Humphreys（肯尼斯·K. 汉弗莱斯），PE CCE Donald F. McDonald, Jr.（小唐纳德·F. 麦克唐纳），PE CCE C. Arthur Miller（C. 阿瑟·米勒） Bernard A. Pietlock（伯纳德·A. 皮特洛克），CCC Wesley R. Querns（韦斯利·R. 奎恩斯），CCE Don L. Short, II（唐·L. 肖特二世）","key_entities":["Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":5097,"status":"published","published_at":"2022-09-28 00:00:00","created_at":"2022-09-28","updated_at":"2026-08-23 20:44:51"}