---
type: court_doc
id: "court_ctb_890_29"
court: "CTB"
case_no: "22-50073"
doc_number: 890
doc_type: "EXHIBIT"
filed_date: "2022-09-28"
lang: "en"
machine_translated: false
url: "https://mubeitech.com/en/court/court_ctb_890_29"
json_url: "https://mubeitech.com/api/court/court_ctb_890_29"
---
# Guo Wengui / Miles Guo — bankruptcy case · EXHIBIT · ECF #890-29



EXHIBIT PAX 29

AACE International Recommended Practice No. 18R-97: Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering, Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries

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

Acknowledgments:

Peter Christensen, CCE (Author) Larry R. Dysert, CCC (Author) Jennifer Bates, CCE Dorothy 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

Case 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 3 of 11

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

February 2, 2005
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 maturity and quality matrix, which can be applied across a wide variety of industries.

This 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:

- a section that further defines classification concepts as they apply to the process industries;
- charts that compare existing estimate classification practices in the process industry; and
- a chart that maps the extent and maturity of estimate input information (project definition deliverables) against the class of estimate.

As 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.

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. 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.
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 level 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, metallurgical, converting, and similar industries. Specific addendums addressing these industries may be developed over time.

This 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.

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

Case 22-50073　Doc 890-29　Filed 09/28/22　Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28　Page 4 of

Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering　2 of 9
Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries

February 2, 2005

significant building construction that may be a part of process plants. Building construction will be covered in a separate addendum.

This 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.
COST ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION MATRIX FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES

The 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.

This 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.

Primary
Characteristic　Secondary Characteristic

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]
Class 5　0% to 2%　Concept Screening　Capacity Factored,
Parametric Models,
Judgment, or
Analogy　L: -20% to -50%
H: +30% to +100%　1
Class 4　1% to 15%　Study or Feasibility　Equipment
Factored or
Parametric Models　L: -15% to -30%
H: +20% to +50%　2 to 4
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
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
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

Notes: [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.

[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.

February 2, 2005
Figure 1. – Cost Estimate Classification Matrix for Process Industries CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ESTIMATE CLASSES

The 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.

For each chart, the following information is provided:

- 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.
- 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.
- End Usage: a short discussion of the possible end usage of this class of estimate.
- Estimating Methods Used: a listing of the possible estimating methods that may be employed to develop an estimate of this class.
- 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.
- 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.
- ANSI Standard Reference (1989) Name: this is a reference to the equivalent estimate class in the existing ANSI standards.
- 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.

CLASS 5 ESTIMATE

Description:　Estimating Methods Used:
Class 5 estimates are generally prepared based on very　Class 5 estimates virtually always use stochastic
limited information, and subsequently have wide accuracy　estimating methods such as cost/capacity curves and
ranges. As such, some companies and organizations have　factors, scale of operations factors, Lang factors, Hand
elected to determine that due to the inherent inaccuracies,　factors, Chilton factors, Peters-Timmerhaus factors,
such estimates cannot be classified in a conventional and　Guthrie factors, and other parametric and modeling
systemic manner. Class 5 estimates, due to the　techniques.
requirements of end use, may be prepared within a very
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
little more than proposed plant type, location, and capacity　-50% on the low side, and +30% to +100% on the high
are known at the time of estimate preparation.　side, depending on the technological complexity of the
project, appropriate reference information, and the
Level of Project Definition Required:　inclusion of an appropriate contingency determination.
0% to 2% of full project definition.　Ranges could exceed those shown in unusual
circumstances.
End Usage:
Class 5 estimates are prepared for any number of strategic　Effort to Prepare (for US\$20MM project):
business planning purposes, such as but not limited to　As little as 1 hour or less to perhaps more than 200 hours,
market studies, assessment of initial viability, evaluation of　depending on the project and the estimating methodology
alternate schemes, project screening, project location
studies, evaluation of resource needs and budgeting, long　used.
range capital planning, etc.　ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name:
Order of magnitude estimate (typically -30% to +50%).

Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Ratio, ballpark, blue sky, seat-of-pants, ROM, idea study,
prospect estimate, concession license estimate,
guesstimate, rule-of-thumb.

Figure 2a. – Class 5 Estimate

CLASS 4 ESTIMATE

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.
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,
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.
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.
preliminary budget approval or approval to proceed to next
stage.　ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name:
Budget estimate (typically -15% to + 30%).
Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Screening, top-down, feasibility, authorization, factored,
pre-design, pre-study.
Figure 2b. – Class 4 Estimate
CLASS 3 ESTIMATE

Description:　Estimating Methods Used:

Class 3 estimates are generally prepared to form the basis　Class 3 estimates usually involve more deterministic
for budget authorization, appropriation, and/or funding. As　estimating methods than stochastic methods. They usually
such, they typically form the initial control estimate against　involve a high degree of unit cost line items, although these
which all actual costs and resources will be monitored.　may be at an assembly level of detail rather than individual
Typically, engineering is from 10% to 40% complete, and　components. Factoring and other stochastic methods may
would comprise at a minimum the following: process flow　be used to estimate less-significant areas of the project.
diagrams, utility flow diagrams, preliminary piping and
instrument diagrams, plot plan, developed layout drawings,　Expected Accuracy Range:
and essentially complete engineered process and utility　Typical accuracy ranges for Class 3 estimates are -10% to
equipment lists.　-20% on the low side, and +10% to +30% on the high side,
depending on the technological complexity of the project,
Level of Project Definition Required:　appropriate reference information, and the inclusion of an
10% to 40% of full project definition.　appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could
exceed those shown in unusual circumstances.
End Usage:
Class 3 estimates are typically prepared to support full　Effort to Prepare (for US\$20MM project):
project funding requests, and become the first of the　Typically, as little as 150 hours or less to perhaps more
project phase "control estimates" against which all actual　than 1,500 hours, depending on the project and the
costs and resources will be monitored for variations to the　estimating methodology used.
budget. They are used as the project budget until replaced
by more detailed estimates. In many owner organizations,　ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name:
a Class 3 estimate may be the last estimate required and　Budget estimate (typically -15% to + 30%).
could well form the only basis for cost/schedule control.
Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Budget, scope, sanction, semi-detailed, authorization,
preliminary control, concept study, development, basic
Figure 2c. – Class 3 Estimate

engineering phase estimate, target estimate.

February 2, 2005
Case 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 7 of

Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering 11

Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries
February 2, 2005

CLASS 2 ESTIMATE

Description:　Estimating Methods Used:
Class 2 estimates are generally prepared to form a detailed　Class 2 estimates always involve a high degree of
control baseline against which all project work is monitored　deterministic estimating methods. Class 2 estimates are
in terms of cost and progress control. For contractors, this　prepared in great detail, and often involve tens of
class of estimate is often used as the "bid" estimate to　thousands of unit cost line items. For those areas of the
establish contract value. Typically, engineering is from 30%　project still undefined, an assumed level of detail takeoff
to 70% complete, and would comprise at a minimum the　(forced detail) may be developed to use as line items in the
following: process flow diagrams, utility flow diagrams,　estimate instead of relying on factoring methods.
piping and instrument diagrams, heat and material
balances, final plot plan, final layout drawings, complete　Expected Accuracy Range:
engineered process and utility equipment lists, single line　Typical accuracy ranges for Class 2 estimates are -5% to
diagrams for electrical, electrical equipment and motor　-15% on the low side, and +5% to +20% on the high side,
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
appropriate contingency determination. Ranges could
Level of Project Definition Required:　exceed those shown in unusual circumstances.
30% to 70% of full project definition.
Effort to Prepare (for US\$20MM project):
End Usage:　Typically, as little as 300 hours or less to perhaps more
Class 2 estimates are typically prepared as the detailed　than 3,000 hours, depending on the project and the
control baseline against which all actual costs and　estimating methodology used. Bid estimates typically
resources will now be monitored for variations to the　require more effort than estimates used for funding or
budget, and form a part of the change/variation control　control purposes.
program.
ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2-1989 Name:
Definitive estimate (typically -5% to + 15%).
Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:
Detailed control, forced detail, execution phase, master
control, engineering, bid, tender, change order estimate.
Figure 2d. – Class 2 Estimate
Figure 2d. – Class 2 Estimate
CLASS 1 ESTIMATE
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

Description:

subcontractors 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.

Level of Project Definition Required:  50% to 100% of full project definition.
End Usage:

Class 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.
Estimating Methods Used:

Class 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.
Expected Accuracy Range:

Typical 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.
Effort to Prepare (for US\$20MM project):

Class 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.
ANSI Standard Reference Z94.2 Name:  Definitive estimate (typically -5% to + 15%).

Alternate Estimate Names, Terms, Expressions,
Synonyms:  Full detail, release, fall-out, tender, firm price, bottoms-up,

final, detailed control, forced detail, execution phase, master control, fair price, definitive, change order estimate.
Figure 2e. – Class 1 Estimate
Case 22-50073 Doc 890-29 Filed 09/28/22 Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28 Page 8 of 11

Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries

February 2, 2005
COMPARISON OF CLASSIFICATION PRACTICES

Figures 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.

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)

Order of Magnitude
Estimate
-30/+50　Order of Magnitude
Estimate　Order of Magnitude
Estimate
Class IV -30/+30　Concession Estimate　Level 1
INCREASING PROJECT DEFINITION　Class 5　Exploration Estimate
Feasibility Estimate
Budget Estimate
-15/+30　Study Estimate　Study Estimate
Class III -20/+20　Authorization
Estimate
Class 4　Level 2
Class 3　Preliminary Estimate
Budget Estimate
Class II -10/+10　Master Control
Estimate　Level 3
Class 2　Definitive Estimate
-5/+15　Definitive Estimate　Definitive Estimate　Current Control
Estimate　Level 4
Class 1　Detailed Estimate　Class I -5/+5　Level 5
Level 6

Figure 3a. – Comparison of Classification Practices

February 2, 2005

AACE Classification
Standard　Major Consumer
Products Company
(Confidential)　Major Oil Company
(Confidential)　Major Oil Company
(Confidential)　Major Oil Company
(Confidential)

INCREASING PROJECT DEFINITION　Class 5　Class S
Strategic Estimate　Class V
Order of Magnitude
Estimate　Class A
Prospect Estimate　Class V
Class B
Evaluation Estimate
Class 4　Class 1
Conceptual Estimate　Class IV
Screening Estimate　Class C
Feasibility Estimate　Class IV
Class D
Development
Class 3　Class 2
Semi-Detailed
Estimate　Class III　Estimate　Class III
Primary Control
Estimate　Class E
Preliminary Estimate
Class 2　Class 3　Class II
Master Control
Estimate　Class F
Master Control
Estimate　Class II
Class 1　Detailed Estimate　Class I
Current Control
Estimate　Current Control
Estimate　Class I

Figure 3b. – Comparison of Classification Practices

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]

INCREASING PROJECT DEFINITION　Class 5　Class V　Class V
Order of Magnitude　Class III*　Order of Magnitude
Class 4　Class IV　Class IV
Factor Estimate　Study Estimate
Class 3　Class III　Class III
Office Estimate　Class II
Class 2　Class II　Class II
Definitive Estimate　Budget Estimate
Class 1　Class I　Class I
Final Estimate　Class I　Control Estimate

[1] John R. Heizelman, ARCO Oil & Gas Co., 1988 AACE Transactions, Paper V3.7

[2] K.T. Yeo, The Cost Engineer, Vol. 27, No. 6, 1989

[3] Stevens & Davis, BP International Ltd., 1988 AACE Transactions, Paper B4.1 (\* Class III is inferred)

[4] Peter Behrenbruck, BHP Petroleum Pty., Ltd., article in Petroleum Technology, August 1993
Figure 3c. – Comparison of Classification Practices

Case 22-50073　Doc 890-29　Filed 09/28/22　Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28　Page 10 of

International

February 2, 2005
ESTIMATE INPUT CHECKLIST AND MATURITY MATRIX

Figure 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.

- None (blank): development of the deliverable has not begun.
- Started (S): work on the deliverable has begun. Development is typically limited to sketches, rough outlines, or similar levels of early completion.
- 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.
- Complete (C): the deliverable has been reviewed and approved as appropriate.

ESTIMATE CLASSIFICATION

General Project Data:　CLASS 5　CLASS 4　CLASS 3　CLASS 2 CLASS 1
Project Scope Description　General　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Plant Production/Facility Capacity　Assumed　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Plant Location　General　Approximate　Specific　Specific　Specific
Soils & Hydrology　None　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Integrated Project Plan　None　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Project Master Schedule　None　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Escalation Strategy　None　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Work Breakdown Structure　None　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Project Code of Accounts　None　Preliminary　Defined　Defined　Defined
Contracting Strategy　Assumed　Assumed　Preliminary　Defined　Defined
Engineering Deliverables:
Block Flow Diagrams　S/P　P/C　C　C　C
Plot Plans　S　P/C　C　C
Process Flow Diagrams (PFDs)　S/P　P/C　C　C
Utility Flow Diagrams (UFDs)　S/P　P/C　C　C
Piping & Instrument Diagrams (P&IDs)　S　P/C　C　C
Heat & Material Balances　S　P/C　C　C
Process Equipment List　S/P　P/C　C　C
Utility Equipment List　S/P　P/C　C　C
Electrical One-Line Drawings　S/P　P/C　C　C
Specifications & Datasheets　S　P/C　C　C
General Equipment Arrangement Drawings　S　P/C　C　C
Spare Parts Listings　S/P　P　C
Mechanical Discipline Drawings　S　P　P/C
Electrical Discipline Drawings　S　P　P/C
Instrumentation/Control System Discipline Drawings　S　P　P/C
Civil/Structural/Site Discipline Drawings　S　P　P/C
Figure 4. – Estimate Input Checklist and Maturity Matrix
REFERENCES

ANSI Standard Z94.2-1989. Industrial Engineering Terminology: Cost Engineering. AACE International Recommended Practice No.17R-97, Cost Estimate Classification System.
CONTRIBUTORS

Peter Christensen, CCE (Author) Larry R. Dysert, CCC (Author) Jennifer Bates, CCE

Case 22-50073　Doc 890-29　Filed 09/28/22
11　Entered 09/28/22 16:32:28　Page 11 of

Cost Estimate Classification System – As Applied in Engineering
Procurement, and Construction for the Process Industries　9 of 9
February 2, 2005

Dorothy 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