New deal for EPCs?
11 Mar 2009
A shrinking pool of engineering expertise is likely to make it harder for EPC contractors to manage and control the complicated procurement process of splitting up lump sum contracts and automation requirements into smaller packages so that they reap the benefits of competitive tendering.
While open systems integration standards are removing some of the risk involved with these contracts, the generally accepted advice is to continue to use an MIV (Main Instrument Vendor) contract-type approach, even though the FOUNDATION Fieldbus standard is in place.
In recent years, there has been a big rise in the number of integrated process control and safety system solutions as well as a considerable rise in the acceptable level of integration achieved between the two systems. This increase shows that the integration of the two systems makes good commercial sense, both in terms of capital and operational expenditure. The evidence also suggests that the benefits are directly proportional to the increased level of integration that can be achieved.
The benefits of fully integrated process control and safety systems can readily be demonstrated from an operational expenditure point of view, but these benefits are generally not that interesting for EPC contractors unless they can sell these benefits onto their clients.
Capital expenditure benefits, unfortunately, are a little harder to find or to justify, especially as the gains may not actually offset the commercial returns obtained by procuring the two systems from competing vendors. The issue of interfacing is often resolved by placing the responsibility onto the vendors, whilst at the same time relying on faith in the open systems standards to ensure that the interface does eventually work.
Automation vendors have worked hard to streamline and reduce front-end engineering costs by developing tools for electronic transfer of design data. The latest systems can offer bi-directional data exchange capability between the process control and safety system configuration tools and the instrumentation and control data management system. It is, therefore, hard to see where further gains can be made from integrating process control and safety system solutions.
Those vendors that specialise in both disciplines, together with the relatively recent establishment of the IEC 61850 standard, can now offer EPC contractors and their clients the same commercial benefits with electrical integration as already experienced through the integration of process control and safety systems. The automation vendor can offer similar benefits for electrical equipment as the fieldbus technologies provide for smart field instruments and control valves. Hardware costs, in particular, can be reduced by implementing power management applications as part of the process control and safety system, while expensive copper-based hardwired I/O is replaced by digital communications.
EPC contractors can gain operational savings as integrated power management, process control and safety systems provide better operational visibility. Common hardware platforms and configuration tools also reduce training costs, spare parts inventory and streamline the maintenance infrastructure.
While open systems integration standards are removing some of the risk involved with these contracts, the generally accepted advice is to continue to use an MIV (Main Instrument Vendor) contract-type approach, even though the FOUNDATION Fieldbus standard is in place.
In recent years, there has been a big rise in the number of integrated process control and safety system solutions as well as a considerable rise in the acceptable level of integration achieved between the two systems. This increase shows that the integration of the two systems makes good commercial sense, both in terms of capital and operational expenditure. The evidence also suggests that the benefits are directly proportional to the increased level of integration that can be achieved.
The benefits of fully integrated process control and safety systems can readily be demonstrated from an operational expenditure point of view, but these benefits are generally not that interesting for EPC contractors unless they can sell these benefits onto their clients.
Capital expenditure benefits, unfortunately, are a little harder to find or to justify, especially as the gains may not actually offset the commercial returns obtained by procuring the two systems from competing vendors. The issue of interfacing is often resolved by placing the responsibility onto the vendors, whilst at the same time relying on faith in the open systems standards to ensure that the interface does eventually work.
Automation vendors have worked hard to streamline and reduce front-end engineering costs by developing tools for electronic transfer of design data. The latest systems can offer bi-directional data exchange capability between the process control and safety system configuration tools and the instrumentation and control data management system. It is, therefore, hard to see where further gains can be made from integrating process control and safety system solutions.
Those vendors that specialise in both disciplines, together with the relatively recent establishment of the IEC 61850 standard, can now offer EPC contractors and their clients the same commercial benefits with electrical integration as already experienced through the integration of process control and safety systems. The automation vendor can offer similar benefits for electrical equipment as the fieldbus technologies provide for smart field instruments and control valves. Hardware costs, in particular, can be reduced by implementing power management applications as part of the process control and safety system, while expensive copper-based hardwired I/O is replaced by digital communications.
EPC contractors can gain operational savings as integrated power management, process control and safety systems provide better operational visibility. Common hardware platforms and configuration tools also reduce training costs, spare parts inventory and streamline the maintenance infrastructure.
