Control brownfield project among changes, contractor performance and re-works
Published on November 11, 2025
Abstract
This article explores the unique challenges faced in brownfield project execution, where scope modifications, contractor performance, and rework often intersect to impact overall project delivery. It highlights, the complexity of changes in existing operational environments and their implications for project schedule, and safety, and the role of contractor performance monitoring and how proactive oversight contributes to mitigating risks associated with delayed deliverables and quality issues. The article concludes with recommended best practices and lessons learned, providing project professionals with actionable insights to enhance efficiency, reduce rework, and drive successful outcomes in brownfield environments by effective leadership. This article will add value to your readership, as it addresses real world project management challenges.
Introduction
Brownfield projects, those that involve the enhancement, expansion, or modification of existing operational facilities are inherently complex (Visser et al., 2015; Mahmood, 2020). In contrast to greenfield projects, which are constructed on undeveloped land, brownfield projects must be planned and carried out within the limitations of ongoing operations. This situation introduces an additional part of risk and complexity, making the alignment between the project team and operations absolutely essential. Obtaining operational support and coordinating shutdowns are not merely procedural steps; they are fundamental pillars that dictate the success or failure of a project.
Building strong operational alignment and stakeholder engagement is not only key driving progress, it’s also forming the foundation for effective risk management. Risk management encompasses various types that can be examined and emphasized within project management, particularly in brownfield projects. One significant risk involves the awarding of contracts for brownfield projects, where selecting the appropriate procurement strategy, contractor, and contract structure is crucial to minimizing disputes and cost overruns, which are key focus areas of risk management. The contract must explicitly outline the scope of work. This includes, but is not limited to, responsibilities related to site mobilization and early work. Throughout the bidding stage of the project, numerous factors must be considered to minimize risk during the execution phase. This encompasses a transparent bidding process along with the requirement of performance guarantees or insurance. To guarantee that all parties remain aligned and accountable during the project, it is crucial to establish clear communication, well-defined deliverables, and legally robust agreements.
Numerous critical factors are involved in securing funding for brownfield construction projects. These include completing the requirements of the fund approval cycle, such as completing and approving the project budget estimate, receiving high or very low bids, or new instructions to add or optimize the scope of work. Such risks necessitate a thorough financial evaluation of the bidders and require contractors with substantial financial expertise and extensive experience in brownfield projects to mitigate potential financial risks. Furthermore, the company can establish cost and schedule contingencies. Effectively addressing these risks through due diligence, clear contracts, and proactive stakeholder engagement is vital to freeing the scope and attracting bidders to ensure the success of the project.
After several months of planning the brownfield project, the engineering design phase was successfully finalized to upgrade fire water and oily water systems in four site locations. The original estimated completion date for the project was set three years after the fund approval, and the Mechanical Completion Certificate (MCC) was scheduled 2 Months before the project commissioning. It looks like a solid plan, yet, two Project Change Requests were submitted for this project; the first aimed to extend the project completion by 1 year due to delays in contract awarding. Conversely, the second change sought to extend project completion 1 year, due to the termination of a contractor responsible for three sites at that time due to a contract breach in mobilizing key personnel, commencing the site early works and start project procurements. After 40% of one of the project sites, the second contract termination was attributed to financial difficulties and the contractor's low performance, as they struggled to manage the complexities associated with this brownfield project. The project continues with four new contractors, each exhibiting different performance levels at their respective sites, alongside engineering challenges at each location. This situation highlights the significant changes inherent in such projects, which require a contractor with substantial experience in managing similar activities and possessing strong planning capabilities for executing construction activities while ensuring all necessary alignments with stakeholders.
This article aims to investigate the significance of project management and operations teams during the execution of brownfield projects. It will analyze how alterations in scope can threaten scheduled activities and postpone project milestones. Most crucially, it will offer practical advice and recommendations to enhance coordination, effectively manage scope changes, and obtain the necessary support and shutdowns from operations. By implementing these best practices, organizations can minimize conflicts, improve efficiency, and boost the chances of successful project completion in complex operations fields (Mahmood, 2020; Visser et al., 2015).
Brownfield Construction Project
Starting project construction activities with a clear approved scope of work and drawings might be hit by force majeure, actual site conditions and changes not reflected in the design package, such as underground utility not captured by the approved design, operational modifications in the facility happened due to emergencies or changes in operational procedure not reflected in new design drawings. All that will eventually lead to a severe impact on the procurement cycle eating the designed float planned for vendors delays impacting the critical path and causing scope creep leading the project team to change the project schedule. Not only that, a construction contractor who was signing this contract without cashflow that could handle the hidden risks will be living a nightmare having to cover the fixed expenses to operate the construction site offices and pay the salaries until he placed the first purchase requisition or achieve the first 5% construction, reducing his profit margin to a break even or to bankrupt if contractor didn’t manage it very well.
All the above-mentioned will be the fuel of the projects constrain as it’s defined by PMI “Time, Cost, Quality, Benefits and Risk.”
Project Stakeholders
Having such a bad start will make things even worse for the main stakeholder's “operation”, as they are powerful at giving you a work permit on site to start the work without having the interest in your issues with the contractor's schedule, since it is not on their priority list.
This bad start will make them worry about the design packages, and they might add new requirements and restrictions to allow you to process the site activity to control the normal daily operation. From this point, they will take over the project team role, and they will control the project schedule by adding an approval process to processed with the work permit. All the problems will be resolved in their meeting room, not in the construction facility meeting room, from now on.
Note: The PMI Stakeholder assessment matrix simplifies stakeholder analysis and helps to manage and communicate with stakeholders in the most effective way to improve project outcomes.
In order to have control back over the site activities schedule, the team will need to excessively engage the operations team. The project engineer shall engage the operation team on a daily basis for every single issue at the site, standing in front of it, with them, making them part of the solution, not just the approval process, giving them a sense of control and ownership over the project. After all, Operations hold the power on the ground. When they feel involved, they become more willing and even eager to support the project. They will stop acting as gatekeepers and start acting as partners proposing alternatives, finding solutions, and helping move things forward. The second step is show appreciation and respect for their input, but also to maintain the integrity of engineering standards.
The key is to take their suggestion forward and have it reviewed to ensure it meets all safety and technical engineering standard requirements. In parallel, informing the project inspection team about what is about to come or change to meet their expectations in order to fulfil the quality requirement before you start the implementation is a must.
This balance between collaboration and control results in stronger solutions, smoother execution, and a healthier project environment where every stakeholder feels respected and involved.
Control Changes
Changes are natural in complex brownfield sites. Because of that, the project team will face project change requests due to the current site condition or due to the design deficiencies that need to be handled as fast as the revised scope is engineered and accepted, considering the schedule impact of the procurement.
While the project team is working in the changing process, project team responsibility to maintain progress at site is still required. Because of that, engaging in this operation to come up with a new plan to take a new open front on site that can be started immediately is smart action which will require the project team to be fixable to change the contractor’s plan to avoid stand bay time.
While processing the changes, the project team shall verify and validate the change to avoid “Gold plating” by USING DIPLOMICY to reject the non-scope changes not by saying no. It might shutdown all the excellent communication channel project team already have with operation. But to be very smart to accommodate the operational concerns and confirm your understanding, then, share with them your verification of the change if it’s required from a scope and engineering perspective? And the impact of implementing this change. If an operation still needs the non-scope change, immediately ask them to send it officially to the project management team to route the change request to the change committee responsible for the non-scope change request. The non-scope of work new change request will result-if it’s accepted - to change in the project schedule, additional fund request and contract amendment. For that, it will be required focused force team to accomplish this task with minimum impact on the ongoing project site activities.
Project Risk Management
Risk management is a cornerstone of successful project delivery during the project engineering phase. Conducting a Project Risk Management session at this stage is essential to proactively identify, evaluate, and plan the action for each identified potential risk before it escalates into costly delays, as it will be more cost-effective if we eliminate or mitigate the risks in the early stage of the project. We usually focus on risk related to construction activities, execution constraints, interfaces with operations, ensuring minimal disruption to ongoing facilities and interfaces with external stakeholders, such as government agencies. Each identified risk is assessed by evaluating its probability and impact, followed by developing mitigation strategies. However, to address the unique complexities of brownfield projects, it is critical to expand risk assessments during the design stage — FEL-3 — to capture potential commercial and market risks which will significantly affect project funding and schedules, such as the low number of contractor participation in biddings, which will reduce the competitive nature of the awarding process impacting price of the project. Also, high bid prices and inflated bids may exceed budgets, delay funding approvals, and cause scope optimization. Moreover, participation of low performance contractors with inadequate capacity or poor track records can create delays in the project execution and increase quality issues during the construction phase.
To mitigate these risks effectively, the project team must work in close coordination with the procurement department at the early stage of the project as they are overseeing and controlling all contracting processes. Establishing an early engagement with the market by verifying the list of bidders and the current work load, which is essential to understand contractor capacity, gauge contractors’ interest in the project, and setting realistic expectations before the tendering stage. Leveraging the procurement department’s structured prequalification process ensures that only technically capable, financially stable, and safety-compliant contractors are invited to bid, reducing the likelihood of poor performance during execution. Maintaining a transparent and competitive tendering process through a clear scope of work with a list of project risks, and realistic timelines will help prevent inflated bid prices and encourage healthy participation. Additionally, incorporating market intelligence and cost benchmarking during FEL-3 enables the team to anticipate pricing trends and detect differences before funding approvals are finalized. Finally, contingency planning, developed jointly between the project team, project sponsor and procurement teams, ensures that alternative execution strategies are available to be implemented.
Bridging The Gap Between Tendering Promises And Site Realities
One of the recurring challenges in project execution is discrepancy between a contractor’s tendering submission and their actual performance on site. While many contractors submit an accepted technical proposal, these often fail to reflect their real capabilities, leading to project underperformance, financial strain, and in some cases, contract termination. To address this, we must enhance the post-technical evaluation process through site readiness assessments, resource verification, and historical performance reviews. However, this must be done with strategic balance. As part of the bigger objective to localize and grow the contractor base in Saudi Arabia, it is essential not to overly restrict participation. Encouraging more qualified local contractors enhances market competition, reduces reliance on a limited group of dominant firms, and supports sustainable bidding practices. The goal is to create a system that filters out underqualified contractors without discouraging market growth, ensuring quality execution while nurturing a healthy, competitive local contractor ecosystem.
Control Contractor Cash Flow
While scope alignment and site readiness are key to project delivery, one critical risk often goes unnoticed until it’s too late: contractor cash flow instability.
Whether due to engineering hold points, site access issues, or late approvals, can cause unplanned work stoppages. These pauses don’t just affect the project schedule; they directly impact the contractor’s ability to proceed with procurement and construction, which in turn affects their ability to submit and process invoices. Left unaddressed, this can lead to cash flow strain, missed payments to subcontractors and vendors, leading to a risk of bankruptcy. For that, the Project team shall provide the construction team with the site access at an early stage of the project and provide them with the required safety orientation and access ID card before the planned date of site mobilization.
It also recommended mandating the minimum required number of certified work permit receivers, safety advisors, and quality personnel to be added as part of the key personnel requirement in the contract to ensure that the contractor will submit the list of names and required IDs request in the first week of contract awarding. Considering the fact that most of the site key personnel names provided in the tendering package might not be assigned to your project. Which always occurs!
After contract awarding, the project team shall raise concerns about possible underground and verify the civil site location using GPR scans, utility surveys, and engage experienced operations staff to validate existing data before the contractor's full mobilization.
In parallel, include design contingency in early planning for areas with known risk, especially if the site has a history of undocumented changes.
Moreover, the project team shall communicate engineering hold points clearly once they're applied and don’t leave the contractor waiting. If certain packages are on hold, help them reorganize their resources to focus on clearable areas. And fast track procurement approvals where possible and plan for float during NMR submittals.
Recognize the contractor’s exposure. If they’re idle due to site changes, support fair documentation and negotiation of time and cost claims, within contract limits.
Work with the administration team to allow partial billing or progressive invoicing tied to specific work packages related to the completed work and issued change order.
Monitor the invoice cycle closely. If there are delays on your side (e.g., inspection, documentation, or internal approvals), take ownership of clearing them quickly.
Conclusion: Restoring Control Through Leadership and Alignment
After facing multiple setbacks, including the termination of three contractors and significant operational obstacles, the project is now firmly back on track. This recovery did not happen by chance. It was the result of deliberate effort, with on-ground leadership presented by the Project Manager, Director and Downstream Project Management VP to have close coordination with operations to re-engage resources and restore momentum.
What we’ve achieved so far is not just a return to progress, but a demonstration of how complex problems can be overcome when leadership is present, responsive, and solution- oriented. In complex projects, schedule control and contractor performance are only part of the equation. The true turning point came when leadership stepped forward not from a distance, but by showing up on site, engaging directly with operations, protecting contractors from risk, and making decisions before problems escalated. This proactive posture made the difference. Equally critical is redefining the role of the Project Engineer.
It’s no longer just about delivering the technical scope; it’s about leading relationships, enabling collaboration, and pushing the project forward even when the path is unclear. The project engineer becomes a facilitator of alignment, not just an executor of plans.
From the operational side, the shift from a passive approval role to an active ownership mindset proved transformative. When operations take accountability, decisions come faster, barriers are removed earlier, and the whole system operates with shared purpose.
Successfully delivering complex brownfield projects like this one proves more than just technical capability; it demonstrates economic value. It shows our ability in Aramco to optimize and extend the life of existing infrastructure, maximize asset returns, and support long-term industrial sustainability. They are all contributions to the wider economic and operational health of the company's assets.
The lessons learned from this experience have been carefully captured to strengthen future project planning, contractor evaluation, and cross-functional collaboration in order to deliver safely and efficiently the capital projects with best practices.
References·
- Kumar, N., Mukherjee, D., Paul, R., & Kamal, F. R. (2020). CHALLENGES IN EXECUTION OF BROWNFIELD OFFSHORE OIL & GAS PROJECTS. Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. onepetro.org+3thecompetencyalliance.com+3onepetro.org+3onepetro.org+2resear chgate.net+2onepetro.org+2·
- Mahmood, S. F. (2020, November). BROWNFIELD PROJECTS COST & SCHEDULE OPTIMIZATION. Paper presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference. onepetro.org+1onepetro.org+1·
- Visser, F., Burger, M., & Laws, S. (2015, December). IMPROVING BROWNFIELD PROJECT PERFORMANCE. Paper presented at the International Petroleum Technology Conference, Doha, Qatar
Written by:
· Moaath Mohammed AL Thawadi, Supervisor, Business Project
· Zeyad AL Ghamdi, Supervisor Project Engineer