Most published benchmarks tell you what happened to other projects after the fact. This chapter focuses on the leading indicators and structural ratios that actually help you calibrate your project.
Benchmarking is one of the most frequently cited and least effectively applied tools in capital project management. AACE RP 11R-88, IPA outcome data, and CII publications all provide frameworks — but in practice they are either too high-level to be actionable, or too narrowly focused on lagging outcomes.
This chapter focuses on three contexts where benchmarks earn their keep: study-phase cost ratios, execution-phase EPCM-to-TIC ratios, and procurement and contract duration benchmarks.
Never apply a benchmark without first confirming the project type from which it was derived.
A mining lead applying Oil & Gas piping benchmarks will systematically under-resource civil and over-resource piping.
| Cost element | Oil & Gas / LNG | Mining / Minerals | Infrastructure / Civil |
|---|---|---|---|
| Piping & Process | High (30–45%) | Moderate (10–20%) | Low (5–10%) |
| Mechanical Equipment | Moderate–High | High (25–40%) | Low–Moderate |
| Civil & Structural | Moderate | High (20–35%) | Very High (40–60%) |
| Electrical & Instrumentation | High | Moderate | Moderate |
| Buildings & Infrastructure | Low–Moderate | Moderate | High |
The most widely-used study benchmark is total FEL study cost as a percentage of the Class 2 capital estimate.
| FEL Stage | Oil & Gas / LNG | Mining | Infrastructure |
|---|---|---|---|
| FEL-1 (Concept) | 0.1–0.3% | 0.1–0.3% | 0.1–0.2% |
| FEL-2 (Pre-Feasibility / Selection) | 0.5–1.5% | 0.4–1.2% | 0.3–1.0% |
| FEL-3 (Definition / FEED) | 2.0–5.0% | 1.5–4.0% | 1.5–3.5% |
| Total FEL (all stages) | 2.5–6.5% | 2.0–5.5% | 2.0–4.5% |
| Project type & scale | Indicative EPCM % of TIC |
|---|---|
| Mining / Processing — Small (< $200M TIC) | 12–20% |
| Mining / Processing — Medium ($200M–$1B) | 8–15% |
| Mining / Processing — Large (> $1B) | 6–12% |
| Oil & Gas / LNG — Medium | 8–14% |
| Oil & Gas / LNG — Large / Mega | 5–10% |
| Infrastructure — Medium | 10–18% |
| Infrastructure — Large | 7–14% |
The duration from engineering release to PO, and from tender issue to award, sits directly on the project's critical path.
| Equipment | Eng → IFT | Tender | TBE/CBE | Issue PO | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAG / Ball Mill (large) | 4–8 | 6–10 | 4–6 | 3–6 | 17–30 |
| Large Compressor Train | 3–6 | 6–8 | 3–5 | 3–5 | 15–24 |
| Gas Turbine / Generator | 4–8 | 6–10 | 4–6 | 3–6 | 17–30 |
| HV Transformers (>10 MVA) | 3–5 | 4–6 | 3–4 | 2–4 | 12–19 |
| HV Switchgear | 3–5 | 4–6 | 3–4 | 2–4 | 12–19 |
| Process Vessels / Columns | 3–6 | 4–8 | 3–5 | 2–4 | 12–23 |
| Shell & Tube Heat Exchangers | 2–4 | 3–6 | 2–4 | 2–3 | 9–17 |
| Large Pumps (engineered) | 2–4 | 3–5 | 2–3 | 2–3 | 9–15 |
| Standard Pumps (catalogue) | 1–2 | 2–3 | 1–2 | 1–2 | 5–9 |
| Control System (DCS / SCADA) | 4–8 | 4–8 | 4–6 | 3–5 | 15–27 |
| Structural Steel (fabricated) | 3–5 | 3–5 | 2–4 | 2–3 | 10–17 |
| Piping (bulk issue) | 2–3 | 3–4 | 2–3 | 1–2 | 8–12 |
| Instrumentation (bulk) | 2–3 | 2–3 | 1–2 | 1–2 | 6–10 |
| Package | SoW → Tender | Tender | TBE/CBE | Award | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Major Civil (Earthworks > $50M) | 8–16 | 6–10 | 4–8 | 4–8 | 22–42 |
| Concrete / Structural Steel | 6–12 | 5–8 | 3–6 | 3–6 | 17–32 |
| Mechanical Installation | 6–10 | 4–8 | 3–6 | 3–5 | 16–29 |
| E&I Installation | 6–10 | 4–8 | 3–6 | 3–5 | 16–29 |
| Piping Fabrication & Install | 6–12 | 5–8 | 3–6 | 3–6 | 17–32 |
| Camp / Accommodation | 4–8 | 4–6 | 2–4 | 2–4 | 12–22 |
| Mobile Plant & Equipment Hire | 3–6 | 3–5 | 2–3 | 1–3 | 9–17 |
| EPCM Services (if tendered) | 8–16 | 6–10 | 4–8 | 4–8 | 22–42 |
Market conditions matter. These ranges assume a normally competitive vendor market.
Engineering deliverable durations are arguably the least benchmarkeddata in the entire capital project value chain.
FEL-3 below 1.5% of TIC on a complex project — under-investment in definition.
EPCM below lower bound is suspicious — leading indicator of cost overrun.
IFT-to-PO durations below the lower bound — schedule risk that must be registered.
CII operates one of the longest-running owner/contractor benchmarking programs in the industry, captured under RT-252.
CII emphasises leading indicators — PDRI score, FEP maturity, Advanced Work Packaging readiness.
CPDS lets you tailor a forecast SoW→Award duration on every contract package.
Read the CPDS chapterBenchmark ranges translate directly into minimum / most-likely / maximum inputs for QSRA and QCRA models.