Outsourced engineering
Outsourcing your industrial
piping design
on a lump-sum basis
Outsource engineering capacity, not a management burden.
An investment peak, several concurrent projects or a skill temporarily unavailable can saturate an in-house design office. Outsourcing is only useful if it genuinely frees the client's team. It must not replace a shortage of capacity with a new supervision load.
Moreau Engineering carries out process, piping and structural design on a lump-sum basis, never on time and materials. The scope is defined deliverable by deliverable, the input baseline is identified and the interfaces are explicit. You steer decisions and milestones, not the consumption of hours.
A French-speaking company based in Timișoara since 2005 and run by a French director, we work in the language, the codes and the documentation standards of the client. Where the project concerns an existing installation, we travel to site to connect the design to the reality of the field.
Three ways to outsource
Absorbing an identified workload
Your team keeps overall design and entrusts us with a bounded package: revising a set of P&IDs, a series of isometrics, modelling an area, a flexibility note, support installation plans or bills of materials. This mode suits situations where the interfaces and the input data are already stable.
The lump sum then applies to countable deliverables and to a defined level of maturity. "Produce the isometrics from the approved model" is a scope. "Help the team with the isometrics" describes an intention, not a verifiable commitment.
Entrusting a complete design package
We can take on the chain from process data through to fabrication documents: PFDs and balances, P&IDs, layout, 3D modelling, calculations, supports, isometrics and material lists. A single Moreau contact coordinates the disciplines and the planned reviews.
On a brownfield or revamping project, that chain begins by qualifying the existing plant. The survey, the discrepancy register and the validation of tie-ins are part of preparing the design whenever the available documentation is not sufficient.
Reconstituting a documentary record
After a site acquisition, several campaigns of works or an incomplete handover, the need is not merely to redraw drawings. Consistency has to be restored between diagrams, geometry and line data.
We combine residual documents, inspection, 3D scanning and engineering review to build a Reality Baseline. It can feed the immediate design work and prepare a Digital Handover usable on subsequent projects.
A lump sum does not remove uncertainty. It forces you to identify it, to allocate it and to decide how it will be handled. Our internal analysis system tracks the gap between estimating assumptions and the hours actually required. The values published here cover only aggregates that comply with our confidentiality rule.
That experience shows five recurring sources of overrun: late validation of upstream documents, underestimated coordination, the difference between the offer and the real need, unformalised out-of-scope work, and unit ratios that are still too volatile. These findings have changed the way we scope.
Across twenty-seven projects analysed, revising process flow diagrams after the P&IDs had been established consumed 4.5 hours per diagram against 1.1 hour budgeted. The time actually spent therefore approaches four times the initial budget.
The mechanism is simple. A late process change does not affect the upstream document alone. It can alter lines, equipment, valves, instrumentation, lists and interfaces already developed. An apparently local correction then triggers several coordinated revisions.
We draw a project rule from this: the level of validation expected for PFDs, balances and process data must be explicit before the P&IDs are developed in detail. Assumptions still open are recorded. If they have to be frozen provisionally in order to progress, their potential impact is identified rather than buried in the lump sum.
This discipline does not make the process immutable. It makes it possible to distinguish a correction falling within the original scope from a change of input baseline that genuinely alters the work to be produced.
Across five projects, coordination and management accounted for a median of 7.8 per cent of total hours, above the 6 per cent budget threshold previously used. For work on existing installations, our internal rule is now to allow 8 to 10 per cent for coordination.
This effort is not administration. It covers the interfaces between process, piping, structures, instrumentation and civil engineering; the arbitrations with operations and maintenance; the tracking of input data; the responses to comments; revision control and the consolidation of decisions.
In brownfield work, a routing decision can depend on a maintenance access, an isolation, an existing structure or a field fact still to be confirmed. Arbitrations therefore involve several disciplines and must stay consistent with the real state of the installation. Underestimating that coordination does not make it disappear. It converts it into delays, rework or untraced decisions.
Across five projects analysed, more than fifty hours of out-of-scope work were carried out on each of them without any change order. This kind of drift rarely begins with a spectacular request. An extra area, a new document revision or an additional review sometimes looks absorbable. The accumulation nevertheless changes the real content of the assignment.
That situation is bad for both parties. The contractor performs untraced work; the client loses visibility over what is actually included and over the effect of their own decisions. At the end of the project, nobody has a clear basis for distinguishing rework, correction and new request.
Our method is to record the change at the moment it appears. We describe the request, its origin, the deliverables affected and its impact. The client can then refuse it, defer it, or integrate it through a change order. Scope control is not a defensive mechanism: it is the condition of a transparent arbitration.
The six conditions of a workable lump sum
A scope defined deliverable by deliverable
Across five projects, the gap between the initial offer and the work actually required exceeded 50 per cent. A general heading such as "piping design for the unit" gives no way of knowing what was bought. The scope must state the documents, their number or the method of counting them, their level of maturity and the checks included.
An input baseline identified and dated
The PFDs, P&IDs, drawings, models, line lists and specifications used at the start are recorded with their revision. A new version can be integrated, but its effect has to be analysed. Without that reference, a documentary change is easily mistaken for rework caused by the contractor.
Assumptions and open points kept visible
A missing piece of data is not necessarily blocking. It becomes dangerous when it is replaced by an invisible assumption. We keep a register of assumptions, of who is responsible for validating each one, and of the milestone by which it must be closed.
An agreed number of review cycles
Each cycle involves issue, analysis, arbitration, modification and a further check. The contract states the number of cycles included, the channel through which comments are consolidated and the response time expected. Contradictory comments are arbitrated on the client side before transmission.
An explicit out-of-scope list
The out-of-scope list states what is neither priced nor planned: an additional survey, a particular calculation, the revision of a third-party document, a new scenario or site assistance, as the case may be. It protects the client's schedule as much as the contractor's lump sum.
A single point of contact and formats decided at the outset
An authorised contact consolidates requests on each side. Native and exchange formats — PDF, DWG, Plant 3D, IFC or others as agreed — are fixed before production begins. The format shapes the structure of the model, its attributes and its checks; it cannot be added as a simple final conversion.
When a contractor does not know the spread of its own unit times, it has two poor options: underestimate in order to be competitive, or add a large margin for protection. In both cases the client pays for that lack of knowledge, either through the overrun or through the price.
We therefore track actual hours by task code and systematically compare budget against actual. That makes it possible to distinguish the items whose estimate is sufficiently stabilised by experience from those still resting on too thin a sample, which call for particular scoping, an explicit allowance or a pilot package. Estimating baselines are revised as the data becomes representative.
This approach does not promise absolute precision. It makes it possible to know which items are predictable, which require an allowance or a pilot, and what information must be obtained before a firm price is issued.
MEIA — Moreau Engineering Intelligence Assistant — is the control layer developed by Moreau Engineering to monitor design processes. It continuously compares the real state of a project against its reference: expected information, open decisions, scope, deliverables, milestones and dependencies.
Process data not received, a P&ID still open, a late revision change or a change of scope is linked to the tasks it may affect. MEIA thus highlights the risks of rework, blockage or delay, then their possible consequences on tendering, on orders, on the preparation of a shutdown and on delivery dates. The aim is to raise the alert while an arbitration is still possible, and to set out the options available: holding the milestone subject to a condition, changing the sequence, or replanning a package.
MEIA replaces neither the project manager, nor the engineer, nor the existing tools. Every alert must state its origin, the items concerned, the impact envisaged and the decision expected. Validation and responsibility remain human.
This artificial intelligence is developed and run on an internal Moreau Engineering server, with no communication with AI services, cloud platforms or external APIs. Each client's documents and identifiable data remain isolated within their project scope. MEIA builds on the methods, engineering rules and consolidated experience accumulated by Moreau Engineering over more than twenty years — never on one client's data to serve another. Its monitoring rules are enriched progressively, after internal validation.
This architecture is specific to MEIA. It does not extend to third-party platforms a project may call upon: SAMP.AI, when used to share a Reality Baseline, is governed by its own hosting and data-processing terms, which are reviewed with you at the scoping stage.
Depending on the scope, Moreau Engineering produces process flow diagrams and balances, P&IDs, general and layout drawings, 3D modelling, calculation and flexibility notes, fabrication isometrics, bills of materials, piping supports and the metallic structures associated with process installations.
For existing sites, we can add 3D scanning, inspection and documentary revalidation. Design is then carried out against the surveyed reality rather than against a drawing assumed to be accurate. SAMP.AI can provide the Shared Reality common to the project teams, while Plant 3D and Navisworks remain the engineering and checking tools.
After the work, validated deliverables can be organised for a Digital Handover and continuity towards operations. The client's CMMS, EDMS, ERP or SCADA remain the master systems; our role is to ensure a usable continuity between the field, the design and the documents handed over.
How an assignment runs
Scoping
We analyse the objective, the existing data, the applicable standards, the level of maturity and the interfaces. We separate the missing information that prevents pricing from the information that can be carried as an assumption.
Lump-sum proposal
The proposal describes the deliverables, the input data, the assumptions, the review cycles, the exclusions, the responsibilities and the milestones. Price and lead time rest on that scope, not on a general form of words.
Execution and reviews
A single Moreau contact coordinates the work. Reviews take place at the agreed milestones. Decisions, baseline discrepancies and scope changes are traced so that the state of the project is legible without daily supervision.
Delivery and rework
Deliverables are issued in the agreed formats and revisions. Corrections falling within the original scope remain at our cost. Baseline changes and new requests are handled separately.
Installation drawings, process diagrams and technical data remain the property of the client and are used solely for the assignment concerned. We publish nothing that would allow an installation to be identified, and we do not use one client's information to approach another.
Exchange rules, access rights, formats, revisions and validation responsibilities are settled at kick-off. Protecting a dossier does not rest on where it is stored alone; it also depends on controlling recipients, versions and authorised uses.
Send us the objective of the assignment, the list of deliverables envisaged, the existing documents even if incomplete, your standards, the applicable code framework, the known interfaces and the milestone that governs the project: tendering, material order, shutdown or start-up. We return a usable scoping: input baseline, missing information, proposed assumptions, scope deliverable by deliverable, and the points that must be closed before a lump-sum offer can be issued without reservation.
The answers a design manager and a purchasing team need
Why do you not work on a time-and-materials basis?
Time and materials buys availability or effort. A lump sum buys a defined result. Our organisation is built for the second model: we estimate, plan and coordinate a delivery scope. In return this assumes that inputs, assumptions, interfaces and rules of change are explicit enough.
Does a lump sum prevent the project from evolving?
No. It prevents a change from being absorbed without a decision. When a new request appears, we analyse the deliverables affected and propose how to handle it. It can be integrated, deferred or refused. The project stays adaptable, but its contractual state stays legible.
Who is responsible for the input data?
The client supplies the data and standards they own. Moreau checks their consistency within the limits set by the scope and reports the contradictions detected. Where a piece of data has to be revalidated in the field or by a site discipline, responsibility for that validation is identified. A lump sum does not turn unknown data into certain data.
How do we avoid our in-house team having to check everything again?
Control and acceptance criteria are defined at kick-off. Reviews address the decisions and interfaces planned, not a full reconstruction of the work delivered. Traceability of assumptions, comments and revisions allows the design manager to understand the state of the dossier without steering every task.
Can we start with a pilot scope?
Yes. Where the input data or the ratios are too uncertain, a representative package can be used to measure the real complexity, validate the standards and stabilise the method before a wider deployment. The pilot must have a scope, deliverables and evaluation criteria of its own; it is not free work, nor a trial without an expected result.
Method and sources
The values quoted on this page come from the internal analysis Moreau Engineering carries out on its own offers and on the hours actually spent. They cover twenty-seven projects for the revision of process diagrams, and five projects for coordination and scope drift — two distinct sets, not to be confused with the plant surveys quoted on our other pages. Extracted on 19 August 2026. We publish only aggregates, never a figure traceable to an identifiable project.
Written by Moreau Engineering, a piping and process design office based in Timișoara since 2005. Last reviewed: 19 August 2026. Our confidentiality commitments are set out on the Security and confidentiality page.
Read more
