“FEED isn’t double work, it’s about breaking risk into manageable pieces.”
When projects are under pressure, the instinct can be to jump straight into detailed design.
But that’s often where cost uncertainty, scope gaps and risk creep in.
We spoke to Laura Maley, our Process Engineering Manager about why Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) can be an essential first step for clients across Life & Chemical Sciences, and beyond.
Q: Why are more clients beginning projects with a FEED study?
A: “A big driver is resource constraint.
Clients know they need to move forward with a project, but they often don’t have the internal time or capacity to fully define a detailed scope before engaging an engineering partner.
FEED provides a structured starting point. It allows everyone to step back, define the problem properly, and reduce unknowns before committing to major capital spend.
It’s a lower-risk entry point for both sides.”
Q: What makes Booth Welsh’s approach to FEED different?
A: “Flexibility.
Some larger competitors operate with fixed deliverable lists e.g. this is what you get in FEED, this is what you get in detailed design.
We take a more tailored approach.
We look at what the client is actually trying to achieve and shape the study around that. If something won’t add value at that stage, we’ll say so. If it’s better deferred to detailed design, we’ll recommend that.
The objective isn’t to maximise scope, it’s to maximise clarity and value.
That’s one of the reasons clients consistently describe us as cost-efficient and pragmatic.”
Q: How exactly does a FEED study reduce risk?
A: “One of the biggest benefits is cost clarity.
At the end of a FEED study, clients typically walk away with:
- A defined technical basis
- Greater visibility of constraints and risks
- A cost estimate with a stated accuracy range
That estimate may still have variability, that’s natural at this stage, but it’s grounded in engineering analysis rather than assumption.
In some cases, the study confirms that the project isn’t viable within budget. While that’s not always the hoped-for outcome, it’s far better to reach that conclusion early, with limited spend, than after committing to full detailed design.”
Q: Does FEED often lead to further work?
A: “Quite often, yes.
When you’re engaged early and demonstrate value, you naturally build trust. As long as you deliver well, there’s typically less incentive for a client to change engineering partner between FEED and detailed design.
It’s not guaranteed, projects do sometimes move, but early involvement gives you a stronger foundation for long-term collaboration, which is what we’re all about.”
Q: What does a typical FEED study involve?
A: “FEED often begins with process engineering.
That’s where the overall scheme is defined, the process flow, the core equipment requirements, and the technical framework that everything else builds upon.
From there, additional disciplines are brought in at the right moment. Because Booth Welsh has multi-disciplinary capability in-house, we can integrate mechanical, electrical, control & automation, and civils/structural expertise as the project develops.
This phased involvement ensures the right level of detail at the right time, without over-engineering too early.”
Q: Some clients worry that FEED plus detailed design is “double work.” Is that a fair concern?
A: “It’s a common perception, but not an accurate one.
The engineering tasks completed during FEED are tasks that would need to happen anyway. FEED simply structures the overall design effort into manageable stages.
Rather than tackling everything at once, you dissect the project. That structure improves decision-making, cost control, and risk management.
It’s about sequencing, not duplication.”
Q: What questions do clients most commonly ask at the outset?
A: “Cost is usually front and centre.
Clients often ask for a budget estimate or cost range by the end of the study. Part of the early conversation is clarifying what level of accuracy is required and what decisions the estimate needs to support.
Another frequent question is around capability, particularly whether we can deliver end-to-end engineering in-house.
There’s sometimes uncertainty around disciplines such as civils and structural engineering. Being able to respond confidently and positively to those queries is increasingly important.”
Q: Are FEED studies sector-specific?
A: “They apply across most sectors, but they’re particularly valuable in highly regulated or technically complex environments, such as life and chemical sciences, where compliance, capital efficiency, and design certainty are critical.”
Final Thoughts
“FEED studies are not just an engineering stage, they’re a strategic tool.
In an environment where budgets are tight, timelines are compressed, and internal teams are stretched, starting with clarity is often the most cost-effective decision a business can make.
Done well, FEED builds confidence, reduces risk, and creates a stronger foundation for everything that follows.”
For More: