Zeon Chemicals

01 · Introduction

Zeon Chemicals USA required a chemical injection system (KOH, NH₄Br, H₂O₂) across three skids and one consolidated platform, fabricated in the United States and managed from the Pakistan back-office. The scope covered process design, P&ID development, engineering and fabrication support, and delivery coordination across a US-based fabricator, the Pakistan back-office team, and a US customer, with one on-site inspection visit to the fabricator in the USA.

The engineering scope was broader than the fabricator’s in-house capability. Process design, hydraulic calculations, and structural study work were taken on by the Pakistan back-office team, applying the augmentation approach for the second time after CI/Transfer/Solar.

The three skids and the consolidated platform were delivered, closing INTECH’s first US-based fabrication project in December 2025 and its first proposal led from bid to delivery close. Along the way the role expanded from Design Lead to Project and Design Lead. Routing stress analysis through the Pakistan team avoided cost and five weeks of schedule, and a late customer-initiated arrangement change was absorbed through the change-order process without derailing the project.

Mid-project issues (a fabricator with limited process engineering capability and fabrication issues found on-site that remote reporting had not shown) were contained and resolved.

Chemical injection skid design — Zeon Chemicals USA — Chemical injection system, Zeon Chemicals USA

Zeon Chemicals — on-site fabrication inspection, USA

Delivery, Zeon Chemicals, USA

The five engineering and project-management challenges below defined how the project was executed.

02 · Five technical challenges

The project’s defining engineering and project-management problems.

The five challenges run from expanding the role to providing engineering support in a new geography, covering what it took to deliver a first-of-kind project from the Pakistan back-office to a US customer’s standards.

01 / 05

~86% lower cost on piping stress analysis through a Pakistan-based engineering vendor instead of a US-based one

The same alternative-solution approach applied for the third consecutive project: HIPPS, CI, Zeon.

Problem

The fabricator quoted approximately USD 25,000 and 6 weeks for piping stress analysis. At that point in execution, the project could absorb neither the cost nor the delay, and the fabricator offered no alternative.

Approach

Applied the approach used on the HIPPS CADWorx redesign (USD 25K quoted, under USD 1K delivered) and the CI check-valve punch (USD 18K avoided): find an alternative that delivers the same engineering outcome at lower cost and in less time. Proposed a Pakistan-based stress analysis vendor managed from the back-office, scoped the work, selected the vendor, and managed the engagement.

Solution

Engaged a Pakistan-based stress analysis vendor, managed the engagement, and reviewed the deliverable against the project’s technical requirements. The work was completed in approximately 1 week at approximately 80% below the fabricator’s quote. Across three consecutive projects, this approach reduced vendor-quoted rework costs by 80% with equivalent engineering quality and shorter schedules.

02 / 05

Expanding the role from Design Lead to combined Project + Design Lead

Taking on project leadership when the project required it.

Problem

I was assigned as Design Lead only on Zeon. The project lead was US-based and had no prior experience with this project class. Project-management risk was significant: a remote customer, a remote fabricator, INTECH’s first US skids project, and a Pakistan back-office execution model. Without combined technical and project leadership from someone with skids-delivery experience, that risk would increase at each interface.

Approach

Proposed that the project needed combined technical and project leadership from someone with skids-delivery experience, and offered to take this on from the Pakistan back-office alongside the Design Lead role. The organisation had not formally identified the gap; the decision was based on the assessment that the project could not close without it.

Solution

Took on combined Project + Design Lead responsibilities from the Pakistan back-office, working US hours where required. Managed technical decisions, customer and fabricator coordination, and internal stakeholders from a single point. The project closed in December 2025 despite significant mid-project issues (fabricator capability gaps, a late arrangement change, and on-site issues found during the US site inspection), all resolved from the combined role.

03 / 05

Hybrid remote and on-site execution: an on-site visit identified undisclosed fabrication issues

A single US visit identified issues that remote status reporting had missed.

Problem

After procurement started, coordination with the fabricator became difficult and delays were increasing. There were indications that reported status did not fully reflect site conditions, so remote reporting, the normal mode for a Pakistan back-office project, could no longer be relied on as the only measure of progress.

Approach

Travelled to US to inspect the fabricator’s facility directly rather than continue relying on reported status. On-site visits were used as a targeted risk control when remote information became unreliable, not as a routine activity.

Solution

Inspected the fabricator’s facility and identified items not reflected in reported status: incomplete valve ordering, unverified arrival and correctness of required valves, and one damaged equipment that had not been reported. Findings were escalated to INTECH and the customer, and corrective actions followed. The project recovered from a point where reported status and actual site conditions had diverged.

04 / 05

Late-stage customer-initiated redesign absorbed without project derailment

Maintaining the customer relationship while absorbing a change raised at the manufacturing stage.

Problem

The customer’s earlier design reviews had not been completed thoroughly. Close to manufacturing and procurement, the customer changed the overall arrangement, including tank locations, requiring rework of the arrangement and piping layout while fabrication and procurement were active.

Approach

Absorbed the change through controlled re-engineering rather than disputing its timing, recognising that the customer had a valid technical need. Managed the schedule and cost implications transparently through the change-order process, coordinated the re-engineering with the fabricator’s ongoing work, and kept the customer informed throughout.

Solution

Re-engineered the arrangement with the equipment in their new locations, revised the piping layout, and coordinated the changes with ongoing fabrication. The customer relationship was maintained through transparent communication of the implications and controlled execution, without escalation to a dispute.

05 / 05

Engineering-capability augmentation applied to a US-based fabricator with limited process engineering

Providing the core process engineering the fabricator was contracted to deliver.

Problem

The fabricator had limited in-house process engineering capability, and early design work reflected this: pump selection was made with limited process data, line sizing and system design were based on a preliminary P&ID, and calculations such as relief valve sizing had not been carried out. Mechanical, piping, and structural capability was also still developing. The support provided on CI needed to go further on Zeon, covering the core process engineering itself.

Approach

Proposed a team augmentation model in which INTECH’s process engineers carried out activities in the fabricator’s contractual scope. Left with the fabricator, this scope gap would have produced a non-compliant design. The engineering scope was taken in-house instead of being escalated as a contractual issue, following the same approach as on HIPPS (CADWorx) and CI (contractor augmentation).

Solution

INTECH’s process team took on hydraulic calculations and process design originally in the fabricator’s scope. The mechanical team supported the fabricator on customer specifications, piping, and structural design through virtual sessions covering valve selection, structural requirements, ladder and platform design, instrumentation, tank selection, and lifting calculations. INTECH took full ownership of the lifting study, prepared the calculations and drawings, and shared them with the customer. The project delivered a compliant design despite the fabricator’s limited engineering function.

03 · Knowledge Transfer

The augmentation pattern

An engineering support model extended the Pakistan back-office to cover gaps in the US fabricator’s process engineering scope.

Augmentation Pattern

Engineering capability scaled to a new geography and fabricator class

The engineering support model used on CI, which supplemented the fabricator’s engineering at the execution interface, was extended on Zeon to cover the full process engineering function. INTECH’s process team took on hydraulic calculations and process design, and the mechanical team ran virtual sessions on valve selection, structural and piping design, and lifting calculations. The result was a compliant design from a fabricator whose in-house engineering could not have produced it alone. The model has been applied on three projects (HIPPS, CI, Zeon) in the UAE and the USA.

From

Virtual sessions and back-office support

What

Hydraulic calculations
Process design
Valve selection
Structural and piping design
Lifting calculations

US fabricator’s engineers

Compliant design deliveredUsed on HIPPS, CI and Zeon

04 · Acknowledgement

What the project team said

“Your support has been superb during the Zeon project — from managing engineering efforts to keeping myself informed and updated. Your positive, yet realistic, attitude holds great value to me personally. No subjective hopes and dreams for project management, just objective and controlled thought processes.”

Woodrow Dinstel

Project Manager, US Region

INTECH Automation & Intelligence

Zeon · US PM

“Your outstanding efforts in project Fabrication & Integration tracker, team training, and cost management helped INTECH in mitigating the potential risks and errors. Your proactive approach and leadership in identifying and addressing gaps have significantly helped. Your support to team members and contributions to INTECH process improvement are greatly appreciated.”

Usama Tariq

Engineering Manager, Skids

INTECH Automation & Intelligence

Zeon · Engineering Manager

“You effectively manage situations under pressure, which helps maintain team stability and focus during challenging times. Your ability to engage with peers and juniors creates a more collaborative and supportive work environment. You demonstrate a strong sense of ownership and are open to feedback, which contributes to continuous personal and team growth.”

Noor Alam

Senior Team Member, Proposals

INTECH Automation & Intelligence

Zeon · Proposals lead

Chemical Injection Skids

The project’s defining engineering and project-management problems.

~86% lower cost on piping stress analysis through a Pakistan-based engineering vendor instead of a US-based one

Problem

Approach

Solution

Expanding the role from Design Lead to combined Project + Design Lead

Problem

Approach

Solution

Hybrid remote and on-site execution: an on-site visit identified undisclosed fabrication issues

Problem

Approach

Solution

Late-stage customer-initiated redesign absorbed without project derailment

Problem

Approach

Solution

Engineering-capability augmentation applied to a US-based fabricator with limited process engineering

Problem

Approach

Solution

The augmentation pattern

What the project team said

Five flagship deliveries