On every large project there is a flange that nobody bought. Two contractors, each competent, each with a complete scope, each reasonably assuming the other was supplying the item where their work meets. It is discovered at the worst possible moment, costs forty times what it should, and the argument about who pays outlives the commissioning team. Interface gaps are not engineering failures. They are writing failures with an engineering price.

We edit what EPC contractors and project engineering teams produce — scope of work and scope split documents, battery limit definitions and interface registers, contract technical schedules and exhibits, work breakdown structures and scope narratives, subcontract and package scopes, bid clarification and qualification schedules, mechanical completion and handover criteria, punch list categories and close-out procedures, change order and variation narratives, project execution plans, vendor document requirement schedules, and commissioning and performance test procedures. Our editors work on the document that decides who supplies the flange.

The scope split and battery limit document is the one that determines whether a project has interface gaps, and its failure is describing scopes rather than boundaries. Two complete scopes written in isolation always overlap in some places and leave holes in others, and neither party can see it from inside their own document. We write these so every interface is stated as a physical point with a named component — the boundary is the upstream face of the isolation valve, and the valve itself is supplied by the mechanical package; so supply, installation, connection, testing and commissioning are allocated separately at each boundary, since the party who supplies an item frequently does not install it and almost never commissions it; so consumables, first fill, temporary supplies, scaffolding, lifting and access are allocated explicitly, as these are where the unpriced items cluster; so the interface register is a single controlled list rather than statements scattered through the package scopes, given that inconsistencies between two documents are found by the party who benefits; so anything genuinely undecided at contract is recorded as an open interface with an owner and a date rather than left silent; and so utilities and their termination points are stated with capacity, quality and who pays. Projects with this document written properly still have interface problems, but they have them in month two.

Everything you send is treated in confidence, including contracts, scopes and commercial information. We are editors rather than project, commercial or contract advisers, and we offer no view on scope allocation, contracts or entitlement. What we can do is make the boundaries physical, specific and consistent between documents.