A generic project-delivery aid by Tech Made Easy
Choose FIM when
Direct control or early release creates more value than the interfaces the owner must absorb.
Choose EPC supply when
Contract-backed integration, logistics and performance accountability are worth the contractor's premium.
Do not decide on price alone
Compare the whole delivery system: capability, custody, interfaces, delay exposure and warranty response.
First, define what is actually being compared
Under FIM, the owner buys specified equipment and issues it to the installing contractor at a defined handover point. Under EPC supply, the contractor procures and integrates that equipment within its package. Neither label allocates risk by itself: the contract, technical schedules and responsibility matrix do.
A hybrid can be valid, but only when every boundary is explicit. “Owner selected” is not the same as “owner supplied”, and EPC supply is not single-point responsibility unless the contractor accepts the relevant design, delivery, integration and performance obligations.
Readiness gate
- Is there a named owner for supplier, design and construction interfaces?
- Can the owner manage expediting, inspection, logistics, customs, custody and preservation?
- Are delivery dates tied to an integrated programme with workable notice and recovery rules?
- Can equipment, installation and system-performance warranties be enforced without a gap?
If any answer is no, use EPC supply as the starting point or close the capability gap before approving FIM.
Five questions before the package decision
Swipe the table to compare EPC supply and the decision question →
| Decision | FIM is stronger when | EPC supply is stronger when | Question that must be answered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial leverage | Owner can aggregate demand or negotiate directly. | Contractor can price and manage the complete supply chain. | Is the apparent saving still real after owner-side management and interface cost? |
| Technical control | Owner needs direct influence over specification or supplier. | Performance responsibility should remain with one delivery party. | Who owns design integration and fitness for the complete system? |
| Schedule | Long-lead release must start before the EPC package is ready. | One contractor can sequence procurement with construction. | Who carries late delivery, resequencing, storage and remobilisation exposure? |
| Logistics and custody | Owner has the capability to manage transport and handover. | The contractor is better placed to manage door-to-workfront delivery. | Where do risk, title, inspection and care of materials transfer? |
| Warranty | Supplier warranty can be administered without creating a gap. | A single point of responsibility is worth the embedded premium. | Who responds when equipment, installation and system performance overlap? |
Minimum interface controls
Swipe the table to see the full allocation and required evidence →
| Interface | Typical FIM starting point | Typical EPC starting point | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specification and interface data | Owner / supplier | EPC | Approved interface register |
| Manufacture and factory quality | Owner / supplier | EPC | Inspection and test plan |
| Transport to named handover point | Define explicitly | EPC | Incoterm, route and delivery plan |
| Receipt, storage and preservation | Usually EPC after handover | EPC | Signed custody and preservation record |
| Installation and integration | EPC | EPC | Method statement and design interface |
| Defects and system performance | Split risk - close the gap | EPC | Back-to-back warranty and test matrix |
Compare like with like
Total evaluated FIM cost
Supplier price + owner procurement and engineering + inspection and expediting + freight, customs and insurance + receipt, storage and preservation + interface management + financing and tax effects + quantified schedule and warranty exposure.
Compare this with the EPC evaluated price on the same scope, schedule, currency, tax, exclusions and risk basis. Treat contingency as visible retained risk, not as proof that the risk has disappeared.
Make it auditable
Decision record
- Decision and approval date
- FIM, EPC supply or a defined hybrid package
- Value case
- Like-for-like evaluated cost, schedule benefit and strategic control
- Residual risk owner
- A named party for every retained interface and failure mode
- Review trigger
- Supplier, design, logistics, programme or market assumption changes
See why the handover belongs in the programme
The companion interactive shows what happens when material custody is treated as an assumption instead of a predecessor.
Further reading
- World Bank Procurement Framework — fit-for-purpose procurement and value for money.
- ICC Incoterms rules — the tasks, costs and risks attached to delivery terms.