More Owners are writing Advanced Work Packaging (AWP) into their contracts, but far fewer have a way to confirm that the contractors they hire can truly run it. This is the resource we built to close that gap.
The request we hear most often from Owners is a version of the same thing: They have committed to Advanced Work Packaging on their next capital program, and they need a way to make sure the contractors they bring on can support it. Writing “AWP required” into a contract is straightforward. Confirming that a bidder’s software will deliver it across engineering, procurement, and construction is where most Owners get stuck.
AWP is a Construction Industry Institute (CII) best practice, validated over more than a decade of research through CII Research Teams 272 and 319. The documented results are consistent: roughly 25% improvement in field productivity and up to 10% reduction in total installed cost, alongside gains in safety, schedule reliability, and predictability. For Owners funding multi-billion-dollar programs, those numbers decide whether an asset comes online on plan or erodes its own returns before it produces anything.
AWP was born in the Alberta oil sands, and for years its adoption tracked closely with heavy oil and gas work. That has changed. CII’s most recent research deliberately tested the methodology across industrial construction sectors and project sizes, and it held up. The capital surge now underway is spread across mining, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, power, nuclear, and the data center boom, where more than 700 facilities were under construction in the United States alone as of early 2026. Owners in all these sectors are running programs too large and too schedule-sensitive to leave execution planning to chance, and a growing number are making AWP a condition of contract award.
AWP success depends on breaking the model into constructable work packages, tracking constraints until a package is genuinely ready, and measuring progress against rules of credit at the component level. When a contractor’s software or Excel sheets cannot do those things, the AWP language in the contract describes a process no one on the project can run. We have watched bids won on the strength of an AWP commitment the winning contractor’s software could not support, and the cost of discovering that in the field is far higher than the cost of checking it during procurement.
Because Owners kept asking for the same thing, we built the AWP Software Requirement Matrix. It is the functional checklist the Owners we work with use to evaluate AWP software, either for their own programs or, more often, to hand to bidders during an RFP. It covers more than 250 requirements across ten categories:
Every requirement is written so a vendor answers it directly. They mark whether each capability is supported, partially supported, or not available, whether it works out of the box or needs configuration or custom development, and where an Owner can see it demonstrated. That structure turns a vague “we do AWP” into a line-item record you can compare across bidders and hold them to.
The matrix drops straight into a bid package. Include it as an appendix to your RFP, require every bidder to complete it, and the AWP conversation moves from marketing claims to documented evidence. Bidders self-attest against each requirement, you compare their responses side by side, and you use the evidence column to hold them to live demonstrations rather than promises. It also lets Owners keep the hands-off, eyes-on posture they tend to want. You set the functional bar the software has to clear, and you leave the choice of tool to the contractor.
Use it to evaluate AWP software for your own program, or to hold your bidders to a clear, verifiable standard in your next RFP. It is a comprehensive list of what Owners across the capital project industries are asking for right now.
Download the AWP Software Requirement Matrix here.