Ministry of Finance Feasibility Study Requirements: A Guide to the Five Studies
From compliance requirement to decision tool
By Jadwai
Every cost request submitted to the Ministry of Finance carries one implicit question: why does this project deserve public money, why now, and why delivered this way? The Ministry no longer expects a general justification memo in reply. It expects a feasibility study structured around five defined axes: Strategic, Economic, Commercial, Financial and Administrative.
This guide sets out what the Ministry's instructions ask for under each axis, what makes a study hold up under review, and how the five studies can move from a file completed to satisfy a requirement to a tool that helps an entity decide which projects genuinely deserve budget.
Note: This guide is an analytical reading of published official texts, not an official interpretation of them. Jadwai is an independent Saudi company. It is not affiliated with, and does not represent, the Ministry of Finance or the Expenditure and Projects Efficiency Authority (EXPRO). The governing reference is always the official instructions in force and whatever the Ministry communicates to entities.
Why does the Ministry of Finance require a feasibility study for cost requests?
The Instructions for Executing the State General Budget for 2026 (تعليمات تنفيذ الميزانية العامة للدولة للعام 2026م), in the section on cost-request instructions, require government entities to submit supporting studies and documents for both operating and capital cost requests. The feasibility study must cover "the five axes" (المحاور الخمسة), taking into account the type and stage of the request [1, pp. 30–31].
This is not limited to construction. The chapter on preparing the 1448/1449H (2027) budget asks each entity to answer every detailed question on the five axes using the updated methodology template, for both goods and services spending (for example supplies, procurement, vehicles, medicines, studies and programmes) and non-financial asset spending (for example construction, development, rehabilitation, expansion, fit-out, and equipment) [1, p. 61].
The instructions add specific requirements for capital construction projects, including [1, pp. 31–33]:
- Submitting the feasibility study under the five-axes methodology when requesting a project review.
- Keeping the project within the financial ceilings communicated by the Ministry, registered on the National Projects Platform, and within the entity's project-portfolio priorities agreed with EXPRO.
- Completing capacity-and-demand studies for new projects, and for existing projects seeking a cost increase.
- Submitting a cost estimate no lower than Class 5 on the project estimate classification matrix in the National Project Management Manual.
- Meeting stage-gate requirements before a project enters the budget and throughout its life.
Above all, the Ministry is moving to multi-year planning: entity budgets will be discussed three fiscal years at a time, from 2027 to 2029 [1, p. 61]. A feasibility study is therefore no longer a one-year document. It underpins a request that runs for several years.
The five studies at a glance
The instructions define the five-axes methodology (منهجية المحاور الخمسة) as an approach built on global and regional best practice for planning, developing, reviewing and approving project requests. They describe it as a strategic tool that enables government entities to prepare better feasibility studies, giving decision-makers confidence through a holistic view of the expected impact of any investment on government spending [1, p. 272].
| Axis | The question it answers |
|---|---|
| Strategic (المحور الاستراتيجي) | Why this project, does it fit national and sector strategy, and does it duplicate anything else? |
| Economic (المحور الاقتصادي) | Is the need real, and have we chosen the best delivery option? |
| Commercial (المحور التجاري) | How will the project be funded, tendered and procured? |
| Financial (المحور المالي) | What will it really cost, on what basis, and who funds operation after handover? |
| Administrative (المحور الإداري) | Who runs delivery, under what plan and governance, and with what risks? |
The Strategic study: alignment and avoiding duplication
The instructions require the Strategic axis to set out the justification for the project and show how the request aligns with the vision and with national, sectoral and regional strategic objectives. It must account for links, overlaps and dependencies with other projects, programmes and initiatives, so that budgeted costs are not duplicated and spending is efficient. It also defines the project's scope and outputs, the problem it solves or the opportunity it captures, and whether the funding source can pay for the request [1, pp. 30–31].
What makes a strong study here? It goes beyond "aligned with Vision 2030". A reviewer looks for a specific objective in a specific strategy, an explicit scan of similar initiatives inside and outside the entity, and a problem definition that can be measured before and after the project.
The Economic study: need, options and value to the economy and society
The Economic axis establishes the need for the project from a needs study and integrated supply-and-demand studies, then shows how the gap will be closed through an appraisal of alternative delivery options and how the optimal option is chosen. It identifies and assesses economic, social and other benefits and impacts; the instructions cite examples such as lower carbon emissions and lower unemployment [1, p. 31].
What makes a strong study here? "Do nothing" is one of the options compared, options are scored against stated criteria rather than impressions, and measured impact is kept clearly separate from estimated impact.
The Commercial study in the government sense: funding and procurement, not a marketing plan
This is where confusion is most common. In private-sector studies, "commercial" usually means pricing, channels and reaching customers. Under the Ministry's methodology, the Commercial axis covers the available funding options, after exploring alternative funding with relevant parties (for example revenue sharing, public-private partnership, or the entity's regular or transformational budget), with the advantages and disadvantages of each. It also covers the tendering strategies and procurement methods available, and how the optimal option is selected to achieve the highest possible efficiency in public spending [1, p. 31].
What makes a strong study here? The entity tests market interest rather than assuming it: are there capable, interested suppliers or investors? And it links the funding choice to the procurement route. A PPP, for instance, brings tendering and contracting requirements fundamentally different from a project funded from the regular budget. This is a funding and contracting decision, not a marketing plan.
The Financial study: the basis of the estimate and the ability to fund operations
The Financial axis covers the detailed cost-estimation method, the bases and assumptions behind the requested cost, the costs and cash flows linked to the request (including any revenue generation), the financial sustainability plan, and the funding sources and financial capacity to operate the project after delivery. It also explores cost-optimisation opportunities through specialist studies such as value engineering for construction projects [1, p. 31].
What makes a strong study here? Transparent assumptions come before numbers. An estimate whose basis is unknown cannot be defended, however precise it looks. And the question many miss is the cost of operating after handover: a project that is built but cannot be run is the most expensive project of all.
The Administrative study: governance, roles, risk and the delivery roadmap
The Administrative axis covers the project management and delivery plan, its phases and activities, the resources needed to operate after delivery, a detailed plan analysing risks and assessing their likelihood and impact, a stakeholder analysis, and the governance structure, roles and responsibilities needed to manage the project [1, p. 31].
What makes a strong study here? Roles are assigned to named units and positions, each risk has an owner and a mitigation, and the plan translates into KPIs and milestones that can be tracked. Good practice also addresses workforce needs and the Saudization plan, which often determine whether the plan is realistic.
Where do the five studies sit within the nine feasibility dimensions?
The Jadwai Feasibility Framework assesses every project on nine dimensions in one integrated study: Strategic, Economic, Market, Commercial, Technical, Financial, Legal, Operational and Administrative.
Five of these dimensions correspond to the five axes the Ministry requires for government-funded projects. The other four, Market, Technical, Legal and Operational, are supporting dimensions that feed evidence into the five:
- Market gives the Economic and Commercial studies a picture of demand and competition.
- Technical tests whether the project can be delivered and feeds the cost estimate in the Financial study.
- Legal surfaces licensing and compliance requirements before they turn into delays.
- Operational asks whether the operating model can run steadily after handover.
To be clear: the Operational study is not one of the five studies the Ministry requires. But it often decides whether the Financial and Administrative cases hold up in practice. A watertight administrative plan means little if the processes and resources needed to operate are not in place, and a precise construction estimate is not enough if operating costs are unknown.
From compliance requirement to decision tool
Many entities treat the five studies as a checklist to get a request through. Under budget-cycle pressure, that is understandable. But the Ministry's own definition goes further: a tool that gives decision-makers confidence through a holistic view of impact [1, p. 272].
The practical difference between a file and a tool comes down to one question: can the study end in a "no"? A study written to justify a decision already taken can only end in "yes". A decision study ends in a clear verdict.
That is why every dimension in the Jadwai framework ends with its own verdict, and the report closes with an integrated verdict that includes:
- A weighted feasibility score combining the dimension results, using weights visible to the user inside the platform.
- A clear Go / No-Go decision.
- The conditions the decision depends on, and the next steps.
Framed this way, the study serves the entity before it serves the reviewer. It sorts the projects that deserve budget, flags early the ones that need reworking, and makes it possible to compare initiatives on one basis.
What to check before you submit
A practical checklist before the request goes in:
- [ ] All five axes are complete: each axis has its own section with real content and a clear verdict, not empty headings.
- [ ] Alignment is specific: it cites a particular objective in a national, sectoral or regional strategy, not the Vision in general terms.
- [ ] Duplication has been checked: a documented scan of similar projects and initiatives, and how this one relates to them.
- [ ] Need is evidenced: a needs study, plus a supply-and-demand or capacity-and-demand study where required.
- [ ] Options are compared: alternative delivery options, including doing nothing, with a stated selection method.
- [ ] Commercial in the government sense: funding options with their pros and cons, the tendering strategy and procurement method, and the preferred option.
- [ ] The cost is backed up: the estimation method and assumptions are visible, and the estimate class is no lower than required for construction projects [1, p. 33].
- [ ] Operation after handover is funded: a clear source for operating costs, not just construction.
- [ ] Administration can be tracked: governance, roles and responsibilities, a risk register with owners, a stakeholder analysis, and timed phases.
- [ ] Procedural requirements are met: for construction projects, registration on the National Projects Platform, fit with financial ceilings and portfolio priorities, and stage gates [1, pp. 32–33].
- [ ] Every figure traces to a source or to a stated assumption.
- [ ] You are using the current instructions: check the latest instructions the Ministry issues for the budget cycle you are submitting in, as details can change from year to year.
For capital projects that go to tender, EXPRO's Guide to Preparing Tender Documents (الدليل الإرشادي لإعداد الكراسات) lists among the tender-review requirements: the project feasibility study; the Strategic, Economic, Commercial, Financial and Administrative studies; and the capacity-and-demand study [2, slide 21]. The guide was issued in 2021 under the previous regime and may be updated once the Executive Regulation of the new Government Tenders and Procurement Law is issued.
How Jadwai Enterprise helps
Jadwai Enterprise is a government-grade study: in-depth, multi-dimensional analysis for government and high-stakes projects. As described on the Jadwai multi-dimensional feasibility platform, it covers the five studies required for government-funded projects, the organisation structure and roles and responsibilities within the study, and an integrated verdict across all dimensions.
What matters for government entities in particular:
- The five studies within the full picture: they are assessed alongside the nine dimensions in the Jadwai platform, so the required axes are never cut off from the market, technical, legal and operational evidence behind them.
- From one project to a portfolio: the platform supports multiple projects and multiple feasibility studies per project, then merges them into one consolidated executive summary. Decision-makers see the whole portfolio, and every study stays traceable to its sources and assumptions. That fits the move to multi-year budget planning.
- AI-assisted feasibility analysis, with the method in the open: AI helps structure and draft the analysis, while sources, assumptions, formulas and sensitivity analysis stay visible for review, and the final judgement stays with the entity team accountable for the decision.
- Trusted sources: inputs are checked against trusted local and international data sources and against sector and country benchmarks, and every figure traces to a source or a stated assumption.
- Arabic first: the platform and its reports are designed in Arabic, with English alongside, not translated from it.
Jadwai Enterprise, Professional and Quick Check are available now. Market Scout, Expert Nexus and Capital Link are coming soon.
For the wider picture, read our piece on where feasibility fits in Vision 2030's final phase: From Ambition to Defensible Decisions: Why Feasibility Is the Missing Infrastructure of Vision 2030's Final Phase.
Is your entity preparing for the next budget cycle?
If you have projects or cost requests that need feasibility studies across the five axes, we would be glad to show you how Jadwai works on a case close to yours.
Our Insight, Your Decisions.
Sources
- Ministry of Finance, Instructions for Executing the State General Budget for 2026 (تعليمات تنفيذ الميزانية العامة للدولة للعام 2026م), Arabic PDF, 317 pages. Page numbers are the printed page numbers in the document: Chapter 2, (C) cost-request instructions, item 1 and the five axes (pp. 30–31); items 2.1–2.3, capital construction project requirements, the National Projects Platform, financial ceilings and capacity-and-demand studies (pp. 31–32); item 2.3.5, estimate class, and item 7, stage gates (p. 33); Chapter 3, preparing the 1448/1449H (2027) budget: multi-year planning 2027–2029 and the five-axes templates (p. 61); glossary, term 129 "five-axes methodology" (p. 272) and terms 130–134 (p. 273).
- Ministry of Finance / EXPRO, Guide to Preparing Tender Documents (الدليل الإرشادي لإعداد الكراسات), Arabic PDF presentation, 26 slides, slide 21: review requirements for capital-project tender documents.
Both sources are published in Arabic only; English descriptions are Jadwai's own renderings, not official translations.