The expensive decisions on a capital project are made early, on thin information, by people who are not engineers. Buy the site or walk away. Sanction the scheme or defer it. Accept the vendor’s cost and programme or challenge them. By the time the engineering is detailed enough to answer those questions properly, the commitment has usually already been made.
Project due diligence is the independent technical review that gets in front of that. We review proposed projects, existing facilities and acquisition targets for clients, investors and boards, and report on whether the thing is viable, safe, compliant and costed at something resembling reality. We are engineers rather than advisers, so the answers come with the working attached.
What the work involves
The scope depends on the decision being made, but the substance is consistent. We review the technical documentation: designs, specifications, process descriptions, layouts and the assumptions underneath them. We check compliance against the regulations and standards that apply to the sector, which in regulated process manufacturing is usually where the unwelcome findings sit.
We assess the risks that determine whether a project lands: design maturity, schedule realism, budget basis, permitting, constructability and supply chain. Where the project involves existing infrastructure, an acquisition or a brownfield development, we go and look at it. Capacity limitations, obsolete equipment and quiet non-compliance do not show up in a data room.
Cost estimates, timelines and delivery strategies get an independent view rather than an endorsement. And the output is written for the people making the decision: a structured report that a leadership team, a financier or a board can act on, not a pile of engineering commentary that needs translating.
What it is useful for finding
Three things come up repeatedly. The first is a programme that assumes everything runs in parallel and nothing needs approval. The second is a cost estimate built at a level of definition that cannot support it, where the contingency is a percentage rather than a considered position on what is genuinely unknown. The third is a compliance obligation nobody has priced: a DSEAR assessment that does not exist, containment that will not meet current guidance, hazardous area drawings that describe a plant that has been modified twice since.
None of those makes a project undoable. All of them are cheaper to know about before the commitment than after it, and all of them change the number you should be prepared to pay.
What you get
- Independent review of designs, specifications, process descriptions and layouts
- A compliance position against the regulations and standards that apply to the sector
- Risk assessment covering design maturity, schedule, budget, permitting, constructability and supply chain
- Site visits to verify physical assets, layout and operating condition, not just documents
- Review of planning conditions, utility requirements and environmental obligations
- An independent view on cost estimates, timelines and delivery strategy
- Identification of value engineering opportunities and quick wins alongside the risks
- A structured report written for leadership, financiers or board-level stakeholders
When clients typically call us
- A site, plant or business is being acquired and its technical condition needs verifying before completion
- A capital scheme is approaching sanction and the board wants an independent view before committing
- A vendor’s cost and programme look optimistic and somebody needs to test them
- An investor or lender requires technical due diligence as a condition of funding
- A brownfield development depends on existing infrastructure whose capacity is assumed rather than established
- A joint venture or partnership hinges on assets neither party has independently assessed
Frequently asked questions
How is this different from a feasibility study?
A feasibility study asks whether a project can and should be done, and helps shape it. Due diligence takes a proposal that already exists, produced by someone else, and tests whether it holds up. Different question, different starting point. Clients sometimes need both, and we will say which one fits what you are actually deciding.
How long does it take?
It depends on the scope and the state of the information, but a focused review of a single scheme is typically a matter of weeks rather than months. Acquisition work is usually driven by a deal timetable, and we will tell you at the outset what can and cannot be established in the window available.
Will you tell us not to proceed?
If that is what the evidence says, yes. The value of an independent review is that it is independent. More often the answer is that the project is sound but the cost, programme or scope needs adjusting, and we will be specific about which.
Can you support the project afterwards?
Yes, and clients frequently ask us to. Having reviewed the scheme we are well placed to take it forward, whether that is FEED, detailed design or full EPCM delivery. It is not a condition of the review, and the review is written the same either way.
Related: Part of our engineering consultancy services. See also feasibility studies, FEED studies, vessel and containment inspection and EPCM partner services.
If a decision is coming and the technical basis for it has not been independently tested, that is what this is for. Talk to us about your project. Request a call